New Paradigms LLC

The Green Flash

2010-04-27T14:37:00.000-07:00

The "green flash" is the way that they refer to the last second as the sunset fades into the Caribbean. As I happen to find myself in Grenada, and the bar at my accomodations is aptly nameed the Green Flash Lounge I thought this would be a good title for my post on a couple of points.

I got the opportunity to present two management and leadership programs down here for a group representing a cross section of leadership staff ranging from front line leaders to senior managers. It has been a very interesting experience on a number of levels including both cultural from an ethnocentric standpoint and from the challenges and issues facing their business.

The client is in some ways a monopoly- they have essentially no competition on the island. What speaks to their receptiveness and their vision is even under those circumstances they are very passionate about improving their level of performance both internally and externally. They are engaged.

It has been a personal growth opportunity for me- to explore and try to understand the nuances of both their corporate and personal cultures and convey concepts that are important to them without presenting our North American practices as "truths", but rather concepts to explore.

I have not found them to be at all naive nor awestruck. They challenge, but do so politely and constructively. They participate with a real desire to gain understanding and appreciation, but retain pride in what they have accomplished to date and what their plans are for the future.

Wherever this assignment takes me I have to tell you that I will leave here with much more than I brought with me. I hope I get invited back, I still have much to learn.....

The Ethics of "Poaching"

2010-04-20T08:11:00.000-07:00

I read an interesting article this morning about the ethics of poaching; not hunting animals out of season, but rather the idea of specifically recruiting or targeting key talent that works for another organization typically a competitor.

I have to tell you that my initial reaction was "what"? As the article went on it did differentiate between specifically targeting an organization with the intention of undermining them through recruitment of their key talent or recruiting with the intent of obtaining trade secrets or proprietary information, but short of that indicated it was ok. Thanks for permission.

It kind of takes to thinking that our lexicon has gotten to the place where we really have started to believe phrases like human capital. One small problem, our employees don't "belong" to us. We "rent" their knowledge, skills, and behaviors and for a period of time if we are skilled and lucky we create a bond of mutual loyalty because of respect and commitment, period.

I think the timing is especially interesting now that it looks like the economy may be picking up. I see a lot of questions out there from organizations about what they should be doing about retention in the face of a more robust economy. I advise prayer. I am only being semi sarcastic. I am stunned by organizations who do not make investments in engaging and retaining employees on an ongoing basis and then want to install a program to fix it when there are issues.

Employment at will is a concept that most employers will defend with the ferocity of Charlton Heston over the right to keep and bear arms- as long as it is balanced in their favor. They don't like it when employees see themselves as free agents.

I hear a lot about loyalty as well. I define loyalty pretty simply. We interact with trust and respect. We meet our commitments to each other and we take into consideration our actions on the impact of the others in the organization when making decisions, period. Out in the Wild West where I grew up we called it "riding for the brand". While I was sleeping in your bunkhouse and eating your food I was present, you got my honest effort. There were no life contracts or pledges of fealty.

I guess I am a career poacher. When I see people who are really good at their jobs and whose skills might be transferable to an organization I work with or for I feel comfortable bringing to their attention that if they are interested in exploring options I would like to talk with them.

As you know I am a huge believer in the concept of engagement. I guess my model is the best way to keep your employees from being "poached" is to create an environment where they don't actively seek or entertain other options because of the relationship of mutual respect and trust you have created. If my employees find another opportunity that they feel meets their needs or provides them with a chance to expand a skill base I wish them well if it is the right opportunity. You see I have found ex employees to be one of my best sources of future employees, if I treated them well they remember it and share it with their friends and associates.

So I guess with the exceptions of targeting or attempting to take trade secrets we need to acknowledge there is no such thing as poaching. Mr. Lincoln freed the slaves well over 100 years ago, people can't "steal" something from us we never owned in the first place.....

The FDR Legacy

2010-04-12T13:22:00.000-07:00

Today is the 65th anniversary of FDR. I have always found him to be an interesting and powerful character in our history. I suspect he may have been even more of a figure of controversy than our current President.
His initial inaugural address is particularly interesting. He describes an economy that to me at least represents a situation similar to what we face today;

"Values have shrunken to fantastic levels: taxes have risen, our ability to pay has fallen, government of all kinds is faced by serious curtailment of income, the means of exchange are frozen in the currents of trade, the withered leaves of industrial enterprise lie on every side, farmers find no markets for their produce, the savings of many years in thousands of families are gone.
More important, a host of unemployed citizens face the grim problem of existence, and an equally great number toil with little return. Only a foolish optimist can deny the dark realities of the moment."

Maybe that seems to be overstating it a bit, but even though the market has passed 11,000 again I have to ask myself if the average American sees themselves as significantly better off than a year ago and wouldn't see some parallels to what FDR described.

I find one of the other statements in his speech intriguing as well;

"...there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people's money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency." Is it just me or are we seeing some parallels here as well?

In fact his language may have seemed bombastic at the time and equally bombastic today when he speaks of "waging war against the emergency" in fact he asked for broad executive powers to fight that "war" in a similar fashion to fighting a war against an invader or foreign enemy.

Some of the other concepts that he mentions are interdependency and personal responsibility;
" ...the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others. . .the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors." Although the context FDR was using here was that of participating in the world with other countries I can see its application on a domestic level as well.

I also find his comments about the idea that when there is no vision people perish and the recognition that " happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort."

Roosevelt was a highly controversial figure even in that time. He ushered in a level of government "participation" and social reform that didn't see anything of that magnitude until the Great Society programs under LBJ. His personal influence and control concerned the power structure to the point that they passed the 22nd Amendment to prevent a repetition of his historic election four times.

My point here isn't to suggest that his approach was correct then or now, but I am curious is to what he would think of our current situation and the "progress" we have made in the 65 years since his death. When we take a look at where we are at as as an economy, the state of disengagement and other factors is it time to declare "war" again...?

The "First" Engagement Initiative

2010-04-06T09:36:00.000-07:00

Those of you who know me know that engagement, true engagement is an area or opportunity that I feel pretty strongly about (sorry Laurie). I think the emphasis is on true engagement. Engagement in my mind is defined as voluntary or discretionary effort that employees bring to their job everyday. True engagement is when that phenomenon spreads to your suppliers, your customers, and your community.

True engagement is accomplished using a number of tactics and strategies, but it is not a "program", it is a culture that lives everywhere not in HR. You don't accomplish it with pep rallies and reward and recognition programs by themselves. You build the culture and then you live it.

Another area that has intrigued me for a while and is taking on new dimensions in light of the health care debate is the relationship between personal competency and engagement. Personal competency is the stepchild key principle that was embedded into the original constitution, kind of a neglected cousin to personal property. Personal competency was the idea that each of us had the right and responsibility to manage our own futures, that we were not bound by our heritage or lineage. The key is the balance between right and responsibility. In a way doesn't that sound more like a partnership than a hierarchy? Doesn't that kind of sound like engagement in a way?

I have talked about personal competency at length and how to great extent with the coming of the Industrial Revolution a variety of forces combined so that we exchanged our personal competency for a kind of "corporate feudalism", we gave up our "equality" for security like corporate or organizational pension plans, health care benefits, etc. The industrialists were all about this model. Dumbing down skill sets and creating structures based on "compliance" is easier, in the short term. Our Founding Fathers were not real big on the concept of corporations, but that is another story.

When I look at our current situation as it relates to health care I see similar potential issues related to personal competency. I want to go on record as saying that I believe access to basic health care is a right that everyone should have access to, and I do mean everyone. The fact that we have one of the most advanced and expensive health care systems in the world and our morbidity and mortality rates put as at like number 30 is embarrassing to me (think countries like Cuba and Costa Rica). I also believe that access to basic care is good business and good for the overall economy. We are spending upwards of 10% of our GNP on health care on our "stellar" results and the number is getting bigger, not smaller. A big part of that is that people without access to preventative care get their care in ERs, the least efficient and most expensive way to provide it. Since they can't pay for it the costs get passed along to those who can pay, kind of like shrinkage in retail.

