This is Kommon People — the newsletter from Kommon which highlights stories about people, organisations, technology and business which will make you a better manager. If you like it and want more like it in your inbox, consider subscribing.
Before we get started, we’re pleased to say that we’ve been getting some great feedback on this newsletter over the past couple of weeks. If you know just one manager who you think would benefit, please forward it on!
DISCLAIMER
Unlike other newsletters this week, this one contains absolutely NO gratuitous references to GME, WallStreetBets or Stonks.
Ok apart from to remind managers that if your company does something controversial, don’t try and paper over it with your team with a DoorDash voucher.
But that's it.
Like standing on the edge of a cliff, when you’re a new manager, it can be hard not to look down.
It seems obvious that your primary concern should be your team. You’ve just been promoted. Their careers are in your hands. There’s so much to do and think about.
But to be a great manager, you need to be looking up and sideways to understand your organisation as much as you look down to understand your team. You will need to work out what your organisation really values, how your team contributes to that success, and how to navigate your firm to achieve results.
For some this might sound obvious, but we’ve seen numerous new managers not strike this balance. So we wanted to explain why we thought it was important, and share some tips for getting started.
If only Justin Trudeau had said it earlier.
For non-Canadian readers, we’ll explain. Also before you skip to the next section on account of the Canadian politics, we're not covering the political story. We're here for the workplace story.
On 21 January, Julie Payette, Canada’s Governor General, resigned following the results of a review of allegations of harassment and a toxic workplace (the Governor General is a prominent, but largely ceremonial, role in the Canadian public service). We’re covering this because the review of her office (the OSSG) was released, and despite the heavy redactions it provides some insights into a workplace that has suffered from severe mismanagement.
Whilst lots has been written about the incident in the Canadian press, we’re going to focus on one specific lesson.
First, some quick background. Payette was appointed in 2017. After allegations about her leadership emerged in July 2020, a consulting firm was hired to conduct a review. Out of over 200 employees who were invited to voluntarily participate, 70 current and former employees were interviewed, along with 22 'knowledgeable individuals’ who were deemed relevant. All interviewees were asked to share their history at the organisation, any ‘observations and concerns’ and ‘hopes for the review process.’
Of those interviewed:
There are numerous other references to dreadful workplace behaviour, including ‘humiliation’, ‘disrespect’ and ‘condescension’. CBC, which originally broke the story, claimed Payette had verbally harassed employees to the point of tears and resignation. It seems like it was an awful place to work and very distressing for all those concerned.
So we’re here to leave you, our readers, with the insightful conclusion not to reign with fear and terror.
Well, yes, but that should be pretty obvious (shouldn’t it Julie?!). Actually the main thing we wanted to focus on was that Payette has been Governor General since 2017. It took three years for these allegations to become public and be investigated. As Payette pointed to in her resignation letter, ‘no formal complaints or official grievances were made during my tenure.’
In this respect the whole episode is a searing warning of what can happen to a workplace when malign influences are allowed to fester because there isn’t a reporting mechanism that employees are comfortable using. Particularly as recent reporting has argued that the shift to remote work is no barrier to harassment and toxicity in the workplace.
This came through in the review:
The episode is a reminder to check whether there is a genuine complaint mechanism at your company which your team has confidence in using.
Even if you have no cause for it now, make sure to build the roof whilst the sun is shining. You could well need it later. As one government source told CBC:
"This has gone from being one of the most collegial and enjoyable work environments for many of the staff to being a house of horrors."
We spoke in last week’s newsletter about how it was to a company’s advantage to convince their employees that their work had social purpose (happier, more productive, etc.) This week we came across a report by the MIT Sloan School of Management and Cognizant which provided a coda to this discussion.
Part of what we do at Kommon is read reports titled ‘Leadership’s Digital Transformation: Leading Purposefully in an Era of Context Collapse’ so you don’t have to. Beneath all the buzzwords, reports like this can contain some well-resourced research. In this case, a survey of 4,296 leaders across 20 industries (75% of respondents outside the US).
The report contains various findings, but we wanted to focus on just one piece of data. This chart indicates the percentage of respondents who strongly agreed with each statement.
This is described in the report as the ‘Purpose Gap’, but it might be more accurately titled, ‘your employees think your ‘purpose’ might be hot garbage. It suggests a significant percentage of employees across these companies don't believe in their firms’ stated purpose, or the firms’ ability to execute on it, and think senior leadership are delusional about both.
Needless to say, if you are a decision-maker who has input into your firm’s stated purpose, then this data should be a wake up call to check exactly how much it is resonating with employees. However, for most managers that’s not the case - you just have to accept whatever’s written on the website.
In this case, what’s the lesson? Well, purpose is important - high performing teams generally believe their work is meaningful and impactful. So to us, this survey says managers shouldn’t rely entirely on corporate positioning to fill that need, because often it won’t (although it may help).
Instead you should make sure that you know how and why each of your team members derives satisfaction from their work, and the extent that that interacts with any stated purpose. It will be different for everyone. Once you know that, you can begin shaping their careers and their assignments to that, regardless of whatever anyone writes on meeting room walls.
There are a lot of guides out there to 1:1 meetings. If these have been a help to you at some point, then fantastic. But we do worry that some of them might be undermining themselves.
The whole point of a 1:1 is that you care personally for the individual circumstances of your team members, and so asking rote questions from a general guide can run the risk of coming across as the opposite. Particularly when you’re trying to make a first impression with a new team member.
Fortunately, there are some exceptions.
For those who don’t know her, Lara Hogan is an author, speaker and coach to managers in the tech industry. We came across her guide to your first 1:1 meeting and it opens with a brilliant set of questions:
They’re great because they’re very human and help break the ice, but also really helpful to know as a manager. Often the times where you get it wrong as a manager are when your team members are having a bad day, so knowing when that is, how to notice it and what the solution is can only be a good thing.
(If you think the word 'grumpy' won't resonate with your audience, you could always try 'frustrated' or similar).
She’s put together the rest of the questions in a Google Doc. The others are pretty great too.
Subscribe via RSS