Thank you for being a loyal "Observations" reader.
To enjoy our most recent posts, please visit us at our new home on WordPress.
www.cconine.wordpress.com
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Dawn Sweeney: A Shot in the Arm for the NRA
Dawn Sweeney, the head of the National Restaurant Association is not a doctor. Nevertheless she has managed at least one miracle since taking the helm of the NRA in 2007, leading her sole patient, a large and unwieldy monolith, to accept a dose of reality: change or wither.
Sweeney is no newcomer to the Washington industry trade group milieu, having engineered an impressive expansion of membership and revenue at the American Association of Retired Persons. She knows that the way Washington works is that trade groups (including our NRA) dole out direct campaign contributions in the hyper-millions to those members of Congress willing to push a friendly piece of legislation on their patron’s behalf; it is largely due to their bottomless checkbooks that trade groups are able to provide momentum for much of what gets discussed on Capitol Hill and in statehouses as well. That said, it matters who is in charge -- in Congress as well as in the trade groups.
It was with a singular focus, to invoke a “change or wither” mentality on a reluctant audience, that Sweeney agreed to lead the NRA. If not exactly a rock star Ms. Sweeney has shown herself as the classic “change agent”, preferring engagement over inflexibility.
Within a short year of taking NRA’s reins Franchise Times was hailing Sweeney as the “Dawn of a New Era” and NRA board members as well as industry types weighed in on her side. More recently as the pace of political debate has quickened the industry’s political leaders, who take their cues from local membership, are noticing. Jot Condie, the well-connected and influential leader of the California Restaurant Association, has commented on Sweeney’s role in the national healthcare debate, telling Politico.com that if Sweeney hadn’t led the NRA into the debate the alternative would have meant having its “nose pressed against the glass while important discussions are going on in the room.” Earlier this week Patrick Conway who heads up the Pennsylvania Restaurant Association echoed Condie. “ In advocacy work, it can be easier to simply oppose legislation and go down swinging than to get out in front and play a key role in shaping public policy in a way that will actually benefit your members. By being at the table, Dawn Sweeney is able to articulate our industry’s concerns directly …”
How did the NRA Board get religion? To its credit the Board read the proverbial tea leaves during the 2006 midterm elections, when voter rejection of the Bush Administration sent a political tsunami crashing into Washington. Voters sent thirty Republican members of the House packing and ushered Democrats into six formerly Republican chairs in the Senate. The new Democratic majority, savoring its victory, took a huge and symbolic first step, electing Nancy Pelosi as the first woman to serve as Speaker of the House. Shortly thereafter the NRA began seeking new leadership.
Sweeney’s inclusive and collaborative style matches her politically smart tone; as she began her new job, she said that the NRA was going to be transformed, in the words of management guru Jim Collins, from “good to great.” Her insistence on a lean committee structure and her non-stop reaching out across party and philosophical lines are transformational behaviors. Nevertheless Sweeney knows why she’s employed. “The bottom line is, I’m working to protect and preserve this industry.”
It’s fair to say that this is just what Sweeney is doing . By being on the front line of debate – she is currently immersed in helping craft important, business-friendly amendments to the Senate’s healthcare bill -- Dawn Sweeney continues to turn heads in her direction. More importantly, and thanks to an NRA board unafraid of challenge, the restaurant industry under Sweeney’s leadership has become an important voice in our ongoing nationwide dialogue.
Far from withering the NRA is reinvigorated, its past an important but of necessity, less dominant part of its future. Where does the NRA membership stand on whether Sweeney will succeed in transforming the NRA into a powerful force for realistic legislative reform? If remaining a bit unsure about whether all this collaboration and engagement will lead them out of the darkness, members are at least listening, and like Sweeney, they are happy to be participants instead of spectators.
Be honest and be well.
© 2009 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions, providing HR consulting and educational tools to the hospitality industry, Please send your comments to me here and visit us on the Web at www.hospitalityhrsolutions.com
Sunday, September 20, 2009
The Echo of Lost Civility
While President Obama had hoped his pitch to a joint session of Congress to pass healthcare reform would resonate with lawmakers, it was instead the shouted “you lie” outburst by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) that appears to have galvanized supporters on both ends of the political spectrum in a way that more modest speech has yet to achieve.
Though a sharply divided House of Representatives voted to express displeasure with Wilson and his clear breach of protocol, there is reason to fear a less obvious outcome of Wilson’s gambit: the weakening of civil discourse in general, and as a means to facilitate debate in particular. Shouting quite clearly gains people’s attention; we now know that when accompanied by coarseness a mere elevation of one’s speech volume can spawn a repeated, lasting echo. It is not the shouting that hurts, we may learn; it is the echo that causes lasting harm.
The recurring memory of an incident from my junior high school days illustrates my point. There we were, my fellow seventh graders and I, riding for the first time on a school bus that would take us to a neighboring town and away from the small elementary school we’d inhabited for the past seven years. The bus route, typical of a rural community, wound up one country road and down another, picking up farm kids who had to pass a gauntlet of us villagers — we, the more privileged, whose parents could afford to live in town and were not consigned to a life of back-breaking planting and harvesting. At one stop, a home, more of a shanty actually, stood none too sturdily, its grimy windows covered in sackcloth, a smelly kerosene stove sending acrid odors skyward.
From the home’s doorway emerged a young girl, I’ll call her Iris, carrying a weather-beaten purse and a paper bag, presumably holding her lunch. As she approached the bus, a tittering erupted amongst us villagers who had spent our elementary school career with Iris as a classmate. We knew her secret: she smelled badly.
As Iris boarded the bus, we — I — looked elsewhere. Fortunately a seat in the front row directly behind the driver was open and Iris quickly slumped into it, the bus doors closed and off we went trundling down yet another country lane.
Even today I suppose I could make a fairly convincing argument that my behavior on the school bus was nothing more than childhood immaturity, much like Joe Wilson has explained that his shout of “you lie” while President Obama was addressing Congress was because he “got caught up in the moment.”
Lapses of civility can occur for very good reasons — shouting out a warning that there’s a fire in the building counts as one — but when they don’t, when we’re just plain wrong in what we said or how we behaved, there’s only one appropriate course of action: make prompt amends just as Congressman Wilson did.
For some, leaving the matter to an apology will be enough; in the case of Joe Wilson, it’s politics that made him do it, some will say, a desire for an “ah ha” moment that would galvanize support for a conservative backlash against the president’s policies.
As I recall, I felt thusly comforted sitting among my childhood friends on the school bus, whispering and holding our noses closed.
© 2009 Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions
Though a sharply divided House of Representatives voted to express displeasure with Wilson and his clear breach of protocol, there is reason to fear a less obvious outcome of Wilson’s gambit: the weakening of civil discourse in general, and as a means to facilitate debate in particular. Shouting quite clearly gains people’s attention; we now know that when accompanied by coarseness a mere elevation of one’s speech volume can spawn a repeated, lasting echo. It is not the shouting that hurts, we may learn; it is the echo that causes lasting harm.
The recurring memory of an incident from my junior high school days illustrates my point. There we were, my fellow seventh graders and I, riding for the first time on a school bus that would take us to a neighboring town and away from the small elementary school we’d inhabited for the past seven years. The bus route, typical of a rural community, wound up one country road and down another, picking up farm kids who had to pass a gauntlet of us villagers — we, the more privileged, whose parents could afford to live in town and were not consigned to a life of back-breaking planting and harvesting. At one stop, a home, more of a shanty actually, stood none too sturdily, its grimy windows covered in sackcloth, a smelly kerosene stove sending acrid odors skyward.
From the home’s doorway emerged a young girl, I’ll call her Iris, carrying a weather-beaten purse and a paper bag, presumably holding her lunch. As she approached the bus, a tittering erupted amongst us villagers who had spent our elementary school career with Iris as a classmate. We knew her secret: she smelled badly.
As Iris boarded the bus, we — I — looked elsewhere. Fortunately a seat in the front row directly behind the driver was open and Iris quickly slumped into it, the bus doors closed and off we went trundling down yet another country lane.
Even today I suppose I could make a fairly convincing argument that my behavior on the school bus was nothing more than childhood immaturity, much like Joe Wilson has explained that his shout of “you lie” while President Obama was addressing Congress was because he “got caught up in the moment.”
Lapses of civility can occur for very good reasons — shouting out a warning that there’s a fire in the building counts as one — but when they don’t, when we’re just plain wrong in what we said or how we behaved, there’s only one appropriate course of action: make prompt amends just as Congressman Wilson did.
For some, leaving the matter to an apology will be enough; in the case of Joe Wilson, it’s politics that made him do it, some will say, a desire for an “ah ha” moment that would galvanize support for a conservative backlash against the president’s policies.
As I recall, I felt thusly comforted sitting among my childhood friends on the school bus, whispering and holding our noses closed.
© 2009 Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
The Ostrich Option
There was barely contained anger last week in the offices of the National Retail Federation. Neil Trautwein, VP of NRF, the largest retail lobbying organization worldwide representing companies with some 24 million employees, was seething – “flabbergasted”, he said, over an unsettling article in the Wall St. Journal: Walmart, the nation’s largest private employer had stunned NRF and others by publicly endorsing mandated healthcare for employees. The company’s position was contained in a letter addressed to President Obama and delivered to White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Clearly pleased by this development, Emanuel declared mandates and cost control to be “two sides of the same coin,” phraseology that the Administration and pundits are using to describe so-called “opportunities of crisis”.
NRF’s consternation was undoubtedly further fueled by the oddly juxtaposed pair of players who co-authored Walmart’s letter to Obama: the head of the Service Employees International Union, Andy Stern, and John Podesta, who chairs a liberal think tank and ran President Obama’s transition team. The sight of Podesta, an official from President Clinton’s days, standing shoulder to shoulder with Andy Stern and Walmart, the guardian of free enterprise, must have been nauseating and more than a bit unsettling to the NRF; a “breakaway” employer of Walmart’s size, allied with forces naturally hostile to free-enterprise thinkers, has the power to change the debate on healthcare mandates, and Walmart did just that last week. The NRF had to respond.
Within hours of the WSJ article’s publication Trautwein appeared on the cable business news channel CNBC where at first he blanched, hesitating under the withering, acerbic questioning of commentator Mark Haines who labeled Trautwein – and by inference, NRF and its member companies -- “cheap” for not supporting Wal-Mart’s position. As the four-minute segment progressed, however, Trautwein regained his footing, presenting strong arguments to support the NRF’s position: the marketplace and the government should act in concert, he said, but not in the way envisioned by Walmart, the SEIU and Podesta’s think thank. NRF wants healthcare reform with the marketplace as its fulcrum. Mandates don’t work, Trautwein added; government intervention should be limited to helping to control spiraling healthcare costs and reigning in Medicaid.
