Working with employee cynicism
April 4, 2013 4:40 AM Subscribe
How to work with employees who don't like what you're doing, but won't work towards making things better? Specifically vocally negative long-term employees who think they know it all, but refuse to share their wisdom beyond flat-out complaints because it's "not their job"?
My department underwent a large-scale restructure about a year ago with about half the team made redundant. Since then we have enacted a huge number of changes to our processes, including making all staff members multi-skilled. This has led to some big advantages, but unfortunately whenever a new process is introduced there is a large amount of employee cynicism. Specifically there are a few long-term employees who had been in very specialised roles who now work with the rest of the team in fulfilling our departmental work. We have an open policy where employees are encouraged to have a dialogue with their seniors and the department managers about any concerns or suggestions they have. This stretches from open invitation to discuss in the office, alone in 1-to-1 time all the way to an anonymous e-mail "Comments" box.
The main problem I'm experiencing is the vocal negativity and cynicism of these few long-term employees. In order to respond effectively to their concerns we have asked that employees investigate perceived problems, report the outcomes to their seniors and allow us to make changes accordingly. The response to this was "Well, it's easier to do nothing than even raise the problem if we have to do the digging". Yes, it is. But it's also part of your job. "Oh, so it's part of my job now? It's not in my job description!" etc. I'm firmly in the school of thought that criticism without investigation is pretty much flat out unhelpful.
We've introduced many measures to make employees feel supported and we listen to their concerns, which weren't in place for 4 of the 5 years these people have worked here - all we ask is that a considered suggestion is presented as well. Some things are just difficult! I also wouldn't mind these continual criticisms so much if they weren't loudly blurted out in front of the entire office. It is a few individuals who feel like this but they're bringing down the morale of the whole team. My goal is to have a happy team, working productively in partnership towards improving our relatively ramshackle processes. Instead it feels like a constant battle to demonstrate every single changed process has been through through to the nth degree - something entirely impractical in our situation. And the louder they shout, the more the team take their side.
So, what I'm really asking is suggestions for tackling this endless cynicism. It's getting to the point now where I wake up at night thinking about my personal primary cynic, mentally replaying or preparing for the barrage of comments I face on a daily basis for policies I've introduced or worked on, and spend half the day with my head down biting my tongue as they "think aloud" about how they're supposed to be doing their job. They themselves think it's terribly funny, "I should set myself a time limit where I'm not allowed to moan" etc. We have spoken to each individual at length about how unproductive this attitude is but the company policy is that employees are encouraged to voice their opinions, so it's tricky ground. Any agreement the cynic has made to communicate more productively has been swiftly forgotten. Previously I've tried to involve this person in the policy making process, thinking this would help, but they were so critical and uncooperative with our clients it meant an absolute standstill of work, so that didn't really work.
Perhaps it's worth mentioning that when the senior job roles were advertised to staff, none of these individuals applied. And perhaps also worth mentioning I previously got on very well with the individuals concerned, as I have for the first 4 of my 7 months in the senior role.
It's making me very unhappy. I wonder if perhaps the problem lies with me and want to do whatever I can to make my otherwise interesting and fulfilling job survivable. Thanks for any suggestions you might have.
My department underwent a large-scale restructure about a year ago with about half the team made redundant. Since then we have enacted a huge number of changes to our processes, including making all staff members multi-skilled. This has led to some big advantages, but unfortunately whenever a new process is introduced there is a large amount of employee cynicism. Specifically there are a few long-term employees who had been in very specialised roles who now work with the rest of the team in fulfilling our departmental work. We have an open policy where employees are encouraged to have a dialogue with their seniors and the department managers about any concerns or suggestions they have. This stretches from open invitation to discuss in the office, alone in 1-to-1 time all the way to an anonymous e-mail "Comments" box.
The main problem I'm experiencing is the vocal negativity and cynicism of these few long-term employees. In order to respond effectively to their concerns we have asked that employees investigate perceived problems, report the outcomes to their seniors and allow us to make changes accordingly. The response to this was "Well, it's easier to do nothing than even raise the problem if we have to do the digging". Yes, it is. But it's also part of your job. "Oh, so it's part of my job now? It's not in my job description!" etc. I'm firmly in the school of thought that criticism without investigation is pretty much flat out unhelpful.
We've introduced many measures to make employees feel supported and we listen to their concerns, which weren't in place for 4 of the 5 years these people have worked here - all we ask is that a considered suggestion is presented as well. Some things are just difficult! I also wouldn't mind these continual criticisms so much if they weren't loudly blurted out in front of the entire office. It is a few individuals who feel like this but they're bringing down the morale of the whole team. My goal is to have a happy team, working productively in partnership towards improving our relatively ramshackle processes. Instead it feels like a constant battle to demonstrate every single changed process has been through through to the nth degree - something entirely impractical in our situation. And the louder they shout, the more the team take their side.
So, what I'm really asking is suggestions for tackling this endless cynicism. It's getting to the point now where I wake up at night thinking about my personal primary cynic, mentally replaying or preparing for the barrage of comments I face on a daily basis for policies I've introduced or worked on, and spend half the day with my head down biting my tongue as they "think aloud" about how they're supposed to be doing their job. They themselves think it's terribly funny, "I should set myself a time limit where I'm not allowed to moan" etc. We have spoken to each individual at length about how unproductive this attitude is but the company policy is that employees are encouraged to voice their opinions, so it's tricky ground. Any agreement the cynic has made to communicate more productively has been swiftly forgotten. Previously I've tried to involve this person in the policy making process, thinking this would help, but they were so critical and uncooperative with our clients it meant an absolute standstill of work, so that didn't really work.
Perhaps it's worth mentioning that when the senior job roles were advertised to staff, none of these individuals applied. And perhaps also worth mentioning I previously got on very well with the individuals concerned, as I have for the first 4 of my 7 months in the senior role.
It's making me very unhappy. I wonder if perhaps the problem lies with me and want to do whatever I can to make my otherwise interesting and fulfilling job survivable. Thanks for any suggestions you might have.
You're asking a lot of them, and you don't seem to realize that.
Your staff specifically did not apply for senior job roles, which I take to mean jobs in some kind of management capacity. Now, they're being told to vocalize their issues, but when they do, they're not complaining in the right way because they're not solving these problems. Problem solving about company issues like these is epitome of management responsibilities (which sounds a lot like the job these staff members decided not to apply for).
Again, you don't seem to get that you're asking this of them, and that's a problem.
The second problem, I suspect, is that you aren't being honest. First, you don't really want to hear criticism. Well, tough. But second and more importantly, the issue isn't that their criticism is unproductive. The issue is that it makes you feel bad. Maybe you should tell them that cynical objections that don't attempt to solve the problems they raise make you feel bad. Maybe they would be more considerate of your feelings than they are of these supposedly objective descriptions you couch everything in.
posted by J. Wilson at 5:05 AM on April 4, 2013 [29 favorites]
Your staff specifically did not apply for senior job roles, which I take to mean jobs in some kind of management capacity. Now, they're being told to vocalize their issues, but when they do, they're not complaining in the right way because they're not solving these problems. Problem solving about company issues like these is epitome of management responsibilities (which sounds a lot like the job these staff members decided not to apply for).
Again, you don't seem to get that you're asking this of them, and that's a problem.
The second problem, I suspect, is that you aren't being honest. First, you don't really want to hear criticism. Well, tough. But second and more importantly, the issue isn't that their criticism is unproductive. The issue is that it makes you feel bad. Maybe you should tell them that cynical objections that don't attempt to solve the problems they raise make you feel bad. Maybe they would be more considerate of your feelings than they are of these supposedly objective descriptions you couch everything in.
posted by J. Wilson at 5:05 AM on April 4, 2013 [29 favorites]
Best answer: My department underwent a large-scale restructure about a year ago with about half the team made redundant.
They don't trust management, they don't trust new processes as leading to anything but more stress, extra work for no reward and a potential pink-slip. I don't think you understand how demoralizing large-scale layoffs are - you need to rebuild trust before people come on board. You need to demonstrate the changes you've already rolled out are paying off for everyone before changing things again.
Loyalty cannot be commanded, it must be earned.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:08 AM on April 4, 2013 [61 favorites]
They don't trust management, they don't trust new processes as leading to anything but more stress, extra work for no reward and a potential pink-slip. I don't think you understand how demoralizing large-scale layoffs are - you need to rebuild trust before people come on board. You need to demonstrate the changes you've already rolled out are paying off for everyone before changing things again.
Loyalty cannot be commanded, it must be earned.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:08 AM on April 4, 2013 [61 favorites]
The problem as I see it is that on the face of it their cynicism is quite justified. Half the staff was made redundant, and while one can call it "rightsizing" or say that you're "working smarter and leaner" the employee is presumably now doing more work for no more pay. I think cynicism in that case is clarity of vision, and motivational, cheerleading approaches aren't likely to work, unless you're exceptionally skilled at it.
So, I'd suggest you focus, not on their attitude, but only on behavior, and that means the hard work of calling them out each time they make an undermining remark. I think maybe you need to make consequences clearer as well: "It's in the job now. Do you not want the job with this addition? Unemployment is high and there's a pool of applicants. I think (redundant employee) may still be looking."
