
One Bad “Policy Change” Email Can Kill Company Culture - trevin
http://moz.com/rand/one-bad-policy-change-email-can-kill-company-culture/
======
patio11
I totally agree that how one communicates influences corporate culture, and
the second email is a better communication than the first. They both suggest
to me, though, a company which reaches for a broad, expensive technological
(+) solution to solve a narrow, cheap people problem.

\+ There might not be code involved, but you're imposing a state machine, so
it's tech even if it is taught in the business school.

How you communicate policy changes is important, but if your communication
includes "How do we massage the fact that we know this is going to
inconvenience everyone in our organization regarding one of the core benefits
they perceive from working here?", _communication is not the problem_. The
only corporate culture problem there is that the hypothetical CEO did not say
"As custodian of the corporate culture, I think that working-from-home is too
important to us to touch. What other options do we have?"

(One possible solution: If three people with different managers are routinely
ducking meetings that have to take place, have three quiet conversations.
Another possible solution: if three people with different managers are
routinely ducking meetings, have three quiet conversations with their managers
about how any person who can be optimized out of a meeting should be because
their time is valuable.)

[Edit: It occurs to me that I glossed over the point in the blog post where
they actual business rationale is presented: "Company X has been having
trouble with abuse of work-from-home privileges. Managers are finding that
more and more people are getting less accomplished and a primary suspect is a
lack of coming into the office." I had gotten my understanding of the problem,
like employees, from the second email. If that is indeed the business
rationale, I revise my opinion of the second email: it is terrible _because it
is lying to me_ , in a way which makes the policy seem insane. Hilariously,
when I read it now I find myself actually _distrusting the hypothetical
problem statement_ \-- which is dicta for the purpose of this exercise --
because in light of being lied to I find myself thinking "Management, who we
have established are liars, are probably too incompetent to actually measure
people's productivity. I wonder what the _real_ reason for this is?"]

~~~
ChuckMcM
I completely agree with your edit.

The meta-meta issue here is that the 'policy change' (in the example) is a way
for some (maybe all) managers to avoid an actual conversation with folks who
work for them about what they are getting done. But that is what managers are
supposed to do, have those hard conversations, its part of the reason the job
is 'different' then being just a technical leader.

The hypothetical CEO has a real problem, things that need to get done aren't,
or they aren't being done in a timely fashion. The managers that work for them
(in a small company it might be one layer in a larger company two) need to
talk with their teams about what they are doing and how they are doing it. And
if someone on the team is spending a lot of time at home, and the manager
isn't seeing them getting stuff done, then they need to have a talk _with that
person_. Another scenario is that you talk to one of your people and they keep
getting road blocked trying to get something done and the person they need to
work with isn't in the office. That discussion is also straight forward, you
tell the person who works at home that they either have to make it as easy for
the people in the office who depend on them to work with them as if they were
in the office, or they have to be in the office.

Most employees get that the company is a 'for profit' concern, and if you are
straight up with them about these things I find the ones you want to keep
respond the way you would hope they do.

~~~
georgemcbay
I totally agree with the "meta-meta issue".

I realize this isn't the point of the original article, but I couldn't get
around the fact that either way the theoretical CEO phrased it he was
basically saying "Because of a few people abusing a privilege and our
management team being too spineless to confront them individually, now
everyone at the company has to be penalized. kthx bye."

~~~
Retric
It's also a permanent change in response to temporary problem.

If the email said we have a significant problem with X, we are considering our
options, but it a big problem so for the next 3 months we are going to do Y,
and while we work out a better long term solution.

And then 3 months from now they say: Core work hours are 11:00am-3:00pm and
you are expected to be online and available then even while working from home.
Each team is expected to come up with a mandatory 1 or 2 days a week where
everyone is expected to be here for core work hours. You no longer need
specific permission to WFH on non mandatory days.

Then yes, it's a big change, but it's more likely to seem reasonable AND it
seems like people spent a while deciding on a reasonable solution vs. someone
randomly sending a quick email.

------
chris_wot
To: allhands@reynholmindustries.co.uk

From: douglas.reynholm@reynholmindustries.co.uk

Subject: Time & Management Communication

Hi everyone,

Over the last month, our employees have been concerned that our CEO spends
about half his time drafting fiats from his office with the assistance of his
executive staff.

One challenge has been how to fill these emails with as much management jargon
as possible. Words like "collaboration", "visibility", "communication delays"
and "productivity" probably aren't enough as when I'm either in the office or
at home I find that these specific emails cause me to run out of filler words.

Consequently, we've decided to do something different and get more focus on
this problem domain. If you're planning on doing any work, please put it aside
for an hour and see if you can find any words we might have missed. As you can
see, I've started to do this myself, starting with this email, having already
found innovative uses for the words "focus", "problem domain" and "challenge".

Both the management team and I know that you've all been working super hard
lately and this might be seen as a pain. I'm sorry for that. But, as we've
learned from so many things expanding our business, management's time is
valuable and we are just spending too much of it drafting these emails. Your
lists of words are invaluable and will ultimately make life easier for
everyone.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated, even if you feel like we are total
boneheads that's ok. After all, that's why we need your skills in expanding
our vocabulary - an informed company is a great company!

Thanks gang,

Douglas

