Territory and My Stuff

Parabeagle

Since there is no category in the lobby for professional development questions, or anything of that ilk, guess I should ask my question here. This seems to be the most popular forum.

I have been in HR for several years. Over time, I have become more interested in the end result than how we got to the end result. Recently, an e-mail regarding employee absences (which should have gone out over my signature) was sent out by our payroll mgr. I have worked with her for over two years, trust her judgment and had no problem with the fact she sent the e-mail out.

The problem is MY boss. He is convinced that I am not "protecting my turf." Protecting WHAT turf??? Don't we all work for the same company? I am not territorial and haven't been particularly "turf-oriented" since I went into HR.

My question is, am I crazy? (Be nice, now). SHOULD I be more concerned about making sure my HR duties are MY STUFF?

Any advice would be appreciated.

Hunter1

I don't think I'm qualified to comment on your mental state, but I certainly agree with your position. I have two full time and one part time employees who report to me, and if they had to be careful about stepping on my toes (turf) every time they had an issue, they'd never get anything done. I agree, we all work for the same employer, and as long as they're looking out for the best interests of that employer, they have free rein.

Don D

[font size="1" color="#FF0000"]LAST EDITED ON 01-20-03 AT 01:13PM (CST)[/font][p]I agree with the 'intent' of your boss; perhaps not with the way you interpreted his interest or the way he stated his concern. I do think that memos, emails, manual sections and oral presentations regarding operating instructions, written procedures and policy should originate from and be delivered BY the precise department or unit where the responsibility for control of the function rests. Payroll should not publish instructions about functions or activities whose administration or oversight rests with HR. Engineering should not publish instructions or procedures or policy relating to areas administratively overseen by Production and vice versa. HR should not, unless requested to collaborate on and write the document, publish instructions and procedures related to accounting/payroll unless the area obviously is overseen or controlled by HR. On the other hand, Personnel/HR is often asked to publish or print or distribute or address and disseminate policy items not administratively under HR. In that case, I always preceed my own initials with the capitalized initials of the department head who asked me to publish the instruction, showing that he or she is the person ultimately responsible for the instrument. In this regard, often it may seem turfistic; however, I don't view it as such. I view it as responsible accountability which clearly acknowledges point of contact, person or department responsible for the instruction and go-to initials of the document creator. In that case, I always have that department head initial or co-initial the memo or instruction.

Parabeagle

You raise excellent points, Don. Perhaps I should clarify -- Payroll is part of HR in our co. (dotted line to accounting), so I didn't perceive our payroll mgr's e-mail as stepping on my toes.

Thanks, Hunter1 and Don.

Don D

Even when a company has multiple dotted-lines and incongruently arranged or combined departments housing a variety of duties under one umbrella, there is ALWAYS (or should be) a clear delineation of responsibility, authority and control. In the few cases I've seen where this is not the case, I've seen the 'EVERYBODY'S RESPONSIBLE, SO NOBODY IS) syndrome in action. In those departments housing multiple crossover duties, instructional memos or emails or policies should always be put out under the initials of the department head. Just my experience and opinion.

Balloonman

As someone who came from an organization that was struggling and eventually went out of business I will give you this take.
My boss there was ADAMENT that anything that went out from our department would have our name on it. Adamant about promoting the department and taking credit for work performed. It rubbed me the wrong way at first. Another thing he did more than anyone I have seen, was to make sure when his department performed was to let all of upper mgmt. know that employee x did it. I never heard him say I did it or my department did it. He always said, employee x did a great job, this is why we need to be willing to spend more to get quality people, to get top notch results. In contrast I know/have heard of to many managers that take credit for their employee's work, even with them right there. All that does is deflate their employee.

When the layoffs came, our department was hit last, and in most people's mind hit the softest.
Many departments got trimmed very thin in the first round or two, it took to the 3rd round before we really felt it. As the safety director I made it to the 5th round. My boss said I should be proud, to which I replied, why? He told me in every other place he has gone through this he let the safety guy go first round!

At the same time a friend of mine who had a similar job got cut in the first round of a corporate downsizing where he worked. One other person let did much of the other safety/insurance related stuff that he did not do. We talked at length about why they cut both people. He said in hind sight he should have made sure that people knew what he was doing. He felt that many above him had no idea all the different things he did. As we talked he said had he done that, they might have kept him, let the other one go.

So to summarize:
Don't assume higher ups know what you are doing.
There is nothing wrong with taking credit for your work.
Promote the work of those underneath you, make sure they get the credit they deserve.
Promoting what you do is not the same as bragging.

In today's tough economic times, do you want the decision makers to know what you do and how you impact the bottom line? You bet!

My $0.02 worth!
DJ The Balloonman

Paul in Cannon Beach

I think this is a personality issue. For some people, turf is a big thing. They harp (can you tell what side I am on?) on process, channels of communication, organizational structure, etc. They fear what can result from mixed communications, organizational shortcuts, and ambiguous responsibility.

For others, there is the assumption that we are all on the same team with the same purpose. If we team up or share duties, its not a problem to these folks as long as no major problems are caused by the collaboration. Unity is more important than clearly defined turf.

