John Pope, a management consultant with over 40 years’ experience, begins a new exclusive column for HR Zone looking at the strategic issues to affect HR. This month he considers the way in which administrative workers are frequently treated like battery hens, but why showing respect for your staff can reap impressive benefits.

The Bad Old Days

Do you remember those old US movies which had a scene set in a typing pool or an insurance claims department? Row upon row of girls at their desks beavering away – some desks mounted higher than others for section supervisors and a glass fronted office at the end for the manager to look over all. In some establishments it was said that he sat on a throne mounted on human skulls.

I have been reminded of those ‘bad old days’ recently by discussions with managers on the operation of their routine operations – ‘processes’ is the word they now use – and the scope for further use of call centres, outsourcing or off-shoring. None of these managers are happy with the way their own operations are working; one has a call centre where well over a thousand operators work and has astronomic staff turnover rate. All are concerned about the quality of response to the ‘customers’ whether external or internal. All are unhappy about the costs and disruption of high staff turnover and many see this as a new and destabilising business phenomenon.

One senior HR manager in one of the major banks told me of his experience in a call centre. Another major reorganisation was under way and there would be a critical period where extra help would be needed in their call centres one weekend. Managers were asked to volunteer and, of course, did so. He was upset to be led to this place, instructed, and then told that his five minute ‘comfort break’ would be at 11.08. It was then 08.10. Though not an old man he was upset. He didn’t like the work either; as a manager accustomed to thinking, he found it monotonous. Not a job he would like more than once in a lifetime he said – he didn’t like being one of the many battery hens.

The problems are not new, the lessons are old

Repetitive work on a large scale is not a new phenomenon, of course. It has been around for well over a hundred years. It was humorously portrayed by Charlie Chaplin in ‘Modern Times’. More importantly the problems of staff turnover, quality management, productivity were studied for around 50 years from the 1920s to the 1970s in manufacturing – in the wiring rooms, on the assembly lines – worldwide – well, all the way from the US to Scandinavia. Those lessons in managing people at work were recorded for all to see; pity they were largely ignored outside manufacturing. I am not sure why, but can only suppose that those in banking and insurance knew that their business were different. Well perhaps they are, but human nature and the nature of work still seem unchanged.

And what are those lessons from manufacturing?

The underlying ideas are that:

• Work is a social activity – few people are suited to working entirely on their own; people need reasonable satisfaction of a range of needs; money can buy an individual’s compliance and acceptance of unsatisfying work only up to a point, or for a limited time; serious omissions in satisfying individuals’ needs lead to poor performance, high error rates, high staff turnover, boredom stress, absenteeism, sickness, vandalism…
• Attention to people as individuals is important; excessive measurement and supervision undermines a person’s sense of responsibility for work which is done
• Variety of work, range of work opportunities, sense of achievement, feeling that much of the work done is valuable, opportunity to socialise, are important to people to a greater or lesser extent depending on the individual

I think that many managers would say that they apply equally to them. Failure to take these points seriously leads to poor performance at every level.

What have industrial managers tried – what could you try?

The workplace

They ‘humanised’ the workplace as far as possible, which retained efficiency.

• They let people see each other; allowed some adjustment to suit individuals; allowed some personal customisation, allowed limited personal decoration, family pictures for example
• Ensured individuals were grouped as a team and that no one was left out on a limb
• Allowed for movement, the adjustment of position to suit individual.
• Did not create impression of anonymity, uniformity
• Ensured that operators’ views on the workplace were considered.

Working methods

They aimed for a workable balance, specifying the working methods and processes and allowing operators to do things their own way. They:

• Enlarged the jobs so that individuals could take more of it from beginning to end
• Varied the work whenever possible, trained staff to tackle a range of operations
• Promoted the idea of multi-skilling and formalizing it in the remuneration system
• Provided much more feedback to staff
• Did not over-engineer or over-specify working methods but allowed staff more initiative
• Put more responsibility on people for the quality of their work
• Reduced the number of ‘refer to manager’ situations

What about those who manage the staff?

The principles for the managers:

• Form people into distinctive teams. Allow them individual informal leadership roles, if possible; teams have names. Allow for mutual support, comfort; some freedom to manage their own work
• Foster and maintain a healthy atmosphere; be present – not remote
• Manage personally, not just from performance measures and output
• Observe when people get into difficulties or become stressed, and take quick action, but without giving the impression of spying
• Be friendly, warm, approachable, supportive; recognise good work of teams and individuals personally and publicly
• Pay attendance to levels of absence, attendance, sickness as an indication of problems
• Ensure proper rest breaks away from the work place. Teams should start together, take breaks together, when possible otherwise they cease to be teams. Length and frequency of breaks depend on circumstances and stress level. (Apply the ILO standards for Relaxation Allowances).
“Many organisations do not manage it well – the costs of high staff turnover can be very high, the damage to an organisation can be even higher. It can and should be managed better. There are plenty of lessons from the past.”
• Take advantage of lulls in the work to discuss matters of importance to the staff, not just for giving ‘pep talks’.

Of course this takes a bit of trouble on the part of senior management. So much simpler to off-load the problem onto one of the specialist business service organisations.

Off-loading business problems

Many organisations have handed the problems of managing such work to specialists, and an increasing amount of work is been outsourced or off-shored. It transfers the problems of producing a very closely defined service to an external specialist organization at a fixed cost. It also reduces the head count in the business. It can be very effective, but it does reduce management, contact with the providers and customers of that service and unless done in meticulous detail makes the service less flexible.

It can go horribly wrong, my secretary attempted to buy a new PC from one of the leading manufacturers – a world-wide ‘name’. It took her a 50 minute phone call speaking to an oriental who had very poor English. By the end of it she was ready to cancel the order, and would have done so if she could have got the individual to understand. Many people will have similar examples as customers. It has to be done very well if it is not to damage a business where service to customers is important. Is there one that isn’t?

What might you lose if you outsource it?

Yet another major organisation is off-shoring its HR processes to India, through a well known and highly respected organisation. It will be more economical, the standards will have been set carefully, it should work very well. Will anything be lost? Quite likely. At the least there will be fewer opportunities for an employee’s question on one issue to give an opportunity for HR to ask supplementary questions on the feeling in a particular department, or be told something that they would not otherwise have known.

There can also be a loss of opportunities for innovation or for making changes. A well designed system which covers a range of processes can be rigid and difficult to change and any changes which are made may well incur extra costs.

In conclusion – at last!

Repetitive administration work is important. But like it or not, it is likely to be unattractive, to the best managers whose rise depends on more highly valued achievements. Many organisations do not manage it well – the costs of high staff turnover can be very high, the damage to an organisation can be even higher. It can and should be managed better. There are plenty of lessons from the past.

* *
About the author:
John Pope has been a management consultant for 40 years and seen management fashions come and go. He has worked to improve the development and performance of managers and management teams at all levels for most of his career. He has strong views on the terrible waste of people’s talents at work. He has a reputation for original thinking on management issues. His papers help managers on a wide range of topics, and set out underlying principles and factors in a clear way. He can be contacted at r.j.pope@btinternet.com