Real-Life Change: Offer More Time, Less Judgment

"Effective in November, you will have to work 40 hours per week for 40 hours pay."

Huh?

I spent Wednesday and Thursday of this week working with a client on that announcement, the related context and details, and then helping conduct the meetings that followed.

At first glance, you'd really have to ask yourself, "What's the big deal here?"

But it was a big deal, and here's why:

1. The people affected (admin support) had been hired under a set of work rules that stated you would receive 40 hours pay for a 35-hour work week.

2. The company had been spun off from a Fortune 50 firm in New York City that had, over its 150 year history, determined that this was a good thing. No one alive today remembers why. Just that it was the policy and it was deliberately carried over. Which meant that:

• Some of those affected had worked for the original company and had as much as a 28-year history  of coming to work every day under one set of rules.

• Those hired in the past 15 years accepted their positions based on that explicit agreement. The implicit part of worklife--'things can always change'--wouldn't have been stated as part of any usual hiring process.

What's the big issue?

It is not about 40 hours work for 40 hours pay. Some of those involved have periodic demands that prompt a 14-hour day and even the occasional Saturday. For some, their work ends up in the hands of the Board of Directors, Wall Street, the media, and large clients. They understand the impact of their contributions as well as the importance to their bosses and the company.

The issue is life and relationships.

1. The life and relationships that each has established for themselves and those who rely on them.

2. The necessary predictability required to get kids off to school, care for elderly parents, swap duties with a spouse at a given time, and attend college classes or a choir rehearsal.

Just so you know, no one was really surprised that the policy was put into place. These are smart, committed people. And the company had no punitive or underhanded reasons for the change. To be clear, the change means that there will be a standard 40-hour week to allow for consistency in real-time responses to external constituencies and internal operations. It also creates a parity that didn't exist before as a result of individual scheduling based upon a boss's own work habits.This is a global company needing more predictability to get the job done in a marketplace with new demands.

Those affected can still go to their bosses to work out exceptional circumstances. As a result, people will cross-train in different areas so that issues of support, backups, and backups for backups become as seamless as possible. The bosses will have to be more deliberate in their granting of exceptions based upon the potential impact on their colleagues' work. The backups may, in fact, "belong" to another executive.

So How Did It Go?

Even though it was no big surprise, reality is always similar to a cold shower. It creates a discomfort that makes you realize just how well things were going before the water starts hitting you.

Those affected spent a lot of time thinking out loud about train schedules, kids' schedules, and all-things-personal that would have to be addressed. It would be a stretch to say there was an outpouring of joy. The time needed for specific questions and the ebb and flow of the discussion would have thrilled a group dynamics instructor.

But it will work for three reasons:

1. It was the right thing to do for the business and the shareholders, and ultimately the employees' longer term security.

2. The people involved know that, from an intellectual and business perspective, it was the right thing. Not just for internal reasons. The marketplace has changed and those changes reach into the way the organization needs to operate.

3. Deciding to opt in or opt out over the long run is a choice. Those who opt in--and my bet is it will be all or most--will move on successfully. So will anyone who decides to take another path.

Here's the most telling and honest statement made:

"I think this is right. But I don't have to like it right away."

Don't ask people to fall in love with something new and tell you how wonderful it is, even if they think it's the right thing to do. We all need time to reorganize our thinking, our schedules, and our lives.

Roesler's Rule of Change #3.21 (too may engineering gigs): Change really doesn't make sense until each individual makes personal sense of it.

If you enjoyed this, I think you will want to look at:

• What Does Your Implicit Contract Say?

• Ann Michael's Why Don't Companies Change?

• Are you tormenting yourself over the unkown?

• Intitiating A Change? Think About This

Comments

[Valeria Maltoni]

I find that the biggest obstacle to adoption is lack of timely and fair communication. Along with that, my observation is that it is easy to fall into a less than pleasant tone -- the policy states... yes, but it was written by people; YOU MUST... all caps are a no no in written communication. Hard on the issue, soft on the people. Yes, nobody likes change, having the proper kind of communication goes a long way.

[Steve Roesler]

Well taken, Valeria. I had even forgotten that there are still organizations that post things on bulletin boards and send emails, all in CAPS. You do have to wonder what people are thinking when they do that. Or, perhaps, the trouble is that they aren't thinking at all.

In this case, no policy was handed out at all. There is a written policy because there has to be for legal purposes. But it looks and sounds legal. So the conversation was just that: a conversation.

Thanks so much for weighing in...

[Scott M]

I like your statement "Change really doesn't make sense until each individual makes personal sense of it." A corollary of this might be "Change will happen much easier if the employer can HELP the employee make personal sense of it." In other words, the management needs to explain how the change affects each employee, from the top to the bottom.

It's not communication unless the employee understands it. Anything else is just "talking".

[Steve Roesler]

Thanks for the new take on this, Scott. I'm going to be doing a series on "Change" and intend to incorporate your suggestion.

You're right. Anything else is just "talking".

[Lora Banks]

Ug, flashback to my Wall Street days when our starting time was not so gently moved back from 5:30 a.m. to 4:00 a.m.. As you mention, with four kids at home, a nanny, and a husband, the impact on life and relationships was very difficult to accept.

I am curious if the policy makers in this scenario asked for input from those impacted by the change before updating the policy for legal reasons. One thing we know is whether leadeship decides in favor of the input or not, those impacted will be better able to align with the policy having felt like their concerns were heard.

All the best,

Lora