I fear the ultimate answer may be to replace the worst one(s) with new employees who didn't do the job previously and don't realize that there's an increased workload. That eliminates the worst complainer and also serves as a threat to others. This answer is, of course, pretty cynical itself.
posted by tyllwin at 5:08 AM on April 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
So, I'd suggest you focus, not on their attitude, but only on behavior, and that means the hard work of calling them out each time they make an undermining remark. I think maybe you need to make consequences clearer as well: "It's in the job now. Do you not want the job with this addition? Unemployment is high and there's a pool of applicants. I think (redundant employee) may still be looking."
I fear the ultimate answer may be to replace the worst one(s) with new employees who didn't do the job previously and don't realize that there's an increased workload. That eliminates the worst complainer and also serves as a threat to others. This answer is, of course, pretty cynical itself.
posted by tyllwin at 5:08 AM on April 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
You can't fix people. You've tried your best to motivate them into changing themselves but there is a disconnect going on and you may need to stop pulling your punches.
Unless each one of these people is irreplaceable, it is past time to start recording this behavior in an official manner and firing people. That can be a wonderful motivating factor for the employees who will remain.
(And I say that as both as someone who has fired people and an employee who had to listen - for years! - to another employee's chronic bitching. It was truly a relief to come in the next day after that person was fired.)
posted by jaimystery at 5:10 AM on April 4, 2013
Unless each one of these people is irreplaceable, it is past time to start recording this behavior in an official manner and firing people. That can be a wonderful motivating factor for the employees who will remain.
(And I say that as both as someone who has fired people and an employee who had to listen - for years! - to another employee's chronic bitching. It was truly a relief to come in the next day after that person was fired.)
posted by jaimystery at 5:10 AM on April 4, 2013
Best answer: You might start by realizing that these people have a legitimate complaint. The "all employees must learn to do all things, job descriptions be damned " mentality has been a tool of management to force people to do more work with no increase in pay for years. 40 years ago it would not have been sustainable, but after decades of an increasing power imbalance between owners and management on one side and employees on the other, forcing people to drastically change their jobs at the drop of a hat and to accept new responsibilities without new pay is so common that's we actually think its a normal state of affairs rather than a concerted push by management to get more without giving anything in return.
So I guess I would start by genuinely empathizing with them: management has unilaterally decided that their jobs should suck more but they should not get any more pay. I think that's a good reason to be cynical. Once you empathize with them, the specific solutions may be easier to find. I suggest seeking ways to make the job suck less, because the problem right now is the job has begun to suck.
I would also look at what tasks these employees enjoy doing and enjoy doing well vs what they are being asked to do currently. Naturally, you can't tailor every aspect of a job to a worker, but if employees are being asked to spend less time doing quality work on things they enjoy and more time being inefficient (e.g., running seemingly useless errands or working on things they don't understand) it's no wonder they are unhappy, and I see that sort of situation all the time. Make sure the employees are being given a chance to do something well. Most people aren't inherently lazy, they just want to do something well and become lazy when they are told to stop doing it well.
(I'd like to note that I am not a disgruntled employee, I am a happily employed consultant who is usually on the side of management. I'm just calling it like I see it.)
posted by PCup at 5:14 AM on April 4, 2013 [33 favorites]
So I guess I would start by genuinely empathizing with them: management has unilaterally decided that their jobs should suck more but they should not get any more pay. I think that's a good reason to be cynical. Once you empathize with them, the specific solutions may be easier to find. I suggest seeking ways to make the job suck less, because the problem right now is the job has begun to suck.
I would also look at what tasks these employees enjoy doing and enjoy doing well vs what they are being asked to do currently. Naturally, you can't tailor every aspect of a job to a worker, but if employees are being asked to spend less time doing quality work on things they enjoy and more time being inefficient (e.g., running seemingly useless errands or working on things they don't understand) it's no wonder they are unhappy, and I see that sort of situation all the time. Make sure the employees are being given a chance to do something well. Most people aren't inherently lazy, they just want to do something well and become lazy when they are told to stop doing it well.
(I'd like to note that I am not a disgruntled employee, I am a happily employed consultant who is usually on the side of management. I'm just calling it like I see it.)
posted by PCup at 5:14 AM on April 4, 2013 [33 favorites]
I'm also with your employees.
First, you fired half your workforce. Yes, some of their work was probably unnecessary or duplicated or poorly done, but there must have been some work they were doing, and that's now on the remaining employees (who are not getting paid more).
Second, you told your current employees that their specialised knowledge was worthless, and their job descriptions would be changed, end of story, but they won't get paid more for doing more things.
Third, you said if there's a problem, first they need to test the problem to figure it all out, then they need to come up with a solution, then maybe you will listen to them like you didn't do about their job descriptions, and management won't do things like research the problem or figure out solutions even though it's generally a management job, so this is yet more work for them and by the way, no, you won't get paid more.
Sure, the constant griping is a huge fucking pain for you and for the employees who aren't griping. But you've set up a pretty bad system, which they are trapped in because there aren't many jobs, and you're pretending that the changes are not just better for the company but better for the employees, and they're not fooled.
posted by jeather at 5:20 AM on April 4, 2013 [23 favorites]
First, you fired half your workforce. Yes, some of their work was probably unnecessary or duplicated or poorly done, but there must have been some work they were doing, and that's now on the remaining employees (who are not getting paid more).
Second, you told your current employees that their specialised knowledge was worthless, and their job descriptions would be changed, end of story, but they won't get paid more for doing more things.
Third, you said if there's a problem, first they need to test the problem to figure it all out, then they need to come up with a solution, then maybe you will listen to them like you didn't do about their job descriptions, and management won't do things like research the problem or figure out solutions even though it's generally a management job, so this is yet more work for them and by the way, no, you won't get paid more.
Sure, the constant griping is a huge fucking pain for you and for the employees who aren't griping. But you've set up a pretty bad system, which they are trapped in because there aren't many jobs, and you're pretending that the changes are not just better for the company but better for the employees, and they're not fooled.
posted by jeather at 5:20 AM on April 4, 2013 [23 favorites]
One thing that might help is if you could show, concretely, that you are suffering just as much as they are. If you, too, are doing two jobs for the same pay, and it's comparable to theirs, then go ahead! Complain a little. They probably assume that you are in a kind of protected class, being management, and that your life is easier than theirs -- and that's not fair to you.
What motivates followers is seeing their leaders a) showing strength in the face of personal suffering, b) making sacrifices for them or for the larger cause they serve together, or c) working toward a vivid vision of a better life for the followers.
posted by amtho at 5:27 AM on April 4, 2013
What motivates followers is seeing their leaders a) showing strength in the face of personal suffering, b) making sacrifices for them or for the larger cause they serve together, or c) working toward a vivid vision of a better life for the followers.
posted by amtho at 5:27 AM on April 4, 2013
Response by poster: Thanks for the responses so far guys, some strong words and real food for thought which merits proper consideration before a more in-depth response.
I just wanted to clarify that the employees are getting paid (about 20%) more and the department is as a whole being asked to do quite a lot less given our reduced capacity.
Sure, that may count for nothing and don't think I'm suggesting this means "they should be grateful" etc - I was in the same job role as them for about 6 months following the redundancies and had to interview for both that job and my current one - but I just thought it was a mistake to have ommitted that from my OP.
posted by tzb at 5:30 AM on April 4, 2013
I just wanted to clarify that the employees are getting paid (about 20%) more and the department is as a whole being asked to do quite a lot less given our reduced capacity.
Sure, that may count for nothing and don't think I'm suggesting this means "they should be grateful" etc - I was in the same job role as them for about 6 months following the redundancies and had to interview for both that job and my current one - but I just thought it was a mistake to have ommitted that from my OP.
posted by tzb at 5:30 AM on April 4, 2013
Yes, it makes a significant difference that they are getting paid more for their new roles and responsibilities, and that you aren't expecting as much from 50 as you did from 100 employees.
But they still saw half their coworkers cut, their job descriptions totally changed on them, and are now being asked to do a job that is properly done by management. It's not clear that they understand why any of the decisions have been made -- you generally want your employees to buy into the change before you force it on them, though it's too late for that now and I think you weren't even in management when that happened.
Stop asking your employees to come to you with problems that have been researched and with solutions. Your solution to their problem is "go away and solve it yourself", and this is unhelpful: you are doing what you accuse them of doing. They don't see the entire system, how it works, how it's supposed to work, what the reasoning is behind all the new processes, etc. You do. Do the research. Figure out the solutions. Obviously don't stop them from giving solutions if they have any, but don't pretend problems don't exist because an employee cannot figure out the solution for you. Keep your employees in the loop as you are making changes.
Your employees don't feel important, and you want to change that.
posted by jeather at 5:41 AM on April 4, 2013 [8 favorites]
But they still saw half their coworkers cut, their job descriptions totally changed on them, and are now being asked to do a job that is properly done by management. It's not clear that they understand why any of the decisions have been made -- you generally want your employees to buy into the change before you force it on them, though it's too late for that now and I think you weren't even in management when that happened.
Stop asking your employees to come to you with problems that have been researched and with solutions. Your solution to their problem is "go away and solve it yourself", and this is unhelpful: you are doing what you accuse them of doing. They don't see the entire system, how it works, how it's supposed to work, what the reasoning is behind all the new processes, etc. You do. Do the research. Figure out the solutions. Obviously don't stop them from giving solutions if they have any, but don't pretend problems don't exist because an employee cannot figure out the solution for you. Keep your employees in the loop as you are making changes.
Your employees don't feel important, and you want to change that.
posted by jeather at 5:41 AM on April 4, 2013 [8 favorites]
Best answer: I've had this, and it can be beaten. Not always, but it not everybody is a lost cause. My experience was working in an organisation with longstanding employee engagement issues that went through a huge structural change, redundancies and pay freeze. I was brought in to run a large team with several specialists and effect those changes.
