New Paradigms LLC

Achieving Spezzatura

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 18:06:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:44:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:47:00 +0000

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"?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:42:00 +0000

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"

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:04:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 17:48:00 +0000

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"

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 19:38:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 06:59:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 06:21:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 01:57:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 19:35:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 18:58:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 20:33:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 22:46:00 +0000

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

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 00:39:00 +0000

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?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:37:00 +0000

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"?

Wrong Process = Wrong Results

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:21:00 +0000

I had an opportunity to read a literature review from last year that drew some pretty interesting conclusions not only for the U.S., but worldwide.
Steven Zaccaro, in his piece, Executive Talent Assessment and Selection: A Literature Review described a five step process.

Defining executive candidate position requirements (technical skills)
Delineating appropriate candidate attributes (cultural fit)
Recruiting the candidate pool
Assessing the candidate pool
Making the final decision and "onboarding" the successful candidate

He goes on to say that the failure rate for executives is extraordinarily high and that failure to spend appropriate time on all of these elements is a probable cause.

He has some pretty good data to back him up. He cites the facts that CEO's hired after 1985 were 3 times more likely to be fired than those hired prior to that date and that the overall turnover rate for CEO's has from 6% in 1995 to 14% in 2002. In case your conclusion is so what, there is a direct correlation between CEO performance and organizational performance that has been documented by everyone from Jim Collins in Good to Great to the Department of Labor.

Another source describes the failure rate of new managers as exceeding 40% in the first 18 months. The costs of turnover is estimated at between two and five times annual salary in "hard" costs, so we aren't talking about a tempest in a teapot.

He shares some pretty interesting insights as to the causes of these failures as well. Succession planning in most organizations is frankly reactive. People don't like to consider and plan for their own departure. Another reason is that while many C level people are gifted business leaders and strategists; selection and placement are not core competencies for them. A study by Drucker shows them to have about a 33% success rate at choosing their own successor.

The literature indicates that when it comes down to it executive search committees tend to rely on their own "gut" instincts, select candidates who "mirror" their own attributes, and other human tendencies in making their selections. The least reliable indicator of success is an interview without other validating information. Similarly "track records" aren't always reliable unless the organization is facing similar challenges and an operating environment to the one the candidate faced. The skills sets at each level of management and leadership also become increasing complex- success as a middle manager or operational executive is not necessarily indicative of success at the higher level.

Last week I talked about the "leadership crisis" with something approaching 50% of middle managers rejecting providing "clarity", direction, and attending to morale issues as being their responsibility. When does the recognition that these responsibilities are part of their job occur if not built into the process? Correspondingly we know that highly engaged employees outperform their colleagues by a rate of 21% and that the "engagement" factor is synergistic to total organizational performance. The number one criteria for engagement is clarity.

Since many of our CEOs and other key executives come from "within" I don't think we can discount our investment in the process of their recruitment, selection, and development either.

So I guess it might be time to ask ourselves when we are ready to accept the idea that using the same process over and over and expecting a different result is a bit silly. Given the state of our economy, the costs of "presenteeism", and turnover shouldn't we consider making some changes?

Do We Have A Leadership Crisis?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:04:00 +0000

We are in an interesting time and as you know this whole topic of leadership is a passion of mine. I become especially concerned when we can use language like 'jobless recovery" with a straight face.

I had a chance to read John Baldoni's blog on Harvard Publishing-http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/baldoni/2009/11/what_it_takes_to_lead_now.html and I have to tell you that it didn't provide me any comfort.

Baldoni references a recent McKinsey and Company survey citing that only 48% of managers believe that providing inspiration during the crisis is their job and 46% feel a responsibility to provide direction. Even more alarming the numbers drop to 45 and 39% post crisis. To make me feel even worse only 30% felt responsible for motivating their employees during the crisis and it drops to 23% post crisis!

Let me sum it up, less than 50% of the managers surveyed believe that inspiration, direction, motivation, and accountability are essential for managing corporate performance! I don't know about you, but that scares the hell out of me!

The defenders of course say that those are "senior management" or "executive responsibilities". They see their roles as tactical, gutting it out on the day to day. The problem is this is the "corps" of where that future leadership comes from. When does the age of enlightenment kick in and they recognize and develop their skills in these other areas.

