Now, the dilemma is that the HR department at the enterprise is confused between maintaining the monitoring system and modifying it.

Option 1: One option is to maintain the system as it is. The company believes that the system is necessary to ensure productivity and protect confidential data. The cons are that it raises concerns about employees’ privacy and trust, and this could lead to increased stress and anxiety among employees.

Option 2: To re-evaluate and modify the monitoring system, and make alterations to address employee concerns. This may involve reducing the extent of monitoring or implementing strict privacy protections. This could demonstrate the company’s commitment to employee wellbeing and privacy, and it may also improve employee morale and reduce their turnover. But the cons are that it could potentially compromise data security and may require additional resources for system modifications.

A Thiru, C-Suite HR professional

Trust begets trust. The term ‘employee monitoring’ itself needs to be removed from the HR dictionary as we have come along way and are now taking the next step towards humanising the workplace. No doubt, confidential information of the company needs to be protected, but in doing so, there is no point in monitoring employees with a suspicious motive.

Trust first, unless proved wrong twice, giving benefit of doubt for the first mistake (except in cases involving integrity and sexual harassment) made, so that employees take risks and assume more and more responsibilities. Employee productivity can’t be improved by imposing more and more systems and monitoring them at work. It can be improved by simplifying the processes to reduce stress and strain and giving employees more freedom to experiment.

Therefore, a fine balance of integration of technology and upholding trustworthiness of management and employees as a core value alone can pave the way for a better tomorrow for survival and growth.

Vivek Tripathi, VP-HR, NewGen Software

The key idea here is that, overall, there must be a high level of trust between employees and their managers or between employees and the company. Any solution that undermines this trust in the medium or long term may not be the optimal choice. It is crucial to address employee concerns because a perception of mistrust from the company can lead to various detrimental consequences. If employees believe that the company lacks trust in them, it can result in significant downsides.

While there is a minimal one per cent risk that an employee may engage in activities such as sharing information externally, disclosing confidential data, or breaching security protocols, the majority of employees do not partake in such actions. Implementing a system that treats everyone as a potential wrongdoer is not an advisable approach. The primary objective is to draw out the best from employees, and employ a system that conveys a lack of trust can be counterproductive.

Hence, it’s important to establish clear expectations regarding ethical behaviour, emphasising the prohibition of disclosing company information. It is reasonable to inform employees about the company’s right to conduct periodic audits or checks, and while trust is extended, severe consequences will follow any breach. Striking a balance between ensuring security and respecting employees’ integrity is crucial to maintain a positive work environment.

Ravi Kumar, CPO, Page Industries

I believe the second option is the preferable choice. This process may entail scaling back monitoring measures or implementing robust privacy safeguards. However, opting for this approach reflects a commitment to listening to and understanding the concerns of employees. By taking responsive action, the company demonstrates a willingness to strike a balance between enhancing productivity and respecting employee perspectives. While the issue of data security is acknowledged, it can be effectively managed through the allocation of additional resources or the acquisition of supplementary software solutions.

Ultimately, this decision is not just about addressing immediate concerns but also about laying the groundwork for a sustainable and harmonious work environment in the long run. It reflects a comprehensive approach that prioritises both employee satisfaction and the company’s operational efficiency.

This article first appeared in the HRKatha magazine.

The post The ethics of employee monitoring appeared first on HR Katha.

Does that mean organisations that prioritise a supportive and empowering work environment tend to foster higher levels of engagement and productivity, especially amongst the sales personnel? Does effective sales management require recognition and appreciation of achievements, provision of regular feedback and coaching, opportunities for growth and development and cultivation of a positive team culture?

Anil Mohanty, senior HR leader

Pressure is not the only tactic in sales to maintain productivity or achieve results. Sales organisations should strive for a balanced approach that combines both pressure and positive reinforcement. Effective leaders understand the importance of motivating their team members and creating an environment that encourages productivity. This can be achieved through a combination of setting clear goals, providing support and guidance, recognising and appreciating achievements and offering constructive feedback to drive improvement.