Engagement is tough, and disaffected, cynical employees are a natural by product of environments in which there is a lot of change, poor communication, poor pay, poor management, boring work or any combination of the above. On the plus side it means there are lots of touchpoints for you to
The short answer is this: communicate, communicate, communicate. Listen more than talk. A great coaching technique is to say very little and keep probing as to the root of their issues. Resist the urge to tell. You want to get to the point where your employees realise that their attitudes are not helping them. You do this by asking gentle questions about how they are doing, what they feel and move onto what questions about what motivates them. Generally, people fit into one three buckets - those who are primarily* motivated by control, those who are motivated by collaboration and those who are motivated by recognition of performance. I have used tools in the past to talk through these with cynical team members and tailor things for them. Money is - unless they are very clearly underpaid - always secondary.
*People will be a combination of all three, but generally one is more dominant. You cannot just ask people what they are more motivated by, obviously.
You and/or your management lack credibility with the people in question. A great read on this topic is Kouzes and Posner's book Credibility. Credibility is hard won and very easily lost, and it happens where employees discern a gap between what management say about themselves and their business and what is visible to employees. The good news is that with the right tack you can turn things around in less than 6 months. In my case, for example, I created new roles for some of my senior people - they felt disenfranchised as managers, decisions were moved centrally and, frankly, they were poor managers. In their new roles, able to focus just on the things they did well and with high status job titles and internal and external profiles they were much happier. But they still had a lot of kicked dog syndrome and I made it my business to ensure that they got a one to one each week, that they always heard major news from me first, and that they were listened to. You need to spend a lot of time - no less than 50% - actively coaching and dealing with your team members. This is not just about creating pathways to speak to "management". It is about forming hard bonds with your team members, enforcing personal credibility and listening not only for what is overtly being said but the underlying issues. I was lucky. Except for one of my disaffected people turned around, and were much happier. They were still a bit fragile in the sense that it did not take much for them to lose trust, but I worked very hard to enfranchise, empower them and get their trust. I got rid of the one person who we bent over backwards to accomodate - in the end he didn't know what he wanted, couldn't articulate what his issues were and wasn't doing his job properly. He was very important to our client-facing business. When he went, we picked up all the pieces and within 8 weeks were doing better than when he was there. By 12 weeks he was completely unmissed.
A small minority of people won't get on the bus. Give everyone love and time but know that once you have done all you can there is a line in the sand. At that point, get rid of disruptive people. Make sure they know that nobody is, or can be, irreplaceable. Don't tolerate behaviours that reinforce wall building round mini empires. Create a communications culture and make it clear that, strategically, any dependency on a single person to ensure business continuity issue and take steps to address it. This will be threatening, because for difficult, specialised people this is the ace card in their negotiations. But once you've genuinely followed all the steps you can to engage people you can't be held hostage. Communicating this, the iron fist in the silk glove, is a challenge. But it does have to be done if you have individuals that disrupt your business. What you will find if you have genuinely done a solid job at engaging your cynics is that the people around them will be much happier when they have gone.
posted by MuffinMan at 5:47 AM on April 4, 2013 [25 favorites]
Engagement is tough, and disaffected, cynical employees are a natural by product of environments in which there is a lot of change, poor communication, poor pay, poor management, boring work or any combination of the above. On the plus side it means there are lots of touchpoints for you to
The short answer is this: communicate, communicate, communicate. Listen more than talk. A great coaching technique is to say very little and keep probing as to the root of their issues. Resist the urge to tell. You want to get to the point where your employees realise that their attitudes are not helping them. You do this by asking gentle questions about how they are doing, what they feel and move onto what questions about what motivates them. Generally, people fit into one three buckets - those who are primarily* motivated by control, those who are motivated by collaboration and those who are motivated by recognition of performance. I have used tools in the past to talk through these with cynical team members and tailor things for them. Money is - unless they are very clearly underpaid - always secondary.
*People will be a combination of all three, but generally one is more dominant. You cannot just ask people what they are more motivated by, obviously.
You and/or your management lack credibility with the people in question. A great read on this topic is Kouzes and Posner's book Credibility. Credibility is hard won and very easily lost, and it happens where employees discern a gap between what management say about themselves and their business and what is visible to employees. The good news is that with the right tack you can turn things around in less than 6 months. In my case, for example, I created new roles for some of my senior people - they felt disenfranchised as managers, decisions were moved centrally and, frankly, they were poor managers. In their new roles, able to focus just on the things they did well and with high status job titles and internal and external profiles they were much happier. But they still had a lot of kicked dog syndrome and I made it my business to ensure that they got a one to one each week, that they always heard major news from me first, and that they were listened to. You need to spend a lot of time - no less than 50% - actively coaching and dealing with your team members. This is not just about creating pathways to speak to "management". It is about forming hard bonds with your team members, enforcing personal credibility and listening not only for what is overtly being said but the underlying issues. I was lucky. Except for one of my disaffected people turned around, and were much happier. They were still a bit fragile in the sense that it did not take much for them to lose trust, but I worked very hard to enfranchise, empower them and get their trust. I got rid of the one person who we bent over backwards to accomodate - in the end he didn't know what he wanted, couldn't articulate what his issues were and wasn't doing his job properly. He was very important to our client-facing business. When he went, we picked up all the pieces and within 8 weeks were doing better than when he was there. By 12 weeks he was completely unmissed.
A small minority of people won't get on the bus. Give everyone love and time but know that once you have done all you can there is a line in the sand. At that point, get rid of disruptive people. Make sure they know that nobody is, or can be, irreplaceable. Don't tolerate behaviours that reinforce wall building round mini empires. Create a communications culture and make it clear that, strategically, any dependency on a single person to ensure business continuity issue and take steps to address it. This will be threatening, because for difficult, specialised people this is the ace card in their negotiations. But once you've genuinely followed all the steps you can to engage people you can't be held hostage. Communicating this, the iron fist in the silk glove, is a challenge. But it does have to be done if you have individuals that disrupt your business. What you will find if you have genuinely done a solid job at engaging your cynics is that the people around them will be much happier when they have gone.
posted by MuffinMan at 5:47 AM on April 4, 2013 [25 favorites]
Hey, you seem to be kind of miserable here. You are always complaining. As you have probably noticed, we are down to essential staff only, meaning that if you decide to leave suddenly, we would be in big trouble. So tell me know, do I need to find someone to replace you? The level of your complaints make me feel as if I should start looking now. What do you want me to do? What can we do to keep you productive, so that your negativity doesn't affect everyone around you?
Said with a smile.
And you may be asking them to do too much. Acknowledge that. If this is a short term issues, let them know when they will be getting relief. Throw in as many perks as you can. Longer breaks, a better snack room, hot meals delivered on Fridays, give them something to get them excited to come in for.
One more option- listen really close to the complainers. There may be 1 or 2 people in the office that are not carrying their weight and are sneaky enough that only their immediate co-workers notice. The immediate co-worker may not know how to deal with this in any way other than feeling defeated and complaining. It only takes one sneaky bad apple to ruin everyones' day.
posted by myselfasme at 5:48 AM on April 4, 2013
Said with a smile.
And you may be asking them to do too much. Acknowledge that. If this is a short term issues, let them know when they will be getting relief. Throw in as many perks as you can. Longer breaks, a better snack room, hot meals delivered on Fridays, give them something to get them excited to come in for.
One more option- listen really close to the complainers. There may be 1 or 2 people in the office that are not carrying their weight and are sneaky enough that only their immediate co-workers notice. The immediate co-worker may not know how to deal with this in any way other than feeling defeated and complaining. It only takes one sneaky bad apple to ruin everyones' day.
posted by myselfasme at 5:48 AM on April 4, 2013
I think you need to start by really getting some empathy for them. Right now you've kind of split off into the "me vs. them" camp, and that gets nowhere. Every complaint they make just drives you further into "me" (or "management") and them further into "us" (or "lowly workers who can't do anything effective"). They weren't complaining until recently -- so things have changed in a way that is not good for them. Just because they're making more money, doesn't mean it's a better work environment. They're suffering, being told to bring it up, and then being not only ignored, but reprimanded for bringing things up! To me, that would tell me management a) didn't give a damn about me as an employee and b) was doing a crappy job.
So your solution is to follow through on what you say or change your policy. You say you want to work with them to find solutions, and make changes they bring up. Well, either do that, or stop taking complaints. If they've made suggestions in the past that were ignored, they doubtlessly see no reason to keep giving their ideas and have them ignored. It's exhausting and demoralizing.
And you need to get everyone back into the "us" camp. It starts from you -- you need a solid switch from "me" to "us," otherwise you're just going to keep pushing them further away.
And it's not going to help you to threaten them with losing their jobs. They probably worried enough about that already, and obviously unhappy -- I wouldn't be surprised if multiple people were already looking to leave what they perceive as a hostile work environment.
posted by DoubleLune at 5:59 AM on April 4, 2013 [3 favorites]
So your solution is to follow through on what you say or change your policy. You say you want to work with them to find solutions, and make changes they bring up. Well, either do that, or stop taking complaints. If they've made suggestions in the past that were ignored, they doubtlessly see no reason to keep giving their ideas and have them ignored. It's exhausting and demoralizing.
And you need to get everyone back into the "us" camp. It starts from you -- you need a solid switch from "me" to "us," otherwise you're just going to keep pushing them further away.