~~~
Paul_S
Absolutely agree. This is how the email should look like:

"Hi Everyone,

Starting next week if you want to work from home you must send an explanatory
writeup to your manager who will decide whether to allow it."

On a tangential issue: I hate when people sign their emails (especially
internal ones) when there's a perfectly serviceable from field. If you have to
then please be thoughtful and use the -- signature convention.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I don't like your proposed email, because it proscribes a solution without
describing the problem.

~~~
lmm
Neither of the given examples were a search for alternative solutions to the
problem. If you're after suggestions, that's cool - but when you're giving
orders, call them orders.

~~~
masklinn
No, but at least the second one explains the problem — or at least what is
perceived as the problem — it's trying to solve.

Which opens up the ability for discussion of alternative solutions, or the
criticism of there being a problem at all.

~~~
lmm
Which is a miscommunication, if the CEO is not actually open to such
discussion or criticism.

~~~
mcguire
The title of the article was "...Kill Company Culture", not "...Demonstrate
that the Company is Dead".

If the CEO (or the intervening levels of company) are not open for discussion,
the choice of email really doesn't matter. If they _are_ , and the terse,
uncommunicative, fiat email is sent out inadvertently, then that email is
damaging.

------
btilly
Meh. The long version is massively worse. I got to the end of it and was left
confused about what, specifically, I could expect. I definitely prefer the
initial "bad" version. (Though I would make it shorter.)

If you want to add explanation, make that short and sweet as well.

Here is an example following the lines of the first that is even shorter.

 _To: Allhands@CompanyX.com From: JoeTheHRManager@CompanyX.com Subject: New
Work-From-Home Policy

Everyone,

Our work from home policy is changing next week. Employees wishing to do so
must get an OK in advance from their manager. This is to improve progress on
projects that depend on collaboration in house.

Managers, if your employee is not currently working on a project where in
house collaboration is critical, please be generous in OKing working from home
requests.

As always, please send feedback to HR@CompanyX.com.

Joe_

That message explains the policy, indicates why, and should leave people with
comfort that a favored perk is not simply being eliminated wholesale.

If you want fuller context for my advice, I highly recommend buying
[http://www.amazon.com/How-Talk-Kids-Will-
Listen/dp/038081196...](http://www.amazon.com/How-Talk-Kids-Will-
Listen/dp/0380811960) and reading it. (Ignore the bit about that advice being
for kids - it works with grownups as well.)

~~~
vacri
This is far better than either of the sample emails in the article, but I
would cut out the second stanza - communication to managers about management
shouldn't really be global.

~~~
btilly
Why shouldn't communication to managers be global? In this case it is an
important part of managing expectations, which is part of culture.

With it in, people have a pretty good sense of whether they are likely to be
impacted. With it out, people will assume that they are impacted whether they
are or not, and will resent it. Also including it in what everyone got
significantly reduces the risk that some low-level manager who never liked the
work from home policy will try to eliminate it locally.

Those strike me as pretty good reasons to leave it in.

------
columbo
I disagree. I don't see any difference between email 1 and email 2 except for
email 2 has a bunch more filler words.

If I was to rewrite this it'd look something like this:

    
    
        To: Allhands@CompanyX.com
        From: JoeTheHRManager@CompanyX.com
        Subject: New Work-From-Home Policy
    
        Hi Everyone,
    
        All of upper management have just put in their notice!
        Bagels in the break room! 
    
        Joe 
    
      

What I mean to suggest is this type of email should NEVER be sent out in the
first place. Blanket "Policy Changes" like this that impact everyone is a
complete failure of management. This puts at-risk every employee you have.

Whatever reason for making the policy change (person X is not following the
rules) needs to be resolved otherwise discontent and resentment will build
(You know why this happened probably because Frank works from home ALL THE
TIME).

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
I don't buy that.

