I’m a manager. I’ve been a manager for a lot of years. One of the things I hear all the time is how we shouldn’t strive for fair. We should work to be consistent. We should treat all employees the same. We aren’t supposed to do things differently for different people as that makes things unfair for the rest of the crew.
Human Resources loves to beat that drum. The human resources department at the company I work for now worships at that altar to the point where if they add a form to the new hire pack for California it goes in every state’s new hire pack, Connecticut get a new form? So do the rest of us… our new hire pack is currently very consistent… it’s also fifty five pages. I joined and left the Navy with less paperwork.
Discretion is the difference between a good manager and a great manager. Any manager-by-binder can treat every employee the same in the name of consistency. Heck! The modern day class room allegedly teaches at the pace of the slowest student so that they are consistent and all students get the same exposure. Teaching and managing to the lowest common denominator gets you loads of low denominators. Blech. Who wants that? No denominators left behind indeed!
Needless to say I was amazed to see Rosa over at Talking Story putting on the Consistency is King bugbear costume. And not doing it ironically either, she appeared to mean it. You could have pushed me over with a new hire pack! (That’s not as hard as you’d think. You roll that bad boy up and you’ve got a sheaf of papers to be reckoned with!)
Employees aren’t the same. To treat them the same is a weird, lazy way of doing things. Heck! I’m an employee myself and I hate it when I’m treated like everybody else. If you treat me with my 15 years with the company experience the same way you treat a manager that’s been on the job for a week you’re going to get on my very last nerve… and waste a lot of both of our times. But it happens… all in the name of being consistent.
Once upon a time I hired a guy I didn’t know was dyslexic. Treat him like everybody else? Sure! Fire him in no time for it too. It’s amazing how his mistakes would pile up when reading was required. Oh wait… that’s illegal. We’re supposed to try and work with handicaps. I did. Not because I had to to comply with the law, but because he was a great customer service type person. He wound up working with a keyboard with colors all over it. He became an excellent Sales Associate and didn’t do much the same way anybody else did things. We adapted the job in a lot of ways to work with him. Again, not because it was the law but because it was best for the store. Some things I didn’t require of him that were part of his job. How to fill out membership applications when he could neither read nor write? I had him have the customer fill them out (specifically verboten in our handbook at the time), explaining to them that he’d forgotten his glasses that day and if they could do it for him it’d be a great help. That’s just one example, and it’s only a big deal if you knew what a big deal was made of it in the handbook to not do that.
I once had an assistant manager who was excellent in every regard, except he would come in late to work more than was acceptable. The only person who would know was me. He only ever relieved me. So, I let him. One day when I was on vacation he wrote an employee up for being late to work. When I returned and saw it I was beside myself. How can he hold them to a standard he couldn’t meet with any regularity? From that day forward I held him to the standard he had held them to. He lasted another month before I fired him for breaking the rule he himself had set when he wrote up the person for being late. In the next 10 years they never had an assistant manager as good as he was. We both lost out on that one. (I’m was a new manager at the time and allowed him to get away with that… I’m not sure how I’d react to that today.) We’re still in touch these years later and he agrees he shouldn’t have done what he did since he was setting up a situation where he wasn’t living by the rules he set and that was what’d irritated me so much. I don’t let managers have a set of rules for themselves that are more lax than the rules they have for their employees. That’s no good.
Expectations are important. We have an eval form that scores people from 1 (worst) to 5 (best). If I’m evaluating a manager who has been with the company for three months will their level of ability be the same as the manager who has been here for five years? Are my expectations the same? If both managers performed at exactly the same level would they get exactly the same score? To be consistent probably… but that’s either brutally unfair to the newer person, or profoundly not expecting much out of the one that’s been doing it forever. My first set of evaluations I do for new managers when I was a district manager was based on where I thought they should be with the experience they had. My expectations for a long-time manager were different than for someone new to the job.
Attendance is something we look at as well. What’s an excessive pattern of absences? I’m a single guy with no kids. I rarely miss work. What if I were a single parent with two kids, a pre-schooler and one in first grade? Those little germ factories get sick all the time, and once they’ve got a fever good luck getting a sitter to take them! That means missed work. Sure, the family medical law protects parents from discrimination for taking care of their kids, and it should! But if I’ve got two otherwise equally qualified employees, one with kids who cause them to miss work and one with no kids who never misses work… what’s the answer there? Who gets the promotion? What if they both want it? What is the right answer? No clue. Luckily I haven’t been in that position.
If I get an employee I see potential for I’m going to nurture that potential. I’m going to ask more of them. I’m going to give them as much room to grow as they want and I’m going to let them. If I’ve got someone working until the next semester starts… someone marking time in a position to get some money before their next round of courses starts up and they leave… how could I possible be consistent with them? One’s looking at learning, growing, and getting their own store one day, and one’s waiting for a new pair of shoes before they cut and run. There are places for both types of employees as well. As long as they perform the work well I don’t expect every employee at an entry level position to be looking to be CEO in 20 years. I’ve taken jobs I needed just for a while, and I did my level best at them while I had them. That’s OK!
In Rosa’s article she talks about the manager being consistent with their values and the employees knowing what the manager’s decisions will be based on. They’ll be based on a well stated value-system that everybody knows. I couldn’t agree more with that sentiment. She doesn’t say “consistent=same” I should point that out before she blows up my comments… that’s not her, that’s an HR Dept. person somewhere else saying that.
So, consistency making me crazy? Only when it’s misapplied. There are scads of reasons we should treat people consistently, and there are scads of reasons we should not. There are reasons there are different rules for different people. It’s not the same to say consistent = same. I’ve done it and railed against it for a long time here. But the thing with consistency is people want to know what to expect. That’s what’s great about consistency. If they expect you to behave in a way that moves you towards your stated goals THAT’S a consistency I can get behind. It moves you forward. It’s acceptable to the employees who get to deal with and live with your decisions. The objections to rules not being the same is when it is possible for other employees to cry “favoritism” and that’s what makes HR’s hair stand on end when consistency isn’t the same as… well, as same. If an employee feels like another employee is being favored that’s dangerous. When they feel like they’re being discriminated against then that’s not good either. But if they know the reason the ball bounced the way it did in advance, and know that it would bounce that way every time based on values-based decisions that they’re aware of… then they know how to get the ball to bounce their way. That sort of thing is, I think, OK. It’s a playing field that everybody can play on. It’s one in which we all have a chance at succeeding, thriving, growing, and moving forward.
So, yeah… consistency does make me crazy when it’s used interchangeably with “the same.” But consistency that is based on clearly defined rules and expectations, that’s just fine. That’s how chess is played. All pieces don’t move the same way and yet nobody claims the bishops are unfairly advantaged over the pawns. Sometimes the rules are different, and as long as everybody knows ahead of time what the rules are and how they’re applied, that’s consistent and fair without being the same. That doesn’t make me crazy, that’s not the hobgoblin of the manager-by-binder. That’s just fair. I can live with fairness… as long as it’s consistent.