And it's not going to help you to threaten them with losing their jobs. They probably worried enough about that already, and obviously unhappy -- I wouldn't be surprised if multiple people were already looking to leave what they perceive as a hostile work environment.
posted by DoubleLune at 5:59 AM on April 4, 2013 [3 favorites]
My department underwent a large-scale restructure about a year ago with about half the team made redundant. Since then we have enacted a huge number of changes to our processes, including making all staff members multi-skilled
So basically what you did was get rid of a lot of the support staff and other mid level functionaries and then went to your highly experienced subject matter experts and told them they now had to assume the responsibilities of those who were let go. You've basically taken a bunch of people who rose to a level of autonomy by dint of their experience and expertise and demoted them. So I can understand why they're a bit dissatisfied with management right now. The nice thing about my job is that when it comes to the daily infrastructure of keeping things running smoothly, there are "people" who take care of that for me. I don't worry about whether reimbursements or other legal documents are filed with the right offices and right people with the sponsor, because there are "people" who do that, and that means that I don't have to worry about it when it comes to whether the money that supports my projects keeps flowing and whether senior management knows we are on schedule. That's a lot of hard-won autonomy that makes my job worthwhile. So I hope you can understand why your staff is dissatisfied. You've made a big change not just to their jobs but to the corporate culture of the company and working environment, and that is hard for people to adjust to.
And you're a victim to, in a sense: your staff blames you, but you are just a middle manager acting as a tool of senior management and responding to the incentives that they have set for you.
What may help is to replace these senior people with less experienced people who are not as expensive and whose skills are not yet as specialized-- people for whom the role would be a promotion rather than a demotion. You can decide whether these senior specialists are valuable enough to keep or too expensive to retain in their more narrow roles.
Right now, your job is to come up with good processes. Whatever you have come up with, it isn't working out for your staff. Your job is either to find staff for whom it does work or readjust processes to keep your senior staff content and concentrating on what they are good at. People have said it on AskMe a lot, and it is true: people don't quit jobs, they quit managers. They're dissatisfied because they have been screwed over by management, and layoffs are generally a harbinger of a death spiral. Your job is to convince them that this new set of processes is going to pay off for them and that the remaining staff is valued.
posted by deanc at 6:01 AM on April 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
So basically what you did was get rid of a lot of the support staff and other mid level functionaries and then went to your highly experienced subject matter experts and told them they now had to assume the responsibilities of those who were let go. You've basically taken a bunch of people who rose to a level of autonomy by dint of their experience and expertise and demoted them. So I can understand why they're a bit dissatisfied with management right now. The nice thing about my job is that when it comes to the daily infrastructure of keeping things running smoothly, there are "people" who take care of that for me. I don't worry about whether reimbursements or other legal documents are filed with the right offices and right people with the sponsor, because there are "people" who do that, and that means that I don't have to worry about it when it comes to whether the money that supports my projects keeps flowing and whether senior management knows we are on schedule. That's a lot of hard-won autonomy that makes my job worthwhile. So I hope you can understand why your staff is dissatisfied. You've made a big change not just to their jobs but to the corporate culture of the company and working environment, and that is hard for people to adjust to.
And you're a victim to, in a sense: your staff blames you, but you are just a middle manager acting as a tool of senior management and responding to the incentives that they have set for you.
What may help is to replace these senior people with less experienced people who are not as expensive and whose skills are not yet as specialized-- people for whom the role would be a promotion rather than a demotion. You can decide whether these senior specialists are valuable enough to keep or too expensive to retain in their more narrow roles.
Right now, your job is to come up with good processes. Whatever you have come up with, it isn't working out for your staff. Your job is either to find staff for whom it does work or readjust processes to keep your senior staff content and concentrating on what they are good at. People have said it on AskMe a lot, and it is true: people don't quit jobs, they quit managers. They're dissatisfied because they have been screwed over by management, and layoffs are generally a harbinger of a death spiral. Your job is to convince them that this new set of processes is going to pay off for them and that the remaining staff is valued.
posted by deanc at 6:01 AM on April 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
There are two parts to my answer. The first is to amplify what a large number of the responders have said so far: There is good and helpful criticism hidden within the complaints, and it is important to work on your ability to listen well, to train people to communicate their problems more effectively, and to turn around a bad relationship with someone who could be an asset to you and your department.
The second part is: You should probably identify the one or two hard cases who complain the loudest and start laying the groundwork to fire them, starting now. Behavior is hard to change, and people who like to complain, like to complain. Yes, it's upsetting to everyone when someone is fired, but bitter people make the office a less fun place to work. You are doing no one any favors by tolerating people who are unprofessional and unconstructive in their communication.
In my judgment, most supervisors are far too reluctant and slow to fire people. This is harsh, yes, but when the greater good will be served by firing someone, it's best to do it quickly rather than dithering.
posted by glennonymous at 6:09 AM on April 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
The second part is: You should probably identify the one or two hard cases who complain the loudest and start laying the groundwork to fire them, starting now. Behavior is hard to change, and people who like to complain, like to complain. Yes, it's upsetting to everyone when someone is fired, but bitter people make the office a less fun place to work. You are doing no one any favors by tolerating people who are unprofessional and unconstructive in their communication.
In my judgment, most supervisors are far too reluctant and slow to fire people. This is harsh, yes, but when the greater good will be served by firing someone, it's best to do it quickly rather than dithering.
posted by glennonymous at 6:09 AM on April 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
Agreeing here that even a 20% pay raise may not be able to compensate for taking on more of what seems like menial responsibilities. Your employees have a reason to be cynical.
But what I think a part of the disconnect stems from is the difference between company policy and how you feel. You say policy is to encourage them to express themselves, but then you talk to them about expressing themselves more "productively." That means you're effectively asking them to bullshit about their feelings while ostensibly asking them not to bullshit.
This is a problem.
posted by corb at 6:24 AM on April 4, 2013 [6 favorites]
But what I think a part of the disconnect stems from is the difference between company policy and how you feel. You say policy is to encourage them to express themselves, but then you talk to them about expressing themselves more "productively." That means you're effectively asking them to bullshit about their feelings while ostensibly asking them not to bullshit.
This is a problem.
posted by corb at 6:24 AM on April 4, 2013 [6 favorites]
I actually think people are being hard on you here. Everybody knows that you don't bring a problem to management without also suggesting a solution, even a handwavey one, to show that you've thought about this as a problem to be solved and not just to be whinged about.
Where I think your employees might have good reason to feel this way is maybe they don't think any problems they mention will be solved even if they bring them up. So you'll listen to them, nod, even do your own absolute best to get the problem solved, but you won't be able to do anything. I've worked in environments where the absolute best case scenario was that management would be sympathetic, but totally and completely helpless. In that case, bringing up a problem and coming out with a bullshit solution, or no solution, or a solution which would work if the company actually did it but they don't do it despite saying they have... they're worse off than if they had never mentioned it. If that's the situation they are in, or think they're in, it makes perfect sense to withhold suggestions, whereas if they were convinced they had a shot at making the solutions happen they might say something.
Show them, through actions and not words, that you're listening and that you're acting on what you hear.
Don't remind them how precarious their jobs are unless you're serious. They know this. You'll just make them hate you for no benefit.
posted by tel3path at 6:36 AM on April 4, 2013 [3 favorites]
Where I think your employees might have good reason to feel this way is maybe they don't think any problems they mention will be solved even if they bring them up. So you'll listen to them, nod, even do your own absolute best to get the problem solved, but you won't be able to do anything. I've worked in environments where the absolute best case scenario was that management would be sympathetic, but totally and completely helpless. In that case, bringing up a problem and coming out with a bullshit solution, or no solution, or a solution which would work if the company actually did it but they don't do it despite saying they have... they're worse off than if they had never mentioned it. If that's the situation they are in, or think they're in, it makes perfect sense to withhold suggestions, whereas if they were convinced they had a shot at making the solutions happen they might say something.
Show them, through actions and not words, that you're listening and that you're acting on what you hear.
Don't remind them how precarious their jobs are unless you're serious. They know this. You'll just make them hate you for no benefit.
posted by tel3path at 6:36 AM on April 4, 2013 [3 favorites]
Lots of useful advice above. Every job I've had for many years has involved change, re-organization, and doing more/different tasks. It's how jobs are now.
Document the concerns. In a meeting, when there's a complaint, add it to the whiteboard/ minutes. Ask staff to help prioritize the complaints, and try to work on at least a few of them.
Use silence. When Chris makes the same annoying comment that has been made many times, and everyone knows it's just grousing, give it some time - other staff may be tired of it as well, and may address it for you.
They themselves think it's terribly funny, "I should set myself a time limit where I'm not allowed to moan" etc. indicates that they may be tired of this, but may be in a rut. Start a morale committee, and rotate membership on it. An occasional potluck lunch, barbecue, etc., can help a lot. It's a big help if there's some funding for this, but it doesn't have to be all the time. The company should provide cups, plates, cutlery, band maybe you bring in a big dish, like chili, but staff can bring potluck. Bring in treats - bagels, donuts, apples, etc.
Lead by example - be grateful for what's going well, notice it and call it out. Be reasonably cheerful. Do not show your annoyance.
Read the Shamu article.
posted by theora55 at 7:34 AM on April 4, 2013
Document the concerns. In a meeting, when there's a complaint, add it to the whiteboard/ minutes. Ask staff to help prioritize the complaints, and try to work on at least a few of them.