When you add these facts to those including that 40% of "new" managers fail in their first 18 months on the job, usually for "non-technical" reasons, the costs of failures is estimated at between 2 and 4 times annual salary, and less than 30% of the organizations in the world have an employee engagement strategy it provides a pretty grim picture.

To quote Baldoni; "Execution without adequate leadership is short sighted. It will carry a company through a quarter or a year, but it will not provide a foundation for what organizations really need to do, and that is to grow."

I agree with Baldoni and also with Marcus Buckingham -
“Effective leaders don’t have to be passionate. They don’t have to be charming. They don’t have to be brilliant […] They don’t have to be great speakers. What they must be is clear. Above all else, they must never forget the truth that of all the human universals […] our need for clarity is the most likely to engender in us confidence, persistence, resilience, and creativity.”

A recent study by Rhoads and Whitlark also discusses that the crucial foundation for engagement (which by the way yields some wonderful byproducts in areas like productivity, sustainability, and profitability) is trust. Doesn't seem like we are moving the ball in the right direction.

I see time and time again where we seek to systematize leadership- to define it in terms of metrics and statistics. Looks like once again we are missing the point that it is relationships and people.

"Presenteeism" costs the U.S economy an estimated $200+ billion per year and a majority of our managers don't see the underlying issues that cause this phenomena as being their responsibility. We are in deep shit!

I guess these statistics say a couple of things to me:

I am hoping that the organizations I am working with are represented in the 48% who "get it".
We need to re-evaluate or management talent acquisition and development processes in a big hurry if we are going to have to make meaningful changes.

So I guess if I was leading an organization I would be asking myself - "Where is my management team on these issues?" and maybe even more importantly, " as a leader what am I doing about it?"

So I guess I have answered my own question- now I would pose one to you " Where do we go from here?" By the way, I wouldn't suggest turning this over to your HR department to fix. This is a key leadership issue.

Change Is In the Air- I Think....

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 16:51:00 +0000

It has been an interesting couple of weeks. I have heard from several people I am close to that they have found important new roles that they are pleased about. I have decided to make a change and sharpen my focus in my own endeavors. The stock market is up- at least temporarily. Many economists are declaring the recession over.

The first thing that is interesting to me is the issue of the economy. I have heard "experts" begin to refer to this as a "jobless" recovery. I don't get that. Is that like Jumbo Shrimp? How to we pronounce the recession over if we have large numbers of people who are still unemployed or underemployed? Because the stock market is up? How is that affecting your personal financial well being?

I read some information recently about a change that concerned me, but didn't shock me. The "change" was that the large financial players have been using the bailout money to fund investments in the market rather than reinvesting in programs and things that really benefit the average American. Coming from financial services recently that doesn't surprise me that much. Most financial service organizations stopped making their profits in the traditional sense; the "margin" between what they paid for deposits and what they make loans for some time ago. They borrowed some "creativity" from other industries and found that there are much better opportunities to generate fee income for "services" such as overdraft protection, ATM access, and other transaction fees.

The interesting thing to me is that they are missing huge opportunities to increase their income and benefit their stakeholders by utilizing things like supply chain management and TQM techniques, but they have been relatively slow adopters.

This weekend the House passed the most sweeping legislation since Medicare on health care reform. Depending on which side of the equation you represent this is either a huge step forward or the continuing "socialization" of our economy. I am suspending judgement. I think our current health care system has significant flaws in a number of areas, notably our ability to deliver high quality health care in an efficient and cost effective manner.

I had hoped that the recession might cause more employers to examine their relationships with stakeholders, especially employees and to address flaws in our models that have existed for years. In many cases I feel like we lost traction. We went back to the "be grateful you have a job model".

We need a new leadership model. Much of our leadership modeling is based on financial and economic metrics- i.e. a "jobless" recovery. When I read about the stresses and reactions from those stresses I am concerned that we are kidding ourselves.

I have decided to focus my "change" efforts at a very basic level, by hopefully effecting the way organizations select and orient their senior leadership teams in their hiring and selection process. My colleague, Joseph Skursky refers to this as "hire hard-manage easy".

I see things on the web asking whether it is OK to probe employee's values alignment with your organizational values before you hire them. My answer is "duh", of course. You can't and shouldn't get into protected areas, but do you really want people in your lifeboat who don't support or understand your core values? I have to tell you after thirty years of experience, changing somebody's values is really hard. It is much easier to align them upfront.