It’s crucial for sales leaders to develop effective coaching and management techniques that cater to the unique needs of their team members. This may involve conducting thorough research to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each individual, implementing tailored strategies and providing the necessary resources and training for success.

Pressure can be a part of the sales environment to some extent, but finding the right balance between pressure and positive reinforcement allows for individual growth, fosters a motivated and engaged team and ultimately leads to sustainable and long-term success.

Praveen Purohit, deputy CHRO, Vedanta Resources

In today’s sales environment, the perception that salesrooms are filled with constant drama and high- pressure situations is not accurate or common. Though occasional instances of heightened emotions or tense moments may occur, it is important to note that such occurrences do not define the entire sales profession.

Sales roles often involve targets, deadlines and performance expectations. The belief that pressuring individuals is the sole tactic to maintain productivity and achieve results is outdated and ineffective.

Successful sales teams now focus on embracing technology and innovation. By incorporating digital tools and data-driven insights, sales professionals can optimise their strategies, identify new market opportunities and tailor their approach to meet customer needs more effectively.

The sales team should look beyond organisational boundaries to understand industry best practices and learn from successful counterparts worldwide. This broader perspective allows sales teams to adopt proven strategies, refine their processes and stay ahead of evolving market dynamics.

With greater emphasis on intellectual and creative problem solving, sales professionals are encouraged to think critically, adapt to changing customer needs and find innovative solutions to build stronger relationships with customers and deliver sustainable business growth.

Anil Gaur, senior HR professional

Leaders should lead by example, demonstrating the desired behaviour themselves. Creating an environment of trust and collaboration is essential, and the incident involving the HDFC manager shouting at his team members, which subsequently went viral clearly did not promote such an environment.

Any review meeting or discussion should begin by appreciating the good work done by the team members. Each individual possesses unique capabilities and competencies, and it is important to acknowledge each one’s contributions, big or small. The discussion should then move on to what was done well, followed by areas that could have been improved upon. The focus should be on identifying gaps and setting goals for improvement.

Throughout these conversations, leaders should maintain a polite and humble demeanour, aiming to connect with their team members on a personal level. Inclusivity is crucial, allowing for open sessions or town-hall meetings where the voice of employees can be heard. It is the leader’s responsibility to handle, guide, support and provide advice to enable the team members to perform better.

(This article appeared in the HRKatha monthly magazine)

The post Is pressure the only tactic in sales to maintain productivity or achieve results? appeared first on HR Katha.

Once, Sheetal’s team was asked by the head of marketing to conceive a marketing strategy for a new product launch. Shaila came up with an idea, which the team liked and unanimously agreed to, and together they decided to flesh it out further.

When the idea was presented to the head of marketing, it was met with much appreciation and excitement. Sheetal immediately took all the credit, making up a story about how she had conceived the idea while travelling to a small town in UP. Not once did she acknowledge that it was Shaila’s brainchild.

A dumbstruck Shaila was left unable to speak her mind for fear of disrupting the harmony of the team before an important launch. She also feared that she would be blamed for unnecessarily blowing up the issue and creating a hue and cry.

Although it wasn’t the first time that Sheetal had unfairly claimed credit for something she hadn’t done, this time, Shaila felt truly wronged.

Being an important project, acknowledgement and recognition of her contribution would have given Shaila a much-needed career push.

Trying to maintain silence in the matter took a toll on her. She was heartbroken, demotivated and felt cheated.

Witnessing someone else being appreciated and lauded for work that is done by oneself can be very frustrating. Most professionals, at some point in their careers, have had to face situations where the credit for the success of a project — which resulted solely from their utmost passion and hard work — goes to someone else. More often than not, the applause is bagged by a senior. How should professionals who have been deprived of the credit that is due to them, deal with this?

What should be Shaila’s next step? Should she speak to the head of marketing separately? Would he judge her if she did? Or should she just keep mum and accept it as her destiny and consider it her sacrifice for the larger good of the company?