Use silence. When Chris makes the same annoying comment that has been made many times, and everyone knows it's just grousing, give it some time - other staff may be tired of it as well, and may address it for you.
They themselves think it's terribly funny, "I should set myself a time limit where I'm not allowed to moan" etc. indicates that they may be tired of this, but may be in a rut. Start a morale committee, and rotate membership on it. An occasional potluck lunch, barbecue, etc., can help a lot. It's a big help if there's some funding for this, but it doesn't have to be all the time. The company should provide cups, plates, cutlery, band maybe you bring in a big dish, like chili, but staff can bring potluck. Bring in treats - bagels, donuts, apples, etc.
Lead by example - be grateful for what's going well, notice it and call it out. Be reasonably cheerful. Do not show your annoyance.
Read the Shamu article.
posted by theora55 at 7:34 AM on April 4, 2013
preparing for the barrage of comments I face on a daily basis for policies I've introduced or worked on, and spend half the day with my head down biting my tongue as they "think aloud" about how they're supposed to be doing their job
You have upended their jobs and turned them into something else and are now complaining that they have to spend a lot of time figuring out how to do their new jobs? You don't get to "introduce policies and processes." You have to train policies and processes or hire people to carry them out.
A good thing here might be to invest in professional development for your employees to train them in their new roles. My employer has project management classes and other forms of corporate training that we can take advantage of. Send them to those-- it trains them and yet they don't have you, their supervisor, standing over them doing the training, which is kind of threatening. Instead you have a neutral 3rd party bringing them up to speed on what they need to do.
The company should provide cups, plates, cutlery, band maybe you bring in a big dish, like chili, but staff can bring potluck
No. What you would be doing here is asking that the employees do more work. To give you an idea of what a typical workday is like for people, I go to the gym after work and drove 45 minutes home. Sometimes this involves a stop at a grocery store to go shopping. On the nights I don't get home at 8 or 9 pm, there are people I have social obligations to whom I owe my attention. Imagine telling me that, in the interest of morale, I had to spend a couple of hours at home cooking something for my coworkers (in addition to my own personal meals), and that I am not being a team player if I don't do this.
In my experience, spending small amounts of money on public amenities (occasional free lunches, a well-stocked office supply cabinet, responsive support staff) is HUGELY beneficial to morale, while cutting those things is substantially damaging to morale. So you have an opportunity to get big benefits in morale simply by spending a small amount of money to make everyone's lives easier here.
posted by deanc at 7:49 AM on April 4, 2013 [15 favorites]
You have upended their jobs and turned them into something else and are now complaining that they have to spend a lot of time figuring out how to do their new jobs? You don't get to "introduce policies and processes." You have to train policies and processes or hire people to carry them out.
A good thing here might be to invest in professional development for your employees to train them in their new roles. My employer has project management classes and other forms of corporate training that we can take advantage of. Send them to those-- it trains them and yet they don't have you, their supervisor, standing over them doing the training, which is kind of threatening. Instead you have a neutral 3rd party bringing them up to speed on what they need to do.
The company should provide cups, plates, cutlery, band maybe you bring in a big dish, like chili, but staff can bring potluck
No. What you would be doing here is asking that the employees do more work. To give you an idea of what a typical workday is like for people, I go to the gym after work and drove 45 minutes home. Sometimes this involves a stop at a grocery store to go shopping. On the nights I don't get home at 8 or 9 pm, there are people I have social obligations to whom I owe my attention. Imagine telling me that, in the interest of morale, I had to spend a couple of hours at home cooking something for my coworkers (in addition to my own personal meals), and that I am not being a team player if I don't do this.
In my experience, spending small amounts of money on public amenities (occasional free lunches, a well-stocked office supply cabinet, responsive support staff) is HUGELY beneficial to morale, while cutting those things is substantially damaging to morale. So you have an opportunity to get big benefits in morale simply by spending a small amount of money to make everyone's lives easier here.
posted by deanc at 7:49 AM on April 4, 2013 [15 favorites]
We have an open policy where employees are encouraged to have a dialogue with their seniors and the department managers about any concerns or suggestions they have. This stretches from open invitation to discuss in the office, alone in 1-to-1 time all the way to an anonymous e-mail "Comments" box. [...] I'm firmly in the school of thought that criticism without investigation is pretty much flat out unhelpful.
I'm sorry, but I would roll my eyes at this too. "Encouraging people to have a dialogue with their 'seniors'" ("seniors" is weird btw) but you don't 'encourage' people to 'have a dialogue' when you're in a position of power and have just fired half their peers. A dialogue is something you have or you don't have, but everything here puts all of the requirements, risk, and responsibility on them and none on management. That's the opposite of how it should look if you genuinely want dialogue. And also, if genuinely want dialogue, but are secretly thinking 'for the love of God, shut up with your whining' you don't really want dialogue.
And just to be clear, 'having a dialogue' is not a constant corporate requirement like providing bathrooms and pens. Not everything has to be up for debate and discussion and sometimes people just need to get used to shit and having a dialogue only prolongs the bad feelings. But I think it's important to be clear about what the goal is and how it's likely to be received.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 7:52 AM on April 4, 2013 [6 favorites]
I'm sorry, but I would roll my eyes at this too. "Encouraging people to have a dialogue with their 'seniors'" ("seniors" is weird btw) but you don't 'encourage' people to 'have a dialogue' when you're in a position of power and have just fired half their peers. A dialogue is something you have or you don't have, but everything here puts all of the requirements, risk, and responsibility on them and none on management. That's the opposite of how it should look if you genuinely want dialogue. And also, if genuinely want dialogue, but are secretly thinking 'for the love of God, shut up with your whining' you don't really want dialogue.
And just to be clear, 'having a dialogue' is not a constant corporate requirement like providing bathrooms and pens. Not everything has to be up for debate and discussion and sometimes people just need to get used to shit and having a dialogue only prolongs the bad feelings. But I think it's important to be clear about what the goal is and how it's likely to be received.
posted by A Terrible Llama at 7:52 AM on April 4, 2013 [6 favorites]
I think your rule that they are not allowed to express criticism without having an investigation or suggested solution is strange. I have never worked anywhere where that rule existed before. I understand you are trying to shut down the chronic complainers but that rule affects everyone. I think that would mean I could not have a group meeting with my team where I said, "gee this Process X seems unwieldy and I wish there were a way to make it easier on everyone, does anyone have suggestions?" I'm not sure that is really helpful.
If this rule also applies in one on one sit down sessions with management, I'm not sure that's really helpful either. If an employee, even a chronic complainer, comes to you with a problem that is causing him difficulty, I think it is your job to listen and try to help. I see it as a compliment to you that they would come to you for your input, and I don't think it helps you to shut that down, it just isolates them from you more. Maybe your next step in that conversation would be some version of asking them to try to investigate something specific or try a specific solution, or bring up the problem with other employees to brainstorm solutions, or just listen and let him know that you don't have a solution but you'll think about it. I read the approach of requiring investigation/solution suggestions as a bit of a "fuck you" to employees, but maybe that's just me.
Good for you for thinking through this stuff. Good luck!
posted by onlyconnect at 8:12 AM on April 4, 2013 [3 favorites]
If this rule also applies in one on one sit down sessions with management, I'm not sure that's really helpful either. If an employee, even a chronic complainer, comes to you with a problem that is causing him difficulty, I think it is your job to listen and try to help. I see it as a compliment to you that they would come to you for your input, and I don't think it helps you to shut that down, it just isolates them from you more. Maybe your next step in that conversation would be some version of asking them to try to investigate something specific or try a specific solution, or bring up the problem with other employees to brainstorm solutions, or just listen and let him know that you don't have a solution but you'll think about it. I read the approach of requiring investigation/solution suggestions as a bit of a "fuck you" to employees, but maybe that's just me.
Good for you for thinking through this stuff. Good luck!
posted by onlyconnect at 8:12 AM on April 4, 2013 [3 favorites]
As someone who recently left a position where management was remote, high-handed, disconnected from employees (and, we felt, reality) I can offer the observation that as long as you are still hearing grumbling, there is hope for engagement and cooperation from your team. Complaints count as communication. If the grumbling goes underground, or a previously vocal employee becomes silent and withdrawn, he is giving up on the situation improving. Silence can be a bad sign.
posted by citygirl at 9:31 AM on April 4, 2013 [5 favorites]
posted by citygirl at 9:31 AM on April 4, 2013 [5 favorites]
It sounds like the employees are upset at the recent changes. I am guessing that your promotion part of or happened around the time of the restructuring, but that you are not responsible for the decision to restructure, though you may be responsible for implementing / managing certain parts of the restructure.
Sometimes it helps to not defend things that you do not have to defend. You are not the restructuring and complaints about the restructuring are not complaints about you. When they say "This new X system sucks!" Well, maybe it does suck. Or maybe it's just different and they aren't used to it yet. Sometimes it helps to start of with soothing noises along the lines of "I hear you," and "I'm not arguing with that," or "This has been a tough transition for all of us," can help.
Then drill down to:
1. What exactly are you having a problem with?
2. What is the end goal that is being obscured by this problem?
3. Is there a way to address this problem quickly?
4. If not, is there another way to reach the end goal?
5. What will happen if this problem is not addressed?
Be frank about the priority level of the issue and what you can do about it.