NRF has been upstaged before by big retailers, just as going its own way is nothing new for Walmart; the Costco/Starbucks/Whole Foods offer to compromise on the Employee Free Choice Act must have caused a run on antacids at NRF headquarters, and Walmart’s letter to Obama was only the most recent example of how lobbyists’ sense of direction can sometimes be eclipsed by industries they represent. Hurt feelings and differences over strategy and timing aside, however, the common element uniting all of these very public players, including the SEIU’s Andy Stern who shared the stage with Walmart’s healthcare announcement, is that they are engaged in the debate.
And then there’s us. What is it about the prospect of healthcare reform that so immobilizes our industry? You can almost hear our collective mouths clamping shut in defiant passivity. But why? This issue is as important to the hospitality industry as the Employee Free Choice Act, yet few of our industry’s leaders are being engaged to spur debate. Someone like Bill Marriott, for example, whose company has offered a myriad of healthcare options to its employees for more than twenty years could command attention and shape public opinion by going on CNBC and speaking about the market approach to healthcare, a solution the recently reintroduced SHOP Act, supported by the National Restaurant Association, mimics. Is Marriott’s way a way forward? Yes, perhaps it is, at least for some employers. Requiring employees to be insured, the backbone of nearly all the Congressional alternatives under debate could be another.
Timing is everything. It’s inconvenient, to say the least, that we are still mired in recession while talk of $1 trillion healthcare reform is being foisted upon us. That’s too bad, but it’s not an answer. There’s still time to either raise our hands for one of the existing proposals or lend a voice in support of another direction. And to those of us enjoying our summer at the beach, take note: sticking our heads in the proverbial sand is not an option.
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2008-2009 by Hospitality HR Solutions and Consilium Advisory Services LLC. See us on the Web at http://www.hospitalityhrsolutions.com/. Our newsletter featuring hospitality industry HR news, information and comment is at http://www.hospitalityhrmedia.com/.
NRF’s consternation was undoubtedly further fueled by the oddly juxtaposed pair of players who co-authored Walmart’s letter to Obama: the head of the Service Employees International Union, Andy Stern, and John Podesta, who chairs a liberal think tank and ran President Obama’s transition team. The sight of Podesta, an official from President Clinton’s days, standing shoulder to shoulder with Andy Stern and Walmart, the guardian of free enterprise, must have been nauseating and more than a bit unsettling to the NRF; a “breakaway” employer of Walmart’s size, allied with forces naturally hostile to free-enterprise thinkers, has the power to change the debate on healthcare mandates, and Walmart did just that last week. The NRF had to respond.
Within hours of the WSJ article’s publication Trautwein appeared on the cable business news channel CNBC where at first he blanched, hesitating under the withering, acerbic questioning of commentator Mark Haines who labeled Trautwein – and by inference, NRF and its member companies -- “cheap” for not supporting Wal-Mart’s position. As the four-minute segment progressed, however, Trautwein regained his footing, presenting strong arguments to support the NRF’s position: the marketplace and the government should act in concert, he said, but not in the way envisioned by Walmart, the SEIU and Podesta’s think thank. NRF wants healthcare reform with the marketplace as its fulcrum. Mandates don’t work, Trautwein added; government intervention should be limited to helping to control spiraling healthcare costs and reigning in Medicaid.
NRF has been upstaged before by big retailers, just as going its own way is nothing new for Walmart; the Costco/Starbucks/Whole Foods offer to compromise on the Employee Free Choice Act must have caused a run on antacids at NRF headquarters, and Walmart’s letter to Obama was only the most recent example of how lobbyists’ sense of direction can sometimes be eclipsed by industries they represent. Hurt feelings and differences over strategy and timing aside, however, the common element uniting all of these very public players, including the SEIU’s Andy Stern who shared the stage with Walmart’s healthcare announcement, is that they are engaged in the debate.
And then there’s us. What is it about the prospect of healthcare reform that so immobilizes our industry? You can almost hear our collective mouths clamping shut in defiant passivity. But why? This issue is as important to the hospitality industry as the Employee Free Choice Act, yet few of our industry’s leaders are being engaged to spur debate. Someone like Bill Marriott, for example, whose company has offered a myriad of healthcare options to its employees for more than twenty years could command attention and shape public opinion by going on CNBC and speaking about the market approach to healthcare, a solution the recently reintroduced SHOP Act, supported by the National Restaurant Association, mimics. Is Marriott’s way a way forward? Yes, perhaps it is, at least for some employers. Requiring employees to be insured, the backbone of nearly all the Congressional alternatives under debate could be another.
Timing is everything. It’s inconvenient, to say the least, that we are still mired in recession while talk of $1 trillion healthcare reform is being foisted upon us. That’s too bad, but it’s not an answer. There’s still time to either raise our hands for one of the existing proposals or lend a voice in support of another direction. And to those of us enjoying our summer at the beach, take note: sticking our heads in the proverbial sand is not an option.
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2008-2009 by Hospitality HR Solutions and Consilium Advisory Services LLC. See us on the Web at http://www.hospitalityhrsolutions.com/. Our newsletter featuring hospitality industry HR news, information and comment is at http://www.hospitalityhrmedia.com/.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
The Problem With Honesty, Er, Transparency
This month while researching an article for Hospitality HR Update entitled “Social Networking: Boon or Bane for Hospitality Employers” I kept coming across strict guidelines for employers who are thinking of developing networking sites to facilitate better communication with all employees and Generation Y in particular.
I can handle the “importance of coming across as non-threatening”. The bit about “everyone appreciates common courtesy” sounded fine too. The admonition against trying to appear too “hip” was right up my alley: for anyone under thirty I’m assuming I fit into the demographic of “old fogey” and that’s just fine. Old is old and trying to be new when you’re old is so, well, old.
But then there was a line about the importance of being transparent. Lacking a better definition I was fairly sure that the sought after transparency was not the legalistic variety that you’d find in, say, a company’s Sarbanes-Oxley policy. Nor would it be the type of sheen delivered by an auto polish, a sparkling lacquer-like coating through which a car’s colors are enhanced and brightened, rubbed to a blinding gloss by the weekend warriors who own 1956 Chevrolets. No, not that kind of transparency.
Then it hit me. Looking again at all of the other ideas for coming up with a nifty social networking policy I could now see where it’s all heading; this new style of communicating, that is. The transparency desired by our Generation Y employees is of the “tell me the truth, and tell me why it’s the truth” department. I could just about hear a twenty-something restaurant manager politely Tweeting a co-worker in the cocktail lounge: “After they tell me the truth, I’ll make up my mind about whether it’s really the true truth. I’ll let you know.” The bar manager’s reply would be: “If it’s the truth I’ll be shocked. Or perhaps a slightly altered riff from Five Easy Pieces: ”They don’t think we can handle the truth.”
Now we see this gaping hole we’ve dug for ourselves with all this cozying up to social networking. The truth must be told about – everything. Everything that was once sacrosanct will be up for discussion. We’ll need to come clean about why employees don’t all earn the same, why seniority isn’t what it used to be. Why some managers are nice and others mean. Why HR gets stuck with explaining a lot of things that really should be explained by the boss.
So, honesty, er, transparency is to be the new norm, eh? Generation Y has served notice: tell us the whole truth, or else nothing you say will be considered important or, worse, trusted. The fancy explanations that don’t really answer employee questions will be called out, dead on arrival. The decisions made in the board room will have to be dissected and explained in ways that we aren’t accustomed to explaining, except to our bankers or external auditors. Ignoring requests? Forget it. Transparency means action and actions are the currency of the Twitter-er .
Oh, and no more saying things like, “We’ll study that and get back with you.” Get back with me now, they’ll be saying to us. “I’m off tomorrow. Just Twitter me.”
Yeah, right. I’ve got major learning to do before I can get back to you. First I have to figure out how to Twitter. Then I need to send some practice messages; you know, to see if I am speaking the Lexicon of the Millennium or falling back on my old ways.
Then there’s that bit about transparency. Ultimately that’s going to be my biggest hurdle. Being an old HR guy I am definitely not used to putting things succinctly. One former boss, often frustrated with my loquacious explanations, put his foot down more often than not: “Get to the point”, he’d say and then I'd have to truncate my thoughts or he'd boot me out of his office.
Ah, but perhaps that’s timely advice after all. Honesty, clarity and brevity. So, exactly how do I say “No” in fewer than the 140 characters Twitter allows?
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2009 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR SolutionsVisit us on the Internet at www.hospitalityhrsolutions.com View our hospitality industry HR newsletter at www.hospitalityhrmedia.com
I can handle the “importance of coming across as non-threatening”. The bit about “everyone appreciates common courtesy” sounded fine too. The admonition against trying to appear too “hip” was right up my alley: for anyone under thirty I’m assuming I fit into the demographic of “old fogey” and that’s just fine. Old is old and trying to be new when you’re old is so, well, old.
But then there was a line about the importance of being transparent. Lacking a better definition I was fairly sure that the sought after transparency was not the legalistic variety that you’d find in, say, a company’s Sarbanes-Oxley policy. Nor would it be the type of sheen delivered by an auto polish, a sparkling lacquer-like coating through which a car’s colors are enhanced and brightened, rubbed to a blinding gloss by the weekend warriors who own 1956 Chevrolets. No, not that kind of transparency.
Then it hit me. Looking again at all of the other ideas for coming up with a nifty social networking policy I could now see where it’s all heading; this new style of communicating, that is. The transparency desired by our Generation Y employees is of the “tell me the truth, and tell me why it’s the truth” department. I could just about hear a twenty-something restaurant manager politely Tweeting a co-worker in the cocktail lounge: “After they tell me the truth, I’ll make up my mind about whether it’s really the true truth. I’ll let you know.” The bar manager’s reply would be: “If it’s the truth I’ll be shocked. Or perhaps a slightly altered riff from Five Easy Pieces: ”They don’t think we can handle the truth.”
Now we see this gaping hole we’ve dug for ourselves with all this cozying up to social networking. The truth must be told about – everything. Everything that was once sacrosanct will be up for discussion. We’ll need to come clean about why employees don’t all earn the same, why seniority isn’t what it used to be. Why some managers are nice and others mean. Why HR gets stuck with explaining a lot of things that really should be explained by the boss.
So, honesty, er, transparency is to be the new norm, eh? Generation Y has served notice: tell us the whole truth, or else nothing you say will be considered important or, worse, trusted. The fancy explanations that don’t really answer employee questions will be called out, dead on arrival. The decisions made in the board room will have to be dissected and explained in ways that we aren’t accustomed to explaining, except to our bankers or external auditors. Ignoring requests? Forget it. Transparency means action and actions are the currency of the Twitter-er .
Oh, and no more saying things like, “We’ll study that and get back with you.” Get back with me now, they’ll be saying to us. “I’m off tomorrow. Just Twitter me.”
