Fast Company Article, November 1998

"Danger: Toxic Company" by Alan M. Webber

Question: Do we work for a toxic company?

As I read this article, I found myself considering  is the University of Minnesota Extension Service a toxic organization to work for? In the article by Alan Webber, he refers to the work of Jeffrey Pfeffer who is a professor of Organizational Behavior at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Pfeffer believes that companies get exactly what they deserve by how they treat their employees. "Companies that treat their people right get enormous dividends: high productivity, low rates of turnover. Companies that treat their people poorly experience the opposite  and end up complaining about the death of loyalty and the dearth of talent." The latter workplaces, he refers to as "toxic workplaces". Pfeffer goes on to insist that loyalty isnt dead, but toxic companies are driving people away. He believes that employees are looking for the opportunity to have variety in their work and to tackle challenging assignments and that the best companies are figuring out how to give employees both opportunities with out leaving the workplace. Ill have to say, Extension does score high on giving employees variety in their work and allowing them to take on challenging assignments.

He offered the following observations and ideas to detoxify a workplace. Companies that manage people right will out perform companies that dont by 30-40%. If the skills, knowledge, commitment and abilities of the people who work for the company are what gives the company an edge, then treating those employees right so they stay - not just providing them with a pay check like any company can  will guarantee a productivity gain. This observation is the same no matter how large or small the workplace.

If companies complain that loyalty is dead, then who killed it? Pfeffer sites examples of companies who ask employees to sign an at-will contract that gives the company the right to fire the employee for any reason at any time on their very first day of work. Then, this same company wonders why the employee isnt approaching his/her job with a long-term prospective and feeling of trust  imagine that? In Extension, we are considered "annually renewable", but maybe the factor that our job security relies more on "if funding is available" then on "job performance", it makes us feel a little like the rug can be pulled out from under our feet at any time for any reason too! When I started in Extension 12 years ago, I believed that if you were a hard-working, productive employee that the "Extension Family" would take care of you. After watching some coworkers that I would describe as just that, left out in the cold, my ideas about loyalty did change. Extension is not my family, it is my job. I am still loyal, but not in the way that I am to my family. Watching the system decide who is and who isnt "protected" doesnt do much for establishing loyalty to the organization, especially when there are no clear or consistent guidelines established or followed.

Is Extension a place where you can come to work to get rich enough to leave? Well, certainly not, but for companies who do have the option of offering stocks, it sometimes sets them up to get employees who are looking for a company that they can "win the lottery" though their stock options and then leave  tuning the company into a toxic workplace.

Toxic flextime  the company who allows you to work any 18 hours of the day you wish! Toxic companies want to "own" their employees and yet say they allow flexible hours. Flextime certainly is an issue in Extension because of the varied hours that we are expected to work  evenings, weekends and even holidays. Although we are responsible for our own calendars and some would say that if we are putting in to many hours, it is our own fault  we are pulled between getting it all done and then finding time to take off -- as no one does our work when we arent there! Taking vacation or flextime means working your behind off before and after you return which doesnt make the benefits of flextime and vacation as appealing as they could be. Even though we work for an organization that says "families are important"  the time we need to spend away from our own families sometimes leaves a conflicting message for us to deal with internally.

Which is better  paying signing bonuses or treating people right? Pfeffer sites a classroom example that showed a company with 5000 employees, with a turnover rate of 20%, cost that company an estimated $50 million for the 850 employees that leave each year. If you put dollars into treating people right  (employee gymnasium, on-site medical care, on-site daycare, as well as other family-friendly items so they stay) - that is money in the bank! I do think that Extension does try to give us some nice perks. Extension staff at the state level does benefit from being "treated right" with the perks that go along with a University setting. Unfortunately, because we are spread out over the state, it does make it difficult for treatment to be equal (i.e.  free Internet service at home for metro employees is not available for greater MN area employees) and this "unequal treatment" does leave some hard feelings.

Are we (Extension employees) seen as assets or expenses? Many organizations stress that they invest in people, believe in training, and believe in sharing information  but do they "walk the walk"? Pfeffer suggests that if most companies are honest with themselves, they will have to admit that they see employees as costs, salaries, and benefits  they see overhead! Very few companies look at their people as assets. This is an area where Extension does at least "talk the talk" and most administrators "walk the walk" as well! Unfortunately, as I mentioned before, if funding is cut  we do become a "cost" instead of an "asset" very quickly.

So why dont toxic companies change? Pfeffer quickly states that "wishing doesnt make it so"  everybody knows what to do, but nobody does it. He went on to site a research project that was done by a student who interviewed employees of a company whose model was that they treated people with respect and dignity. The interviews showed 30+ things that the company did that violated the model. Just because administration/management believes in their model doesnt mean that it is happening. People at the top also get caught up in their own history  its always been done this way. They substitute memory (they way they did it) for thinking  is this they way we should be doing it now?

How to make companies non-toxic? Pfeffer states that we have to start with ourselves. If you believe in investing in people, begin by sharing your knowledge, talking to people, coaching people  be a mentor! Wow, is it possible that we could help make our organization a non-toxic workplace?

After sharing this with coworkers and a friend, their reaction was that most toxic problems in Extension are the extra hours that many educators put in and the lack of compensation for them. When private business offers 40-hour weeks at an equal or maybe higher salary, many times the toxic rates go up to "fatal" levels.

-- Anonymous, February 04, 1999

Answers

Excellent summary and incorporation of the concepts with your work in Extension. Very well written.

-- Anonymous, May 23, 1999