Should she resort to the last option and leave the company altogether? What should she do? Here is what some prominent HR leaders have to say:

Chandrasekhar Mukherjee, CHRO, Bhilosa Industries

I would never advise anybody to leave the organisation. Shaila was not unaware that her immediate boss had the habit of taking undue credit, or passing off others’ work as her own. Being a junior employee, she needs to learn how to navigate things without crossing paths with the immediate boss.

In my experience, with a little smartness, any professional can keep the super boss informed of each and everything. There are informal channels that can be used to keep the super boss in the loop. For instance, in this case, it would have been a good idea for Shaila to stay in touch with the key people in the organisation who are close to the head of marketing. It could have been either the secretary of the head of marketing or another colleague of his, whom he interacts with closely. Through such contacts, Shaila could have informally passed on details of what actually happened and how she herself had mooted the idea.

Had she been smart, Shaila would have marked the head of marketing in all the mail trails, while communicating the idea, and openly sought an opinion or feedback. It would also have been sensible for Shaila to chat with the head of marketing and convey the message casually, during informal gatherings in the organisation, about how the idea was conceived.

Going to the head of marketing and cribbing would be wrong. The message should be conveyed smartly to the super boss in a casual way without it appearing to be a complaint. All super bosses are very smart and are either aware of or manage to find out the truth.

An informal chat can also be routed through the HR. The latter can facilitate a meeting with the super boss. A last resort can be to informally communicate to the HR how one’s credit was stolen. After all, the HR does update the functional heads about such issues in their own way. One has to be cautious about how close the HR is to the concerned super boss, in this case, the head of marketing.

Anil Mohanty, head of people, Medikabazaar

As a leader, the correct way is to give credit to the team for any success. In this case, it is very important for Shaila to convey to the immediate manager that whatever has happened was not right.

It is very important to let Sheetal know, in an indicative way, how a manager should behave when it comes to celebrating the success of a team.

Shaila should wait for the right opportunity, say a team meeting, and praise her boss in front of the marketing head. At the same time, she should smartly convey that it was a team effort which resulted in success. Shaila should make her boss realise the beauty of collaboration and team work, and the importance of ‘we’ rather than ‘I’. Also, if Sheetal’s attitude of stealing credit from others continues, then it should be smartly brought to the notice of the head of marketing.

Rajeev Singh, CHRO, Solara Active Pharma

Stealing credit for a junior’s work reflects the insecurity of a manager. The managers should always look at the success of a team member as the success of that particular person only, but in case of a team’s failure, the manager should own that failure. That is how cohesive teams are created.

This also fosters trust. In this case, the past relationship between Shaila and Sheetal really matters. If this incident has happened after Shaila has worked with Sheetal for two to four years, then there is a major issue. There is a definite breach of trust between the two. I think Shaila should first seek clarifications from Sheetal on why she took all the credit for the idea. Besides, Shaila could also take the emotional route. Taking Sheetal out for lunch or coffee would be ideal. She can then tell her how hurt she was at the meeting for not being appreciated for her effort. It would have to be a career talk, which would have to be dealt with in a very positive manner.

If there is no satisfactory explanation from Sheetal, then Shaila should speak with the head of marketing. Every company has a provision for a fire side chat with senior leaders. However, Shaila should not reach out to the head of marketing before clarifying matters with Sheetal first. Also, while speaking with the head of marketing, Shaila needs to be confident and believe in herself.

Such small matters can be detrimental to a person’s career. These instances can also lead to cultural changes in the organisation. In such cases, it is better to first clear the air by discussing with the immediate manager and then move on. If this does not work, and if Sheetal has a habit of perpetually stealing other people’s credit and Shaila has also been a victim of this in the past, then this is definitely not the place for Shaila to waste her talent in.

This is also an opportunity for the head of marketing to exhibit his ability to manage such situations. A lot also depends on the kind of relationship the head of marketing and Sheetal share. If they are high on trust, then there will be a higher likelihood of the junior employees not getting their share of credit or being often ignored.

The culture of the company also plays a role. If the organisation believes in sharing credit with juniors, there is hope. If the company has a culture where the bosses end up taking their team’s credit, then in all likelihood, the head of marketing will take all the credit from Sheetal as well.

