Remember my short and abrupt memo from a few weeks ago? It is still on my mind. No personal use of company email. Period. I sound like a Nazi English teacher.
I wanted to leave no room for misunderstanding, but in doing so I took the humanity out of it. It is not just about clarity and well-defined rules: it sounds terrible. It reads like a rule for a 3 year old. End of discussion.
I guess what it comes down to is whether I trust the staff to use their own good judgment about what is appropriate use of company email. Some personal use is to be expected, I guess, but I still don’t think it belongs in the company server. And the memo was in response to a department head who said her staff needed to be reminded about personal use and language. Maybe I should have sent the memo just to her staff. And I could have addressed the specifics that prompted her to call me. Oh, sure, now I think of it!
But back to the black & white rule vs. the “use your good judgment” rule. Employers have learned that for most employees, treating them with some leeway for decision making and creativity results in more engaged, productive, and happy employees. All good. It takes hiring the right ones in the first place, but we’ve discussed all that. Setting hard & fast rules squelches creativity and imitative: so if you need neither, I guess it is OK. But don’t your employees feel like they’re being treated like children? “Don’t cross the street” is a no room for argument rule designed to keep your child safe. Other than safety regs, is there really a business equivalent?
Ignoring the grey areas ignores the humanity involved. Latitude is often a good thing when dealing with employees. Except when it is favoritism or discrimination and you get sued. You see the problem?
Welcome to the wonderful world of human resources.
So here goes:
MEMO REGARDING USE OF COMPANY EMAIL
As you all know, the email system is company property and, as such, must be used for company business and in line with the company’s values, especially “Respect for all.”
Some recent emails have contained unprofessional and disrespectful language, and that is absolutely not OK. If you have a problem with a coworker please bring it to my attention so that it can be addressed responsibly.
Other recent emails have been jokes that are not appropriate for the workplace, and those have to stop, too. No one will think you are a social outcast if you delete a joke email. In fact, if you receive something of that nature from a friend, get them to change your email address on their list to your home address.
Final point: email contents are discoverable for lawsuits and therefore the company needs to have access to them at all times. You should have no expectation of privacy when using the company email system.
Any questions? See me.
Yeah, that’s better.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Friday, December 18, 2009
TO MEMO OR NOT TO MEMO
I wrote a memo to our staff last week, and I am wondering if it was too abrupt. It concerned emails. One of the department managers contacted me that her staff needed reminding about appropriate use of company email, and I knew of another inappropriate email that had come through from another employee, so I jumped right on it.
I usually write a short memo, and this was no exception. I did, however, add another section of explanation for those who like their memos longer and more detailed. But I thought the message was clear cut, and sometimes when you try to explain something simple you just end up making it more complicated.
Here it is: Do not use company email for anything that is not the business of the company. Period. And word every email with respect. No name-calling. Ever. Or company secrets.
What do you think? Too black & white? That’s what I am afraid of. I send emails all day long that only tangentially concern United Staffing: to the Chamber, to HRACC or Rotary members. Turning in my Tolosa columns. So did I just write myself a memo telling me I can’t do that anymore?
Why did I go so inflexible when I know better? I know that employee handbook policies should be written as guidelines to follow, but never so detailed as to leave no room for on-the-spot management decision making. Even a “zero tolerance” policy against harassment shouldn’t mean that every offense will be met with immediate termination. Only that every offense will be met with appropriate discipline that may include termination. The point in zero tolerance is that nobody gets a mulligan when it comes to harassment. HR has never been a rigid arena, so what was I thinking?
By the way, I have had no second thoughts about the second part of my memo: that dealt with respectful language. Email is forever and can come back to punish you for thoughtless (or worse) language. I have been told by more than one attorney that the delete button is a ruse, designed to provide a false sense of security in the user. Besides, if you are enforcing respectful language and treatment in the workplace, it should include emails, too.
Our company policies are clear on the subject of emails and doing personal business while at work, so my memo was meant as a reminder, and I attached a copy of both policies (again, for those who like to see the source and read the fine print.) Is it a zero tolerance policy about personal use of email, though? Or is a “reasonable” amount OK? Courts, you know, have the reasonable person criteria for evaluating an issue: what would a reasonable person feel about it? Know any who sit on juries? But I digress.
In my attempt to be clear I feel I have been unreasonable. Certainly unrealistic. And an unrealistic policy is usually not enforceable. Great: I have accomplished the exact opposite of my intention and have to write another memo explaining what I meant in the first place. But maybe I’ll have someone else draft it.
I usually write a short memo, and this was no exception. I did, however, add another section of explanation for those who like their memos longer and more detailed. But I thought the message was clear cut, and sometimes when you try to explain something simple you just end up making it more complicated.
Here it is: Do not use company email for anything that is not the business of the company. Period. And word every email with respect. No name-calling. Ever. Or company secrets.
What do you think? Too black & white? That’s what I am afraid of. I send emails all day long that only tangentially concern United Staffing: to the Chamber, to HRACC or Rotary members. Turning in my Tolosa columns. So did I just write myself a memo telling me I can’t do that anymore?