Yeah, right. I’ve got major learning to do before I can get back to you. First I have to figure out how to Twitter. Then I need to send some practice messages; you know, to see if I am speaking the Lexicon of the Millennium or falling back on my old ways.
Then there’s that bit about transparency. Ultimately that’s going to be my biggest hurdle. Being an old HR guy I am definitely not used to putting things succinctly. One former boss, often frustrated with my loquacious explanations, put his foot down more often than not: “Get to the point”, he’d say and then I'd have to truncate my thoughts or he'd boot me out of his office.
Ah, but perhaps that’s timely advice after all. Honesty, clarity and brevity. So, exactly how do I say “No” in fewer than the 140 characters Twitter allows?
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2009 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR SolutionsVisit us on the Internet at www.hospitalityhrsolutions.com View our hospitality industry HR newsletter at www.hospitalityhrmedia.com
Friday, May 15, 2009
Icon of Icons
In today’s egocentric lexicon the word “icon” is a sought after designation by wannabees of all stripes, its overuse begetting misuse. We hear the word so often that its significance has melted into a puddle of sameness and mediocrity. I mean, how many musical groups, buildings or brands of toothpaste can really be icons?
There is word now that on June 2nd the Cornell University School of Hotel Administration will bestow its inaugural “Icon of the Industry” award. The honoree: J. Willard Marriott, Jr.
The thing about true icons is that our memory of them never fades. Though I’ve spoken with Mr. Marriott only 3-4 times over a forty-year period, he is one of a handful of people who shaped my belief about positive employee relations.
When I was fifteen years old, toiling away at my first summer job, on a grill line at a Marriott Hot Shoppes snack bar on the New York State Thruway, one particularly hot day placed me at the intersection of two important events: the first, a major rush of business, brought about by the arrival at our tiny snack bar of a dozen busloads of hungry tourists headed for Montreal’s Expo’ 67; the second, an announced visit to our outpost by the new president of Marriott Corporation.
Fate intervened. As I was retrieving a soggy cardboard case of J. R. Simplot French fries from a temperamental under-counter freezer stuck on defrost, the door to the grill line swung open and Bill Marriott, accompanied by our manager, strode in. “Meet Mr. Marriott”, I remember our boss saying, just as the French fry box’s weight shifted and the contents of six, five-pound boxes of fries cascaded from the sagging bottom of the case, landing on Bill Marriott’s beautifully polished black shoes. Completely unfazed by this unplanned adornment Mr. Marriott stuck his hand in my direction, uttering the words that many other Marriott associates have heard: “Hi, I’m Bill Marriott”.
Fifteen years later, long after completing my education and while I was well into a labor relations job with Host International, the airport feeder, Marriott bought Host. During a visit to Marriott’s Bethesda, Maryland headquarters I found myself once again mano a mano with the chief executive. He had just stepped from an elevator as our paths crossed. I was wearing my nametag -- a rule for those of us from “the field” visiting Bethesda -- yet Mr. Marriott seemed not to notice. Instead he smiled, looking squarely at me. “Hi, Chuck. How have you been?” Was his legendary memory at work here? I didn’t care; I just felt honored to see him again.
At that moment I also felt the need to confess. I’d been the one who, many years earlier, had messed up his shoes. Did he remember? Laughing, Bill Marriott said, “Oh yes, but we didn’t hold it against you, did we?”
Of course, icons are not without controversy. Some feel that Marriott is just too big to be “real"; detractors portray its pro-employee stance as mere publicity to mask an anti-union animus. Nevertheless Marriott’s vaunted reputation as an employer of choice – it ranked #72 on Fortune’s 2008 100 Best Companies to Work For – remains a potent non-union weapon.
Self-effacing to his core Bill Marriott no doubt fails to give himself credit for the enormous impact his vision and values have had on others. I predict that, as he begins his remarks at the “Icon of the Industry” event, he will first thank his dad, J. Willard Marriott, Sr. and mom, Alice. He will no doubt say, as I heard him recite at company gatherings, that they deserve the credit we want to send his way; it was they, after all, who taught him the value of hard work and decency. His father also taught him attention to detail; I recall Bill saying that his dad had once interrupted an important phone call to complain to his son, the CEO, about a piece of litter he’d spotted in a hotel’s entryway.
There was yet another potent lesson a young Bill Marriott learned from his dad: always strive to improve performance. “Those who rest on their laurels,” the elder Marriott told his son, “are in danger of moving backward.”
Congratulations, Mr. Marriott. The word “icon” seems a natural synonym for your name.
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2009 Hospitality HR Solutions
Visit us on the Internet at http://www.hospitalityhrsolutions.com/
There is word now that on June 2nd the Cornell University School of Hotel Administration will bestow its inaugural “Icon of the Industry” award. The honoree: J. Willard Marriott, Jr.
The thing about true icons is that our memory of them never fades. Though I’ve spoken with Mr. Marriott only 3-4 times over a forty-year period, he is one of a handful of people who shaped my belief about positive employee relations.
When I was fifteen years old, toiling away at my first summer job, on a grill line at a Marriott Hot Shoppes snack bar on the New York State Thruway, one particularly hot day placed me at the intersection of two important events: the first, a major rush of business, brought about by the arrival at our tiny snack bar of a dozen busloads of hungry tourists headed for Montreal’s Expo’ 67; the second, an announced visit to our outpost by the new president of Marriott Corporation.
Fate intervened. As I was retrieving a soggy cardboard case of J. R. Simplot French fries from a temperamental under-counter freezer stuck on defrost, the door to the grill line swung open and Bill Marriott, accompanied by our manager, strode in. “Meet Mr. Marriott”, I remember our boss saying, just as the French fry box’s weight shifted and the contents of six, five-pound boxes of fries cascaded from the sagging bottom of the case, landing on Bill Marriott’s beautifully polished black shoes. Completely unfazed by this unplanned adornment Mr. Marriott stuck his hand in my direction, uttering the words that many other Marriott associates have heard: “Hi, I’m Bill Marriott”.
Fifteen years later, long after completing my education and while I was well into a labor relations job with Host International, the airport feeder, Marriott bought Host. During a visit to Marriott’s Bethesda, Maryland headquarters I found myself once again mano a mano with the chief executive. He had just stepped from an elevator as our paths crossed. I was wearing my nametag -- a rule for those of us from “the field” visiting Bethesda -- yet Mr. Marriott seemed not to notice. Instead he smiled, looking squarely at me. “Hi, Chuck. How have you been?” Was his legendary memory at work here? I didn’t care; I just felt honored to see him again.
At that moment I also felt the need to confess. I’d been the one who, many years earlier, had messed up his shoes. Did he remember? Laughing, Bill Marriott said, “Oh yes, but we didn’t hold it against you, did we?”
Of course, icons are not without controversy. Some feel that Marriott is just too big to be “real"; detractors portray its pro-employee stance as mere publicity to mask an anti-union animus. Nevertheless Marriott’s vaunted reputation as an employer of choice – it ranked #72 on Fortune’s 2008 100 Best Companies to Work For – remains a potent non-union weapon.
Self-effacing to his core Bill Marriott no doubt fails to give himself credit for the enormous impact his vision and values have had on others. I predict that, as he begins his remarks at the “Icon of the Industry” event, he will first thank his dad, J. Willard Marriott, Sr. and mom, Alice. He will no doubt say, as I heard him recite at company gatherings, that they deserve the credit we want to send his way; it was they, after all, who taught him the value of hard work and decency. His father also taught him attention to detail; I recall Bill saying that his dad had once interrupted an important phone call to complain to his son, the CEO, about a piece of litter he’d spotted in a hotel’s entryway.
There was yet another potent lesson a young Bill Marriott learned from his dad: always strive to improve performance. “Those who rest on their laurels,” the elder Marriott told his son, “are in danger of moving backward.”
Congratulations, Mr. Marriott. The word “icon” seems a natural synonym for your name.
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2009 Hospitality HR Solutions
Visit us on the Internet at http://www.hospitalityhrsolutions.com/
Saturday, April 11, 2009
The Ultimate Union Buster: A Personality Test?
Dr. Lewis Hollweg, head of the respected firm Batrus Hollweg International which does management behavior consulting and pre-hire testing in the hospitality industry, was recently interviewed in Nation’s Restaurant News by its editor for human resources, Dina Berta. In the brief article, Root Out Pro-Union Staff With Smart Hiring Process[1],Hollweg references pre-hire personality profiles as a tool to predict future employee behavior. Such tests have been in place for decades and used with increasing sophistication, mostly to keep the societal-maladjusted among us -- petty thieves, sexual deviants and harassers, egoists, tyrants and Oedipuses, representing the “cream of the crop” in organizational misfits -- from infecting an otherwise well-run company.
Citing a “wonderful” study conducted on a company in the United Kingdom Hollweg notes cheerily that after the dissected organization became unionized, there was nevertheless a happy ending of sorts, owing chiefly to the fact that the company “happened to have” on hand results of personality testing it had conducted sometime earlier. Following the union election the company used the test results to learn “who had voted for the union and who didn’t.” How? Though he doesn’t say exactly Hollweg references “common denominators” that apparently paint a virtual red arm band on union supporters; they are, he says, “more likely to be unengaged, pessimistic, negative, fault finding and attribute control to other people.” And, he adds, “they also tend to be more extroverted.”
What’s missing from the NRN article? For one, the tests are not foolproof. As an HR practitioner I remember being told that test results can vary based on a variety of factors, even the test taker’s mood; is this true? Employers should also be told of other potentially negative consequences to the use of personality profiles (e.g., if hiring rates of women and/or minorities drop once tests are administered, is that a problem?). Also, what might result if an employer subject to the National Labor Relations Act finds itself in possession of information concerning ‘who voted for the union and who didn’t?’” A future article might feature an employment lawyer qualified to answer these questions. In the meantime, I confess a curiosity to know how the UK company cited by Dr. Hollweg, despite having tested its employees, was nevertheless unionized? How did all those “negative” and “pessimistic” people get hired in the first place?
While pre-hire testing can and should be considered for some jobs, I’m old fashioned, I guess, believing instead that a competent interviewer, whether from operations or HR, can conduct even the briefest of interviews, scan an employment application, spot missing information and other problem areas, and predict with regularity the stuff of which most applicants are made. In this case, test results could confirm otherwise good hires, for me a better measure of their worth.
Of course, even reasonably written, balanced and fairly scored tests come to naught if the people who lead the enterprise are not tuned in to the pulse of their workforce. As well, accepting test results as valid without corroborating evidence such as interview results and reference checks is unwise.
Whether it’s a union vote gone bad or a sexual harassment case we wish we’d averted, where companies continue to struggle is learning too late of an employee’s propensity to mistreat coworkers or subordinates. Never fear, however; those drawers full of psychological profiles still have one final use -- serving as litigation exhibits to help prove what miserable people we tend to hire.
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2009 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions
Visit us on the Web at www.hospitalityhrsolutions.com
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Common Sense: What's That?