As an employer you also have the freedom within reason to set the values of your organization and require compliance if not commitment to those values. You aren't saying to those who don't share your values they are bad people, you are saying they would be better suited in an environment where they share the organization's values. Trust me, people who are technically competent , but don't represent a good "fit" will never really be outstanding performers.

So I think that we are at a stage where we accept the status quo or we become our own personal change agent. I know which choice I have made, what about you?

Is This Our Future?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 22:59:00 +0000

I was reading an article on Newsweek.com today titled Doughnut- Hole Country and I have to tell you some of the parallels I saw in this article about brain drain in rural communities made me pretty uncomfortable. The article is based on an interview with authors of the book Hollowing Out the Middle.
The premise of the book that much of America’s rural “heartland” is shrinking in terms of population, experiencing “brain drain”, and seeing their economies spiral downward. Although they are talking about 700 counties stretching from the Dakotas to Texas some of the reasons this is happening and the outcomes look eerily familiar.
One of the reasons they feel this has happened is that the K-12 educational system is largely focused on “Achievers”, kids who are seen as “smart” and are guided towards university educations in the larger cities where they are more likely to succeed, and to stay. The students who are seen as less “accomplished” receive less focus and attention. They are also more likely to stay in the community.
Much of the “heartland” has traditionally been known for an agrarian economy. It is where much of our food is grown, but large “agri-businesses” now control much of the property and the production. Family owned farms are diminishing. Many of the remaining population doesn’t have the skill sets to work in “new” industries like computer technology, health care, sustainable energy and other emerging sectors.
These same geographies are disproportionately affected by global “outsourcing” and the relocation of jobs to other countries. This causes further disruption to their economies. The interesting effects of outsourcing include the fact that much of innovation occurs in the manufacturing process. When you outsource that process you also outsource the innovation that comes with it. Some might argue that this is a form of social and economic Darwinism, the “strong” communities survive and thrive, and it is natural selection. Unfortunately one of the ancillary effects is that people follow and you also see the resulting issues like high crime rates, homelessness, and other “benefits” of these clusters in big cities. People move to the cities to access broader and richer social service infrastructure not available in smaller communities.
Here are some of the parallels I see between what the authors describe and our own community:
· A significantly shifting economic base. Lane County was primarily built on the base of the extraction industry- aggregates and timber. As these industries have been reduced by legislation and technology we have not replaced them with a new viable economic infrastructure. Whether we want to admit it or not dollars from those industries built much of the infrastructure we all enjoy including our cultural centers and our world class university.
· Educational elitism. I remember being part of the Contact 2000 program on several occasions here in Lane County. This was an iniative where we went out and spoke with businesses about impediments to growing or even keeping their businesses in Lane County. I was told by several that a major issue was the availability of a workforce with the requisite skills. They felt that the educational system was very academically oriented. Pursuing a “trade” or craft was discouraged. They even pointed out that most of the high schools and even our local community college discontinued or reduced vocational educational programs like wood shop, automotive repair and even home economics. Better to be a “college educated” restaurant server than a trade person.
· The “left behinds”. We have several generations now in Lane County who in past generations would have pursued family wage jobs in those extraction industries that I mentioned previously. That isn’t an option for them anymore.
· Population shifts. Because of our fragmented economic base and poor affordability index we are experiencing another parallel to the “heartland”. The 4J school system is facing issues regarding funding and school closures because of the shrinking k-12 population in its boundaries. Young families have moved out of Eugene in large part because they can’t afford to purchase a home in “urban” Lane County. The combination of voter initiatives limiting property valuation and taxation and Eugene’s desirability for “retirement living” added to the lack of industrial tax base exacerbate the issue. It also puts pressure on smaller communities who in many cases don’t have the infrastructure to support the influx of population.
· Our bright young people are leaving the community. We haven’t created an economic base for them to stay. There are no major employers or industries for them to work in post graduation. So they go to Portland or Seattle or somewhere else.
If I seem like I am being critical, I am. I came to Lane County over 20 years ago. I was drawn by an excellent school system for my children, access to a world class university, and the livability of a relatively small community. I was one of the lucky ones to benefit from working for an employer who paid national scale wages. I was concerned then that the high technology base that I joined was small. I was lucky, when I lost my job I was able to transfer my skills to an entreprenurial role providing consulting to new businesses that located here.
We recruited our last major new economic player to Lane County in 1994 with Levi Strauss. Sony, Shorewood, Hynix and others have come and gone. Some see their departures as corporate manipulation; having worked in Fortune 100 corporations I saw it as a function of a world economy.
In truth we were not very hospitable in large part to these employers as well. We complain about the taxes we deferred, but refuse to recognize the millions they spent in wages, infrastructure and related investments. I for one saw the tradeoffs and being in our favor. We contributed to if not caused the decision to build the new hospital in Springfield rather than Eugene because we allowed political agendas rather than a regional economic strategy to drive our actions.
During the Clinton Administration we received an “allowance” from the Federal government for a period of six years in the form of the Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act to help us defray some of the impact of lost revenues from restrictions on our extraction industries. It was clear it was intended to be a bridge while we developed a strategy to make up for the loss. Our Congressional delegation has been able to extend some of that funding for an additional two years, but what have we done with our eight year lead time? Wasn’t that sufficient time to develop a strategy? I would defy you to find a business that gets eight years warning that their funding is drying up.
I applaud the efforts to build sustainable businesses and to foster entrepreneurialism, but I think we need a broader more cohesive strategy.
Our rural communities suffer from the impacts even more. I would suspect that more of the “left behinds” are represented in communities like Oakridge, Marcola, Elmira, and others than the South Hills of Eugene or Thurston.
The “brain drain” is being played out especially in the area of health care. We have a critical shortage in the number of trained health care professionals in the state of Oregon ranging from CNAs to nurses and physicians. We have one medical school in our state located in an urban area. Studies say that a significant portion of health care professionals stay where they complete their training; this even further impacts our rural communities. Their best and brightest that go to Portland to attend medical or nursing school are not likely to return “home” to practice their craft.
I don’t want to be a “carpetbagger”, someone who enjoys the fruits of what this community offers, but plies my trade elsewhere. One of the “haves” rather than “have nots”. I don’t want to avoid the downtown because of empty buildings and the homeless or not use the library because I don’t want to risk punching out an obnoxious kid panhandling me for change. And the next time I read an article about “Doughnut-Hole Country” I don’t want it to be about the community I live in. The time for rhetoric is done. We need to step up and create and implement a real strategy. Now before we read about us in Newsweek.