Policies aren't intrinsically bad - guidance is fine and great for new
starters to help them understand how stuff works.

The implication here is that if someone is out of line then their manager
should take that up one on one. That's fine (and right) but the other side of
it is how do they know what "in line" is if it's never codified and
communicated?

~~~
yock
No, policies aren't inherently bad, but wide-sweeping policy changes for
_perceived_ problems or in response to relatively few bad actors are company
killers. You might not see it right away, but your people who have options
will leave you eventually.

~~~
brador
The part that's bad in email 2 is "we've decided". No one likes being a slave
to anothers will or reminded of the fact.

If I ever send out a bs policy update without discussing informally with staff
or managers beforehand I expect everyone here to walk.

We spend a lot of money hiring talent. They do whatever the fuck they want so
long as they get the job done. If they're not getting the job done, then we
talk. We don't punish everone for one guys non performance.

Bad policy emails are a sign of weak management.

~~~
ericdykstra
Wait, what are you talking about? WE decided? MY best interests? How do you
know what MY best interest is? How can you say what MY best interest is? What
are you trying to say?

~~~
biafra
I'M crazy? When I went to YOUR schools, I went to YOUR churches, I went to
YOUR institutional learning facilities? So how can you say I'M crazy?

~~~
mindcrime
All I wanted was a Pepsi, just one Pepsi, and she wouldn't give it to me!

------
ChuckMcM
Generally these fail when nobody believes the rationale. So in the 'work from
home' example, everyone will believe that management doesn't think people are
working hard enough and so they want people at the office where they can
watch.

I watched a number of these types of emails get sent out at Google while I was
there, changes in 'policy' which were really reducing the kinds of things
Google used to do that cost money and they didn't want to spend that money any
more. Nearly everyone I queried 'read between the lines' and picked up a 'your
screwing us and trying to make it look like your not' message, even if the
Eric and the others didn't think that was what they were saying.

Perhaps only way to message this is in the results direction. Something like:

"Hey Team, we need to ship the X project because its vital to the company,
That means we're going to meet every day at lunch time (we'll provide lunch)
to make sure everyone has what they need and are getting stuff done. See ya
there."

Then let people work around the requirement to suit their needs.

~~~
mikeash
I agree with being more forthright, but any company that believes the answer
to a tight deadline is to have more meetings is doomed doomed doooooomed.

~~~
bdunbar
Disagree. Depends on the meeting.

If you're on a tight deadline, there are different workgroups involved, a
quick meeting can ..

Get all parties talking.

Coordinate resources.

Etc.

Spend 10 minutes doing this, break until the next meeting, or agree to skip
it, depending on circumstances.

Now, if you get stuck with a manager who insists on rambling on .. and on ..
then yeah: big time waster.

~~~
mikeash
I agree with both you and ChuckMcM that occasional meetings, carefully
targeted and run, can help. But he was describing having meetings _every day_
, which I think is completely nuts. If you decide to have _one_ meeting to
figure out where communication needs to happen, that's fine, but regularly
scheduled meetings without even having something specific to meet about are
crazy.

------
Tyrannosaurs
So I like what he's trying to say but his "this is how to do it mail" makes a
few mistakes:

1) Paragraph two says almost nothing. Overall the mail is too long for what it
needs to say. Don't kid yourself that extra bulk makes bad news more
attractive it doesn't, it just irritates people that you're wasting their time
as well as doing stuff they don't like. If you want a bullshit free mail,
always check the length - if it's longer than it has to be there's a good
chance that a lot of the excess is bullshit.

2) The second one makes one of the worst mistakes in these situations and goes
with the "I'm one of you" approach. In my experience little gets people's
backs up more than this. As CEO you're not one of the team when it comes to
this stuff. Yes you can make out you're doing it but volunteering information
is different to being asked for it - it doesn't have the implied lack of
trust. As a general rule don't pretend you're the same unless you're sure you
really are in every way, not just superficial ones.

3) Different writing styles and all but I'd never include an exclamation mark
in a "bad news" e-mail. Exclamation marks usually say funny / whacky, neither
of which are things you want anywhere near bad news.

All that said, paragraphs one, three and four are good, actually very good -
explains what's happening and why. If I got those with a straight forward
friendly sign-off I'd probably be fine. I may even nick them as an example.

~~~
amirmc
I doubt that he went through his whole process for this example email but here
are my thoughts (at the risk of over-analysing).

1) Para 1 and 2 provide a reference frame from which to consider the rest of
the email. Yes, length can sound bullshitty but used well it can also provide
helpful context. In this specific example I do agree that it could be shorter
but not necessarily by much. Para 1 by itself doesn't say enough.

2) This is _highly_ dependent on the type of company. I guess for Moz-ers this
is usual (same for the sign-off).

3) Normally I'd agree with you but in this example there's only one and it
work in the email's favour (for me at least).