Thirty years ago, my first corporate HR assignment was in foodservice labor relations, answering “what if?” employee relations inquiries from around our branches around the nation. On one occasion, after information I’d sought in our employee handbook eluded me I complained of the book’s inadequacy to my boss, a tough and highly talented labor negotiator with a knack for getting right to the point.
“Do we need to tell employees everything?” he asked, annoyed. Who would ever require something more than a general guide to conduct? Instead of asking me these questions, he added, use your common sense. Figure it out.
One’s intuition, our so-called “gut feeling” about situations and people is really the sum of our ever-growing appreciation of what we have observed in life. Our virtual file cabinet contains a massive list of variations on how choices affected outcomes. This nifty compendium, honed over time by our triumphs, flubs and mishaps requires for maintenance an only average intellect. Perhaps that’s why our acquired knowledge of how to make our way in the world is known as our “common” sense whereas our study of, say, how to erect a 110-story office tower, requires more specialized knowledge.
Over 165 years ago the poet and philosopher Henry David Thoreau observed rather wryly that, “There is no such thing as common sense; it is common nonsense.” More recently, in The Death of Common Sense: How the Law is Suffocating America, attorney Philip Howard says that our overregulated society and bloated bureaucracies are the cause of the cobwebs in our otherwise logical minds. Surely the wizards of the Internet are at fault as well; having crafted indispensible tools such as Google® they failed to realize that many would accept blindly whatever material they located there. Even when the answers prove wildly illogical their mere existence is proof of their validity. For example, did you know that Martians really did visit New Jersey in War of the Worlds, and that Orson Welles, the radio script narrator, died during the invasion?
In the hospitality industry we have sometimes lost our way where common sense is a factor. Have you witnessed any of the training programs that have been deconstructed to the point of, well, nonsense? Methinks the hand of a defense attorney is at work here: “First, shut off the coffee spigot. Then place the lid on the coffee cup, pressing hard to ensure a good seal.” Following a celebrated case where Starbucks was sued by a customer burned by its coffee, the company headed off the common sense cliff by adding a printed warning to its cups: “Caution; this beverage is very hot.” Many good attorneys I know argue convincingly that such “dumbing down” is, while unfortunate, a necessary protection given the lack of common sense their clients’ employees exhibit.
While attorneys are understandably doing their part to protect clients, shouldn’t we shoulder more of the burden? Some employers get it, and see to it that their employees are assigned a mentoring co-worker from day one, someone who shadows the newbie and will listen for clues on any understanding the new employee lacks. Think common sense cannot be taught? My old boss had it right: “With practice,” he said,”most people will figure out how things work.” If we reward common sense thinking, that is, and don’t add to the problem with training that assumes most employees are idiots.
Clearly there are those who will not benefit from a common sense primer. Some people refuse to see the oncoming locomotive until it has run them down. A friend relayed to me a follow-up story about that Burger King employee who recently and infamously climbed naked into his restaurant’s potsink to take a bath; soon thereafter video evidence of his lark appeared on YouTube®. By the time he and his videographer were fired his prank’s audience had gone “viral”, registering over 170,000 views in a matter of days. The kicker? When the store manager called to say “bye bye” the gangly bather is said to have good-naturedly inquired whether he might receive a second chance.
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2009 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions
Visit us on the World Wide Web at http://www.hospitalityhrsolutions.com/
“Do we need to tell employees everything?” he asked, annoyed. Who would ever require something more than a general guide to conduct? Instead of asking me these questions, he added, use your common sense. Figure it out.
One’s intuition, our so-called “gut feeling” about situations and people is really the sum of our ever-growing appreciation of what we have observed in life. Our virtual file cabinet contains a massive list of variations on how choices affected outcomes. This nifty compendium, honed over time by our triumphs, flubs and mishaps requires for maintenance an only average intellect. Perhaps that’s why our acquired knowledge of how to make our way in the world is known as our “common” sense whereas our study of, say, how to erect a 110-story office tower, requires more specialized knowledge.
Over 165 years ago the poet and philosopher Henry David Thoreau observed rather wryly that, “There is no such thing as common sense; it is common nonsense.” More recently, in The Death of Common Sense: How the Law is Suffocating America, attorney Philip Howard says that our overregulated society and bloated bureaucracies are the cause of the cobwebs in our otherwise logical minds. Surely the wizards of the Internet are at fault as well; having crafted indispensible tools such as Google® they failed to realize that many would accept blindly whatever material they located there. Even when the answers prove wildly illogical their mere existence is proof of their validity. For example, did you know that Martians really did visit New Jersey in War of the Worlds, and that Orson Welles, the radio script narrator, died during the invasion?
In the hospitality industry we have sometimes lost our way where common sense is a factor. Have you witnessed any of the training programs that have been deconstructed to the point of, well, nonsense? Methinks the hand of a defense attorney is at work here: “First, shut off the coffee spigot. Then place the lid on the coffee cup, pressing hard to ensure a good seal.” Following a celebrated case where Starbucks was sued by a customer burned by its coffee, the company headed off the common sense cliff by adding a printed warning to its cups: “Caution; this beverage is very hot.” Many good attorneys I know argue convincingly that such “dumbing down” is, while unfortunate, a necessary protection given the lack of common sense their clients’ employees exhibit.
While attorneys are understandably doing their part to protect clients, shouldn’t we shoulder more of the burden? Some employers get it, and see to it that their employees are assigned a mentoring co-worker from day one, someone who shadows the newbie and will listen for clues on any understanding the new employee lacks. Think common sense cannot be taught? My old boss had it right: “With practice,” he said,”most people will figure out how things work.” If we reward common sense thinking, that is, and don’t add to the problem with training that assumes most employees are idiots.
Clearly there are those who will not benefit from a common sense primer. Some people refuse to see the oncoming locomotive until it has run them down. A friend relayed to me a follow-up story about that Burger King employee who recently and infamously climbed naked into his restaurant’s potsink to take a bath; soon thereafter video evidence of his lark appeared on YouTube®. By the time he and his videographer were fired his prank’s audience had gone “viral”, registering over 170,000 views in a matter of days. The kicker? When the store manager called to say “bye bye” the gangly bather is said to have good-naturedly inquired whether he might receive a second chance.
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2009 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions
Visit us on the World Wide Web at http://www.hospitalityhrsolutions.com/
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Fighting a Two-Headed Monster
As another month of lousy economic news pushes its ugly maw deeper into the hospitality industry HR’s been continuing to partner with other senior management, crafting strategies to minimize further staff cuts. While roundly unpleasant, this task of figuring out who stays and who goes, which programs die and which are merely placed on life support, those of us wearing the HR badge have likely learned more about adaptation and innovation in the preceding 3-6 months than we’d known in our entire careers. Don’t put away those skills just yet. In case you’ve not noticed, the monster — what this very challenging period for HR has come to represent — has grown another head.
While we’ve been working overtime to keep employees focused as more of their friends and co-workers seek employment elsewhere our government has been busy passing laws that will bite us hard if we don’t pay attention.
The 2009 amendments to the 1992 Americans With Disabilities Act expand the definition of which employees are disabled, and what they can do if you don’t treat them as disabled. Changes to the Family & Medical Leave Act also demand attention. The newly minted Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, rolled out with great fanfare but lacking specificity, promises a torrent of litigation, in many cases for decisions made years ago. And then there’s the specter of the Employee Free Choice Act, its principal objective being to clear the path to unionization by minimizing the need for secret ballot elections; in a matter of months it could be the law of the land.
Had we only been fighting the wrenching pain of layoffs and downsizing it would still require the very best efforts HR could muster; this year, however, we have begun to witness what is predicted to be one of the most active employee-friendly legislative seasons in a very long time. Fighting this two-headed monster requires not only the summoning of Herculean fortitude; it probably means that HR will once again resort to a time-honored strategy for managing multiple problems: divide and conquer.
Be honest and be well.
While we’ve been working overtime to keep employees focused as more of their friends and co-workers seek employment elsewhere our government has been busy passing laws that will bite us hard if we don’t pay attention.
The 2009 amendments to the 1992 Americans With Disabilities Act expand the definition of which employees are disabled, and what they can do if you don’t treat them as disabled. Changes to the Family & Medical Leave Act also demand attention. The newly minted Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, rolled out with great fanfare but lacking specificity, promises a torrent of litigation, in many cases for decisions made years ago. And then there’s the specter of the Employee Free Choice Act, its principal objective being to clear the path to unionization by minimizing the need for secret ballot elections; in a matter of months it could be the law of the land.
Had we only been fighting the wrenching pain of layoffs and downsizing it would still require the very best efforts HR could muster; this year, however, we have begun to witness what is predicted to be one of the most active employee-friendly legislative seasons in a very long time. Fighting this two-headed monster requires not only the summoning of Herculean fortitude; it probably means that HR will once again resort to a time-honored strategy for managing multiple problems: divide and conquer.
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2008-2009 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Double-Edged Sword
There I was, way back in 19 — well, way back then — fresh out of college and working in my first HR job at the venerable Hotel St. Francis on Union Square in San Francisco.
It was at this beautiful hotel where I discovered an unwavering truth, one of the tenets that have steered me through the great times and the challenging periods too.
The St. Francis not only enjoyed respect from well heeled travelers around the world, it had an army of supporters quite close to home — its employees. Beginning at the front entrance on Powell St. a tall and stately Arthur Van Allen greeted each guest alighting from a taxi. Art’s tenure: 20+ years. In the lobby bell captain George Cross, a 25-year veteran ran the bell team, many of whom had been employed at least as long as George.
Upstairs in a tiny locked room Arnold Batliner toiled, washing the hotel’s quarters, nickels, dimes and pennies so that, according to a tradition begun in 1938 ladies would not soil their gloves with unclean coins. Joy Sullivan, the general cashier, and Arnold could easily count 50 years of service between them. In housekeeping probably 25 percent of the large staff had been around at least 20 years.
Working in HR meant that I’d prepare the service award lists for our general manager Mr. Wilhelm to read off at the annual employee awards banquet, a rousing affair with hundreds of employees in attendance. The printed program told the story of literally thousands of years of service to the St. Francis. The number one entry on the list for each of the three years I was privileged to work there, was that of Marshall Fogg, whose name on the program was followed by an amazing inscription: “More than 45 Years of Service.” Marshall had serviced the St. Francis’ boilers and oiled its machinery for over twice the period of my entire life. His loyalty to one of San Francisco’s grande dames, a loyalty shared by hundreds of his co-workers, cast me in awe — and still does. Mr. Fogg carried around in his toolkit something more than loyalty, however.
What Marshall and Joy, Arnold and Arthur, George and all the others taught me in my years at the St. Francis was that mutual respect can bridge very wide gaps, closing them with a simple handshake. Mutual respect by employees and management was one of the hallmarks of the hotel. It became one of mine.