Cautious Optimism

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:59:00 +0000

I just read a post on MSN that causes me to be cautiously optimistic. In the post it describes President Obama's desire to reposition much of the bailout strategy to community banks and small businesses. I think that would represent an excellent move.

I run a small business and work with many others. While I have seen many of the large financial institutions benefit from the bailout and in fairness pay back much if not all of the bail out money I can't say I have seen enormous quantities of the money "trickle down" to small businesses or lenders loosen up and provide loans to help refuel a real recovery.

As a "little guy" while I am pleased to see the stock market creeping back up I am not quite ready to declare the recession over. I live in a world of intimacy. I deal with my clients one on one. I see them continue to struggle. The community I reside in still has high unemployment and relatively low affordability, the ability for people to buy a home relative to their income. There is no grand strategy to deal with this issue in our local economy that I have seen.

I am not going to blame all of where we are on the "big banks" and the Administration. I have felt and still feel that the recession represented and continues to provide an opportunity for community banks and credit unions to step up and play a bigger role in their communities and how people see them. I have been pretty underwhelmed by the innovation and risk taking I have seen to date.

I hope that if the President is successful in this new direction smaller banks and credit unions "invest" in their communities rather than follow the example of the mega banks. At least in theory we are part of these communities. I am a big believer in the concept of think globally, but act locally.

So I will be curious to see what happens. For those in the "community" banking world if these funds come through it will be our opportunity and responsibility to step up. It has been easy to hide behind the excuse that we didn't benefit from the first round, but what will we do with our turn at bat if we get it?

A Case for Civility

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:58:00 +0000

I spend some time discussing a lot of different issues with people. I like to think of myself as reasonably open minded and tolerant, perhaps erroneously. I actually posted a question on LinkedIn a few months about anger and got some interesting reactions.

This last week has provided several interesting illustrations for me about the anger and energy that is out there.

The first are the comments and vehemence of reactions to President Obama being awarded the Nobel peace prize. Although a lot of the reaction has been that it represents a non event or that it has been awarded prematurely if not inappropriately other reactions have been angry and frankly nasty.

I responded to a poll on LinkedIn indicating my thoughts, the award was premature, but that being an optimist I was hoping perhaps it was awarded proactively as a catalyst and got back a response telling me how wrong I was. When I responded that I hadn't actually endorsed it the person wrote me back again telling me I was wrong for not being more strident in my denunciation of all things Obama.

