Employer of Choice:
Managing Coworker Relationships

Fear

Fear destroys personal relationships, organizational commitment, and innovation. People talk, but little is said of substance. Most communication may simply support the status quo. Fear is frequently the result of blame and/or excessive criticism at work.

Tip: Examine people's responses to suggestions or problems.

Blame: Some organizations solve problems by finding out "who did it" and making sure they "don't do it again." This is a structure based on blame and criticism.

In contrast, other organizations try to discover where the problem occurred, then identify what it was about their policies and procedures that allowed the problem to occur. The assumption is that since the person didn't try to do it on purpose, there must be something about their normal practices that allowed, if not encouraged, the mistake to happen. The focus is on refining processes, not blaming people. By utilizing an employee survey, opportunities for process improvements can be identified.

Underlying Causes: Make sure that people have enough authority to do their work and that management has not created a hostile environment for new ideas.

Authority: If people have enough authority to do their jobs, when a problem occurs, they solve it. This defuses blame and criticism.

Hostile Environment: Management can plead for innovation, while at the same time, it unknowingly creates a hostile environment for new ideas. In some organizations, if a new idea doesn't come from a specific source (e.g. from the top, managers, consultants, or competitors), it will never be taken seriously. In other organizations, when a new idea doesn't work perfectly without revision, the author is permanently "branded" as incompetent. Few people will step forward with innovative ideas if it means their careers are destroyed when their ideas don't work perfectly without refinement.

Fairness

All management decisions are reviewed for fairness by employees.

Highest scrutiny: Decisions about pay, opportunities, and recognition.

Disagreement: Underlying many disagreements about fairness are two divergent views. To some, "fair rewards" means that everyone is treated the same. Example: traditional collective bargaining agreements establish specific pay for jobs regardless of performance. In contrast, others believe that "fair rewards" should be in proportion to the contributions made to the organization. Example: piece rate, commissions, and bonus structures are based on the concept of fairness in proportion to contribution.

Important: The criteria for raises, promotions, opportunities, or recognition should be explicit and clear. The larger the reward, the more rigid the company should be in following its guidelines. The smaller the reward, the more latitude you have in making individualized rewards.

Fairness vs. Actual Pay: Using our employee survey research, we have compared actual income (net pay) with the perception that the level of pay is fair. Fairness is more powerful than net pay. People who make less money are more satisfied if they think their wage is fair, as compared to someone who makes more money, but who thinks their wage (or bonus) is unfair.

Strategy: Obviously, "fairness" is a perception. People are more likely to perceive their pay as fair when they understand exactly how their reward (or pay) was determined. While some managers tend to avoid discussions about pay, the data shows that clear communication about how pay is determined produces good results and strengthens coworker relationships.

Important: Any steps you take to eliminate perceptions of favoritism or unfairness within an organization will yield higher levels of satisfaction and better relationships among managers and employees.