True to its management philosophy Westin Hotels somehow exported this sense of joie de vie — the joy for life — to virtually of its properties worldwide. To this day the Westin Alumni Association, a unique organization in itself, carries on its active rolls hundreds of members of its original hotel management teams (pre-Starwood), many of whom I interacted with at the three Westin properties where I worked in the 1970s, and all of whom have pledged to stay in touch. Several subscribe to our “HR Update” and many others have remained lifelong friends.
Sadly employee loyalty has been proven time and again to be a double-edged sword. It can save businesses and when cast aside, sink them. Not unsurprisingly there are very few St. Francis Hotel-like workplaces left for us to show off as models of hospitality built upon mutual respect. Those that have thrived and still maintain great employee/employer relationships are prevailing even in these tough times. In his commentary in this month’s “Hospitality Educator” column Cornell professor Bruce Tracey mentions one, Four Seasons Hotels. There are others, of course, those with often iconic leaders whose belief in mutual respect is matched only by their own joie de vie, an undeniably infectious zest for lives well lived. Bill Marriott, whom I consider one of the finest hoteliers ever, is such a person. Ruth Fertel, the deceased matriarch of Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, was another.
If there was ever a time when employers should rethink their loyalty to their employees, we’re living it. The glitter has gone out of many so-called preferred employers, their catchy recruiting brochures giving way to the reality that, as my grandfather often said, a house built on a poor foundation stands only so long before collapsing. With layoffs and downsizing affecting nearly every hospitality organization the industry's honorable employees need reassurance that their loyalty has not been misplaced.
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2008-2009 Charles A. Conine & Hospitality HR Solutions
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Channeling Obama: Harnessing the Power of Passion
This post is reprinted from our newsletter "HR Update" which is available by complimentary subscription. Send an e-mail with your name, title and company to info@hospitalityhrsolutions.com
Though the history-making presidential election is, well, history, lessons remain about who voted for Barack Obama — and why.
Hospitality industry employees were a friendly constituency, it turns out. In fact the people who make up a huge portion of our industry — minorities, women, people under 30 — voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Impressive statistics, these: Young voters favored Obama by a margin of 68% to McCain’s 30%. Latinos, 67%. Women, 55%. African-Americans, 96%.
Why the lopsided victory? Exit polls showed that Obama prevailed not merely as a youthful, vigorous alternative to McCain. Instead it was Obama’s message — “hope”, “we can do better”, “McCain is another Bush” — that truly resonated with voters, and even inspired them.
Far from denying that possibility, many can easily recall how inspired they were by a young John F. Kennedy. In his time Franklin Roosevelt so lifted the electorate they asked him back again — and again. More recently, there was the immediate and powerful effect of President Bush’s speech atop the New York City fire truck right after 9/11.
If it’s true that Obama’s message — and not just voter dissatisfaction with President Bush —was the major factor in his victory, we ignore our employees’ passion for the new president at our own peril. On the other hand the specter of misguided legislation emerging in the next Congress — we hear a lot about the Employee Free Choice Act, for example — is a genuine cause for concern.
So, what do we do now? Stage a pre-emptive attack on Congress’s new spending initiatives? Speak with a united voice, saying our industry will not accept new or expanded entitlements or wrong-headed “free choice” legislation? It’s likely we will do a fair amount of that.
How will these attacks on President Obama’s ideas resonate with our employees? A wholesale condemnation of Obama’s thoughts about “change” could backfire, encouraging employees who believe management is tone deaf to look for work elsewhere or, worse, galvanize their co-workers to promote change. Did someone mention the EFCA?
A more moderate, no less determined approach may alienate far fewer employees and even win allies. While keeping an eye on emerging legislative proposals, employers can earn important goodwill by demonstrating to their employees that their desire for change was heard.
But where to begin? Think demographics: for example, what employer policies might we alter to appeal to the more mobile Generation Y? What benefit programs could we amend, without adding costs, to permit part-timers to have some albeit limited health coverage? How soon could we support more community involvement by everyone on the team? Could we sponsor a modest employee scholarship program?
Engaging and energizing a shrunken workforce during an economic decline unprecedented in recent history is a tall order, even for the best of companies. But if we view this challenge from a different perspective — there’s a new president with a huge cheering section, anxiously awaiting its marching orders — we could harness the power of passion, and profit from it.
Though the history-making presidential election is, well, history, lessons remain about who voted for Barack Obama — and why.
Hospitality industry employees were a friendly constituency, it turns out. In fact the people who make up a huge portion of our industry — minorities, women, people under 30 — voted overwhelmingly for Obama. Impressive statistics, these: Young voters favored Obama by a margin of 68% to McCain’s 30%. Latinos, 67%. Women, 55%. African-Americans, 96%.
Why the lopsided victory? Exit polls showed that Obama prevailed not merely as a youthful, vigorous alternative to McCain. Instead it was Obama’s message — “hope”, “we can do better”, “McCain is another Bush” — that truly resonated with voters, and even inspired them.
Far from denying that possibility, many can easily recall how inspired they were by a young John F. Kennedy. In his time Franklin Roosevelt so lifted the electorate they asked him back again — and again. More recently, there was the immediate and powerful effect of President Bush’s speech atop the New York City fire truck right after 9/11.
If it’s true that Obama’s message — and not just voter dissatisfaction with President Bush —was the major factor in his victory, we ignore our employees’ passion for the new president at our own peril. On the other hand the specter of misguided legislation emerging in the next Congress — we hear a lot about the Employee Free Choice Act, for example — is a genuine cause for concern.
So, what do we do now? Stage a pre-emptive attack on Congress’s new spending initiatives? Speak with a united voice, saying our industry will not accept new or expanded entitlements or wrong-headed “free choice” legislation? It’s likely we will do a fair amount of that.
How will these attacks on President Obama’s ideas resonate with our employees? A wholesale condemnation of Obama’s thoughts about “change” could backfire, encouraging employees who believe management is tone deaf to look for work elsewhere or, worse, galvanize their co-workers to promote change. Did someone mention the EFCA?
A more moderate, no less determined approach may alienate far fewer employees and even win allies. While keeping an eye on emerging legislative proposals, employers can earn important goodwill by demonstrating to their employees that their desire for change was heard.
But where to begin? Think demographics: for example, what employer policies might we alter to appeal to the more mobile Generation Y? What benefit programs could we amend, without adding costs, to permit part-timers to have some albeit limited health coverage? How soon could we support more community involvement by everyone on the team? Could we sponsor a modest employee scholarship program?
Engaging and energizing a shrunken workforce during an economic decline unprecedented in recent history is a tall order, even for the best of companies. But if we view this challenge from a different perspective — there’s a new president with a huge cheering section, anxiously awaiting its marching orders — we could harness the power of passion, and profit from it.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Harassment Training: A Sham?
Way back in the Dark Ages when the concept of sexual harassment debuted in one after another expensive and embarassing lawsuits employers were forced to take more seriously the notion that where sex is concerned, employees can not always be trusted to do the right thing. Brought out of the shadows by diligent and ever more aggressive litigation sexual harassment not only got a name but more importantly, we learned that in many of these cases trusted managers -- alright, even executives -- were named as defendants.
In the wake of years of such cases, well more than a dozen states passed laws either requiring or encouraging employers to provide some form of anti-harassment training. California, ever the leader in employee-related regulations, adopted AB1825 in 2005, requiring employers of 50 or more to provide regularly scheduled training for newly hired supervisors and current management.
While various people have grumbled, and more than a few in our industry have wondered aloud concerning the efficacy of the training, it seems obvious that at least its key admonitions, taught bi-annually as California's law requires, are likely to be remembered, if not universally adhered to. Equally obvious: training that is regularly reinforced has to help reign in harassing conduct.
Did I say it seems obvious? Not so fast, says one California educator. Using a guest editorial in the Los Angeles Times on November 21, 2008 as his platform UC Irvine professor of molecular biology Alexander McPherson laid out his reasons for refusing the university's repeated entreaties to attend the required training. Calling the program "a disgraceful sham" McPherson, a tenured professor, said he found the training "repugnant and offensive" and added that an unnamed "vocal political/cultural interest group" was responsible "as part of a politically correct agenda that I don't particularly agree with."
As the professor's comments echoed on the West Coast, in the Midwest the echo was draped in irony. Nine days before McPherson's editorial was printed a University of Iowa college music professor, Mark Weiger, was found dead in his garage, a victim of an apparent suicide. His death came a week after a former student filed a lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct by Weiger when he was her professor. In August another University of Iowa professor, Arthur Miller, also took his own life after being charged with accepting sexual favors from students in return for favorable grades. In the wake of the Miller case the university ordered its professors to sit for training -- on how to avoid sexual harassment.
Whatever we take from these eerily similar tragedies Professor McPherson's insistence that mandated sexual harassment training is a "sham" is an opinion he is free to state. And he could well be right; after all, what the training seeks to impart is really all about simple respect, and common sense. Perhaps an employer's policy statement to that effect might suffice at some workplaces.
Yet somehow I can't shake the feeling that Professor McPherson, who says he's received many letters of support for his position, would set a more enduring example if he were to state publicly that despite his objections to the material being taught, he owes it to his students to do as they do: sit in the chair, listen politely, and at least look interested. Following the training, when the inevitable Q&A session arrives, the professor could articulate his views and, just as in his classroom many would be educated simply by being there to hear opposing views.
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2008 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions
In the wake of years of such cases, well more than a dozen states passed laws either requiring or encouraging employers to provide some form of anti-harassment training. California, ever the leader in employee-related regulations, adopted AB1825 in 2005, requiring employers of 50 or more to provide regularly scheduled training for newly hired supervisors and current management.
While various people have grumbled, and more than a few in our industry have wondered aloud concerning the efficacy of the training, it seems obvious that at least its key admonitions, taught bi-annually as California's law requires, are likely to be remembered, if not universally adhered to. Equally obvious: training that is regularly reinforced has to help reign in harassing conduct.
Did I say it seems obvious? Not so fast, says one California educator. Using a guest editorial in the Los Angeles Times on November 21, 2008 as his platform UC Irvine professor of molecular biology Alexander McPherson laid out his reasons for refusing the university's repeated entreaties to attend the required training. Calling the program "a disgraceful sham" McPherson, a tenured professor, said he found the training "repugnant and offensive" and added that an unnamed "vocal political/cultural interest group" was responsible "as part of a politically correct agenda that I don't particularly agree with."
As the professor's comments echoed on the West Coast, in the Midwest the echo was draped in irony. Nine days before McPherson's editorial was printed a University of Iowa college music professor, Mark Weiger, was found dead in his garage, a victim of an apparent suicide. His death came a week after a former student filed a lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct by Weiger when he was her professor. In August another University of Iowa professor, Arthur Miller, also took his own life after being charged with accepting sexual favors from students in return for favorable grades. In the wake of the Miller case the university ordered its professors to sit for training -- on how to avoid sexual harassment.
