Monday, January 30, 2017

What Estate Managers Can Learn From Trump's Immigration Ban

It is well outside the scope of this site to debate political issues such as the executive order signed last Friday by President Trump which bans immigrants and refugees from seven countries, yet it's well within our scope to examine a management process and how any process will either succeed or fail within its organization, and this for the purpose of inspiring those managers in our industry to learn from others.

Anyone who's been interested in organizational or team development, or even read a few of our posts on the topics, will remember very well Gallup's infamous study which found a key component of what the best workers across all industries are looking for in a job:  

"At work, do my opinions seem to count?"

Forget for a moment about any public uproar now occurring because of the ban, and also forget for a moment about whether you agree or disagree with any reason for which Trump may have enacted the ban. Simply think about how it was rolled out


Perhaps not such a good management style.

The process of issuing any directive, except in the most extreme of emergencies, must take place only after consulting with those who will be responsible for executing the order. Whether this takes place in the highest offices of government, or the downstairs staff room of your estate makes little difference. This is for obvious reasons, as anyone who has ever issued a directive or been on the receiving end of one will know - that good workers will want their input valued, respected, and heard - and heard first.

This did not occur last Friday. The executives at Department of Homeland Security, who of course are responsible for Immigration Services, were on the phone and being briefed by the White House, whereupon they looked over at a television screen and noticed their phone call was occurring at the very same moment the President was signing the order. They were not being consulted - they were just being told what to do. And it was not an emergency - it was just an order that was not to be questioned; an order in which no comment from anyone in a position of lessor power - those executives and others at the DHS who would actually know best how the mechanics of such an order could play out most successfully (or at least with less chaos) - was sought.

How will this now impact the morale, performance, and even the interest of those working in Homeland Security to carry out this order? What confusions did this create over the weekend, as Homeland Security struggled to understand the not-yet-developed details of the order - and the White House scrambled to actually create enough details so the agents could actually understand what was being asked of them? Could this mayhem have been averted if the people at the ground level had first been given opportunity to voice their concerns and suggestions? 

And what parallels do you see in how this played out over the weekend and will continue in weeks to come, with any workplace policies issued by Household or Estate Managers prior to careful consideration and thoughtful consultation with those other staff who will be impacted and must carry out the procedures?

There is no doubt that the best workers, in any work environment, will want to have their opinions heard, and not simply be told what to do. This current event is an excellent example of how not to manage; of how not to ensure the best workers will want to remain on a team or to give their best efforts in support of their employer.



No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your feedback.