Help your unhappy employees go

In the knowledge economy, the engine and energy of production are in the minds and hearts of employees.  People who have up-to-date knowledge and skills can do more and better; those who are happier in their jobs tend to do more and better.  If your job is to help other people be more productive, efficient or effective, it's your responsibility to help employees get smarter and be happier in their jobs.

Though there are plenty of low-cost strategies for educating and motivating employees, there is only so much a manager can do.  If there are major problems that can't be addressed in an acceptable time frame, then it may be better for the manager to help the employee find another opportunity where they can succeed.  A happy alum replaced by a productive worker can help your organization more than an unsatisfied, unproductive worker.

Some companies in the Silicon Valley are even making the opportunity to leave a fringe benefit of joining a firm.  As The New York Times reported in "Silicon Valley Hiring Perks: Meals, iPads and Cubicle for Spot" some high-tech firms are offering employees classes on starting their own businesses.

Why does that make sense?  Because entrepreneurs tend to want the freedom to control their time and create their own schedules.  No matter how flat or progressive a company is, employees have to report to supervisors. The bigger the organization, the more likely there are to be policies and regulations that inhibit freedom.

What should managers do, and when should they decide it is time to help employees find new opportunities?

First, managers and organizations have to try.

An organization that does not provide reasonable opportunities for employees to update their knowledge and skill sets is one that, frankly, does not value their employees enough.  There are plenty of low-cost ways to train and develop people -- but there is always at least a cost of time.  A consulting firm whose managers say "You can go to free seminars and webinars, but you still have to have the same amount of billable hours" is not making any reasonable effort to develop employees.

And if an organization says it can't afford to train and develop people, it should not be buying new furniture or giving nice perks for its executives.  Smart employees know that organizations reveal what they value by what they spend.  If you spend more money on where you park your assets than on the people who made the spending possible, expect there to be widespread unhappiness.

Harder for many managers is dealing with employees' emotional states.  It's easy to identify skill sets and places where employees can get them.  But sometimes employees themselves aren't sure why they're unhappy, or what motivates them.   Also, if the employees' issues are due to problems outside the office, managers can be rightfully concerned about going into areas of psychological counseling that they are not equipped to handle.  (If your organization has a human resources department, trained professionals there should deal with employee emotional issues.  If there is no HR department, the executives and directors of the firm may have to learn enough to diagnose problems they can't handle themselves.  Organizations without HR departments should be aware of human resources consultants.)

You can start by simply asking employees what they like, or don't like, about their job and the organization.  But be aware that if an employee does not trust you, or you are part of the "don't like" column, the employee is not going to be candid.  If you don't already have a good relationship with an employee, it is better to let someone else ask the questions.

It's useful to know what employees value most.  One way is to ask them, after they complete their lists of likes and dislikes, to identify, in order, what they would be willing to give up if they had to, and what they would be willing to get rid of if they could.

Another tool for understanding what motivates employees is Career Anchors.  It is a tool developed by management guru Edgar Schein that helps those who use it better understand what they want in their careers.  People who value independence above other things will probably be unhappy in rule-bound bureaucratic organizations.  People who value stability more might find it too stressful to work for a small, tight-budget nonprofit.

There may be other tools that your human resources colleague or consultant might recommend as a better fit for your situation.

When you have a better understanding of what most motivates employees, determine what you can change, and what you can't.  If what can't change in a reasonable period of time is important to the employee, then it is time to help the employee find new opportunities.

Having the talk with the employee is difficult.  The employee might think that he or she is going to get fired, and you are providing a subtle form of advance notice.  If that is not the case, make it clear.  If it is the case, let the employee know what he or she can do, if anything, to change the decision.

Then through your contacts, job boards, or other ways you're comfortable with, help the employee find a new opportunity in an organization that can help yours.  If the employee goes to a competing organization, the employee's new supervisors would look down on that person helping you in the future.

Encourage the employee to stay in touch.  Or better yet, create or expand an organizational network to include alumni.  Some large law firms, like colleges, have their own alumni organizations.  These help maintain good relationships and generate good leads.

There are three ways that people in knowledge-based industries leave their jobs:

• They lose their motivation, which reduces the energy they put into the job and makes them less creative, productive and committed to resolving problems.
• They lose their interest, which leads to distractions and mistakes.
• They spend more time away from work, either voluntarily (coming in late, overly long lunches) or otherwise (when the stress causes illness or injury, increasing the number of sick days used)

If unhappy employees are going to leave, help them go in ways that benefit everyone.

--Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP, is the Director of the Professional Development Institute and The Leading Institute at Rutgers University's Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy. The institutes offer continuing education courses in leadership and management.  Learn more about the Professional Development Institute, The Leading Institute and upcoming courses.

Buchanan v. Warley reveals the double-edged sword of zoning

On April 10, 1916, a case began in the U.S. Supreme Court that set some important limits to zoning regulations.  The case, Buchanan v. Warley made it clear that local governments could not engage in racial zoning -- that is, regulating land uses based solely on the race of the property owners.

If you never heard of the case, don't be surprised.  The histories of urban planning we learn in school often tell an an untarnished story of early planners bringing order to the chaos of the early 20th century.  Buchanan v. Warley reminds us that while land use regulations were doing good in some cities, they were also being used to deny African-Americans in the south (and Chinese-Americans in California) full and fair rights and opportunities.