If you have a mentor, talk to them about this. If you don't have a mentor, maybe look for one.
posted by bunderful at 9:45 AM on April 4, 2013
Sometimes it helps to not defend things that you do not have to defend. You are not the restructuring and complaints about the restructuring are not complaints about you. When they say "This new X system sucks!" Well, maybe it does suck. Or maybe it's just different and they aren't used to it yet. Sometimes it helps to start of with soothing noises along the lines of "I hear you," and "I'm not arguing with that," or "This has been a tough transition for all of us," can help.
Then drill down to:
1. What exactly are you having a problem with?
2. What is the end goal that is being obscured by this problem?
3. Is there a way to address this problem quickly?
4. If not, is there another way to reach the end goal?
5. What will happen if this problem is not addressed?
Be frank about the priority level of the issue and what you can do about it.
If you have a mentor, talk to them about this. If you don't have a mentor, maybe look for one.
posted by bunderful at 9:45 AM on April 4, 2013
Also, when you fix a problem? PR the hell out of it.
posted by bunderful at 10:01 AM on April 4, 2013
posted by bunderful at 10:01 AM on April 4, 2013
I am one of your employees (not literally, but im in the position of one of your employees). Here's the deal from my perspective.
I work for a very large corporation doing customer service. Specifically i deal with escalated, localized issues. Corporate hands down conflicting policies (the policies given to my group and other groups around the country doing the same job conflict with policies given to first contact associates in call centers). This is plain stupid. I say thath not to be cynical, but to be truthful. On of the biggest comments we get after working a customer issue is thath the customer got conflicting information. Well no shit. That's because the policies we are supposed to impletment conflict. So I print out the call center policy and our policy, highlight relevant conflicting parts that cause cognitive dissonance withthe customers and bring it to my supervisor as a criticism. I then get voluntold to spearhead an initiative to fix it. That is completely outrageous to me especially since these policies are created, reviewed, and approved by people whose base salaries start at AT LEAST double my paltry earnings. But their answer to a mistake in thier work thath i find is to fix it, add it to my pile of work.
This is the "shit rolls downhill" method of management. It's not real leadership. IT disengages employees because they start to think they are actually leading the organization doing the important work and fixing the ef ups of higer paid more prominent management. However they know they really aren't in charge of anything and could be laid off any minute and so they have no incentive to lead and choose not to.
In my particular work environment this is also complicated by the fact that we have forced participation in programs where we are supposed to suggest process improvements - then why do we have management at all? Why aren't we a co-op to really inspired ground level worker participation.
Here's the methodology I'd like to see management adopt. Employee comes with a criticism. MAnagement should ask employee for examples or documentation of problem. MAnagement should then manage the situation by taking the imformation and reasearching causes and solutions. IF a cause is found and the problem can be eliminated at teh root management and employee can work together to do so. If it can't be fixed by altering some route cause, management should present possible solution to teh employee and ask their perspective on what seems most feasibile. Then ther eshould be a trial implementation of the solution by the employee with a follow up afterwards to discuss if it worked and any kinks in the solution. wash and repeat.
posted by WeekendJen at 10:04 AM on April 4, 2013 [8 favorites]
I work for a very large corporation doing customer service. Specifically i deal with escalated, localized issues. Corporate hands down conflicting policies (the policies given to my group and other groups around the country doing the same job conflict with policies given to first contact associates in call centers). This is plain stupid. I say thath not to be cynical, but to be truthful. On of the biggest comments we get after working a customer issue is thath the customer got conflicting information. Well no shit. That's because the policies we are supposed to impletment conflict. So I print out the call center policy and our policy, highlight relevant conflicting parts that cause cognitive dissonance withthe customers and bring it to my supervisor as a criticism. I then get voluntold to spearhead an initiative to fix it. That is completely outrageous to me especially since these policies are created, reviewed, and approved by people whose base salaries start at AT LEAST double my paltry earnings. But their answer to a mistake in thier work thath i find is to fix it, add it to my pile of work.
This is the "shit rolls downhill" method of management. It's not real leadership. IT disengages employees because they start to think they are actually leading the organization doing the important work and fixing the ef ups of higer paid more prominent management. However they know they really aren't in charge of anything and could be laid off any minute and so they have no incentive to lead and choose not to.
In my particular work environment this is also complicated by the fact that we have forced participation in programs where we are supposed to suggest process improvements - then why do we have management at all? Why aren't we a co-op to really inspired ground level worker participation.
Here's the methodology I'd like to see management adopt. Employee comes with a criticism. MAnagement should ask employee for examples or documentation of problem. MAnagement should then manage the situation by taking the imformation and reasearching causes and solutions. IF a cause is found and the problem can be eliminated at teh root management and employee can work together to do so. If it can't be fixed by altering some route cause, management should present possible solution to teh employee and ask their perspective on what seems most feasibile. Then ther eshould be a trial implementation of the solution by the employee with a follow up afterwards to discuss if it worked and any kinks in the solution. wash and repeat.
posted by WeekendJen at 10:04 AM on April 4, 2013 [8 favorites]
Since then we have enacted a huge number of changes to our processes, including making all staff members multi-skilled
I assume the complaints look something like "I'm doing book-keeping now?! I hate book-keeping, that's why I became a graphic artist!" And their proposed solution would look something like "Hire back Tom and let me do my damn graphic design without wading through this crap!" You just wouldn't like that solution, and it wouldn't happen, so they don't bother mentioning it. So you, as management, just caused a problem, and you don't want to hear about it and won't consider the obvious fix. Way to pass the buck, now the idea is 'if you're not happy with the wholesale change we just made that obviously sucks, just stay quiet.'
posted by jacalata at 10:42 AM on April 4, 2013 [12 favorites]
I assume the complaints look something like "I'm doing book-keeping now?! I hate book-keeping, that's why I became a graphic artist!" And their proposed solution would look something like "Hire back Tom and let me do my damn graphic design without wading through this crap!" You just wouldn't like that solution, and it wouldn't happen, so they don't bother mentioning it. So you, as management, just caused a problem, and you don't want to hear about it and won't consider the obvious fix. Way to pass the buck, now the idea is 'if you're not happy with the wholesale change we just made that obviously sucks, just stay quiet.'
posted by jacalata at 10:42 AM on April 4, 2013 [12 favorites]
My manager does a thing called process improvements. He would ask everyone to give an example of some process that needed improvement, could be deleted because of redundancy or antiquity, or that needed to be added. He did this during our weekly meetings. This would generate discussion...He would then task the person who brought it up to work with a person who seemed interested or had good thoughts during the discussion to come up with an implementation plan.
posted by Gungho at 10:49 AM on April 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
posted by Gungho at 10:49 AM on April 4, 2013 [1 favorite]
It might help to realize that management, despite all its self-study, still a pretty dismal discipline.
The circumstances (gutting a department) you've described has been commonplace in organizational life for at least 25 years, and yet managers still think "omg, we can cut costs by 50% by treating knowledge workers like lego bricks of uniform size and color." So, they cut staff by half, struggle to get things working 3/4 as well as they did before and breath a huge sigh of relief when the whole division gets axed or sold and they get transfered to work their magic elsewhere before it becomes obvious that the reorg didn't work.
There is no sense of the irony that, outwardly, the firm worships at the altar of Adam Smith, while on the inside they function like the most dismal version of a communist beauracracy imaginable.
Seriously, isn't specialization often a good thing? And yet, you want workers who don't exist, specialist level knowledge in multiple disciplines, and proactive about making the managers themselves redundant, but paid like a drone, with no authority, and expected to be cheerfull while dealing with incompetent managers fresh off spending their annual bonus on a long holiday in the carribean.
posted by Good Brain at 11:45 AM on April 4, 2013 [5 favorites]
The circumstances (gutting a department) you've described has been commonplace in organizational life for at least 25 years, and yet managers still think "omg, we can cut costs by 50% by treating knowledge workers like lego bricks of uniform size and color." So, they cut staff by half, struggle to get things working 3/4 as well as they did before and breath a huge sigh of relief when the whole division gets axed or sold and they get transfered to work their magic elsewhere before it becomes obvious that the reorg didn't work.
There is no sense of the irony that, outwardly, the firm worships at the altar of Adam Smith, while on the inside they function like the most dismal version of a communist beauracracy imaginable.
Seriously, isn't specialization often a good thing? And yet, you want workers who don't exist, specialist level knowledge in multiple disciplines, and proactive about making the managers themselves redundant, but paid like a drone, with no authority, and expected to be cheerfull while dealing with incompetent managers fresh off spending their annual bonus on a long holiday in the carribean.
posted by Good Brain at 11:45 AM on April 4, 2013 [5 favorites]
Slap*Happy has it nailed. They seem to be cynical for fairly rational reasons, and when they complain, they realize that the whole "open door" policy is just talk because management gets upset with them for voicing their opinions, yielding a whole vicious circle of cynical viciousness. Perhaps they complain about every policy you introduce because every recent change in your workplace has made their lives more difficult, so it's not unreasonable for them to expect this new change to do the same?
It's a big part of your job as a manager to fix problems and deal with the nonsense so your employees can get things done. Criticism without investigation isn't unhelpful; it's a primary signal for you to identify possible bottlenecks and try to resolve complaints. Would your workplace really be better with everyone displaying a constant attitude of silent seething resentment? Complaining means they care enough to raise issues and want to improve things; silence means they are well past caring and are either actively searching for a new job or waiting it out to see how little they can care about their job before anybody notices. If you want your employees to both identify and fix all the problems with the process, what purpose are you serving? If your team is complaining, and they are professionals who know how to get things done and care about their work, you as a manager need to be fixing things and/or complaining on their behalf, not complaining about the complaints. I fully realize many of these things may not be your fault and may well be outside of your control, but you're their manager, so that's who the complaints are going to be directed to.