The best method is probably somewhere in between where communication channels are well laid out, organizational structure makes sense and is respected, but there are allowances for those times when meeting the goal is more important than worrying about the turf.

My big objection to turf types is that you can end up with "silo" management where everyone is only concerned with their little part of the world and no one is willing to risk collaberation or innovation for fear of stepping on toes.

Paul

Theresa Gegen TX

Really great HR managers try to help operations and other departments do the job without them. In otherwords, you may end up working your way out of a job, BUT that is how a business stays healthy. I know that making yourself into an invaluable crutch for the operations may keep you on longer when things go bad, but it is not healty for the business -- it only helps you at the expense of others in the long run.

Yes, if HR trains managers to make really good decisions and do things right, they may need to call on HR less in the future, and HR may lose a slot in the organiztion. That will hurt in the short run -- BUT in the long run, the organization will be much healthier.

Good Luck!!

Parabeagle

I would love to be able to train the h-e-double hockey sticks out of these guys so that they wouldn't need to worry about HR issues, but I don't think that's in the cards. The best I can do is try to be as proactive and accessible as possible (not always easy).

Personally, I would like to work myself out of a job. Sometimes these yahoos I work with irritate me so much I just want to run down the basement and jump out the window.

Don D

Different opinions and a variety of suggestions are what makes the Forum so great. I'm certainly not coming down on the side of 'turfism' and hope others won't judge my comments as such. Don't confuse organization, command and structure with turfism either. I care nothing about turfism. Don't confuse that with structure and organizational models that are long proven and time tested throughout decades of successfully managed corporations. Of course I know there are also schools of thought out there that suggest adopting theories and unproven innovations, discarding all the proven methodologies and insist on infusing consultant-think and totally untested theories of organizational behavior and functions. It would be really something if all the imaginary and hoped-for teamwork and dreams of universal employee dedication and everybody always proactively doing what's best for the company and feeling that all is well with the company because I 'think' it is, were reality. I don't suggest that all organizations emulate military models of organizational structure; however, it is interesting that none of our military organizations have abandoned those processes that work. If you as a group will analize your company's structure and internal functioning processes, 90% of you will see many, many close correlations with military models that work. That need not be viewed as negative. Whatever works for you is what's best; however, beware pied pipers and intellectuals toting armloads of academic theory.

Parabeagle

Don, did you just invent a word? "Turfism?" I like it.

I've been thinking of coining the term, "antiterritoriality" myself.

Seriously, though, you bring up an excellent point: In the '90s, the AF began pursuing and implementing TQM and Covey management concepts. All officers and senior NCOs had to read the "7 Habits of Highly Successful People," and attend seminars and workshops. Much of it was so alien to traditional chain of command concepts and accepted military infrastructure that it didn't succeed very well (at least not at my base).

Traditional chain of command has its place, no doubt about it. And if I didn't feel as comfortable as I do with our payroll manager's distribution of an e-mail that (technically) should have come from me, I probably would have said something. But in my experience, you can sometimes get bogged down if you don't permit a little flexibility in the system. I think the secret is just in knowing to whom you can entrust that flexibility.

Balloonman

I want to clarify that I do not think we should be focused on "turfism"- thanks for the new word Don.
I just wanted to point out some of the reasons why some managers are a little like they are, and why the do get protective of their turf. In large companies it is easier for higher ups to not know what you are doing and more common to find turfism.
After getting laid off, I had two job offers, one a international company, a job at the headquarters, 15 minutes from my house. Nice job, though truth be known I would have been more appropriate for the department head job there. My thinking was I would get this job once this individual moved on. The second was with a family owned construction company, 45 minutes from my house. I have had less than great experiences with family owned business in the past, but these guys struck me as different. They understood that they did not know everything, that they had to evolve, and that they actually needed expertise from the outside to continue to grow! Very different from most family owned operations. The big company job was soley in my field, the small company job was HR and my field. I had never been full time HR before.
I spoke with a friend who went to a small family owned from a large company and was loving it. The big difference he said is, there is no hiding in a small company. They all know when you are doing great or when you screw up!
I chose the small company for a variety of reasons. I wear many hats, and do not worry about turf. And like everywhere I have been before, I strive to do my job and do it well, thinking this takes care of most things. No politics, we all have a common focus, and I am making a needed positive impact.
If I were to go back to a large company, I would very much remember what I learned from my last boss, making sure those in charge understood what my department and people were doing to make the company profitable and successful. It is a reality we must be aware of in larger companies. You can do this without being and jerk. It is a fine line though.
I guess this totals up to my $0.04 worth on this subject.
DJ The Balloonman

ritaanz

Having read these posts twice..... I guess it's a male thing.