Whatever we take from these eerily similar tragedies Professor McPherson's insistence that mandated sexual harassment training is a "sham" is an opinion he is free to state. And he could well be right; after all, what the training seeks to impart is really all about simple respect, and common sense. Perhaps an employer's policy statement to that effect might suffice at some workplaces.
Yet somehow I can't shake the feeling that Professor McPherson, who says he's received many letters of support for his position, would set a more enduring example if he were to state publicly that despite his objections to the material being taught, he owes it to his students to do as they do: sit in the chair, listen politely, and at least look interested. Following the training, when the inevitable Q&A session arrives, the professor could articulate his views and, just as in his classroom many would be educated simply by being there to hear opposing views.
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2008 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions
Friday, November 14, 2008
The Attitude "Alarm Clock"
When I was a kid my mother used to tell me that someday I'd appreciate what having no responsibilities felt like, though at the time, watching out for our family cat, my trucks and trains and a host of Matchbox toys seemed like a big enough responsibility to me. All too soon came my first opportunity to see what being an adult was really like: I was to grow and sell vegetables to our neighborhood, an idea of an eccentric aunt whose motto was "idle hands are the devil's workshop." The money earned would be my allowance; the days of weekly quarters from mom, and advances on next week's quarter, were over.
At fifteen a girlfriend suggested, firmly, that she would no longer pay for my ticket to the local drive-in movie. Then she promptly marched me off to where she worked, the local Marriott Hot Shoppes. There a tall, imposing and stern-faced fellow, Terry Stone, offered me my first "real" job as a short-order cook in the restaurant's snack bar. More responsibility. Showing up on time. Working versus talking. But it felt good, in the way that the notion of regular exercise, once confronted and actually implemented, can change your attitude toward physical labor. It can, though it doesn't always, particularly if you think it's not worth the effort. Some people work through the pain, the inconvenience, sore muscles, reduced couch time. Some put that New Year's resolution on the pile with all the others.
The same is true of the employees we hire. Hoping that they will succeed we provide them the tools -- and we wait. We wait for the new hire's skills to sharpen, her mind to focus solely on the task at hand. Sometimes it does, and we reward the effort. When her mind wanders, we remind her that "this is work, you know; you can daydream later." Sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't. That's when we bring out the big guns: "Keep up like this, and you will be out of a job," we say, knowing that only some employees will hear, let alone care about this admonition. Others will not hear or not care. Some are so impertinent they simply walk off the job which may seem an attractive alternative to hearing the words "you're fired."
What separates those who do from those who do not? What single definable characteristic caused the Ritz Carlton hotel chain to win the prestigious Malcolm Baldridge quality award? How can Crystal Cruises keep up its unparalleled reputation as "best cruise line", winning the Travel & Leisure award, year after year? What inner strength led an adopted child, Dave Thomas, to found and lead Wendy's?
As my grandfather used to say, it's all about mental attitude.
When hiring, promoting, training and yes, even disciplining, watch the candidate or employee's attitude. Some, as we all know, are timid about showing they care; with encouragement, however, they blossom. Others are natural leaders and will pick up every job you throw their way, do it, then ask for the next assignment. Others seem wooden, disinterested, unfocused; this group, needless to say, may not be your best new hires. You're reaching them too late.
All great performers possess an attitude "alarm clock". They know when it's time to add effort and when to let others take the lead. They keep track of important dates and rarely, if ever, miss work. They prepare. They smile, share kudos with co-workers. They participate in performance assessments, offering occasionally overly harsh self-appraisal just to show that they're aware of their shortcomings. When an especially challenging moment arrives -- deciding whether to return lost property, telling the truth about a missed goal -- the "alarm clock" inside superstars rings. It just rings. No prompting needed.
Can we teach employees to possess an attitude "alarm clock?" The subject of much debate, this is. What is very clear, however, is that great attitudes are catchy, and where one resides, others will follow.
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2008 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions
At fifteen a girlfriend suggested, firmly, that she would no longer pay for my ticket to the local drive-in movie. Then she promptly marched me off to where she worked, the local Marriott Hot Shoppes. There a tall, imposing and stern-faced fellow, Terry Stone, offered me my first "real" job as a short-order cook in the restaurant's snack bar. More responsibility. Showing up on time. Working versus talking. But it felt good, in the way that the notion of regular exercise, once confronted and actually implemented, can change your attitude toward physical labor. It can, though it doesn't always, particularly if you think it's not worth the effort. Some people work through the pain, the inconvenience, sore muscles, reduced couch time. Some put that New Year's resolution on the pile with all the others.
The same is true of the employees we hire. Hoping that they will succeed we provide them the tools -- and we wait. We wait for the new hire's skills to sharpen, her mind to focus solely on the task at hand. Sometimes it does, and we reward the effort. When her mind wanders, we remind her that "this is work, you know; you can daydream later." Sometimes this works, and sometimes it doesn't. That's when we bring out the big guns: "Keep up like this, and you will be out of a job," we say, knowing that only some employees will hear, let alone care about this admonition. Others will not hear or not care. Some are so impertinent they simply walk off the job which may seem an attractive alternative to hearing the words "you're fired."
What separates those who do from those who do not? What single definable characteristic caused the Ritz Carlton hotel chain to win the prestigious Malcolm Baldridge quality award? How can Crystal Cruises keep up its unparalleled reputation as "best cruise line", winning the Travel & Leisure award, year after year? What inner strength led an adopted child, Dave Thomas, to found and lead Wendy's?
As my grandfather used to say, it's all about mental attitude.
When hiring, promoting, training and yes, even disciplining, watch the candidate or employee's attitude. Some, as we all know, are timid about showing they care; with encouragement, however, they blossom. Others are natural leaders and will pick up every job you throw their way, do it, then ask for the next assignment. Others seem wooden, disinterested, unfocused; this group, needless to say, may not be your best new hires. You're reaching them too late.
All great performers possess an attitude "alarm clock". They know when it's time to add effort and when to let others take the lead. They keep track of important dates and rarely, if ever, miss work. They prepare. They smile, share kudos with co-workers. They participate in performance assessments, offering occasionally overly harsh self-appraisal just to show that they're aware of their shortcomings. When an especially challenging moment arrives -- deciding whether to return lost property, telling the truth about a missed goal -- the "alarm clock" inside superstars rings. It just rings. No prompting needed.
Can we teach employees to possess an attitude "alarm clock?" The subject of much debate, this is. What is very clear, however, is that great attitudes are catchy, and where one resides, others will follow.
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2008 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Strategic Planning, Part VII: The Hospitality Industry, Rising
Strategic Planning, Part VII:
The Hospitality Industry, Rising
The rock artist Bruce Springsteen, a longtime hero of America's bedrock working class, tells the story of an encounter that changed his life. He was stopped by a fan the day after the 9/11 terror attacks. Looking into Springsteen's eyes, the admirer had said simply, "Bruce, we need you." Though the encounter was brief Springsteen was moved: how could he make sense of a terrible tragedy, one that would define America like none other since Pearl Harbor?
The answer came the following year with the release of "The Rising", a wrenching wail that brought together Americans of all stripes, helping us see that recovery from this tragedy that deeply affected all Americans would require an "all for one, one for all" mentality, a force clearly greater than most of us had ever experienced. Our whole foundation had been shaken nearly apart. "The Rising", at once a guttural anthem, became a voice for many, the song's entreaty, "Come on up for the rising, come on up, lay your hands in mine" an unmistakable call for unity. Springsteen had accomplished what politicans could not: the song became a rallying cry for several generations of Americans.
Our current economic miasma, while not a 9/11 tragedy, is nonetheless wrenching, and requires a universal response if we are to prevail. Let's face it: We are being forced to reconsider our past ways. The hospitality industry is in trouble.
Luxury of all types seems so out of place, excessive, unnecessary -- some would say, even cruel in an age of rapidly evaporating retirement incomes. Employees assuming their big hotel chain employers would be around forever, have seen pension plans falter, their hours cut, their benefits reduced. Restaurants that served Wall Street and Main Street are either out of business or offering pre-fixe dinners at modest prices. Airlines and restaurant chains alike have declared themselves bankrupted by the spiraling crisis. Seeking clarity in this mess has been daunting, prolonged by an elusive economic bottom that keeps sliding out from under us, nearly by the day it seems.
If management teams were ever called upon to put aside individual differences for a common good, it's now. Does your crisis recovery strategy include duties for every member of your team? Is senior management communicating more often with the line? Are HR staff aware of which employees need help coping with the economic reality that is causing so much upheaval in families? Are employees now more sensitive to guest concerns? Are your products priced at levels to encourage repeat business?
So much can be done when we band together. The industry's leadership has spoken plenty to various trade publications but has been strangely quiet in the mainstream media. It's time for someone to stand up and issue a rallying cry.
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2008 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions
Visit us at www.hospitalityhrsolutions.com
The Hospitality Industry, Rising
The rock artist Bruce Springsteen, a longtime hero of America's bedrock working class, tells the story of an encounter that changed his life. He was stopped by a fan the day after the 9/11 terror attacks. Looking into Springsteen's eyes, the admirer had said simply, "Bruce, we need you." Though the encounter was brief Springsteen was moved: how could he make sense of a terrible tragedy, one that would define America like none other since Pearl Harbor?
The answer came the following year with the release of "The Rising", a wrenching wail that brought together Americans of all stripes, helping us see that recovery from this tragedy that deeply affected all Americans would require an "all for one, one for all" mentality, a force clearly greater than most of us had ever experienced. Our whole foundation had been shaken nearly apart. "The Rising", at once a guttural anthem, became a voice for many, the song's entreaty, "Come on up for the rising, come on up, lay your hands in mine" an unmistakable call for unity. Springsteen had accomplished what politicans could not: the song became a rallying cry for several generations of Americans.
Our current economic miasma, while not a 9/11 tragedy, is nonetheless wrenching, and requires a universal response if we are to prevail. Let's face it: We are being forced to reconsider our past ways. The hospitality industry is in trouble.
Luxury of all types seems so out of place, excessive, unnecessary -- some would say, even cruel in an age of rapidly evaporating retirement incomes. Employees assuming their big hotel chain employers would be around forever, have seen pension plans falter, their hours cut, their benefits reduced. Restaurants that served Wall Street and Main Street are either out of business or offering pre-fixe dinners at modest prices. Airlines and restaurant chains alike have declared themselves bankrupted by the spiraling crisis. Seeking clarity in this mess has been daunting, prolonged by an elusive economic bottom that keeps sliding out from under us, nearly by the day it seems.
If management teams were ever called upon to put aside individual differences for a common good, it's now. Does your crisis recovery strategy include duties for every member of your team? Is senior management communicating more often with the line? Are HR staff aware of which employees need help coping with the economic reality that is causing so much upheaval in families? Are employees now more sensitive to guest concerns? Are your products priced at levels to encourage repeat business?