Now, some parts of your process may be a pain and, by mutual agreement of everyone involved, may be unfixable at the present time. If everyone is truly on board with that, complaining may be a healthy way to make a joke out of the situation. If the sump pump is blocked up and the new one isn't coming for a month, someone is going to have to clean out the muck, but there's nothing wrong with letting them complain about it all the while. That only really applies once you're actively dealing with most of the complaints, however.
posted by zachlipton at 11:56 AM on April 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
It's a big part of your job as a manager to fix problems and deal with the nonsense so your employees can get things done. Criticism without investigation isn't unhelpful; it's a primary signal for you to identify possible bottlenecks and try to resolve complaints. Would your workplace really be better with everyone displaying a constant attitude of silent seething resentment? Complaining means they care enough to raise issues and want to improve things; silence means they are well past caring and are either actively searching for a new job or waiting it out to see how little they can care about their job before anybody notices. If you want your employees to both identify and fix all the problems with the process, what purpose are you serving? If your team is complaining, and they are professionals who know how to get things done and care about their work, you as a manager need to be fixing things and/or complaining on their behalf, not complaining about the complaints. I fully realize many of these things may not be your fault and may well be outside of your control, but you're their manager, so that's who the complaints are going to be directed to.
Now, some parts of your process may be a pain and, by mutual agreement of everyone involved, may be unfixable at the present time. If everyone is truly on board with that, complaining may be a healthy way to make a joke out of the situation. If the sump pump is blocked up and the new one isn't coming for a month, someone is going to have to clean out the muck, but there's nothing wrong with letting them complain about it all the while. That only really applies once you're actively dealing with most of the complaints, however.
posted by zachlipton at 11:56 AM on April 4, 2013 [2 favorites]
If I worked for you, I would dislike you too. It would not be personal, but you have put yourself in the position of implementing and cheerleading for a shitty corporate policy, and you should not expect people to like it. People do not go to work thinking "How can I become a better employee and learn to take on more responsibility, hopefully saving the company some money?" They go to work hoping to get through the day with as little hassle as possible and have a little time left over afterwards to have something of a life. They do not want to spend time in meetings, fill out self-evaluation forms, or take on more responsibility; they want to do what they know how to do and be left alone. If reading this is filling you with indignation, if you're thinking "Well, they should want to do that stuff," congratulations, you're management material! If you're wincing sympathetically and thinking "I know it sucks, but that's the way things are, I can't do anything about it," then there's hope for you; what you need to do is let the peons see that you think that (even if you don't come right out and say it), and they won't dislike you so much. But please do not let yourself get irritated with them for not being on board with the latest corporate slogans and Bright Ideas. That's not their job, it's yours.
posted by languagehat at 12:02 PM on April 4, 2013 [13 favorites]
posted by languagehat at 12:02 PM on April 4, 2013 [13 favorites]
Your company got rid of 50% of the employees and raised the remaining employees' compensation by 20%? And increased their workload and responsibilities without giving them any additional authority, autonomy, and flexibility? This is practically a textbook example of a basic Marxist analysis of how capitalists will maximize their own profits by squeezing the most labor out of the fewest number of people for the least amount of money they can get away with it. Most people won't see it in those precise terms, necessarily, but that won't stop them from resenting it for perfectly rational, understandable reasons. If you actually want to participate in solving any problems and making the workplace better (as much as you can within the limits of your own job), you'll have to start from there.
posted by scody at 12:12 PM on April 4, 2013 [3 favorites]
posted by scody at 12:12 PM on April 4, 2013 [3 favorites]
"I'm firmly in the school of thought that criticism without investigation is pretty much flat out unhelpful."
Should a doctor refuse to listen to a patient talk about his pain, if the patient doesn't also recommend his own course of treatment? They both have different roles.
"...it feels like a constant battle to demonstrate every single changed process has been through through to the nth degree - something entirely impractical in our situation."
Thinking things through completely is always impossible. That's why people telling you when they don't work is so valuable :)
posted by amtho at 12:54 PM on April 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
Should a doctor refuse to listen to a patient talk about his pain, if the patient doesn't also recommend his own course of treatment? They both have different roles.
"...it feels like a constant battle to demonstrate every single changed process has been through through to the nth degree - something entirely impractical in our situation."
Thinking things through completely is always impossible. That's why people telling you when they don't work is so valuable :)
posted by amtho at 12:54 PM on April 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
Large scale restructure + laying off half the staff + asking remaining staff to do several jobs at once + changing the processes for everything = totally justified cynicism and low morale, in my opinion. I mean, if I were asked that would be my opinion to share: This place used to be a nice place to work and now half my friends are gone and you made us do their jobs too and added a "huge" number of process changes. It's miserable and stressful and made them feel powerless because they couldn't do anything about all these things, even though they probably didn't want any of them to happen.
And the corporate attitude is that they should go along with this and be cheerful and suggest new things to change. Ugh. I mean, no. I would not want to go out of my way to be proactive and extra productive for a company that treated its staff that way. I know it's not your fault personally and you have to do the best you can!
But it feels pretty terrible to watch half your colleagues depart and not know if you'll be next, and then be forced to take on all sorts of new tasks and new processes are instituted as well. I really can't emphasize enough how depressing and stressful it is to be around for mass layoffs and always worrying about your own job security.
posted by citron at 3:06 PM on April 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
And the corporate attitude is that they should go along with this and be cheerful and suggest new things to change. Ugh. I mean, no. I would not want to go out of my way to be proactive and extra productive for a company that treated its staff that way. I know it's not your fault personally and you have to do the best you can!
But it feels pretty terrible to watch half your colleagues depart and not know if you'll be next, and then be forced to take on all sorts of new tasks and new processes are instituted as well. I really can't emphasize enough how depressing and stressful it is to be around for mass layoffs and always worrying about your own job security.
posted by citron at 3:06 PM on April 4, 2013 [4 favorites]
Let me give you an example of a situation, from my direct experience, where giving feedback was frustrating and increased my cynicism.
I'm going to change the content of the first one for anonymity's sake, but let's say that my desk is positioned under a bridge, and every time the troll walks past, he hits me with a baseball bat. I ask for my desk to be moved next to the bridge, or on it, so that the troll won't hit me with the baseball bat any more. Strictly speaking, the troll doesn't have to hit me with the baseball bat, at least not all the time, but hitting people with bats is part and parcel of a troll's modus vivendi, and trying to get him to stop isn't realistic or fair, so I don't ask for that. Conversely, it is physically possible to move my desk and this can be done at no expense to the company and with almost no effort. The answer is "no, that's not our policy. Our policy is that Paperclip Sorters are seated under the bridge."
Second example: a serious crime is committed in the company parking lot. The company proactively holds a general meeting about what they're doing to address this. They are doubling the security staff for the remainder of the year. A month later, I talk to the security staff, and there's still the same number of them as before. They are desperate about the state of building security and about their own lot. There are only three of them to cover four very large sites. It's physically difficult for them to intervene if they spot an incident because they're too far away. They work twelve-hour shifts without the opportunity for a bathroom break and have to choose between going to the bathroom and leaving the site unmonitored. And so on. Meanwhile: management promises to double security, management doesn't double security.
Third example: a company meeting is held and somebody like a morale officer or whatever, stands up and says they're implementing a program to act on staff feedback. We are to submit suggestions to her and they will be reviewed for feasibility and implemented when appropriate. Then she glares at us all: "This is not an opportunity for management to sort out your moan list." Of course, I'm not going to bring her any suggestions because she has just made it crystal clear that she has contempt for all of us and that anything I suggest to her will be treated with the same contempt.
One improvement she says has already been implemented, she says, is the coffee servers. During peak times, the coffee queue gets very long, so they're going to put two staff to serving coffee instead of just one. This happens for a month, then stops.
I am in charge of a process with serious legal implications. I need information from another department. The other department doesn't feel like providing that information. There isn't a way around it so I gather the stakeholders and hold a meeting during which a process is agreed for that department to provide the information. It is established that the company has no choice to provide this information to the legal review board, and that the only possible source of the information is that department. Everyone agrees to their actions. Two weeks later, the information is due. No information. The department doesn't cooperate. Rinse and repeat in staggering detail and infinite combinations for several years.
On the other hand, some things that are promised do come to pass. I am told, one day, that the Paperclip Sorting department is going to be moved and I will now be sitting under a bridge with two trolls. They kept this promise.
I'm not saying your company is like this, but I am saying that you need to really think about what the process of trying to improve things is actually like for your employees. When something becomes a source of frustration to somebody, over and over, they start hating it. Maybe these people are being unduly negative, but it is worth investigating whether the negativity began with something that's based in reality. It is possible that real empowerment (rather than "empowerment") could turn things around, at least for some of these people.
posted by tel3path at 3:21 PM on April 4, 2013 [13 favorites]
I'm going to change the content of the first one for anonymity's sake, but let's say that my desk is positioned under a bridge, and every time the troll walks past, he hits me with a baseball bat. I ask for my desk to be moved next to the bridge, or on it, so that the troll won't hit me with the baseball bat any more. Strictly speaking, the troll doesn't have to hit me with the baseball bat, at least not all the time, but hitting people with bats is part and parcel of a troll's modus vivendi, and trying to get him to stop isn't realistic or fair, so I don't ask for that. Conversely, it is physically possible to move my desk and this can be done at no expense to the company and with almost no effort. The answer is "no, that's not our policy. Our policy is that Paperclip Sorters are seated under the bridge."