Here is another data point for you to consider. According to the American Medical Association sixty percent of health issues (and therefore costs) are related to lifestyle rather than hereditary. In plain terms that means we cause it! The issue is also that if I have not;

Participated meaningfully in paying for the costs of care for me and my dependents
Been provided with any meaningful information about what I or my dependents can do to improve my health or reduce expenses
Been incentivized to change my behavior
Been educated on the impact of escalating health care expenditures on other parts of the business

then the chances I am "invested" in making changes to my behavior are pretty minimal. No personal competence or engagement here folks!

As a former HR executive I can also tell you that most organizations strategy to deal with the rising costs of benefits is to;

Cost shift to employees through higher deductibles, co pays, etc
Reduce benefit offerings
Eliminate categories of employees from coverage

Is it just me or do these methods seem to miss the root causes as well?

I am not going to belabor that point and make this about health care.

I guess my point is that maybe just maybe the Founding Fathers intended personal competency to be the first real engagement initiative. My personal engagement model is based on five elements:

Respect
Responsibility
Information
Equitable rewards
Mutual loyalty

Is it just me, or do there seem to be some parallels between that and personal competency? Maybe personal competency and true engagement are both about doing things with rather than to people ?

Were the Founding Fathers really that visionary, I wonder......?

Why Do We Call It "Good" Friday?

2010-04-02T12:54:00.000-07:00

I realize this post may offend some, so I will ask in advance for you to recognize my intent is not to challenge or ridicule any one's beliefs. I would ask that to borrow a phrase from my colleague and teacher John Scherer, http://www.scherercenter.com/ that you give me the benefit of MRI , or most respectful interpretation.

What instigates my post is a post I read from another colleague at http://www.punkrockhr.com/ about the day and what it represents and my own thought processes over the years.

This is the day that we Christians "celebrate" or acknowledge the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. Let's be clear it wasn't just an execution it is a particularly brutal ritual meant to inflict the most pain and humiliation on the victim as possible. Biblical accounts describe it in vivid detail; the trial, the scourging, the crucifixion itself and his agony on the cross as his mother watched her only son suffer and perish.

There are many who blame the Jews for the crucifixion even though the sentence was imposed and carried out by the Roman governor. Much violence has been committed against the Jewish people based on this event.

Even if you are not a Christian I would ask you how the ritual torture and execution of a man who was by all accounts a kind and gentle spirit who spoke about concepts like empathy and inclusiveness and withholding judgement of others represents anything "good"? I don't get it.

The life and death of Jesus is one of our great mysteries and great controversies. Some accounts even say that there was no Barabbas, the "zealot" who was released in Jesus's place. That this account was created as to not portray Jesus as a political activist who was executed because of the threat he represented to the established hierarchy of both the Jews and the Romans.

Jesus said some scary things; like the idea that there is a higher spiritual authority, that we have a duty and responsibility to our fellow man, and that we should be hesitant to judge others until we examine our own motives and behaviors. I also see the gospel Jesus preached as one of commitment rather than compliance. He didn't demand you accept him or his teachings, he invited you to "join up". While he did say that those who didn't eventually accept his teachings would not enjoy the benefits he didn't threaten or condemn. He invited and forgave.

One of my other brilliant colleagues, Reut Schwartz Hebron http://www.kindexcellence.com/ has a model which includes other things the ability to "see reality", to appreciate a worldview and perspective other than our own without feeling threatened. It would appear that Jesus was an early practitioner.

I will admit to not being religious, but I like to think I am spiritual. I observe how much of the controversy and strife with religion is associated with this unwillingness to "see reality". Many of the various denominations of the Christian faiths are based on things like his birth, his divinity, and even his relationship with his followers.

The Catholic Church and many of its followers were abhorred by the DaVinci Code and its inference that perhaps Mary Magdalene was not only not a prostitute, but Jesus's wife and partner. I remember reading a book by Irving Wallace, The Word, much earlier that described a similar Jesus as a man who was very human and beautiful in spirit and empathy rather than countenance. The Church condemned that one too.

I will admit to being troubled a bit by the current Pope, who seems more interested in compliance than commitment, especially when I see some of what is being uncovered. Again don't mistake this as a condemnation of the Catholic Church. I don't know that the issues we are seeing don't exist in every large diverse body of people from corporations to political institutions.

I am not trying to change any one's beliefs, but I am reminded of a quote by John Lennon when asked about a Beatles reunion replied, " the Beatles are a little bit like Jesus, people should spend more time thinking about what he said than who he was."

Over 2000 years ago he talked about tolerance, inclusiveness, empathy, compassion, and giving people the opportunity to choose to join rather than comply. That still resonates with me, but I have to be honest referring to the day they tortured and ritually executed the person who shared those ideas "Good" Friday still troubles me. What do you think.......?

I Hope You Dance

2010-03-28T11:44:00.000-07:00

Sometimes when I need to clear my head I like to get in my car and go for a drive. Somewhere off the beaten track in the country or along the coast. When I do that I like to listen to music. I have absolutely no talent in that arena. I can't write music, play an instrument, or sing a note; but boy I appreciate good music. It tells a story.

As I was driving yesterday I had a chance to listen again to one of my favorite tunes I Hope You Dance by country star Leanne Womack. The setting of the song is a mother singing to her very young children about the things they will face and the choices they will encounter and her wish that "if you get the chance to sit it out or dance, I hope you dance." In the song she explores things like falling in love, staying true to your principles, and recognizing your relative place in the universe.

I think this is some of what people like Daniel Pink are referring to when they talk about flow, or when Seth Godin talks about each of pursuing our art. Flow as I have discussed previously is that spectacular place where our destination is clear, the balance between effort and result is in harmony and we have the autonomy to pursue of our own volition. I wonder if it was also this goal that the Founding Fathers meant when they talked about "the pursuit of happiness" and the concept of personal competency; that balance of the right and responsibility to be competent and self reliant.

As Ms. Rimes sings there is no guarantee built into this pursuit, it is the right and the decision to pursue the journey that is important.

I have to say when I read statistics that say that 55% of Americans are dissatisfied in their jobs, only 30% describe themselves as engaged, and we are spending $5 trillion on turnover and another $200 billion on "presenteeism" it doesn't sound like too many people are "dancing".

I wonder if creating engaged environments is a way to let people "dance"? I keep reading that clear expectations, respect, fairness and equity, and shared values are the keys to engagement and productivity. Is it just me or does this kind of sound like the "dancing" that both Leanne and the Founding Fathers had in mind?

What if those of us who build organizations or lead them built the opportunity to "dance" into our models? You know things like clear expectations, balanced feedback, autonomy, respect, and connection to something larger.

It seems to me that the Industrial Revolution, Frederick Taylor, and the Calvinist work ethic don't leave much room for "dancing". I think it is also okay for "dancing" to include work. Although I have seen dancers of all kinds demonstrate sprezzatura I recognize the practice and hard work that went into achieving that level of performance. It isn't for the faint hearted.

Maybe I have stretched my metaphors too broadly, but I have decided to heed Leanne's advice and look for my opportunities to "dance" and to encourage others to "dance" as well.

So I guess my wish for all of you is that "if you get the choice to sit it out or dance, I hope you dance"........

Do Try This At Home!

2010-03-24T13:49:00.000-07:00

I know for years we have encouraged people to think global and act local, but I want to explore a different paradigm with you.

As you know I am extremely passionate about the concept of creating engaged environments and strong employment brands. Often what I hear from people is " that's great Mark, but I am a small business with a small work force and small budget". The other thing I hear is "how"?

I came across a couple of pieces earlier this week that I thought were nothing short of brilliant in explaining both why and how this is relevant to small business.

Paul Mitchell, the brilliant Australian social scientist www.thehumanenterprise.com.au, shared some things that both resonated with me and were immediately applicable to businesses without regard to their size.

The first thing that Mitchell did was describe leadership in a simple, but very compelling way. A leader excites their followers to exceptional performance. This definition is especially relevant because performance and effort are what engagement is ultimately about. Not happiness, not "satisfaction", but performance. Those others factors maybe contributors, but at the end of the day we need results.

The next thing that Mitchell talked about were the four key elements that every business should build into their "value proposition":

Great leaders focus on followers. Mitchell and I share the belief that relationships are the "glue" in organizations. Truly effective leaders do things with people, not to people. With their employees, with their customers, with their suppliers, with their community.
Build a sense of community. Following that same theme leaders understand they are part of a community and they invest in it. They build and nurture relationships on a foundation of trust and respect. They exchange value and values not transactions.
Be yourself, but with more skill. Mitchell calls this authenticity. Everyone has allowable weaknesses, his point is to focus on your strengths and core competencies. Seek out other relationships internally and externally that complement your skill sets and offering.
Focus on what matters. Mitchell suggests that we look for significance in ourselves and others. Find what you and others do right and celebrate it whether they are an employee, a customer, a neighbor, or a stranger. Connect them to the larger community and the larger context. We are a village, not an island.
Build the excitement. There is an old amusing expression "if you are excited, you might want to let your face know". This speaks precisely to Mitchell's earlier definition of leadership. Be excited and share excitement. If you are not excited and don't believe in "you", how can you expect others to?

Added to this wisdom from over the "pond" I had a chance to see some results from the national survey and initiative on engagement from the U.K. that showed similar things. The country wide study found that there are four elements that build and sustain the engaged environment:

Listening
Treatment
Coaching
Role and role modeling

Once again it comes down to relationship. Listening and treatment speaks to my guiding principle of respect. Coaching and role speak to the principle of the big picture and autonomy. Role modeling speaks to authenticity and values. The British study also found that when leadership commits to these behaviors they become "viral", they spread through the organization both formally and informally.

By the way they did examine compensation as well and what they found was again consistent. Money may initially attract, but the most important qualities of compensation are perceived equity and fairness. So the short story is if you do compensation well it is a break even, it won't detract from engagement. If you do it badly it will destroy your foundation. Once again we see the tie back to relationship that once we get past survival mode it is about fairness and equity, not dollars.

So when you think about building and reinforcing your brand, be sure you include these elements. The interesting thing is you don't need a big budget or large staff and yes, you can do this at home......

"Lost" Opportunity

2010-03-21T13:16:00.000-07:00

It is interesting to have the historic vote on health care in the background as I muse about this. Many opponents of the model being proposed by the Administration talk about the trillion dollars it will cost to fund the program. As a counterpoint I look at the following situation:

My readings and research tell me that we "lose" $5 trillion annually to the direct costs of employee turnover. Additional research indicates that we lose another $200 billion annually to "presenteeism"; the spending on health benefits related to stress, lost productivity due to employees dealing with personal issues at work, and the difference between contributions from employees operating at full versus marginal productivity. I saw research recently that said in addition to those costs we send over $100 billion annually on training and development in corporate America and yet less than 10% of those dollars result in meaningful and sustained change.

My math has never been my strength, but it would seem that the "lost" opportunity that these costs represent approaches five and a half trillion dollars in the U.S. economy annually. So if we addressed some of these we could pay for health care five times over and have money left over to address other critical issues like maybe education, homeless folks, and other similar societal issues. So what am I missing?

Our current economic system has retreated in a way to a kind of capitalistic feudalism. The industrial revolution was largely based on "dumbing down" tasks and activities to make them simpler and therefore more "efficient". The skills required to perform these tasks decreased and correspondingly so did the wages. Technology provide even further assistance, machines and "systems" can do what people used to do cheaper, faster, and many times more efficiently. In exchange for "compliance" we offered employees a certain degree of economic security. Then a world economy happened. Other economies began using "our" systems combined with their own enhancements and lower wages and we lost our competitive advantage. Our solution in many cases was outsourcing to these economies. At the root we forgot to include people in our "solutions", and now we are paying for it.

Research about engagement demonstrates that the U.S. economy is operating at about 30% of its potential efficiency. Before other economies gloat too much I would point out that this puts us in the top quartile.

Organizations that have a well developed engagement strategy enjoy significant advantages in productivity, profitability, and sustainability. Those terms sound pretty capitalistic to me.

Engagement is not measured exclusively by employee "satisfaction" or tenure. It is not a short term strategy or for the faint hearted. It also requires to examine and rebuild our relationships between: employer and employed, "vendor" and customer, and organization and community. We need to examine how we hire, how we train, how we reward, how we communicate, and most importantly how we relate to and value one another. The upside is that properly executed we can recapture some of those trillions and address compelling issues and not spend anymore money.

Is is just me or does that "value proposition" sound interesting? So I would ask again:

If not now when?
If not us then who?

Looking forward to your thoughts......

Finding "Flow"

2010-03-15T09:26:00.000-07:00

Lately as you have probably noticed I have been talking and blogging a lot about things like sprezzatura and congruency. I think perhaps as the title of this piece implies I am pining to find my "flow".

Seth Godin, Daniel Pink and others talk about flow, that place where everything is clicking and hours just seem to disappear. It may happen at work, when you are enjoying an athletic activity, or the company of others. We have all experienced it and it is what "brings us back".

I kind of like to think of engagement as flow on an organizational level. Groups of people who become immersed in what we are doing and enjoying it to the point that the processes and the results blur. We see the value and the values alignment and so we provide our discretionary effort, that last bit that puts us over the top.

I don't think that organizations or individuals can maintain a state of flow constantly, but I think we can provide environments where we see it and experience it frequently. As I allude to I think it is much more about providing an environment than "direction".

Godin describes that each of us has our "art" embedded" in us somewhere. It doesn't mean we were born to paint or make music or even be a crafts person of some kind, but there is something we were born to do.

I think I like like Godin because of two primary reasons above others:

Like me he feels like Frederick W. Taylor, the "father" of scientific management, contributed to a model that has repressed the human spirit for multiple generations
He is one of the only other authors I have read of late that actually draws upon and and mentions Monty Roberts, the original "horse whisperer", and his concept of "joining up" rather than compliance as a model for interpersonal and organizational relationships.

As you know I feel like concepts like lean manufacturing, six sigma, and others are inherently self limiting because they do not take into account the "human" dimension. You don't see anywhere in those models where they talk about art or flow or sprezzatura. It is about consistency and numbers and process. Probably makes my friend Frederick Taylor orgasmic in his grave!

I am pleased when I see that the younger generations are demanding more of the opportunity to find "flow". They call it different things like work life balance, and autonomy, or others; but at the root they are seeking if not demanding environments that provide them with at least that opportunity.

So I guess at the end of the day whether you want to call it "flow", or sprezzatura, or congruency, or engagement why are we so afraid of it? The "numbers" show that how ever you label it the results in key performance areas are vastly superior to the "old" ways of doing things.

Isn't it time to embrace a new model- especially when we can see the "proof in the pudding"?

Achieving Spezzatura

2010-03-05T10:06:00.000-08:00

I enjoy Seth Godin. He challenges you and conventional wisdom and pushes you to examine your life and expectations.

As I have mentioned previously I recently finished his new book - Linchpins, about the people who are really the most critical in our organizations. Godin argues and I agree that the most important skills in any organization are the skills it takes to bind people together and convert them from a group into a team with a shared vision and goals. He also points out that linchpins don't value compliance very much. They value their "art" and the work. Unfortunately our current system has managed to institutionalize compliance in almost every aspect of our society from education to the world of work. He goes so far as to say the educational system was built to provide an army of compliant serfs to staff our "factories"; factories not just in terms of manufacturing, but computer programming and administrative functions. Anything where standardization and "process" are king.

He also argues that this standardization hurts rather than helps in the long term. When I look at the level of engagement world wide coupled with turnover and job dissatisfaction I am inclined to agree.

Sprezzatura is an Italian word that translates into being able to do your craft without a lot of visible effort- with grace and elan rather than sweating and grunting. It probably causes people with a strong Calvinist ethic to writhe uncomfortably in their chair.

When I watched the women's figure skating competition for the gold medal I think sprezzatura was what I saw exhibited by the young woman from Korea, it was not just that she performed a brilliant routine it was that she was so graceful and elegant you almost forgot how difficult those moves were to accomplish.

My personal goal is to achieve sprezzatura in my work. It has caused me issues in my "corporate life". I have actually had more than one supervisor criticize me because it didn't look like I was working "hard" enough. I asked them if there was an issue with my work or output and they indicated there wasn't, but one actually commented, "I never see you sweat".

I like the idea of organizations and people I work with experiencing sprezzatura, the work is performed and expectations are met , but in such a way that it seems effortless and elegant. It creates an opportunity for engagement not only for those doing the "work", but those enjoying the benefit.

Commitment or engagement is where employees "join up" rather than comply. They come into their organizations and their lives with a connection to both the work and the vision of the organization. They are in congruence. The studies say that this engagement can be correlated to higher results and benefit all key performance indicators. Maybe in some ways these organizations are allowing their employees to enjoy a level of Sprezzatura.

So I would leave you with a couple of thoughts:

What would sprezzatura look like for you personally?
Would you rather have your employees work hard, or achieve sprezzatura?

I know what my answers are......

A Real Paradigm Shift

2010-02-27T10:44:00.000-08:00

Every once in a while you get to experience a real paradigm shift.

A number of years ago I had an opportunity to attend a presentation/demonstration by Monty Roberts the "Horse Whisperer". If you are familiar with horse training vernacular you know that for the last couple of hundred years the technique of training horses has been referred to as "breaking" the horse. In short to teach the horse to "comply" with our will and instruction. Roberts discussed some things that were pretty intriguing to me. The fact that horses are both a herd and a "prey animal". Their primary reaction to threats is to flee. The herd part of their instinct is that they are essentially programmed to "join up" with others rather than attempt to go it alone. With that in mind he proposed a different methodology- rather than "breaking" the horse why not extend an invitation to the horse to "join up" with you and become part of your herd? In the space of a little over an hour I saw a horse that had never been ridden accept a saddle, bridle, and rider. That is a paradigm shift!

Because of what I do my mind immediately went to my own experiences with people and organizations. What if we were to offer an opportunity to employees to "join up" with us rather than try to impose our organizational values or even our personal values for those of us that lead and manage teams? That became part of the fabric of my model of moving from compliance to commitment.

This week I had the opportunity to be exposed to another profound paradigm shift by a brilliant colleague. This model identifies behavioral "channels" in the subconscious mind and allows you to "retrain" the channel to create opportunities for profound and sustained changes in the behavior of individuals and teams. By creating the new "channel" you are allowing them to join up rather than imposing your model or view.

I am not confident or competent enough to discuss this model in detail at this stage, but I assure you you will be hearing more from me on this topic as I understand it and its application.

Thank you Reut for sharing your brilliance and your vision with me and the others. I am very excited about seeing where this new paradigm takes us... What new "paradigms" are you open to exploring?

What "Type" Are You?

2010-02-22T07:47:00.000-08:00

Greetings from San Diego. I have the opportunity to be out here and meet with a group of colleagues that I deeply respect to talk about new ways to motivate and work with people.

During my trip I have had a chance to catch up on a little reading and explore some of the work of two of my favorite social and business "system" commentators, Daniel Pink and Seth Godin.

My question comes from a model/theory that Pink explores in his book Drive -the surprising truth about what motivates us. Perhaps the reason I enjoyed the book so much is because what Pink describes and what I believe are in such close sync.

He also tees off on one of my favorite targets- Frederick W. Taylor, the "father" of scientific management. This is the theory that non management people are not terribly intrinsically motivated so productivity is best optimized by routinizing their tasks.

Pink's type "I" argues that at least some part of us is driven by needs for autonomy, learning, and purpose. He doesn't take the position that all work and all people fit this model, but that many do. He even goes further and uses the "P" word, Purpose and suggests that most of us seek this with varying degrees of energy. Kind of resonates with the concept of focusing on what "matters" doesn't it.

If you haven't yet read the book I commend it to you. In addition to stimulating your thinking he also provides some "templates" for both organizations and individuals.

Seth Godin's latest work - Linchpin is another fascinating read. He explores that a new category of critical "player" is emerging in organizations. Traditionally we had labor and management and the lines were pretty clear. Linchpins are those people who can connect groups and individuals.
Their skills are in communication, building trust, and relationships; not sciences or technology. Kind of sounds like they are building engagement doesn't it? He even uses words like obedience aka compliance and how we built it into our work and social systems and the costs we are experiencing because of it. I especially see this represented in the U.S. labor law infrastructure; most of it was written in the 40's and 50's with little meaningful change since. If you are familiar with it you know that it is highly structured and based on an adversarial model.

Any of you that know me or my orientation know that concepts like working with people, creating engagement, and related models speak to my heart; but I think anyone in any organization would benefit by exploring the concepts these two discuss.

One of my favorite quotes talks about "employees being physically, emotionally, and psychologically impelled. They gladly give up other choices."

Maybe it is just me, but that sounds pretty exciting. What do you think.....?

Where Does Engagement "Live"?

2010-02-14T15:42:00.000-08:00

I am very pleased to see interest in topics like employee engagement and employment branding gaining some momentum, even if it is just in dialogue.

I have to pay an homage to the people at BlessingWhite for their recent studies and research and Dr's Whitlark and Rhoads for their publication about the "Spillover" effect which provides concrete relationships and data; drawing a direct correlation between high engagement and key performance indicators like sustainability, productivity, and profitability. This is no longer "warm and fuzzy" stuff, but rather hard data.

I do continue to see that for all the dialogue I am still disappointed with the number of organizations and C level executives that are either ignoring this opportunity (some would say crisis) or paying lip service to it.

There are a couple of other things coming out about engagement that I have long believed that I am pleased to see gaining some traction as well:

Defining engagement. This a a huge area. Engagement is not happiness or employee satisfaction. Much like compensation the lack of happiness or satisfaction can have a negative affect on engagement, but "happy" or "satisfied" employees are not necessarily engaged. The basic reason for that is that the work place may be providing an outlet for social relationships or other things that employees enjoy that affect those areas, but don't lead to additional productivity or discretionary effort. Measuring those other things doesn't necessarily yield engagement.
Creating engagement. The other thing we are starting to recognize is that engagement is not an initiative or program it is a culture! To create and sustain an engaged workforce and long term employment brand you must create and sustain a culture.

I think that these "revelations" may be part of what is keeping many organizations from embracing an engagement strategy or employment brand- they aren't prepared to do the work.

The last thing I want to share today is my response to the opening question. In my opinion engagement and your brand live at the front line level of your organization. I am not saying that senior management support and role modeling aren't critical, but how many of your customers or employees interact regularly with C level management?

How many of us encounter Howard Schultz when we visit Starbucks or Steve Jobs at the Apple store?

My point is you must build engagement into your brand through your selection, hiring, training, and performance management and reward systems. I would go further and say that your front line managers are your greatest potential asset or weakness. In fact Whitlark and Rhoads are even more specific;

"One bad manager can pollute multiple levels of an organization, and poor managers bring down employee morale, which spills over into the engagement level of customers.”

My point being that your "engagement" or "branding" effort must be embraced as a culture change and you have to be willing to "de-recruit" employees especially managers who can not or will not make the transition. My experience has been validated by James L. Heskett, author of the book The Service-Profit Chain, who writes-

“… the hardest concept is the deployment of the culture change …which requires that organizations identify values, behaviors, and measures that help reinforce the service profit chain relationships. But it also requires actions. That is when managers are not managing by the values and cannot be admonished or retrained to do so (which rarely works), they have to go.”

So I guess what I am saying is that engagement is mutual commitment and while it is important to have brand champions in the C suite you will be most successful when you embed it into the fabric of your organization because engagement and your brand live on the "ground floor" where your employees interact with your customers. As my colleague Joseph Skursky so elegantly states, Hire Hard- Manage Easy. You will find it a better long term strategy.

Building a Better "Mousetrap"

2010-02-10T13:04:00.000-08:00

I am kind of excited. I am in the process of pulling together a group of collaborators to talk about the importance of building a strong employment brand and engagement.

I am excited on a couple of levels. Anyone that knows me knows that I am passionate about these subjects to a level where folks get tired of hearing me. I can't help it, I just fervently believe that this kind of a model working together is just bluntly superior to any other organizational model in the long term, and it works for all kinds of organizations; private or public sector and for profit or not for profit.

I am also excited about the opportunity to educate people about what engagement is and engagement is not. Engagement is not satisfaction and engagement is not "happiness". Engagement is discretionary effort freely committed to by employees in support of a common set of goals, values, and objectives. It is also viral. Your customers and your community will "catch it" to if it is done right.

The last reason I am kind of excited is that this initiative as we envision is a collaboration between the local educational community, the business community and others to begin building a framework for an economic plan for a community that has desperately needed one for a long time; and we are planning to do it together.

We are also going to explore root causes and the real foundation of engagement and strong brands and show local businesses two key things:

This isn't just about big businesses with big advertising budgets
The basic building blocks are pretty easy and there are resources in every community to help "spread the virus".

I like "win-win" solutions, and personal responsibility, and action rather than inaction. Think local, act local. I like it!

When Will We Learn?

2010-02-03T09:48:00.000-08:00

I have been following a number of interesting discussions on LinkedIn and other places about the issues surrounding employee recruiting, selection, and retention.

They range from the importance of the process to the idea that since we are in a recession and employees don't have anywhere to go we can focus on other more "important" business issues.

Interesting viewpoint. Studies show we are operating at 30% efficiency, employee job dissatisfaction is at an all time high, and to some it is a non-issue. I suspect they are not on the top 100 places to work list.

Another discussion I am following began to target some of what I believe to be the real issue- in many cases our hiring and selection processes are not well thought out and executed. They are ancillary rather than strategic.

That is the difference between truly high performing companies and those firmly "in the pack". The concepts of employee engagement and employment branding are coming into vogue. The idea that engagement and the resulting discretionary effort are built in to the foundation not added on later. A colleague shared with me "at Nike to work there you must be an athlete". They are clear about the JFHF3HCJD6FE culture and hire with it in mind. Other icons do the same.

If you are a senior executive how much time are you spending making sure that the people who are joining your organization or at least your team have the "right stuff", or like many organizations have you delegated this to your HR department? Here is a tip. Recruitment selection and retention of the best people is a management role, it doesn't "belong" to any one department. Top performing organizations have figured this out. It is a big part of why they are top performing organizations.

So if you are taking the time during this recession to focus on the "important" stuff and ignoring your people strategies it will be interesting to see how it works out for you.....

Doing "What Matters"

2010-01-31T11:38:00.000-08:00

I had the opportunity to attend another brilliant presentation this last week by a man I admire a great deal, president emeritus of the University of Oregon, Dave Frohnmayer. Although President Frohnmayer may be best known for the 15 years he spent as university president he can also list Dean of the U of O school of law, Oregon Attorney General, state legislator, and Rhodes scholar. A true renaissance man.

He was speaking to a combined group of community leaders and "aspiring" leaders in the form of students from a local private university. Much of what he said resonated with me, but there were particular aspects of his presentation that really struck me.

One of the most interesting themes he discussed was our evolution as people, especially those of us who aspire to lead or manage others. He said that as we are young and we begin our careers we start with the question-
What do I want to do with my career?
We hear this question and discussion a lot from young people; how do I best manage my "career"?

The next evolution he describes is the place where we ask the question-
What do I find fulfilling or meaningful?
I know I have certainly spent some time pondering that question and I rather suspect that I am not alone.

The last question or stage was the challenge he put to those who lead-
What matters?
The point of this question is that we move beyond the "I" and begin to examine our contributions in the larger context of society and the world. It is an interesting point. Should we have people in leadership roles that haven't evolved to that place?

The other part of what he discussed particularly resonated with me; he encouraged everyone, but especially leaders to see themselves and others in terms of their whole personhood. Some of you know this is a familiar place for me.

He referred to people as diverse as Jung and Machiavelli as recognizing that we all carry a "shadow side" and that the most effective leaders recognize this in themselves and others. They don't try to deny it, they incorporate it in their leadership style and acknowledge it in others. They have people around them whom they trust and have the courage to point out to them when this "shadow" becomes a detriment rather than an asset or neutral. He also talked about how the recognition and "mastery" of your shadow elements is evolutionary and occurs over time.

When I first entered the work force like President Frohnmayer suggested I spent much of my time focusing on my "career". Now that I have had three or four "careers" I recognize that a career is a journey you to a certain extent look back on rather than plan.

I have found for me personally that the second and third questions have intertwined. I believe passionately that a different way of people relating to each other in organizational settings is better for the individual, the organization, and society in general. In my case that model is what we now call engagement or employment branding.

Those of you familiar with me also know about my fascination with "Whole People", my belief that this idea of partitioning people off in the "work self" and personal self is ineffective and kind of silly.

The last JFHF3HCJD6FE few years have been an interesting part of my personal journey so I found it somewhat validating to hear from someone I respect that perhaps I am not doing it "wrong" after all.

So what I would leave you with are two questions-

Have you determined what matters to you?
If you answer yes are you pursuing it, and if no do you have a plan to change that?

Look forward to hearing from you.....

From My Heart

2010-01-23T22:59:00.000-08:00

I sit at my computer tonight with a pensive heart. It isn't just Haiti, although that gives it a focus.
I will freely admit to being a romantic. I love great stories and heroes. I love happy endings and noble causes and stories about people who displayed more integrity and courage than I have.
I'm not seeking solace or absolution, just thinking out loud.

We have an interesting set of choices before us. In many cases we are angry and disillusioned. We feel let down . Our economic security is at stake. People we trusted let us down. Where do we go?

I believe in people. I have been castigated about my focus on engagement and the power or relationships, but honestly I have have yet to see a more powerful force than a group of committed people in support of a common cause.

I have been and aspire again to be a "leader". Leadership is a a trust between those who "lead" and those who "follow".

For many years our philosophy was "Think Global, act local". Perhaps it is time for us to both think and act locally. Washington and "world leaders" can offer insight, but perhaps we need to embrace more solutions one person, one family, one community at a time?

From my heart. What do you think?

A Different Perspective

2010-01-22T22:21:00.000-08:00

I had an opportunity to visit with a friend today who shared with me he finds my blog most meaningful when I speak "from my heart". I don't disagree with him. I find it most meaningful too.

I spent a good part of my evening tonight watching Hope for Haiti. I found it tragic, beautiful, inspiring and a host of other things. I got to see some of the greatest musical and stage actors of our time perform. The music was nothing short of incredible. Some of the quotes were memorable. Some of the scenes were tragic.

Haiti is a tragedy of the highest order. It also appears to be a country of great beauty and spirit. I've not had an opportunity to visit although I have a client who is intensely invested in the country. It has an almost mystical presence. As my wife pointed out the poetry of the Creole that is spoken is in direct juxtaposition to the darkness of their reality. Poverty is rampant as is HIV, and a host of other conditions and that was pre earthquake.

The inspiring part for me was that while 2009 was a train wreck of the highest order, it happened on us gradually almost a numbing process. The earthquake happened suddenly and tragically. Sometimes incidents like this bring out something human in us.

I saw some of the greatest entertainers alive today perform amazing music. Music that in many cases they hadn't written or performed previously, but performed beautifully; maybe even inspirationally.

I'll admit it. I am a soft touch and a romantic. Seeing people come together in a spirit of humanity speaks to a place in me. I hope it speaks to a place in you too.

I left the show with impressions of great tragedy, incredible performances, and hope. Seeing these artists perform without introduction, without the accolades of an audience, and organized in a very short time said we still care and hope. The idea that the major networks provided it commercial free said we still care. The idea that Bill Clinton and George W Bush jointly traveled to Haiti and are sponsoring fundraising efforts says there is a dignity in ex- Presidents and our current administration in making the request that speaks to our place in the world.

If you didn't see the show I reccomend it to you. At the very least download the soundtack from Itunes, I found it moving. I hope you will too....

Opportunity from Chaos

2010-01-17T17:57:00.000-08:00

The Conference Board announced that employee satisfaction is at an all time low and several other studies say that based on "dis-engagement" the U.S. economy is operating at about 30% efficiency. Yet another study says that the supply of "experienced" talent is going to decrease while demand increases. So where is the opportunity? Well call me Pollyanna, but I see several areas.

In a recent article Daniel Pink, author of Drive as well as several other great management books, states that loyalty isn't dead it has been redefined. He even provides a whole bunch of ways to build this redefined loyalty into your organization and redefined loyalty can translate to engagement which directly contributes to sustainability, profitability, and productivity.

Although 25% of the workforce will be over 50 by 2020 in North America and Europe and the over 45 customer demographic will be 40% larger than the 20-45 group by 2012 these folks have more money to spend and incidentally research shows that the over 50s have as good or better skills as their younger counterparts. By matching up the customer facing workforce with the demographic shift it represents opportunity rather than loss.

Building engagement requires a strategy, but it is not necessarily cost prohibitive or limited to large, complex organizations. In fact many of the elements of an engagement strategy are pretty simple in their foundations:

Hire the right people. Think about your organization and your values and the values of your customer base and build it into your hiring and selection processes.
Create great jobs. Great jobs are not necessarily about compensation. They give people an opportunity to contribute and work in an environment that fits them.
Participate in helping people build great careers. Loyalty should be based on contribution not tenure. Employees who give you 110% while they work for you are loyal. Employees who speak highly about you to customers and other potential employees are loyal.
Re-recruit constantly. Smart employers spend a lot of time ensuring that employees understand their personal contribution to the business and where they fit in. Do you really think this is easier in organizations with thousands of employees than it is in smaller organizations?
Take advantage of local resources. Most of the foundational element of successful engagement come down to relationship skills not technology. I am talking about things like setting expectations properly, giving feedback constructively, recognizing positive results and similar skills. Most of those skills are taught by your local Chamber of Commerce or community college. You don't need an expensive "top tier" consulting firm. Best practices and templates work great for the company who developed them and consulting firms who install them.
Think local, act local. To a great extent most of us operate in our local community. By engaging and investing in our community we build and reinforce relationships and it relationships that drive organizations not technology or systems by themselves.

In my mind we must decide whether or not we will use the "lessons" from this latest recession as a learning opportunity or concede defeat. I am hoping it will cause us to examine root causes and to redefine how we work with our employees, customers, and communities and they we will capitalize on the benefits of commitment rather than compliance. We have to decide.

What Happened to Us?

2010-01-11T11:35:00.000-08:00

Almost 250 years ago the United States was founded in large part on the basis of two principles:
· The right of personal property; the ability through your own efforts and sweat to own property and build your own future.
· The right of personal competency; the right and responsibility for each person to develop their skill sets and to plan and execute their own future.
These concepts were radical in view of the feudalism that had ruled most of even the “civilized” world. Your destiny was defined not on who and where you were born, but rather what you chose to do with it.
In my white paper, A Social Contract for the New Millennium, I talked about how I feel that concepts like scientific management, pure capitalism, a move from an agrarian to an industrial society and other factors contributed to the degradation of these principles, but what I see lately troubles me even more.
In the 1940’s people like Deming talked about new approaches to total quality management, which interestingly enough began being referred to as Japanese management techniques. Immediately following World War Two the United States was the undisputed industrial power in the world. I will even go further and say that it was our industrial capacity that played a huge role in the defeat of the Axis as well as our military successes. We were the place that everyone came to study business and the home on entrepreneurialism. The productivity of American workers was some of the highest in the world.
I have heard the arguments that it was the unions and government socialism starting with FDR and followed up with other Democratic administrations that gutted it, but I don’t buy it.
Let’s look at some pretty unpleasant realities facing us right now:
· A study in the Journal of Business Strategy estimated employee turnover costs the U.S. economy $5 trillion annually.
· Another study by the American Health association says we lose $200 billion to “presenteeism, a phenomenon where people “show up”, but contribute at a marginal level because of their own or family health care issues, economic insecurity, or just plain dissatisfaction with their job.
· A 2008 Gallup Consulting study estimates the U.S economy as operating at a 30% rate of efficiency because of lack of employee “engagement”.
· A Conference Board study on employee satisfaction released last week reflects that 55% of Americans are dissatisfied at work and if you look at the under 25 demographic it grows to 64%!
· We have a second class health care delivery system.
I realize that the stock market is moving back up and that Wall Street is about to announce record bonuses, but these numbers scare the hell out of me. We are talking about things like a “jobless recovery” and while Wall Street has profited they aren’t sharing the wealth. What happened to the ingenuity and tenacity that put us at the top of the world’s economies?
There are a number of factors that contribute to where we are including:
· Globalization, if you haven’t gotten the email it is here to stay.
· A lack of solid leadership. Leadership is still defined in most organizations as a “nice to have” or an HR initiative rather than a strategic focus. In my opinion what is being taught in our top graduate schools is management, not leadership. They are related, but they are different.
· A lack of alignment. We are not aligning people’s contributions with business goals and objectives. That’s why we are at a 30% efficiency rate.
· Lack of a cogent customer service model. Most organizations have old fashioned customer service models; they aren’t engaging their customers anymore than they are engaging their employees. Anybody who experienced air travel recently can give me an amen to that.
· Changing expectations. In this regard I mean customers, employees, communities, etc.
The interesting thing is that if you look at the factors I have posited is how many of them come down to relationships and trust. A survey by Punk Rock HR gives a brief summary for the biggest reasons for the “newer generations” dissatisfaction:
· We read about 8 figure bonuses for executives and you want us to accept 3% salary increases as “market”.
· You told us (and our parents) that you would provide us with employer sponsored quality health care.
· You changed our retirement plans and tied them to the stock market so we could do “better”.
· You told us that moving the manufacturing base to Southeast Asia, China, and India was good for “business” and that we would create a “knowledge based” economy.
· Your response to the recession and 10% unemployment is that those of us who remain employed should be “grateful”.
I don’t know about you, but I can kind of see their point.
Maybe I am being overly simplistic, but doesn’t it seem like much of these issues are directly correlated to the relationship between employer and employed? I have thought so for thirty years! That is why I developed my model Moving from Compliance to Commitment. I have spent years refining and testing it. My premise is that when you give employees a chance to “join up” with you they will contribute at a higher level.
Turns out I was right. A Gallup Consulting study from 2008 showed that among other positive results companies with high engagement demonstrate:
· A turnover rate 51% lower than peer groups
· 27% lower absenteeism
· A per capita productivity rate 18% higher and
· 12% higher profitability
A different study from Rhoads and Whitlark and BlessingWhite drew the same conclusions. In fact they showed shareholder returns 13% higher and the productivity and profitability impacts of increasing engagement in environments like retail is nothing short of astounding.
Global research organization ISR’s research director, Patrick Kulesa, put it even more clearly-
“Our research continues to show that a well substantiated relationship exists between employee engagement- the extent to which employees are committed, believe in the value of the company, feel pride in working for their employer, and are motivated to go the extra mile- and business results”.
Now let me tell you what really bothers me. Less than 30% of U.S. businesses have any kind of a strategy for addressing these issues. To the best of my knowledge there is not a single government led initiative exploring it either. I read about a government initiative recently- in the U.K.!
It kind of reminds me of the early days of the total quality movement. Even though it was pioneered in the U.S. we largely ignored it because we didn’t find the need compelling. It was only when our products like automobiles, electronics, and others began to suffer did we look at root causes. We just gave big banking a trillion dollars and the average American isn’t seeing much benefit. Are we seeing a trend here?
The other issue for me is that this is not a “technical issue”. While I have a lot of respect for my colleagues who have black belts in Six Sigma issues like trust and respect are not going to be solved by “process improvements”. For those of us who see ourselves in leadership and management and the fields of organizational development and human resources management this represents a crisis and an opportunity to provide real leadership.
So let’s do a quick review. We have 10% unemployment, historically high employee dissatisfaction, and an underfunded second class health care system. We lose $5 trillion to turnover and another $200 billion to “presenteeism”. Maybe I am just confused, but am I the only person seeing some opportunities here? So what is it exactly we are waiting for…?

Reinventing Human Resources Departments

2010-01-09T10:58:00.000-08:00

Like many of us today I spend my share of time on social media sites like LinkedIn, Digg, Facebook and others.

LinkedIn particularly I find to be a great forum for exchanging ideas, asking and answering questions and just "chatting" with colleagues. One of the things I find disappointing is that I still see frequently on LinkedIn are questions like:

What sucks the most about your HR department?
Does your HR department bring any value added to your organization
How as an HR professional do I generate respect and credibility?

I have been in and around the HR profession for over thirty years and even though I have "progressed" to C level roles both in human resources and operating departments it pains me to hear discussion I heard when I was graduating from college and my advisor pleaded with me not to "waste" my talent in Personnel.

As recently as yesterday I was with a colleague in a related field who lamented that when he attends local SHRM meetings the discussion is mostly defensive or compliance oriented rather than discussing solutions or being proactive.

Human Resources needs to re-define itself and the timing is no more critical than today.

A recent article I read made a statement I agree with whole heartedly and have been preaching for the last 36 months or more:

Employee engagement and retention are emerging as two of the biggest challenges facing business in the next decade!

Because of the economic downturn many C level executives are doing what they have always done during times of economic uncertainty; focusing on the numbers. They assume because of high unemployment that employees are just grateful to be employed or replacement talent is readily available. This is both horribly wrong and short term thinking for a number of reasons:

Recent studies find employee satisfaction is at one of its lowest points in 50 years!
The U.S. economy is estimated to be operating at a 30% rate of efficiency with further erosion occurring because of loss of trust stemming from layoffs and economic insecurity.
Employee turnover is estimated to cost the U.S. economy $5 trillion annually
The costs of "presenteeism"; employees who are employed, but largely un-engaged is estimated at another $200 billion annually.

That's right, those numbers are trillion with a "t" and billion with a "b". One could conjecture that fixing these issues could fund a national health care initiative and probably go along way to solve funding issues in education, poverty and other areas.

So what can HR professionals and departments do to help address these issues and increase their stature and contribution, I would submit several things:

Change your role

I expected my HR teams to provide three primary services to our internal clients: technical expertise, facilitation, and project management. Our role is to provide the right tools to management to select, motivate, and retain the right staff. They are responsible to learn and use those tools. I don't expect managers to be experts in ERISA or COBRA, but basic competencies like setting expectations, giving feedback, taking corrective action, and linking individual goals to organizational goals are management competencies, not HR competencies.

Develop and implement an employment brand

Engagement starts with the hiring and selection process. Organizations that achieve excellence are clear about their brand internally and externally. Candidates and employees know what the organization stands for in terms of values and vision. They may be flexible about process, but they are ruthless about adherence to those values and principles.

Create a pipeline

Great HR organizations are constantly monitoring their "pipeline" of talent. They are proactive not reactive. If turnover or growth occurs they have strategies in place to quickly identify and deploy the right talent. They don't scramble.

Integrate your systems

I am old enough to remember when the total quality movement was "new". You didn't inspect quality in, you built it in. So many times I see organizations approach their HR initiatives serially; we will work on our recruiting system this year, compensation next year, performance management next year, etc. It doesn't work. These systems must be integrated and more importantly they must link clearly and directly to your business strategy.

Foster and cultivate a culture of innovation

You are either moving forward or you are regressing. Great companies don't follow best practices, they create them. They don't wait for the competition to come up with the next idea, they constantly challenge their own thinking and reinvent themselves. I personally ascribe to that model by doing some of the following:

Hiring the "right" people
Creating an optimal environment
Managing "whole" people
Moving from compliance to "commitment"

If you want to know why I encourage you to do these things right now, here are my reasons:

Demand for talent- over the next 15 years the demand for “experienced” talent will increase by 25% and the supply is expected to decrease by 15%!
Less than 30% of organizations worldwide have an engagement strategy today. Do you want to lead or follow?
Engaged employees have a turnover rate 51% lower than un-engaged employees and a per capita productivity rate 18% higher.
I guess my last reason would be that if you are an HR professional aren't you tired of sitting in the cheap seats? This is our time, it is up to us to take it.

Looking Forward ..and Back

2009-12-28T12:33:00.000-08:00

This New Year's Eve will be a bit different than many we have celebrated. It is the end of the first decade of the new millennium among other distinctions.

It seems somehow alomost surreal to think that 10 years ago we were in a panic about what Y2K would bring. Kind of turned out to be a non event. 2001 distinguished itself largely because of 9/11 and has changed our lives and shaped foreign policy and the role of government intervention in our lives. 2008 elected the first African American president and 2009 brought the worst financial recession in generations and the effective demise of several major institutions.

It has been an interesting decade for me as well. My children entered "adulthood". I spent the bulk of the decade in a "new" career as an executive in the financial services industry, specifically in credit unions trying to help re-shape our approach and go back to our roots. I can honestly say that some of my greatest career achievements occurred with some of the work I did in those organizations. I feel that in several cases we made things not only better for our employees and "members", but actually contributed to positive social change and bettering the communities we served.

I wrote and published my first book, which was a significant personal milestone and learned to embrace social media. I also began hearing about and writing about a phenomenon called engagement that I had described as moving from compliance to commitment which still represents a personal passion for me. I have to admit that I have been frustrated with my ability to articulate this model in a way that causes more organizations to embrace it. I truly believe it is a far superior model for organizations and their members to interact whether those organizations are businesses, communities, educational institutions or any other entity that brings people together.

It has been a decade of revelation and introspection for me. I have enjoyed some of that much more than other parts. In truth I didn't care much for 2009, I am not sorry to see it go.

Starting on Friday we begin a new decade. I will be curious to see what we do with it and whether or not it provides opportunity and promise or more disappointment.

So I will be curious to hear from you as to what stood out for you in the first decade of the millenium and what you hope to see as we move into 2010.

The Right Fit

2009-12-16T14:46:00.000-08:00

A lot of you are probably tired of hearing about my ongoing love affair with the concept of engagement. Sorry I just can't help myself, it's my passion.

In my last post I talked about a couple of people who have made a deep and lasting impression on me even though they were quite different. I still think about those two people and others I have encountered that were similar. These people don't seem to spend a lot of time in that "uncertainty" zone wondering what their role or motivation is or should be. They are aligned.

I read a couple of things today that I found interesting. One was from a colleague who I respect a great deal talking about whether or not organizations should accept or even embrace their role in providing structure in a world confronted with a lot of ambiguity. His question was around social context and whether employers should play a proactive, reactive, or neutral role in creating and/or managing social relationships related to the workplace.

My response, perhaps naively, was that if you embrace a philosophy of engagement a certain amount of this need to "affiliate" will be met organically. If you share values and a sense of commitment with your colleagues the "membership" component will occur somewhat naturally. The employer will need to provide some boundary management and be sure that the approach is broad rather than prescriptive, but shouldn't have to artificially bring people together.
By prescriptive I mean being too structured as to what engagement looks like or must be practiced.

I find organized religion to be a little "prescriptive". Three of the largest religions in the world; Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all "people of the book", but we fight wars over the "right" way to practice it. I don't really get it.

Another colleague posted a very different question about the relative difficulty of coaching someone from "incompetence to mediocrity" versus "good to great". My reaction was "Why would you want to coach someone to a career pinnacle of mediocrity?" Where is the value to the person or the organization. Perhaps I am being hypocritical, I play golf badly, but I enjoy it as a hobby recognizing that Tiger (even with his current distractions) need never feel threatened. Golf is a hobby, not a career.

If you look at the single biggest reasons for "failure" in the employment environment they are around "fit" not technical competence. The numbers are pretty scary too- exceeding 30% at the C level and even higher at lower levels. How many of us know colleagues who are "living quiet lives of desperation" performing a job where they are not very engaged or frankly a great fit. I feel for these people even though by some measures they are "successful".

Maybe I just continue to be contemplative because of the recent events of my role models. Maybe it is the season. Maybe this "fit" thing is overrated. What do you think?

The Power of Example

2009-12-06T16:39:00.000-08:00

Happiness is when what you think, what you say, and what you do are in harmony.
Mahatma Gandhi

I had the opportunity this week to attend two very different functions that had some interesting parallels.

The first was a "transition" or retirement party for an executive that I admire a great deal. I have known him for a long time and in candor there have been a number of occasions where our viewpoints were at odds. What I found consistently about him however; was that our disagreements never started or became personal. He possesses a clear set of values and a personal vision that although I might not always share I always appreciate.

As I listened to people who had worked with him over a 35 year career describe him they consistently used words like; integrity, honesty, ethics, vision, faith, humility, and passion. I recognized that those words resonated with me in my own experiences with him. He is tough minded yet compassionate, a strong negotiator, but never for his own personal gain.

People who worked for him would describe him as visionary, task driven, and demanding of excellence from himself and others. I doubt many would describe him as warm, but a compassion and empathy emanate from him as well as a quiet courage.

He has faced adversity both in his professional and personal life, but you get a sense that he strides on with his mission in view and his values intact. An example to peers, subordinates, and colleagues. His departure will leave a hole, I have not encountered many of his ilk of late.

The other individual in some ways couldn't be more different. His transition was sudden and unexpected. He died during an accident harvesting firewood on his ranch. He was a rancher and community leader who spent his life doing what he loved as a steward of the land that his family has owned for generations.

I met him several years ago in a small country church where he was speaking to a men's group about his faith and how it called him and changed him. I got to know him much better later as part of a community group and as a political candidate. In some ways we were unlikely allies. He was a man of the land and passionate in his conservative Christian beliefs. I have spent a good deal of my life in more urban and corporate settings. While I consider myself to be Christian I am more wary of the restrictiveness of organized religion, especially when it imposes strict boundaries.

We spent a lot of time together one on one and I found him to be a highly discerning listener and a man who while he held his own beliefs firmly was very capable of respecting the views of others; a characteristic I find rarely and appreciate more as I get older.

When I was running for office I found myself on the "wrong" side of a pretty controversial issue. As a major fundraiser and supporter who had traded on his own reputation to build support for me my position put him in an ackward spot. I remember when we met one on one to discuss it and at the end of our discussion he told me "now that I understand your position I agree with you." His steadfast support of me caused both my supporters and detractors to scratch their heads. In their minds we were polarities. They couldn't have been more wrong. We shared a common conviction that the common bond that is critical to all successful human systems is relationships and that you should endeavor to find the points of agreement rather than contention. I lost the election, but I have to say that the process of running for office and creating relationships like the one I shared with him made that experience one of the most worthwhile endeavors I will likely ever engage in.

One was an executive who through his leaderhip position and commitment leaves a legacy of organizational structure, strategic vision, and mentees and colleagues who will carry on his legacy. The other was a rancher, community leader, and "elder" who touched hundreds through engagement with his community, his church, and his friendship. The commonality; they don't talk about their values they live them onstage everyday for everyone to see.

When it is my time to "transition" or to depart I hope to follow their example and for people to think of me not in terms of what I possessed, but rather what I leave behind. Skip and Lee, thanks for setting an example for me and others.

What Defines Us?

2009-12-04T10:37:00.000-08:00

A little over 90 days ago the recruitment and selection process for the University of Oregon football team didn't look very good. The brand new coach started his season with a loss and one of his top players punched out a member of the opposing team on national television.
The press of course made sure that the "punch" got plenty of airtime.

Many begin denouncing the selection of the new coach. Over the next two weeks he lost two more starters to injuries. The season looked pretty grim. Then something interesting began to happen. The coach talked to the players about the incident and whether or not they wanted to let it define them. He made a decision to suspend the player from participating in the game, but not from being on the team. The player was told he would remain on scholarship and be allowed to practice, but not allowed to play. Several weeks later the coach indicated that if the player met certain academic and behavioral conditions he could be reinstated; which he was later in the season. The critics of course labeled this as the plan all along and denounced the coach and the program. Of course they have chosen to overlook the fact that the reinstated player saw his first playing time last night in the final regular game of his season. Some claim it was what the team needed to win so the coach sacrificed his integrity for the sake of the win.

I say really? The young man who stepped up and took his place set a national record for rushing yards as a freshman. There were two games; one we lost and one we won in overtime where the reinstated player didn't play. I think perhaps instead a coach made a decision to give a young man an opportunity to play for the last time in front of his home crowd.

The team is headed for the Rose Bowl for the first time in fifteen years. They are the undisputed champions of the PAC 10. The coach makes no apologies for his decisions.

A number of players stepped up to make this season happen. When I see how the team reacted to the opening loss, the loss of starters, the ability to play through the distractions, and the joy and appreciation from a young man whose coach decided to invest in him rather than throw him away I think that says much more about this team and this coach. Detractors will say we needed him to win- a record of 9-2 going into the game says otherwise.

The press will relish this opportunity to play the "punch" video over and over, just as they will torture Tiger Woods for the next few weeks. I think what defines you is not whether or not you make mistakes or errors in judgement, but where you go from there.

So I guess I would leave you with this question- what defines you? Is it your successes, your failures, or your "whole person"?