Why did I go so inflexible when I know better? I know that employee handbook policies should be written as guidelines to follow, but never so detailed as to leave no room for on-the-spot management decision making. Even a “zero tolerance” policy against harassment shouldn’t mean that every offense will be met with immediate termination. Only that every offense will be met with appropriate discipline that may include termination. The point in zero tolerance is that nobody gets a mulligan when it comes to harassment. HR has never been a rigid arena, so what was I thinking?
By the way, I have had no second thoughts about the second part of my memo: that dealt with respectful language. Email is forever and can come back to punish you for thoughtless (or worse) language. I have been told by more than one attorney that the delete button is a ruse, designed to provide a false sense of security in the user. Besides, if you are enforcing respectful language and treatment in the workplace, it should include emails, too.
Our company policies are clear on the subject of emails and doing personal business while at work, so my memo was meant as a reminder, and I attached a copy of both policies (again, for those who like to see the source and read the fine print.) Is it a zero tolerance policy about personal use of email, though? Or is a “reasonable” amount OK? Courts, you know, have the reasonable person criteria for evaluating an issue: what would a reasonable person feel about it? Know any who sit on juries? But I digress.
In my attempt to be clear I feel I have been unreasonable. Certainly unrealistic. And an unrealistic policy is usually not enforceable. Great: I have accomplished the exact opposite of my intention and have to write another memo explaining what I meant in the first place. But maybe I’ll have someone else draft it.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Bereavement Leave is a Benefit
The question of bereavement leave has come up lately as I have lost both my parents in the last 3 months: both after several days in the hospital. So many people know what that experience is like: watching your loved one become less of who you know them to be. And as you sit there and try to balance your grief with your celebration of who they have been in your life, as you second guess the doctors and the decisions you’ve made, as your relationship with your remaining family members becomes more precious, even as you get annoyed with each other, the last thing you want to be worried about is your job.
Bereavement leave is an optional benefit employers can offer their employees. It can range in number of days and who the employee is grieving. The leave may be paid time off or unpaid time when the grieving employee is relieved of the guilt and possible discipline of being away from work. Some employers allow their grieving employees to take vacation or sick time, as well.
The things I like about bereavement leave include the warm & fuzzy effect on employees seeing this clear statement of support in the Employee Handbook amongst the rules about absences, unacceptable conduct, disciplinary procedures and the like. The psychological impact of such an assurance can be huge.
Things to consider before you add this benefit to your menu of employee support: how many days can you afford to be without the employee? 3 days is common, yet I know now what I had guessed before August: 3 days is not nearly enough to handle the myriad decisions demanded of you. Much less the emotions. What I have done in the past is word the policy in such a way as to acknowledge that the 3 days will not meet all their needs, but we want to relieve them of the stress of work concerns [during that critical first 3 days]. And the granting of more time can be considered.
With the growing number of blended families that has resulted in more parents and siblings, and the inclusion of same-sex couples in the definition of the word “spouse” in California, the number of possible family members included in “immediate” has expanded. Whose death triggers an authorized use of bereavement leave should be clearly delineated in the policy, and some flexibility should be reserved for management to decide on the spot to expand the list. If any of my nieces or nephews were to pass I would have to take time off – period. Paid, unpaid, bereavement leave, vacation, whatever. Job be damned? Probably – but what a horrible decision to have to make. My best friend? My partner’s children? Yikes.
One thing made clear to me in these sad months is that there are many, many people who have already had this devastating experience. Some of their employers have been more understanding than others and I can’t help but wonder how that impacted their healing.
Bereavement leave is an optional benefit employers can offer their employees. It can range in number of days and who the employee is grieving. The leave may be paid time off or unpaid time when the grieving employee is relieved of the guilt and possible discipline of being away from work. Some employers allow their grieving employees to take vacation or sick time, as well.
The things I like about bereavement leave include the warm & fuzzy effect on employees seeing this clear statement of support in the Employee Handbook amongst the rules about absences, unacceptable conduct, disciplinary procedures and the like. The psychological impact of such an assurance can be huge.
Things to consider before you add this benefit to your menu of employee support: how many days can you afford to be without the employee? 3 days is common, yet I know now what I had guessed before August: 3 days is not nearly enough to handle the myriad decisions demanded of you. Much less the emotions. What I have done in the past is word the policy in such a way as to acknowledge that the 3 days will not meet all their needs, but we want to relieve them of the stress of work concerns [during that critical first 3 days]. And the granting of more time can be considered.
With the growing number of blended families that has resulted in more parents and siblings, and the inclusion of same-sex couples in the definition of the word “spouse” in California, the number of possible family members included in “immediate” has expanded. Whose death triggers an authorized use of bereavement leave should be clearly delineated in the policy, and some flexibility should be reserved for management to decide on the spot to expand the list. If any of my nieces or nephews were to pass I would have to take time off – period. Paid, unpaid, bereavement leave, vacation, whatever. Job be damned? Probably – but what a horrible decision to have to make. My best friend? My partner’s children? Yikes.
One thing made clear to me in these sad months is that there are many, many people who have already had this devastating experience. Some of their employers have been more understanding than others and I can’t help but wonder how that impacted their healing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)