~~~
Tyrannosaurs
Point 1 is interesting as some people like more bulk and context, others are
just yeah, yeah, yeah, get on with it. Broadly I think the mail is too long
and this was the paragraph that stood out, but I accept that different people
might see it differently.

Point 2 I still disagree on. I don't think it depends on the company at all -
saying you'll put something in your diary isn't the same as being asked to
account for your time. One is voluntary, the other isn't. You know the CEO is
only doing it to try and put himself in the same position but you also know
he's not the one who isn't trusted.

CEOs aren't the same as the rest of us. They're answerable in completely
different ways, for different things. Yes they need to limit their "special
treatment" but it's a mistake for them to pretend that the same rules apply to
them because everyone knows it isn't true (and so long as they're doing their
jobs and treating us OK, that's fine).

------
droithomme
I don't like either email.

Assuming we have open communication, I would respond to the CEO's email and
propose implementing a different policy - if we are expected to come to the
noisy distracting office where it is hard to get work done, managers must send
an email asking us, explaining why it is necessary, and it will be up to the
engineer's discretion to determine whether or not he wants to lower his
productivity by coming in.

~~~
pavel_lishin
I would ask for hard numbers, per-employee.

I realize you can't just single out employees in an e-mail; this wouldn't fly:

"Robert, Helen and Ricky are required to get approval from their manager
before working from home. John, Ed and Taavi can work remotely at any time."

But at the same time, if I'm provably more productive working from home than I
am in the office, requiring me to get approval is counter-productive.

(On the gripping hand, if I am more productive at home, all of my requests
ought to get approved, provided that my manager is aware of the facts.)

~~~
droithomme
Yes, the problem in the given scenario is that there is a certain number of
specific employees who are saying they are working from home but are doing
shopping, taking the kids to school and doctor, watching TV, running errands,
surfing the net and so forth, never getting around to actually doing any work.

As you point out, the "approval method" is a elaborate attempt to hide the
fact that unproductive employees ABC are now not allowed to work from home and
productive employees DEF are still allowed to. Rather than communicate this
directly to persons ABC, an elaborate system of misleading emails is
constructed.

A more effective and less damaging way to handle this is to meet individually
with the specific persons who are having problems and explain it has become
clear they are not productive when working from home, and so they'll have to
work from their office from now on. And if that doesn't work out, then they
can be dismissed.

Instead of handling this situation in the obvious manner, which would be
effective and would not publicly shame anyone, we have two emails proposed to
be sent to the entire company establishing a global policy to deal with a
minority of people who are having problems. The wording doesn't matter, the
problem is that the email is sent to everyone to deal with a specific problem
with specific employees.

This is done this way because management is comprised of ineffective cowards
who are terrified of confrontation and communication.

These emails show that the real problem here is highly ineffective management.
To improve things management needs to change their ways or get out.

~~~
jt2190
> This is done this way because management is comprised of ineffective cowards
> who are terrified of confrontation and communication.

This one sentence sums up why managers won't directly confront these problems,
but instead apply new policies to the whole group: Employees often lack
empathy for their managers, and when given criticism, will take it very
personally. (I'm not blaming employees. I think this is human nature.)
Managers don't want to risk pissing off an employee who, while good, has one
or two things that could be improved. Better to have a slightly less happy but
still productive employee.

That's not to say that the policies are often not asinine, but my suspicion is
that draconian policies are often the result of management not having enough
time to deal with the issue in an intelligent way combined with a small
handful of employees who don't make good judgements when left to their own
discretion.

~~~
pavel_lishin
> Employees often lack empathy for their managers

You're very right. I've only had one boss I disliked/didn't respect, but I've
always worked at small companies.

At larger companies, managers are more beholden to _their_ bosses than you. At
my current company, my manager knows that I provide value to the company, so
if his boss told him to fire me, he'd fight for me. Empathy: granted.

If I were working at say, IBM, seventeen levels down from the CEO, the manager
would be more worried about being fired by his boss than he would be about my
loss of productivity. So if his boss told him to fire me, I'd be out looking
for a new job. Empathy: lost.

