The Green Flash

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"

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

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

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;

1. Cost shift to employees through higher deductibles, co pays, etc
2. Reduce benefit offerings
3. 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?

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

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!

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......