So much can be done when we band together. The industry's leadership has spoken plenty to various trade publications but has been strangely quiet in the mainstream media. It's time for someone to stand up and issue a rallying cry.
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2008 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions
Visit us at www.hospitalityhrsolutions.com
Monday, September 22, 2008
Strategic Planning, Part VI: Taking the Reins in Turbulent TImes
Strategic Planning, Part VI
Taking the Reins in Turbulent Times
The word on the Street -- Wall Street, that is -- isn't great. The stock market meltdown and the seizing up of the nation's financial system represent the potential for disaster. There is no guarantee that the proposed government bailout of the mortgage mess announced over the weekend will calm the roiling waters anytime soon. Adding noticeably to the nation's collective jitters: muscle flexing by Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. A Congress lacking direction, the nearing elections -- well, it all makes many fearful that tomorrow's news will be worse.
Over the weekend, as the pundits dissected the past week's unprecedented financial news and handicapped whether Congress will destroy or revive the nation's confidence this week as it seeks to digest the government's $700 billion bailout proposal, I paused. Listening to friends and colleagues bemoan our current fix, I wanted to agree, but for some reason, I didn't.
Clearly, those who hold a cynical view of Congress's ability to inspire anyone, let alone chart a course for an entire nation, are not necessarily wrong when they crankily rant against our national leadership. While it is naive to expect that politics will not be a part of the Congressional review, or that an inevitable delay in a deal with Congress will not hurt the economy further, I wonder: should the nation's business leaders sit on the sidelines while Congress fiddles? Should we call our Congressman? Or should we power forward, mindful of the dangers but unwilling to surrender to the view that life as we know it has been irreparably altered?
For some reason this weekend my mind was replaying a scene from the movie "Midway", a sweeping WWII drama chronicling the improbable victory by outmanned US forces in the first pivotal Pacific naval battle after the cataclysm of Pearl Harbor. In the movie Robert Mitchum portrays legendary American admiral William F. "Bull" Halsey. Laid up in a Pearl Harbor infirmary with a debilitating skin condition Halsey is asked by CINCPAC chief Chester Nimitz, played by Henry Fonda, to name his temporary replacement for the Midway campaign. Who should lead this crucial battle, Nimitz asks Halsey. Halsey recommends Raymond Spruance, a junior officer with no flight experience in a Navy where it is thought that only fighter pilots can command aircraft carrier task forces.
Nimitz winces. "He has no carrier experience," he tells Halsey. "No, but he knows carrier tactics," Halsey counters. Nimitz hesitates.
"Chet," Halsey growls, "you once told me that when you are in command -- command!"
History proved Halsey's recommendation providential. Thanks to good planning and advance intelligence Admiral Spruance's forces pounced upon superior Japanese forces as they steamed near Midway Island. Enemy losses that day were so great that the tide of the Pacific war was strategically altered. From that moment onward the Imperial Navy was retreating.
Times of turmoil call for decisive action. While fears of defeat will always be with us, the consequences of delay and inaction usually produce inferior outcomes. Yes, some will say let's wait and see what Congress does Is there a stronger alternative?
America's hospitality industry doesn't need a pass from Congress. We need strong leaders who continue to believe in their people, their products and the future, to think strategically and without emotion. If your strategic plan needs review, do it now. Otherwise, let's get the engines fired up. It's time to lead our teams into the uncharted times ahead. Victory awaits.
Be honest and be well.
Taking the Reins in Turbulent Times
The word on the Street -- Wall Street, that is -- isn't great. The stock market meltdown and the seizing up of the nation's financial system represent the potential for disaster. There is no guarantee that the proposed government bailout of the mortgage mess announced over the weekend will calm the roiling waters anytime soon. Adding noticeably to the nation's collective jitters: muscle flexing by Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. A Congress lacking direction, the nearing elections -- well, it all makes many fearful that tomorrow's news will be worse.
Over the weekend, as the pundits dissected the past week's unprecedented financial news and handicapped whether Congress will destroy or revive the nation's confidence this week as it seeks to digest the government's $700 billion bailout proposal, I paused. Listening to friends and colleagues bemoan our current fix, I wanted to agree, but for some reason, I didn't.
Clearly, those who hold a cynical view of Congress's ability to inspire anyone, let alone chart a course for an entire nation, are not necessarily wrong when they crankily rant against our national leadership. While it is naive to expect that politics will not be a part of the Congressional review, or that an inevitable delay in a deal with Congress will not hurt the economy further, I wonder: should the nation's business leaders sit on the sidelines while Congress fiddles? Should we call our Congressman? Or should we power forward, mindful of the dangers but unwilling to surrender to the view that life as we know it has been irreparably altered?
For some reason this weekend my mind was replaying a scene from the movie "Midway", a sweeping WWII drama chronicling the improbable victory by outmanned US forces in the first pivotal Pacific naval battle after the cataclysm of Pearl Harbor. In the movie Robert Mitchum portrays legendary American admiral William F. "Bull" Halsey. Laid up in a Pearl Harbor infirmary with a debilitating skin condition Halsey is asked by CINCPAC chief Chester Nimitz, played by Henry Fonda, to name his temporary replacement for the Midway campaign. Who should lead this crucial battle, Nimitz asks Halsey. Halsey recommends Raymond Spruance, a junior officer with no flight experience in a Navy where it is thought that only fighter pilots can command aircraft carrier task forces.
Nimitz winces. "He has no carrier experience," he tells Halsey. "No, but he knows carrier tactics," Halsey counters. Nimitz hesitates.
"Chet," Halsey growls, "you once told me that when you are in command -- command!"
History proved Halsey's recommendation providential. Thanks to good planning and advance intelligence Admiral Spruance's forces pounced upon superior Japanese forces as they steamed near Midway Island. Enemy losses that day were so great that the tide of the Pacific war was strategically altered. From that moment onward the Imperial Navy was retreating.
Times of turmoil call for decisive action. While fears of defeat will always be with us, the consequences of delay and inaction usually produce inferior outcomes. Yes, some will say let's wait and see what Congress does Is there a stronger alternative?
America's hospitality industry doesn't need a pass from Congress. We need strong leaders who continue to believe in their people, their products and the future, to think strategically and without emotion. If your strategic plan needs review, do it now. Otherwise, let's get the engines fired up. It's time to lead our teams into the uncharted times ahead. Victory awaits.
Be honest and be well.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Strategic Planning, Part V: Exploring Weakness
Strategic Planning, Part V
Exploring Weakness
Labor Day is upon us. With the traditional Fall budget season just ahead, many organizations see this time of year as an opportunity for renewal. It’s a fitting time to continue our discussion of strategic planning.
The strategic planning journey reveals much about the organization. A thorough planning program includes a critical, candid analysis known by the acronym S.W.O.T.: Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. Saving Weaknesses for last, a brief description of the other elements is as follows:
Strengths are key achievers, processes, products, services and intangibles such as goodwill that together are considered organizational advantages.
Opportunities are desirable outcomes as yet unrealized: an opportunity to be the leader in a market segment, for example, or to be the outstanding service provider in a non-profit community. Opportunities typically flow from Strengths though they can be discovered through Weaknesses.
Threats are actions or exigencies that could delay, inhibit or completely derail the organization’s plan for success.
The two elements of the SWOT analysis that we naturally enjoy discussing are Strengths and Opportunities. Those that take more time to identify and quantify are Weaknesses and Threats. This process yields valuable information about where the organization needs to improve, yet sometimes a planning team just can’t get there. Whether it’s an issue with one or more members of the team or someone’s pet project that hasn’t delivered results, some groups loathe confronting the demon for fear of upsetting a colleague or having to admit that something they worked on isn’t perfect. While understandable such ostrich-like behavior is dangerous.
Weaknesses, whether involving people or strategies, are no less an integral part of the community at large. Discerning the future requires that we see the present, for all that it represents, not just the parts we like. A strong commitment to strategic planning includes being willing to talk about in depth what isn’t working, what may be “gumming up the works.”
Acknowledging publicly what we don’t do well affords us a sometimes surprising corollary opportunity: seeing what the organization would look like when we tackle the weaknesses. Armed with knowledge and freed of the need to keep our weaknesses hidden, we can usually quickly design a workaround that gets us back on track toward meeting our strategic goals.
Be honest and be well.
Chuck-
Copyright 2008 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions
Monday, August 11, 2008
Strategic Planning, Part IV: I'd Rather Be a Tiger
Strategic Planning, Part IV
I’d Rather Be a Tiger
It is often said that managers maintain the status quo while leaders invoke change. Surprise! Change is not always a leader's preference. In fact, mention change to some in the executive suite and eyes begin glazing over.
The first time I encountered this apparently anti-leader behavior I was surprised. Years later I can’t count the number of times I’ve witnessed otherwise wizened hospitality execs arguing not whether the pace of the company’s change is sufficient, but whether the company should be changing at all. Their lobbying platform: “more of the same” could be just fine for some processes or products, at least for now.
Perhaps, though a static environment, however well reasoned, is generally what you don’t need. As the axiom goes, competitive advantage is attained and maintained by staying ahead of the pack. Why then would change, if truly an engine of innovation, not have such a good reputation? And why, despite mandates for action from a CEO and/or the Board of Directors, would some still argue against change? Why not just get on with it?
My colleague who first uttered the anti-change argument did so in front of his peers at a strategic planning session where, with no small amount of hubris he decried the whole point of us being there: “No one ever has any idea how it’s going to play out,” he said, shifting in his chair. As my friend went on we noticed the CEO fixing a hard stare at him, but this didn't stop him. “We get all fired up about changing this or improving that,” our co-worker continued. “Bigger portions. Smaller portions. With mayo. Lose the onion.” My friend wasn’t finished. “We spend a bunch of money asking ourselves and the guests a lot of questions.” “Meanwhile,” he added, “we have a business to run. And what happens after a few months? The ‘C’ word is forgotten.”
Without exactly meaning to, my colleague nevertheless put his finger squarely upon the problem. The real issue with change is not the change itself. It’s getting the whole team to commit to the process that drives change – and to stick with it. If you’ve been through strategic planning you know that the regimen is rigorous. It sometimes leads to frustrating dead ends, or projects that begin handily enough but lack staying power. The prize for your resoluteness is occasionally … nothing.
The mere mention of change still disturbs some industry veterans. The famed Yoga Berra used to say, provoking laughter, “it’s de ja vu all over again.” For the seasoned hospitality industry executive, he or she has “been there before” and can thus perhaps be forgiven if repulsed by the image of yet another series of meetings that produce firm agreements, a concrete action plan, but little more. If you talk one-on-one they acknowledge their attitude smells of sour grapes but they insist they are not alone in abhorring the, as one former colleague called strategic planning, “colossal waste of time.”