------
mindcrime
I agree that email #2 is marginally better than #1, but I'd not be thrilled by
either one. Here's why:

1\. I am all about respect, and I tend to take things personally (yeah, it's a
character flaw, but whatever). If you send an email that even hints that you
don't respect me and my judgment enough to just leave me alone and get my job
done, it's going to rub me the wrong way and create an antagonistic feeling.
My feeling is going to be "if you don't trust me, why am I working here?"

2\. I wasn't consulted about a change that's going to affect me. Unilateral
policy changes that aren't based on input from the people affected by the
change are mondo bogus. This is also going to get my goat and annoy me to no
end.

All of that said, I agree that people focus on the negative more than the
positive, and that one "bad" email can outweigh 10 "good" emails (if there is
such a thing).

My theory is that everybody has a mental balance scale tucked away in their
heads, labeled "quit my job" with the ends labeled "yes" and "no". At any
given time, neither bucket is completely empty, but it's usually fairly evenly
balanced. But if enough little things build up and build up and build up on
the "yes" side, eventually it tips the scale. Emails of this sort are definite
additions to the "yes" side of the "quit my job" scale.

~~~
LargeWu
Ha, I was just thinking about this in a very similar way the other day.

Employee happiness is basically Good Will > Bullshit. Good Will is things like
flexible working hours, office perks, interesting projects. Bullshit is
anything that the employee percieves negatively.

Retention builds on this. It's Good Will + Compensation > Bullshit.
Compensation here can be salary or benefits. Many employees can be unhappy
(Good Will < Bullshit), but not quit because they need the money or whatever.
But, at some point, the BS will outweigh even good compensation, and that's
when employees quit.

------
rcfox
Of course the second email sounds better: it's an entirely different message.

Email #1 says: "If you want to work from home, ask for permission with an
explanation."

Email #2 says: "If you want to work from home, let us know when."

Email #1 demands that you ask permission. _That's what kills the culture._
Most managers are going to approve 99% of the time anyway, so skip the power
trip. The message of email #2 doesn't mean you lose the ability to deny
either.

------
bluesnowmonkey
He's trying to manage through policies. Not gonna work. If you have 50 people
under you, there are 50 different situations to consider.

For example: Joe has been working at home because his wife just had a
complicated labor and needs help at home for a while. Better leave that one
alone. Frank has been working at home because yeah, he's slacking. You should
already have fired him, but you're a coward. Eric has been working at home
because he's depressed about his carer arc and hates the office environment,
and he's one of your best employees. Go talk to him and fix it before he
quits! Lisa hasn't actually been working at home at all. She's on the road
this week helping a third party integrate with your system, and you even knew
about that but forgot when you saw a bunch of empty desks in the office and
snapped.

You can't abstract away the heterogeneous nature of your employees. You have
to talk to each one and deal with them individually. Yes, it's hard.

~~~
genwin
Yep. If people aren't meeting expected reasonable results for no good reason,
that's the issue in a nutshell, and that's the issue to deal with directly.
The issue has nothing to do _per se_ with working from home, so no fix should
mention that aspect, especially not to a whole team.

------
wccrawford
To me, the real difference is knowing _why_. If you don't tell me why, I'm
going to assume the worst. And history has shown that at least one of my co-
workers will, too, and he or she will go around to everyone else and talk
about these fears. Since they can't be countered (co-workers don't have any
information about the situation), the fears will fester and rot until someone
finally does explain the situation.

In most companies, that explanation _never_ comes. After you've been there a
few years, you've got an insane backlog of things you're still worried about.
You'll probably have forgotten most of them at any given time, but it just
takes a small trigger to bring it back to active memory.

That's the real morale killer.

------
lucisferre
_If you’re at a company where these sorts of communications aren’t considered
strategically, you might try talking to your managers/execs about it. I bet
that more than 50% of the time, there’s a good reason and good motivation
underneath those overly-corporate, soul-destroying emails. Convincing them
that being more open about the reasons and more considerate in the
presentation will have a positive impact probably won’t take much work._

This was a great post and of great value to me as I get started building a
company where I want to create a better than status quo culture (the Valve
post is also great, so far it's been a good morning).

However, I had to laugh at the comment above a bit. If you are in a company
that has this sort of problem, it probably isn't the e-mails that are
destroying company culture but the culture that's creating the soul destroying
"policy" e-mails and micro-management. Trying to change that culture by gently
suggesting ways to "frame things" differently is going to be about as
effective trying to dig _up_. But hey, good luck anyways.

------
DanBC
> _“Office Happiness Update.”_

I've had many emails like this. _Dilbert_ , _Office Space_ , _Brazil_ , C
Stross, all parody this kind of thing excellently.

