Humans Over Employees
Excerpt from Chapter 2 of Ego, Authority, Failure: Using Emotional Intelligence Like a Hostage Negotiator to Succeed as a Leader
More Than Numbers
“I am data driven secondarily, but people driven first,” said Natalie Pearson, vice president for Human Relations (HR) of a major communications company.
Described as a dynamic leader with a wealth of experience and insight in decision-making and thought process, Pearson is a true teacher who celebrates success and is candid with all levels of feedback.
This demands that she evaluate things from human a perspective, instead of exclusively from an employee or numbers perspective. In other words, focusing on the “human” in human capital strategies.
“What that means is before I get into, for example, turnover or retention rates, or how we are going to address a diversity and inclusion shortcoming, I take the time to just talk to people. Just understand the history and what you’re doing. Ask some questions,” she said. I really have focused my energies around mastering the art of HR.”
People will often ask me if hostage negotiations is a science or an art. I tell them it’s a combination of both but more art than science. Pearson’s approach to HR (note that her area of responsibility is known as Human Relations, not Human Resources) is viewing it as an art as opposed to a science. The art is the relational aspect of HR — using TacticalEmpathy, understanding the psychiatry of HR, as well as people’s decision-making skills and capabilities.
She recalled one situation where she used the art of HR as the company was contemplating a reduction in force (RIF). RIFs are largely data-driven. The numbers will tell you that you must go from x to y. It is pretty cut and dry, mathematically how it should be done. Evaluate the variables. Evaluate the factors. Make your decisions and then execute.
In this particular case it was not so simple because of the people to be impacted. Looking purely at the data, it made sense that the five people in question needed to go. However, Pearson said, “These were some of our most seasoned professionals who had the history, the context of our operation that the others didn’t have. And we would have been cutting our nose off to spite our face if we let these particular individuals go.”
The C-Suite was fully expecting that Pearson and her HR team to agree with the list of names that the data supported releasing and make it happen. When analyzing the numbers, Pearson quickly identified the problem (money) and more importantly developed a solution.
She thought, “There’s gotta be another way that we can get to, not necessarily the number but the desired savings because at the end of the day it was about productivity and efficiency, which ultimately has cost implications.”
She considered a variety of tools, resources and methodologies the company could modify in lieu of releasing these key individuals. The C-Suite was surprised at her recommendations but agreed to implement her suggested ways of cost reduction and retain the talent.
Win!
The “art” side of HR also called for Pearson to really listen to the C-Suite beyond the surface level things. To demonstrate she understood their position, making it a point to truly connect with them and view the entire situation globally instead of relying solely on the data.
“It is what it is because the data says this is what we need to do. Well, not all business decisions can be made without incorporating the human element into it,” she said.
Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire
Recently, Pearson terminated Cody, one of the company directors, for his inability to master the company’s core competencies, which include building, facilitating and fostering relationships. No matter how much coaching and training he received over the course of several years, he could not get it right.
As much as they valued his subject matter expertise, the way he treated his people was abysmal and did not line up with who they were at the company’s “heart.” They had to let him go.
During his exit interview, Cody never took responsibility for his conduct. It was always someone else’s fault. He still did not see any issue with how he led. As disappointing as the loss of Cody was, it falls short when compared to the damage he inflicted on his team.
Pearson said, “I was not aware of how damaged they were due to his leadership style, which lacked empathy and emotional intelligence, until he was removed from the organization. So, then I had to do an intervention in terms of really reprogramming them and getting them to build their confidence in leadership because he had virtually destroyed it.”
Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. Admittedly, Pearson missed some clues. There had been rumors about Cody’s conduct but Pearson could never corroborate them. She kept a folder regarding the rumors in hope of someone coming forward with first-person, substantial information.
With an open-door policy within the company, any employee can speak to any leader at any time about any issue.
Cody told his team they could not speak to Pearson or her boss without going through him first. Cody had instilled so much fear in his team that no one would disclose to Pearson the state of the team. That is, until Marvin announced his retirement.
Marvin provided information during his exit interview, which initiated the investigation that uncovered the depth and breadth of Cody’s toxicity. He recalled for Pearson one meeting wherein Cody introduced a topic with which the majority of the team did not agree. As good teams do, they respectfully but openly voiced their concerns. This embarrassed and angered Cody. His ego and authority saw it as a personal attack.
After the meeting adjourned, he pulled the dissenters into his office one at a time. With each, he closed the door and the blinds, and cursed them out. In another incident, Cody demonstrated micromanaging inclinations so strong that he needed to know where his remote team was and what they were doing at all times.
He would call them and leave voicemail messages. If they didn’t call him back within minutes — literally minutes — he would call and text them incessantly until they responded. This started at 6:00 a.m. and did not stop until 9:00 or 10:00 p.m.
To his demise, Cody looked at those under his charge as no more than chess pieces.
___________________________________________________________________
This post is part of a blog series where I share excerpts and stories from my book, Ego, Authority, Failure: Using Emotional Intelligence Like a Hostage Negotiator to Succeed as a Leader and expand upon some of the themes within the book. If you want to connect, you can reach me here via email or connect with me on social: LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram. Also, you can find my book on Amazon — here is the link: www.amazon.com/dp/B07NF3HQV7