The detached observer sees this apparent conundrum as an opportunity to fix what ails rather than jettison the strategic planning process. When you are one of the participants, however, it’s not so easy to see this patently obvious conclusion, let alone convince your peers of its merit.
Sometimes therefore, lacking a disinterested third party’s coaxing, we agree to disagree, and the choice for the executive team, no doubt to be later handicapped as woefully insufficient, is to do nothing. Quixotically it sometimes takes a stinging defeat – the loss of your great idea to a swifter competitor, for example – to move a timid team even cautiously toward change.
Real change can be the lifeblood of a great hospitality team, creating and replenishing a nourishing vibrancy. This is what I’ve always thought that the top tier of mature brands -- Marriott and Disney come to mind -- do so well, as they must! They recognize that without a rigorously enforced annual planning cycle, old assumptions take root, choking off innovation.
Invariably results will vary according to the intensity of the leadership team’s commitment. Just as one team may be circumspect about change, a competitor is playing hard offense, sizing up the competition, crouching and preparing to devour it. Strategic planning can help both kinds of teams, the timid and the tigers.
You don’t have to say it: like me, I know you’d rather be a tiger.
Be honest and be well.
Copyright 2008
Charles A. Conine & Hospitality HR Solutions
www.hospitalityhrsolutions.com
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Strategic Planning, Part III: HR's Role as Strategic Diplomat
Strategic Planning, Part III
HR’s Role as Strategic Diplomat
To better understand how HR has found itself with a seat at the strategic planning table, we look to HR’s first forays into its role as employee advocate, one that it gained as part of its evolution from its days as “the Personnel Department”. Much of what hospitality HR directors learned about advocacy came from defining moments in large, urban hotels where unions had long been entrenched and thrived on the “status quo”.
The rechristening of the Personnel Department as “Human Resources” advocate troubled the unions. Their collective mistrust of management’s motives had been burnished over many years of seeing crude, ill-trained managers mistreating hourly employees. When Personnel became “HR”, and some of the big chain hotels were announcing that henceforth Human Resources would play a central role in union/management relations, the unions wondered, “what’s next?”
HR’s equanimity, instead of being welcomed by organized labor was instead often misunderstood. Union business agents viewed HR’s ascent with alarm, particularly when the HR director wouldn’t back down from a position. Bullying department supervisors and complaining to hotel general managers about “worker abuse” had brought unions credibility. So why would they want to talk with Human Resources?
Not really believing HR’s proffer of cooperation, ironically unions saw HR’s rise as divisive to the labor movement’s goal of keeping the focus on “us versus them.” Who needed someone to forge better relationships, especially if that meant that unions would no longer tell management the way things were going to be?
What happened next was thus not very surprising.
Labeling HR as a potential Trojan horse, a supporter of “scabs” who would roll back hard fought union gains, unions fought back, painting HR first as insincere mouthpieces for management and then, in an insult that really bothered HR, as people who should just be ignored.
What had we done wrong, HR leaders wondered? How could HR find its way out of this thicket and regain employee trust? How would we tame the unions’ annoying habit of taking advantage of every management misstep?
Initially the best that HR could achieve was an uneasy stalemate, and even that often came on the heels of a walkout by an entire shift of waiters. Every time we thought we might have made some progress with a union business agent, he or she would claim we “lied” and the relationship would once again turn frosty.
HR chiefs approached these early union/management struggles with admirable patience, considering that the typical HR director had not been schooled in how to deal with labor unrest: though some in the big city hotels had plenty of background in listening to the problems unions seemed to create, most HR directors were either new to labor relations or had limited authority to discuss or resolve employee grievances.
HR’s impatience with the slow pace of progress in union/management relations grew more intense and eventually, some HR directors were given a little rope to explore ways of defusing union/worker angst. In my case this experience proved challenging, to say the least.
Not long after I had won a limited authority to engage the unions I was summoned to a meeting with a local union president and our labor attorney. The union president proceeded to excoriate me for my “holier than thou” attitude and my “ignorant interference”. He threatened a work stoppage if I didn’t back off.
Two weeks or so went by. I implored my general manager for answers: What had I done? I asked. He would only say that he thought I’d been a little too aggressive.
Ordered to stay out of the union’s way I nevertheless remained convinced that all of our lives would be more peaceful if we could forge better relationships with the union business agents.
I tried another tactic. The next time that the business agent for our hotel strode into my office, prepared for a fight, I offered her a seat, and then asked The Question: “Why are you doing this?”
We sat there for a moment in stony silence. Then, as if a light switch had been flipped, the agent’s face softened, and she managed a thin smile. “Management,” she began with a long sigh, slumping in her chair, “cares only about itself. The workers be damned.”
Thus began for me a real relationship based on understanding and ultimately, trust. This union advocate was not perfect, nor was she always right. But her advice, cooperation and “take no prisoners” negotiating style taught me much about what really matters to hospitality employees.
Be honest and be well. -- Chuck
Copyright 2008 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions
www.hospitalityhrsolutions.com
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
He Offers a Roadmap Out of Sales and Profit Hell
If you are spending money with an organizational consultant, you are not alone. Everyone it seems is on the hunt for fresh perspectives on how to reverse the current industry slump.
Issues that in the past sounded straightforward enough – build top line first, then work on your costs, etc., etc. – are not so simple now, not with eggs costing 100% more than a year ago, fuel at $4.50 a gallon and climbing or, in the worst sort of tone deaf irony, many state legislatures piling on new and evermore business-defeating proposals to legislate employee wages and benefits.
Today’s times are challenging our commitment to our principles, our employees, our vendors and your guests. Are we and our teams living our core values? Is our mission statement reality or is it a box checked off on someone’s to-do list? Does our management team have a laser-like focus on returning business to the good times, no matter what it takes? Better: Is every manager charged up and ready to find the answers? Perhaps you need a little encouragement to get all the way there? Meet Jim Sullivan, whose teaching returns your investment with interest.
Why is listening to Sullivan like putting money in the bank? For all the years I’ve watched him Jim has eschewed the esoteric, favoring a simple, direct approach that restaurant operators appreciate. No skin-deep “cum-bay-ah” sessions for Sullivan; he’s too busy fielding all the good questions his ideas generate. Having sat through more than one over the years I can attest that Sullivan’s training workshops pack a fast-paced punch. He gets that his clients are busy and he won’t insult them by wasting their time.
Jim’s website displays this motto: “common sense at work.” The site, www.sullivision.com is built that way -- eclectic, easy to navigate and chock full of serious offerings. The focus is on energizing and leading today’s restaurant people. These are teachable, scalable programs, precisely what companies sharing Sullivan’s sense of urgency are seeking.
A key reason for Sullivan’s loyal following: his books, tapes and seminars are not about him – they’re about the industry’s basic people challenges and how to address them. Sure, he’s charming and industry smart. But Jim Sullivan is more than that: he’s a bit of everyman. In fact, the very best thing about Jim is that he remains an optimist, undiminished by personal politics, hyper-ego or insincerity.
Jim’s latest book, available on the website, is “Multi-Unit Leadership - The 7 Stages of Building High-Performing Partnerships and Teams” . It’s a gem. True to his economy of style Sullivan has penned an easy read, a “first this, then that” approach that’s unapologetic and direct. More importantly the advice serves as a roadmap to pull the industry out of Sales and Profit Hell.
If we don’t need roadmaps now, we’ll never need them.
Be honest and be well. - Chuck
Copyright 2008 by Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions
www.hospitalityhrsolutions.com
Monday, July 21, 2008
"Wishing and Hoping" ... or Strategic Leadership?"
Strategic Planning, Part II:
“Wishing and Hoping” …
or Strategic Leadership?
If you read my July 17 post you know that I’m a fan of strategic planning. Actually, that’s not entirely accurate: I’m a fan of results.
As HR has evolved from a traditional role of recordkeeping and administrative functions HR leadership has found itself pressed for results, on challenges as diverse as how to regenerate a declining job applicant pool, to more esoteric questions – how, for example, to recast a mature hospitality company’s image so that it is attractive to employees in the Millennium Generation.
Not surprisingly both of these issues represent ongoing conundrums for HR chiefs in many hospitality firms, particularly those with mature brands. In the last 5-10 years as new, hot companies -- in the hotel industry, boutique brands such as “W” Hotels, for example -- snapped up twenty-somethings eager to associate with hipper brands, it became increasingly clear, to the consternation of the older, legacy brands, and worse, companies who had never paid much attention to their employees, that issues such as turnover, applicant attraction and retention were now entrenched, defying traditional cures.
HR and CEOs alike witnessed with consternation that time-tested solutions and the metrics by which their success had historically been measured, were no longer applicable – at least not without changes in how the organization viewed itself, and its human capital.
These global issues, and their spreading impact on shaping the organizations of tomorrow, are the subject of many strategic planning sessions.
Surprisingly bringing management to the strategic planning table still takes convincing effort. Equally surprising is that the reticence to commit to a formalized planning process can stem from, as a former boss of mine used to say, “wishing and hoping”, the ill-advised belief that when an organization “keeps the faith,” eventually its strategies will pay off.
Rigorous strategic planning forces us to re-examine why we favor certain strategies, even when they are meeting expectations, but particularly when they aren’t. Whereas the “wishing and hoping” crowd expects tomorrow will be better competitors, armed with the results of their strategic planning, have already seen tomorrow – and are busy executing strategies to welcome the changes they already know it will bring.
Latecomers to strategic planning sometimes arrive battered and bruised, willing to give planning a try if only because nothing else has worked. For the non-believers and latecomers I offer these precepts:
I. The crossroad where your vulnerability meets your will to survive is a defining moment.
II. When you realize that challenges are both global and viral, that they are key to your future success, let alone your company’s viability, you’d better act – quickly!
III. No well-planned offense can succeed unless purposefully communicated to your employees, the people whose exertion and support is required to execute your strategy.
And several other observations:
I. Weak leadership finds itself confounded by inexplicable periods of “bad luck”, while strategically-focused competitors fiendishly dissect the obstacle, determined to demolish it.
II. Hand-wringing or “wishing and hoping” serve only to prolong the pain. Delay can be an enemy, pointless and insidiously damaging.
III. Our 24-hour news cycle, aided by the Internet, can turn little problems into viral campaigns nearly without warning.
Even if immediate action seems unnecessary planning for what may be required can’t begin soon enough.
Global issues are super-sized in their effect. If we accept this premise, then by definition, left untreated, global issues will at some point turn viral as well, meaning that they will chew inexorably through all of the company’s worn strategies, exposing them for what they will, barring decisive action, no doubt become – old, tired and ignored.
So much for “wishing and hoping.”
Be honest and be well. -Chuck
___________________________________________________
Copyright 2008, Charles A. Conine and Hospitality HR Solutions
www.hospitalityhrsolutions.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