His suggestion is much to wordy. Some people will have a bad feeling before
they start to read it, and the conversational positive tone doesn't really
stop that feeling.

I look forward to the ever-happy always positive dystopian science fiction.

~~~
mjn
While doing some research [1] on the 1990s "fun at work" trend, I ran across
this amazing passage in a management book:

> _Now make a log of your workday that records how much time you devote to
> playing, having fun, and actually engaging the world around you. Then note
> the number of times you and your colleagues laugh. Use this "inventory" as a
> baseline for redefining the role of play and fun in your performance._

Good news everyone, we're on track to exceed quarterly laughter targets! What
a great place this is to work!

[1] <http://www.kmjn.org/notes/funsultants_and_gamification.html>

~~~
andrewem
I was on a Delta flight some years ago and the flight attendant announced
"This flight has been designated a surprise and delight flight", which made it
clear they'd been ordered to do that. Then they gave out some little trinket
they'd presumably been paid to hand out; a web search finds people who were
given breath mints by Delta in 2004. Needless to say, I was surprised but not
delighted.

------
SeanDav
I love the second email. I have found that short emails, especially from
senior people can lead to a lot of "what does he/she actually mean"?

I worked for a company where the CEO loved sending off 1 sentence emails.
Short, yes. To the point, yes, but it was incredible the amount of time that
was spent trying to interpret the real message behind the message or even if
there was one.

Without the nuances of body language, tone, expression, etc of a face to face
conversation it is extremely easy to misinterpret an email. In general long
emails are annoying but this is, to my mind an extremely important exception.
The more detail, background, colour that you have about important emails, the
better.

------
chrislomax
I find this balls if you ask me, the first one actually cuts out all the
bullshit, the second one doesn't. I find the second email condescending and I
would quite easily see through the crap of what they were trying to say.

Personally we have had those emails and after a day of people crying about it
people just live with the new policy and get on with it.

I thought the whole point of the email was to cut through the bullshit, the
second one had me looking through the dictionary working out what it meant.

------
16s
The second email reads like it was written by a MBA (no disrespect to MBAs
intended). There are lot's of fluff words (visibility, collaboration-
dependent, solo productivity, etc). Perhaps it sounds softer than the initial
email, but it leaves one wondering what the intent is. I'd much rather receive
a more direct email that requires less reading and less interpretation.

~~~
blt
I agree. My first thought after reading was "I bet this guy has an MBA
degree."

~~~
sharkweek
he actually doesn't even have an undergraduate degree - -
<http://randfishkin.com/blog/about>

------
JoeAltmaier
Are folks really so sensitive they can't ignore a bs email from a bean
counter?

Yeah I've seen lots of stuff like those emails (both bad). They're telling me
(and my manager) how to do our job.

I just ignore them. I ignore warnings about failure to conform to company
policy. I ignore the corporate weeds that think talking to me about this stuff
is important.

I work at a fairly high level now in my career, so you might say I can get
away with this stuff. But as a low-level peon years ago, it was even easier to
get away with. As long as my manager and I were on the same page.