An employee should resort to quitting only if the support of the super boss is also missing. This is then an indication of the organisation being a lousy one. In such an organisation, the employee should only stay to learn or till he/ she gets to work on new projects.

This article first appeared in the HRKatha magazine.

The post How to deal with credit stealers appeared first on HR Katha.

Given the competitive labour market, reliance on referrals from existing employees within a company has increased.

According to a research by Dr John Sullivan, 88 per cent employers feel that referrals are the best way to acquire above average talent. However, accountability and integrity of the professionals who are taken onboard through referrals can still be suspect sometimes. The primary reason behind this could be laxity in the hiring process, owed to the referral.

Consider this example:

A tech company, primarily dealing in lead generation, decided to hire an IT professional for its data generation team. One of the senior lead developers in the team recommended a former colleague of his for the position.

After a brief recruitment process, the company hired the person. Two months post recruitment, the company discovered that some of its data was being leaked to the market. Upon investigation, they found that the new hire was the one who had caused the leak. Further probe revealed that he had been found guilty of something similar in his previous employment. Naturally, the company terminated his employment.

However, soon fingers started to be pointed at the senior developer who had recommended the bad hire. He was blamed for a bad recommendation, due to which the company lost business and also earned a bad reputation in the market.

Should the person who referred a bad hire face the repercussions of the wrongdoings of the bad referral?

If yes, what should be an adequate action against him? Prominent HR leaders opine:

Pankaj Lochan, CHRO, Jindal Steel & Power

The bad hire in this case is clearly reflective of a weak hiring process. Any hiring process comprises of five parts: sourcing of CV, the shortlisting process, the interview, onboarding— after the person has accepted the offer— and then subsequent referral checks.

In this case, the reference check process failed. It is no crime to recommend somebody for a position. People are recommended only if they are found to be an adequate match in terms of competency,for the role at hand. Therefore, the person who has recommended the bad hire can only be accountable if that person is not competent for the position.

If it is an ethical issue, where integrity of the new hire is suspect, that candidate should have been weeded out after the reference check itself.

It is best for the company to implement a more serious approach to the methods of hiring being employed. In this case, where the position being hired for requires the person to deal with confidential data, there should be a three-level referral. For Level 1, the company should speak with the people that the job seeker has mentioned in their CV. While speaking with them the company must ask for names of others whom the person had engaged during the previous employment. Level 2 should comprise of interactions with these people, which will help the company understand their perspective on the person’s character. The company can go for subsequent levels of referral checking, by contacting people who were engaged with the person without them knowing.

Viekas K Khokha, CHRO, Dhanuka Agritech

The referral needs to be only treated as the source of the CV and nothing else. The process of recruitment is more important. Here, it is clear that due diligence wasn’t given to the hiring process. Otherwise, the employee has only named a suitable talent, which is what a company could expect. Verifying that talent’s integrity is the responsibility of the HR. Employees cannot be expected to do referral checks. The organisations themselves have to gauge the person’s character, first hand. A follow-up process can help the organisation eliminate the possibility of a reoccurrence of such situations in the future. There needs to be a proper orientation of new hires, with clear do’s and don’t’s.

Emmanuel David, HR leader

It’s an ethical question. We are hiring people for skills and competence and not for their ethics and values. Hence, such situations may be witnessed regularly. One needs to understand the process of hiring and figure out where it is lacking.

However, if the senior developer who had referred the new hire was privy to his previous engagement, then it is tantamount to being a discipline issue. A deeper probe must be undertaken. The HR must interact with the senior developer and ascertain his involvement in the whole situation as well. If he was genuinely unaware at the time of hiring, then it shouldn’t be his fault and he shouldn’t be held accountable. However, if he is found to have been in the know of the character of the hire, then the HR can plan what suitable action should be taken against this person depending on the severity of the information leak and loss to the company.

(This article appeared in the HRKatha monthly magazine)

The post Should the referrer be blamed for a bad hire? appeared first on HR Katha.