Don D

Several people bristled off-line about my remark on military management models. I have no notions that controlling people and jack-booted relationships are desirable in business. They are not. That said, I had a thought last night about this. The military model components of POCCC (plan, organize, command, control, coordinate), are found in almost every successful (and unsuccesful) business throughout America's history; even some in California. These same basic principles are also found in the actions of the mother who decides to take her 3 year old into town to the donut shop (as well as most every thing you do throughout your day): She PLANS what time to get the kid up, plans when to leave and the route they'll take and how much change to take along. She ORGANIZES by getting dressed and tucking the kid's shirt in and grabbing her purse and turning off the television, and if necessary, telling the child to quit whining. She COMMANDS the situation by instructing the child to wipe his face and take her hand. She CONTROLS by being in charge and knowing her plan and organization are complete. She COORDINATES by obeying traffic signals, making sure the child is cheerfully enjoying the trip and letting the child hand the quarter to the donut man. My point is that 'military models' are not inherently wrong-headed simply because they had military origins. They're everywhere. Even right there throughout your office/company. This has nothing to do with 'turfism'. Turfism is a mindset, an emotional weakness, a concept that typically has a negative connotation.

LisaMN

Time and distance may have colored my recollections of the military life, but it seems to me that there were the same turf wars, runaway egos and self-serving strategists in the units I was in as there have been in the companies I have worked for.

All the management theories in the world need people to make them work, it is a matter of where your personal philosophy of interaction fits best. And, the ability to adapt when you find yourself in a situation that is less than comfortable....

njjel

To a large degree I feel that in today's competitive work place if one doesn't speak up for the work that they do, there is a very good chance it will go unnoticed and that others who do make their work known end up getting the notice AND the promotions. Sad but true.

Gillian

California is now awake! There are organizations where chain of command is very important - there are organizations where it is not, and there are organizations that are in the middle somewhere, and some that are all screwed up. There is no right or wrong, just different. HR people are the same, some are comfortable in the more rigid settings, others in the more flexible ones and others can cope with organizations that are all screwed up. The happiest are those who work for organizations that fit their personality.

Parabeagle

Well put, Gillian. Coming from a rigid military and large-corporate background to a relaxed, small, family-owned informal company and then on to a behaviorally dysfunctional but successful-in-spite-of-itself business, it's no wonder I can't figure out whether to blink, spit or go blind!!!!

Paul in Cannon Beach

This all reminds me of that great scene in the wonderful WW II movie "The Longest Day" where frustrated Nazi officers wait for Hitler to wake up so he can order the Panzer tanks to where Allied forces are invading. Since ONLY Hitler was authorized to make this call, the Axis armies got pounded for hours while Hitler snoozed and no one dared to wake him up.

"Were going to lose this war because Hitler took a sleeping pill" exclaimed an exasperated Nazi officer.

I don't know if the movie accurately depicts history but it accurately depicts an organization where individuals are not empowered to make the right decision because of a rigid chain of command.

Paul

Don D

For our edification, would you care to give specific examples (not theoretical) of organizations where reporting (communication) structure and delineation of responsibilities are not important. I assume what you will be portraying for us are examples of organizations where everybody is responsible for everything, employees can choose who they report to or if in fact they will report to anyone and where all employees are equally responsible for being or rotating as decision maker. I am interested to see if your example shows more than one person in the organization. In my opinion, at the end of the day, structure, reporting concepts, responsibility and accountibility and these sorts of things somehow lead back to those politically incorrect concepts like the dreaded 'chain of command'. Are we talking semantics here, or reality? I await your examples. Thanks, Don D.

Parabeagle

Well, let me expand on the situation that prompted this post. The payroll manager and I constitute the HR function. She is responsible for all matters relating to payroll (which invariably includes line-crossing HR issues such as overtime, absenteeism, wage increases -- in short, anything to do with the $ side of employees). I write her performance appraisal (with input from the controller) and supervise her daily activties as they relate to payroll. She has a dotted-line reporting relationship to the controller who oversees her non-payroll related activities (e.g., she supervises the on-site manager of one of our apartment complexes; the complex falls under the purview of the controller). I am responsible for all other HR functions. I report to the CEO who writes my performance appraisal with input from the director of operations for the hospitality division, which division occupies about 60 percent of my time.

Confused yet? Good. Welcome to my world.

Seriously, it's because of the casual, informal way we do things around here that the idea of "protecting my turf" never occurred to me until my boss mentioned it. In my view, having the memo in question come out of payroll basically equated the memo coming out of HR anyway.

Gillian

Back in my consulting days I had a client that I thought was completely disfunctional. The organization chart, figuratively speaking, was a circle with the President in the middle and every one else part of the circle, all available for the inevitable call from the President. He changed his mind every two minutes, micro-managed, played people off each other and kept people in the dark. Employees never knew when he would show up at their work station with a new idea or to contradict previous directions. In spite of this, the company made millions. Who is to say that the President was wrong or that if they had better organizational structure that the company would have made millions more? What would have happened if someone had imposed a more traditional structure on a company with a President who operated very differently? A few years ago the President sold the company to a competitor and I expect that they have a more traditional structure now. I don't know that they make more money, though. This is not a question of best but one of what works.

Don D

Thanks Gillian. The company you use as an example does indeed have a reporting structure and a chain of command. It's the dot in the middle of the circle. Not bad, just different, but structure nonetheless.