The only corporate relationship that matters to you is, your immediate
contacts. That's your manager, your team, and anybody you oversee. Get those
right, work hard and deliver, and the rest is irrelevant.

~~~
munin
except when it isn't because the people who determine how you are paid aren't
in your immediate contacts.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
If you don't get paid what you're worth, time to change jobs.

The trap is to run around in their maze, looking for their cheese. You have no
real control in that situation, and its time to switch jobs.

Your first job in any situation is to improve your skills, find satisfaction
and get real work done. Failing any of those, everybody loses.

------
blankenship
Or you could simply have the managers confront the offending employees one on
one instead of blanketing your whole staff with a policy change...

A company culture where the slack of certain employees gets discussed in a
boardroom and the solution is to email everyone a policy change sounds
suspiciously like a culture that abdicates the responsibility to lead.

------
sk5t
Both emails are pretty lousy; the upshot is the same "punish everyone with
bureaucracy for the transgressions of a few". The second email allows the
sender to assure himself that he isn't sending a memo about the new cover
sheets for the TPS reports so if you could just get with the program that'd be
greaaaaat--but it's the same order and smart employees will see right through
it.

------
markokocic
I like first email more (the one marked as bad example). It's simple, and to
the point. After reading it you know exactly what is changed and why. It's a
bit harsh, but we are not kids, we can handle it.

The other mail (the one marked as good example) is apologetic, lengthy, and
doesn't get to the point cleanly. It might be good when talking to other
managers, investors, customers or suits, but not when talking to your
developer employees. If you write specifications like that, the job will never
get done.

------
Zenst
Totaly agree with the article though not sure how it would effect a situation
I had once.

WHen I joined a company they said verbaly(my mistake) I'd get a pay review
after probation. That did not happen and shortly afterwards my department was
closed down and I was in effect promoted to a higher up department (more in
keeping with my skillset as well). I then after a month queried this situation
and said there would be a meeting. I was the most productive in that
department with getting users problems done and in the meeting I was told that
as the company anual pay review period was due next month they would
accomodate things then.

Two days later a company wide email goes out that the annual pay review period
was being pushed back 6 months due to accounting restructuring. Now given that
the directors would of fully known about this before hand and in the meeting I
had one was a director I can totaly see how a bad email can upset some people
on many levels. Now I'm sure the director in question was somewhat unable to
tell me in advance but it was hard not to feel shafted as he would of had
prior knowledge and neither my direct boss nor the director had the common
sence to contact me and say we messed up and talk about the original issue and
they both pretended as if nothing happened. I ended up leaving the company on
bad terms and that company's share price has been going downhill ever since
and they are on the verge of being non existant. Which is somewhat ironic
given the company specialises in mobile email services.

------
jdcryans
Now have I have a long email to parse AND a policy change _sigh_.

More seriously, I doesn't seem to me that the author demonstrated how one such
policy change can kill "company culture". At best he showed the way he
personally likes it done, at worst he's trolling us by presenting a solution
to a problem that doesn't really exist and now everyone comments on how they
agree/disagree/have a better solution. The fact that a policy change is needed
or not isn't even discussed.

------
skittles
Ideally, a company should have no policy stating how things get done. A _real_
manager manages. A coward looks to the company to manage his or her people.

------
snowwrestler
"Policy Change" emails are terrible ways to address this sort of problem.
People hate these sort of policy changes not because of the email, but because
of the policy. It is trying to solve a productivity problem by imposing on
everyone a new burdensome, non-productive task.

If you think employees are not performing to expectations, their managers
should tell them that clearly and honestly in person. If necessary, those
particular employees should be limited from working at home, or tasked with
additional reporting. That way the "punishment" fits the crime.

As an aside, the second email is long and full of forced friendliness and
awful corporate speak. I mean, _every_ paragraph has the work "collaboration"
in it, except the last one--which calls the managers knuckleheads. I think
emails from the CEO should be short, honest, and clear.

Subject: Falling Productivity

Team, We are seeing falling productivity, and the pattern seems to be related
to working from home. It should go without saying that we must maintain high
productivity if we want to grow and succeed as a company. We need to get this
fixed.

In the next few days your manager will schedule a meeting with you to discuss
in detail the problem and how we might solve it.

Thanks, \- CEO Guy

------
727374
"framed properly without the bullshit" -- adding to my list of interesting
oxymorons.

~~~
klez
How is this an oxymoron?

An example:

I live in Springfield -> Framed improperly (which Springfield???), without
bullshit I live in Springfield, IL -> Framed properly, without bullshit I live
in Springfield, IL, which surely is good -> Framed properly, but with useless
(and nonesense, sorry, couldn't think of a better example...) crap

~~~
727374
E.G. this article. The author takes an authentic issue (managers concerned
about work from home abuse) and frames it by adding bunch of distracting BS.
I'm not saying framing is bad, but it's inherently manipulative.

------
blt
I agree with the sentiment of email 2, but it's bloated and squishy like a
banana slug. Major windbag writing style.

------
pasbesoin
Personal experience/anecdote:

"Mind the gap"

This theme used a horrible, mis-applied term and metaphor from a different
culture, while asking employees to make up for management's shortcoming not
long after going public and buying a bunch of speculative, non-performing
crap.

Further, it had the smell of outside management consultants (and "business-
speak").

The employee-induced subtext: GTFO, before the doors close.

\--

P.S. I didn't think the second, "improved" example memo in the OP was better
than the first. Very wordy, without really laying out the problem It feels as
if it is talking all around the issue. When I read something like that, I
start looking for the other shoe (that is sure to drop).

------
tomelders
I think he missed the very point he was trying to make.

------
whazor
His second e-mail is unclear and big, it is wasting the time of his employees.
By using a text structure you can be more clear. Here is a structure you can
use for policy changes.

1\. What is the measure? 2\. What is the goal of the measure? 3\. Why is the
measure needed? 4\. How should the measure be implemented? 5\. What are the
effects of the measure?

------
abruzzi
I read the two sample emails, and the first seems honest, if a bit short on
details. The second seems to be BS trying to put a positive face on "we're
limiting work-at-home privileges because too many people are using it as an
excuse to goof off." I'd be far more skeptical about the second email than the
first.

------
codegeek
Interesting to read this article. I used to work for a large bank where we
were actually forced to work from home 1-2 times a day since they were running
out of office desks for us :).

------
stretchwithme
You get what you ask for.

Ask for hours and you get hours.

Ask for greatness instead.

------
michaelochurch
There is a reasoning behind emails like the first: managerial mystique. Make
decisions, don't explain why. If you explain your reasoning, there's room for
debate.

You don't want to explicitly say, "Because I say so", because that's drawing
attention to the fact that you're being a dick. The stuffy and bureaucratic
language is a part of that. It's about seeming official. The "bad" first email
is classic 20th-century management done well.

Like this:

TO: All employees [1]

After careful consideration [2], we [3] have decided to review [4] the work-
from-home privilege [5] that we offer. While we intend [6] to continue
extending this plan [7], we expect that employees will monitor their
individual performance [8] while doing so. For that reason, we've attached
form TPS-363 [9], which all [10] employees are expected to submit to their
managers should they continue to use the work-from-home privilege. [5]

Footnotes:

[1] Aggressive formality. This isn't "Hey Team". It's serious business.
Management is alert. The Man is on patrol.

[2] "Careful consideration" means, "We're saying upfront that we don't want to
hear any complaints or dissent. We're representing ourselves as having
deliberated _already_ in an attempt to shut out any room for debate."

[3] Use "we" to communicate bad news. The "we" is a move to speak for the
company so it sounds like you're ruling based on leadership rather than
authority. "The company" (not just an anal-retentive manager) needs this.

[4] "Review". This makes it sound like there was a process and (again) a
deliberation.

[5] Note the use of the word "privilege", subtly implying, "we can take this
away".

[6] "We intend" = "We're being nice by letting WFH continue, but don't make us
regret it."

[7] "Plan". Working from home is no longer something the company offers to
improve productivity and morale, nor is it a perk. It's a "plan". And plans
have rules.

[8] "Individual performance". Scary words that suggest more managerial
oversight and possibly "reviews", "performance improvement plans", and
terminations. Good employees never, ever have "performance" under discussion.
Good employees (and managers who know they have good employees) discuss the
_impact_ they've had and would like to have in the future. They discuss goals
and lessons and aspirations. When the discussion is of "performance", it's
inherently a negative one. The stars don't need performance reviews to know
they're doing well. Performance reviews are to scare the people in the middle
and to document the reason for firing those at the bottom.

[9] The longer the form, the more there is a message of, "We'd actually rather
not that you do this, but if you're willing to feel like you're applying for a
hand-out by filling out this form, go ahead."

[10] Note the use of "all". That's most important. It makes the change seem
uniform and fair, and applied across the whole company. This allows people to
conclude, after a bit of annoying news, "Well, if my boss has to do it, and so
does his boss, and so does his boss, it can't be _that_ bad". Of course, the
_reality_ is that people in the managerial hierarchy (and grunts with
supportive managers) can ignore TPS-363 and no one will bat an eye, but the
change _appears_ impersonal.

This is a "bad", morale-damaging email, but it's 20th-century bureaucracy done
about as well as it can be. How so? Well, in a mid-20th century context,
people are already used to annoying, paternalistic memos from "on high" and
have developed an immunity to them. They know that companies gradually get
worse, but that the process is generally quite slow. What it actually is is a
dog-whistle. The actual targets (WFH employees perceived to be slacking off)
of the memo are warned, but the rest of the employees forget it 15 minutes
after it was sent. Do people actually quit their jobs after an irritating
email? No. People grumble about them and then forget. They get back to work,
and people who enjoy the work they're doing are going to annoy irritating
upper management unless it directly affects them.

The difference between 20th-century bureaucratic management and 21st-century
movement in the post-managerial direction (cf. Valve) is the change in the
motivation-payoff curve. If a highly motivated employee is only 25% more
effective than a typically motivated (i.e. wanting promotions and not to be
fired) employee, then irking a highly motivated one to warn a slacker is worth
doing. If that discrepancy is 5x to 10x instead of 1.25x, the calculus is
completely different: you're actually better off taking a hands-off approach
and letting employees self-organize (and quietly managing slackers out if they
fail to find a place after a year). We're coming into a world where a company
can _only_ be competitive if its people are highly motivated, and traditional
Theory-X bureaucracy just doesn't work.