If you really want to see an exercise in venom , my second example involves the blogs/comment streams regarding various sportscasters predictions and comments about everything ranging from college football to professional golf. It is some nasty stuff.

I read earlier this week about a Delaware school districts decision to transfer a six year old to reform school for six months because he brought an eating utensil to school. The utensil includes a blade which makes it a weapon under the school's zero tolerance policy. In the interests of "consistency" and the concern about perceived potential racial bias the policy does not take into consideration the circumstances, academic record of the student, etc. As you might suspect I think this policy is not well conceived or administered. I wonder if the folks who crafted it are available for further consultation on the Le Garrett Blount incident (sarcasm intended).

What was really striking was the comment stream initially directed at the school district, but then involving the parents, racial profiling, and even managed to blame President Obama for this one.

Several felt that the mother is criminally negligent and should be incarcerated for as a substitute for her child's suspension, others accused people of protesting the punishment of being racially biased, comparing the issue to a child who brought a handgun to school and killed a classmate. Quickly the discourse devolved into name calling aimed at each other and incorporating the right to bear arms, etc. Pretty nasty.

Perhaps I am overly tolerant of others viewpoints. Has "social media" eliminated all the rules? Have we lost our ability to "agree to disagree". Do we need laws and "policies" to "explain" to us what appropriate dialogue is with each other.

The school's defense of their policy was "consistency". Those of you who know me recognize this is one of my least favorite words because in our new vernacular it means I don't have to use judgement as long as I follow "policy".

I will freely admit to being opinionated, intense, and maybe even at times overbearing and appearing arrogant. I strive for and will continue to be civil.

Is it just me or have we become desensitized to civility kind of like sex and violence? Your thoughts appreciated.

Mandate or Mistake?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 16:30:00 +0000

Why do I suspect that I was not the only person to be surprised by President Obama's selection as the latest recipient of the Nobel Peace prize? I have to admit I am still processing my reaction.

The reaction from the "right" is pretty typical, the award indicates how shallow the world is, recognizes Obama's "star" power, but little else etc. Are we in the U.S missing something that the rest of the world sees? Did we miss and continue to miss how polarizing the actions of the last administration were in how the world saw us?

From my own personal context I do see this award as a bit "proactive" if not premature, but at the same time I have often heard that "good" managers use recognition reactively, while great managers use it proactively to create an environment for even greater performance.

What a change to see the U.S seen as a beacon again. We can ask ourselves whether or not given some of our domestic issues that this is where we should concentrate, but is there room on the agenda for both? To those that are critical have we given this President a reasonable time to create meaningful change, he has been in office nine months. In that nine months he has definitely created a profound effect in how the world sees the United States. Maybe not a bad start.

Barrack Obama may be the most polarizing President since Lincoln. When I read some of the diatribes about him I wonder how it is that he has created such fear and agitation in such a short time. We still have leadership of the other party claiming or a least condoning claims that he isn't an American citizen and is a secret Muslim. Are they that afraid of the potential change he represents? I don't have any issue with disagreeing with a candidate or even voting for the other "guy", but do we have to demonize?

Perhaps this award represents the "audacity of hope", not only for the United States, but for the world. To me it speaks of the yearning of a lot of people for a different way of interacting together in a collaborative fashion.

There are a lot of scary things going on right now. The situation in the Middle East is far from resolved and we still have miles to go before we have repaired the fundamental infrastructure of own society on issues including health care and employment. In our President's defense, he didn't create any of those issues he inherited them.

I am an optimist by nature. I am going to interpret the award as a mandate and a sign of hope that the President will continue to grow into his role as both a domestic and world leader and will contribute to leaving the country and the world a better place when he leaves office then when he found it. I do not and will not always agree with everything he does, but as is my nature and my imperative I will withhold judgment and try to evaluate the "whole person" that he represents.

To those that want to reject the award I caution that is what has characterized us in the world for a long time, incapable of recognizing and accepting others right to see things from a different perspective. We don't have to agree, but do we need to impose our viewpoint or ridicule that of others we disagree with?

I would be curious to hear your reactions, especially those from the international community.

What Is Real Leadership?