In the early 1900s, cities across the United States were using land use regulations to, among other things, prevent  buildings from being so big and bulky that their residents and neighbors could not get good air circulation and light and to protect residential areas from smelly, noisy factories.  At the same time, cities like Baltimore, Louisville and other places in the south created land use regulations to keep African-Americans isolated and away from White people.

In Louisville, Kentucky, where the Buchanan v. Warley story starts, the city created an ordinance that prevented African-Americans from moving into neighborhoods that were majority White, and vice-versa.  The reason for this ordinance, Louisville's representatives told the Court, was to prevent the kinds of "civil disturbance" that would arise if White and Black residents were allowed to live in the same neighborhoods.

(Notice the reliance on 'protecting order' -- which is the basis for a lot of zoning regulations then and now.)

Charles Buchanan, who was White, sold a house to William Warley, an African-American.  Because most of the people on the block were White, Warley could not legally occupy the house.  The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that while Louisville had a right to enact regulations to protect public order and provide for the general welfare, the city's ordinance violated the 14th Amendment rights to equal protection of individuals under the law.

Of course, that didn't stop cities throughout the United States from using planning -- or planners -- to promote segregation.  In fact, according to historian Christopher Silver in The Racial Origins of Zoning in American Cities, "After 1917, cities preferred to engage professional planners to prepare racial zoning plans and to marshal the entire planning process to create the completely separate Black community."  He adds that when regulations couldn't enforce segregation, "data supplied by planners made it possible to monitor and influence land use trends based on social criteria."  Pioneering planners such as Robert Whitten, Harland Bartholomew, and Morris Knowles (who prepared the groundbreaking historic preservation plan for Charleston, South Carolina)  all created plans for their clients that promoted and enforced apartheid, Silver says. Some of these planners defended their actions by arguing that keeping races in separate areas of a city would help everyone because single-race neighborhoods provided social stability.

Today, planners are more aware and sensitive to issues of social and economic justice.  But Buchanan v. Warley reminds us that planners and the tools of planning can be used as much for denying opportunity as it can for promoting the general welfare.  It's good to keep in mind when leaders of a wealthy, fast-growing municipality suddenly warm up to plans for increasing open space.

--Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

References:
C. Silver, "The Racial Origins of Zoning in America," from Manning Thomas, June and Marsha Ritzdorf eds. Urban Planning and the African American Community: In the Shadows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1997.  Chapter available at: http://www.asu.edu/courses/aph294/total-readings/silver%20--%20racialoriginsofzoning.pdf

Author unknown, "Buchanan v. Warley," in Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buchanan_v._Warley

Successful bike and pedestrian planning starts with change leadership

Shape minds to shape streets. Build support and alliances before building bike lanes.

Those were two of the key messages from Gil Penalosa, who works around the world to help cities become safer and more inviting for walking, bicycle riding and taking public transit. Gil, the Executive Director of 8-80 cities and an international planning consultant, gave an inspiring speech on April 4 at the Municipal Art Society in New York.

Example of a bicycle lane 

While he showed the usual collection of design images and people enjoying public spaces, he said the keys to success in this work are as much psychological as they are physical.

To get to the point where you have success stories to share, places need:

• A sense of urgency
• Political will
• Leadership at the community level
• Broad partnerships

The key work of placebuilders, to begin with, is to shape how people think about open spaces, pedestrian areas, and bicycling.  Gil called it "changing the chips," likening the human brain to a computer.

For example, in several of the cities he's worked in, Gil said that skeptics used similar arguments.  The arguments, and usual answers are paraphrased below:

• It's too hot or It's too cold.  (People walk and bike where it is safe and enjoyable to do so, no matter what the weather.)
  
• That's not our culture. (It's not until enough people do it, and then it is.  In Copenhagen, Denmark, where it gets very cold, 38% of residents use bicycles.)
  
• That may work for them, but we're different.  (Individuals are unique, but people are similar around the world.)
  
• In developing countries: Bicycling is for poor people.  In developed countries: Bicycling is for louts in lycra. (where bicycle lanes are safe and useful for people of all ages and incomes, people of all ages and income bike.)
  
• The streets in Europe were designed for pedestrians and bicyclists.  (Actually, most of these pedestrian and bicycling streets were redesigned in the last 30 years.)

These concerns can be addressed and overcome, but they require placebuilders to be engaged in public conversations with a broad array of leaders (not just elected officials), as well as members of the various communities affected by the plans.

Gil did offer some physical design recommendations on activating public spaces and making streets better for pedestrians and bicycle riders.  Among them:

• Design first for pedestrians, then bicyclists, then cars.
• Design public spaces so they are active in bad weather, as well as good.
• Design spaces so they are comfortable, inviting and safe for people 8 years old to 80.   
• Separate pedestrians from bicyclists, and bicyclists from vehicles using dividers. Bike lanes tend to be abused by vehicle drivers, causing some bicyclists to go on sidewalks.
• Turn the lights that illuminate streets towards sidewalks, so pedestrians and bicycle riders can get more light.

Gil's success in cities around the world provides a valuable lesson to those placebuilders who think that change happens first with physical design.  Sustainable design starts with sustainable change leadership.

--Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP

The Professional Development Institute and The Leading Institute offer several ways to planners and placebuilders to develop their leadership skills.  Get our newsletter to find out about upcoming events and courses.

Image source: "Segregated cycle facilities," Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities