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.....

Tell Me A Story......

For those of you that are on LinkedIn you know that I was working on a presentation for a group of executives on the topic of Web 2.0 or "social networking".

I had the opportunity to share my thoughts with the group yesterday, so now I am taking the opportunity to share my perspective with you and seek your perspective.

In short, social networking is about relationships and trust, not about technology!

I want to state for the record that I am certainly no tech whiz (I type with two fingers). I am no "hipster" as I am a 52 year old white guy.

The reason I say tell me a story is because I believe that social networking is going back to the future. Once upon a time there was no media, no newspapers, and very few books. In fact the vast part of the population was illiterate, and the controlling powers liked it that way.

We relied on an "oral" tradition. We passed along stories and legends from one person to another. We relied on relationships. I would submit that social networking is a return to that model, passing along information to each other.

As I have talked, written and blogged about the need for a new social contract I have consistently talked about three foundational concepts:

• Engagement is a far superior environment to any other in a business or organizational setting.
• The foundation of all meaningful organizational systems is relationships between people.
• Trust is the essential element of functional relationships and engagement.

The bottom line is you will never have engaged relationships with your employees, your customers, or your community without trust. Much of the "new" generations have lost trust in our current relationship infrastructure and models.

Management expert Gary Hamel indicates that among other things the "Facebook" generations embrace a number of new "principles" that you need to be aware of:

• Contribution counts for more than "credentials"
• Hierarchies are natural not prescribed.
• Power comes from sharing information not hoarding it.
• Opinions compound and are "peer" reviewed.
• Users can veto most policy decisions.

If you take a look at these things they represent pretty profound differences from how management and leadership is taught and practiced. To quote popular songwriter John Mayer (for those of you unfamiliar with his music he was the guy that "dumped" both Jennifer Anniston and Jessica Simpson, if neither of them is familiar to you then you live in a cave so it doesn't matter) "when they own the information they can twist it all they want".

And we do; the biggest concern about social networking I hear from members of the "greatest generation" and "boomers" is "how do I control what they say about me on blogs, etc?" the answer is you don't! You participate and contribute you don't control.

When I created my compliance to commitment model the third "pillar" is information. It is critical and the emerging generations have unprecedented access to it. Social networking is also based on the most powerful force in the universe (in my opinion), the power of relationships.

When you have heard me talk about the "new" engagement model you have seen the five levels described by BlessingWhite:

• Satisfaction
• Loyalty
• Recommendation
• Best Product/Practices
• Excitement and Pride

At the risk of being overly simplistic, I don't think you can create the higher levels without creating a relationship.

When you see how social networks describe those relationships they use words like "friend" and "connection". There is an implication of trust and shared experience.

For me when I write, blog, and speak it is always with that intent; to build and sustain relationships and trust. To inform, to share, and to solicit other viewpoints and perspectives.

So I will leave you with a couple of thoughts;

• Engagement is the most powerful tool that organizations have to increase productivity, profitability, and sustainability.
• Engagement is built on relationships and relationships are built on trust. Don't try to "sell" your idea, share a story and invite others to share theirs.
  

I am going to keep building "lighthouses" and telling "stories". I hope as I share them we will understand and join the "new" generations and build on trust and shared values. Commitment is better than compliance, period.

"Outdated" Words

A couple of "virtual" discussions I have had with colleagues I respect a great deal cause me to ponder the use of some words that are part of our business lexicon. Two words in particular that people focused on are loyalty and empathy.

My colleague said that she felt loyalty has become a kind of psychological handcuff that we try to put on people, especially in the employment environment. People who don't stay with us for a long period of time are disloyal. Employees who question company policy are disloyal.

I use the concept of loyalty as one of the five elements of my Compliance to Commitment(TM) model. The other elements are respect, responsibility, information, and rewards.

In my my mind loyalty is in context. Loyalty like respect and leadership is something you earn and is freely given rather than an entitlement. Loyalty means that we meet our commitments to each other and that we deal with each other from a place of respect and clarity. It does not mean tenure, fealty, or other things that in my mind are based in a compliance kind of relationship. In an employment setting it means that while I am in your employee I meet your expectations to the best of my ability and that you give me clear expectations and honest feedback. It is measured by that commitment not the length of the relationship.

I think to ask someone to act in way that is not in their best interests or is in congruent with their values is being disloyal to them. I also think for me personally it is easier to be loyal to a person or value set than to an organization. I have always asked people who worked with me to be loyal to the vision or values of the organization, not to me.

Empathy is an interesting word as well. In my mind empathy is an appreciation and considerations for another's point of view. It is not sympathy, nor is it necessarily sensitivity. I think empathy is very important, if you cannot recognize and acknowledge another persons right to have a viewpoint or value set different than your own I think leadership is a bad fit for you. I didn't say you needed to agree with their viewpoint, rather that you acknowledge their right to have it and be able to evaluate it objectively. Without empathy I think we run the risk of attempting to impose our viewpoints and values on others.

So, I would ask you two questions:

• Are these words "outdated" ?
• What words would you add to my list?