Second example: a serious crime is committed in the company parking lot. The company proactively holds a general meeting about what they're doing to address this. They are doubling the security staff for the remainder of the year. A month later, I talk to the security staff, and there's still the same number of them as before. They are desperate about the state of building security and about their own lot. There are only three of them to cover four very large sites. It's physically difficult for them to intervene if they spot an incident because they're too far away. They work twelve-hour shifts without the opportunity for a bathroom break and have to choose between going to the bathroom and leaving the site unmonitored. And so on. Meanwhile: management promises to double security, management doesn't double security.
Third example: a company meeting is held and somebody like a morale officer or whatever, stands up and says they're implementing a program to act on staff feedback. We are to submit suggestions to her and they will be reviewed for feasibility and implemented when appropriate. Then she glares at us all: "This is not an opportunity for management to sort out your moan list." Of course, I'm not going to bring her any suggestions because she has just made it crystal clear that she has contempt for all of us and that anything I suggest to her will be treated with the same contempt.
One improvement she says has already been implemented, she says, is the coffee servers. During peak times, the coffee queue gets very long, so they're going to put two staff to serving coffee instead of just one. This happens for a month, then stops.
I am in charge of a process with serious legal implications. I need information from another department. The other department doesn't feel like providing that information. There isn't a way around it so I gather the stakeholders and hold a meeting during which a process is agreed for that department to provide the information. It is established that the company has no choice to provide this information to the legal review board, and that the only possible source of the information is that department. Everyone agrees to their actions. Two weeks later, the information is due. No information. The department doesn't cooperate. Rinse and repeat in staggering detail and infinite combinations for several years.
On the other hand, some things that are promised do come to pass. I am told, one day, that the Paperclip Sorting department is going to be moved and I will now be sitting under a bridge with two trolls. They kept this promise.
I'm not saying your company is like this, but I am saying that you need to really think about what the process of trying to improve things is actually like for your employees. When something becomes a source of frustration to somebody, over and over, they start hating it. Maybe these people are being unduly negative, but it is worth investigating whether the negativity began with something that's based in reality. It is possible that real empowerment (rather than "empowerment") could turn things around, at least for some of these people.
posted by tel3path at 3:21 PM on April 4, 2013 [13 favorites]
I was a bit rushed in my earlier reply and failed to say that, I offered my commentary on "modern management," to provide historical context for the situation the OP now finds themselves in, not to trash them
There are good managers, though the management hierarchy is often stacked against them, and the fact that the OP came here to ask this question, and their choice of best answers is to their credit.
posted by Good Brain at 6:12 PM on April 4, 2013 [3 favorites]
There are good managers, though the management hierarchy is often stacked against them, and the fact that the OP came here to ask this question, and their choice of best answers is to their credit.
posted by Good Brain at 6:12 PM on April 4, 2013 [3 favorites]
You just wouldn't like that solution, and it wouldn't happen, so they don't bother mentioning it. So you, as management, just caused a problem, and you don't want to hear about it and won't consider the obvious fix. Way to pass the buck, now the idea is 'if you're not happy with the wholesale change we just made that obviously sucks, just stay quiet.'
I would rather a company just say to my face honestly, "We're going to do whatever the hell we want and if you want to keep your paycheck, you have to put up with it, bitch" (or whatever in presumably less blunt language, rather than put on the stupid fake dog and pony show about asking for our concerns when they really just don't want to hear anything and the suggestions they do get will be chucked out the door the second most of us are out of sight range. I consider it more insulting to claim that you care and go on about our feelings and then go back to "like it or lump it" behavior, than it would be if management just said, "Suck it up and keep your complaints quiet."
Last week, my office had to sit through a dog and pony show, in which people who are getting paid far more than we are to "compile statistics" and "take surveys" and "collect suggestions" told us in more detail than we needed to know about how they were making a new list of goals and crap for everyone. And that they were going to go around to every single office and ask for our thoughts, feelings, and opinions on this list and what we thought needed improvement.
First, there was dead silence.
Then the head of our office said (in more polite terminology) that people go around making lists of these things and then nobody ever does anything about them.
Then a few of us grudgingly made comments, along the lines of "Most of our office floor looks like crap, and the lobby is kind of a dirty dungeon because our floor is for locals doing business, rather than to impress the tourists."
Then the second in charge of our office pointed out that it doesn't matter what suggestions we make if no higher-ups are in favor of doing them. Were any higher-ups going to support these suggestions that you are taking here?
Ah....yeah, they left in silence.
I think you have some questions to ask yourself: Do you genuinely want people to be happy and would you act on their complaints/suggestions to try to change things, or do you just want them to shut up and pretend to be happy already and get off your back? Right now what you are doing isn't working to make them happy, but you may not be the one in charge of being able to change that. It kind of sounds like you're the "make them happy/shut them up" person with no power to do that. Or at least that's my impression.
If the latter is the case and your real goal is to make them shut up and suck it up and fake being happy, then (I say this as someone who will never go into management, obviously) you're better off being honest and saying, "This is what you get, like it or lump it, and the next "cynic" who complains where I can hear it gets a pay docking," or whatever. If you have no carrots, go for the sticks. It sounds like everyone at your work is used to sticks by now anyway.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:34 PM on April 4, 2013 [3 favorites]
I would rather a company just say to my face honestly, "We're going to do whatever the hell we want and if you want to keep your paycheck, you have to put up with it, bitch" (or whatever in presumably less blunt language, rather than put on the stupid fake dog and pony show about asking for our concerns when they really just don't want to hear anything and the suggestions they do get will be chucked out the door the second most of us are out of sight range. I consider it more insulting to claim that you care and go on about our feelings and then go back to "like it or lump it" behavior, than it would be if management just said, "Suck it up and keep your complaints quiet."
Last week, my office had to sit through a dog and pony show, in which people who are getting paid far more than we are to "compile statistics" and "take surveys" and "collect suggestions" told us in more detail than we needed to know about how they were making a new list of goals and crap for everyone. And that they were going to go around to every single office and ask for our thoughts, feelings, and opinions on this list and what we thought needed improvement.
First, there was dead silence.
Then the head of our office said (in more polite terminology) that people go around making lists of these things and then nobody ever does anything about them.
Then a few of us grudgingly made comments, along the lines of "Most of our office floor looks like crap, and the lobby is kind of a dirty dungeon because our floor is for locals doing business, rather than to impress the tourists."
Then the second in charge of our office pointed out that it doesn't matter what suggestions we make if no higher-ups are in favor of doing them. Were any higher-ups going to support these suggestions that you are taking here?
Ah....yeah, they left in silence.
I think you have some questions to ask yourself: Do you genuinely want people to be happy and would you act on their complaints/suggestions to try to change things, or do you just want them to shut up and pretend to be happy already and get off your back? Right now what you are doing isn't working to make them happy, but you may not be the one in charge of being able to change that. It kind of sounds like you're the "make them happy/shut them up" person with no power to do that. Or at least that's my impression.
If the latter is the case and your real goal is to make them shut up and suck it up and fake being happy, then (I say this as someone who will never go into management, obviously) you're better off being honest and saying, "This is what you get, like it or lump it, and the next "cynic" who complains where I can hear it gets a pay docking," or whatever. If you have no carrots, go for the sticks. It sounds like everyone at your work is used to sticks by now anyway.
posted by jenfullmoon at 6:34 PM on April 4, 2013 [3 favorites]
...we have enacted a huge number of changes to our processes, including making all staff members multi-skilled
Tell me, how do processes make staff members multi-skilled?
If the other processes are as well thought out as the one that makes staff members multi-skilled, your problems run deeper than you are letting on.
posted by jet_silver at 7:45 PM on April 4, 2013 [9 favorites]
Tell me, how do processes make staff members multi-skilled?
If the other processes are as well thought out as the one that makes staff members multi-skilled, your problems run deeper than you are letting on.
posted by jet_silver at 7:45 PM on April 4, 2013 [9 favorites]
As employers push efficiency, the daily grind wears down workers
Not everything in the article applies to the situation you describe at your workplace, but this is a widespread, general trend (not just in the U.S., but internationally).
posted by scody at 12:32 PM on April 7, 2013 [2 favorites]
Not everything in the article applies to the situation you describe at your workplace, but this is a widespread, general trend (not just in the U.S., but internationally).
posted by scody at 12:32 PM on April 7, 2013 [2 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
I have found that the complainers are often not really interested in solving the problem, increasing productivity, supporting co-workers, or enhancing the organization. My approach, once I've identified someone like this, depends on the impact their verbalizations are having. If they are just an annoyance and not impacting on the team/enviornment in general, I ignore it. If they are pulling down the rest of the team and establishing a negative culture, it's time to set some concrete goals around the behavior, benchmarks regarding change, and clear consequences for failing to meet those benchmarks.
That said, once you respond in that manner, it's a long haul in terms of documentation and supervision until you can take some action. However, if you eventually terminate the employee, you'll have the documentation to support that action.
I will also share that, in the middle of dealing with a wrongful discharge lawsuit by a staff member with whom we took exactly that approach (and, we won the lawsuit), an attorney told me that, since we were in an "at will" state, it would have been better to just terminate for no reason and without having gone through that process.
posted by HuronBob at 5:04 AM on April 4, 2013 [2 favorites]