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 21:39:00 +0000

I just had the opportunity to read an article about Bill Hawkins, the CEO of Medtronic . The article describes for me an example of real leadership.http://www.bnet.com/2436-13058_23-348860.html?tag=homeCar

Medtronic as the name implies manufactures products that are medical in nature, products like pacemakers, stents, and related things. Products that can and have substantially affected thousands of people's lives. Products that if they work improperly can cause enormous harm or even death.

Two months into his tenure as CEO Hawkins was informed that there was a potential problem with their latest product, a stent that stimulates the heart. The stent could possibly fail either not providing the stimulation or providing it when it wasn't necessary.

The product is FDA approved and the data he had available was within "acceptable" limits, but they suspected there were issues. Withdrawal of the product almost guaranteed negative consequences including the stock price, company reputation, and potential litigation. Hawkins and his team made the decision that continuing to distribute the product was inconsistent with the core values of the organization and withdrew the product. As you might suspect they suffered the consequences. The stock price took a dive and is only starting to recover now, almost two years later. They have some protection from litigation because the product was FDA approved, but that might change.

Did Hawkins make the right decision, I would say yes. He made a decision to support the core values of the organization and stakeholders over shareholders. Shareholders and employees were affected without question, but the risks to patients and human life was determined to be the compelling issue.

It is interesting for me to contrast this decision as it compares to other decisions we have seen made by "leaders" in the private and public sector ranging from bonuses in the financial services sector, elected officials who acted in a pretty "unleaderly way, and others.

You hear a lot about leadership these days and what it means and what it takes. To me leadership is defined by your actions not your words. I am sure Hawkins has his detractors, but I still like to hear about people who act with integrity. That defines leadership to me. What do you think?

Personal Accountability

noreply@blogger.com (Mark at New Paradigms LLC) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:31:00 +0000

This has always been an interesting topic to me. Some of the events of the last few weeks ranging from athletes punching one another out to kids returning to school seems to make it particularly relevant.

A colleague and I were discussing this topic the other day especially as it pertains to health care. Isn't it interesting for all the debate about whether there should be single payer, a public option, how much it will cost, etc. there is little discussion about the individuals role in the whole health care discussion other than as a beneficiary.

I have some pretty strong opinions on this topic. Among them I believe that all Americans should have access to a basic level of health care much like public education and that until we provide that the costs will never really be managed.

I also believe that individuals have a right and responsibility to participate in the management of their own well being and health. We don't talk about that very much. I would venture to say that the majority of Americans who have health insurance are also covered by a group plan- employer, government agency, association, etc. so they have little understanding of how much their health care actually costs and care less until it impacts them in the way of increased co- insurance, higher deductibles, denied claims, or related activities.

I have mentioned a couple of other related concepts regarding health care like our inefficient delivery and focus on the costs of processes rather than paying for outcome based management, but this is a different issue.

I remember years ago when a new employer arrived in town and declared a tobacco free workplace. People were outraged. How interesting? An employer who took the position that if you knowingly contributed to the detriment of your own health they didn't care to subsidize your real or potential higher expenses so they wouldn't hire you.

We tried to pass a law recently requiring all restaurants to post calorie counts for everything on their menu, luckily it failed. Would we want to extend that to homes like the dram shop laws?

Dram shop laws extend liability to private individuals for serving intoxicated people or allowing them to depart your home intoxicated without at least attempting to intervene. Can you see requiring a menu with calorie counts at dinner parties?

I think a big part of the issue is that of personal competency. Personal competency is that "other" right that constitution provides us with in addition to the concept of personal property.

When we began to industrialize and people left the "farm" many went to work for large employers. Large employers responding to both collective bargaining and offering competitive compensation began offering "fringe benefits" including paid time off, retirement and pension plans, and group health insurance benefits. A few years ago it was not atypical for employers to pay all the costs for health insurance for employees and their dependents. Employees had no idea and didn't care what they cost. Add these third party payer systems to advance health care techniques, technology, and a few other things and we created a trillion dollar health insurance industry, and very high expectations.

Very few employers to my knowledge even today talk extensively with their employees about ways they can contribute to lowering health care costs. The idea of "mandated" health screening, enforced wellness, and sliding employer contribution rates based on lifestyle health care costs would probably be seen as some type of corporate fascism. Your employer shouldn't be able to tell you how to manage you lifestyle, right? Even if they pick up the majority of the cost....

I believe until we address the personal accountability issue and employers
actively engage and educate their employees about the root causes of many of the costs we will only be addressing part of the problem. What do you think?