This situation came up in a conversation with a client the other day – Her organization has established an emoji process for employees to self-report how they are feeling – a smiley face at one end of the scale and a poop emoji at the other. Every employee is required to post one of the five every working day.
If a person posts anything from neutral to poop, their supervisor is required to check in with them to find out what’s wrong and try to ameliorate the situation.
As you might imagine, most of the employees hate this. They feel it’s invasive and nonsensical. As a result, most of them game the system by simply posting a happy face every day, regardless of how they feel.
The supervisors aren’t thrilled either. It feels invasive to them as well. It’s also time consuming and can appear superficial. You know – “Hey Jack. I’m calling because you because you posted a poop emoji. What’s wrong?
Some supervisors feel unprepared because they not counselors. The reason why an employee might post an unhappy emoji can range from having to manage too much work to dealing with a personal crisis like a sudden death or divorce.
The client posing this question wanted to know how to resolve this issue, especially since it originated with corporate HR. She is a middle manager overseeing seven people.
She’s got a dilemma. On one hand, this practice is getting in the way of the natural relationships and trust that are supposed to develop between supervisors and those they are managing. For both parties, it is a distraction and impedes productivity. Then, of course, there is the potential liability if the supervisor says something the employee perceives as offensive or inappropriate, even if it is an innocent remark.
On the other hand, this is a policy instituted by corporate HR. Does she want to die on this hill by pointing out how counterproductive this practice is? Would it just be better to ignore it and fall on her sword if her employees don’t send daily emojis? Which is more important, building trusting relationships with those on her team or following an unpopular corporate edict?
I have my thoughts. But what would you suggest?