Getting Employees Engaged: How About the First Date?

With all the talk about employee engagement, it's easy to forget that there's no one to be engaged until someone agrees to accept an engagement with the company.

The Law of Employee Attraction: How Do You Become a Recruiting Peacock?

Sales people are quick to let you know that nothing happens in a company until a sale is made. And even that can't happen until good prospects are found, courted, and closed.

Tim Wright, (that's not Tim in the photo!) fellow EE Network member, sparked my thinking on this with his Brand EE post. He pointed to Julie Norquist Roy's article, Your Brand Here: Why Employer Brand Is Critical to Retention and Engagement, in the May issue of Talent Management.

He was especially struck by this:

The employee's...first impression may extend far beyond company offerings in position, salary and benefits. Today's workforce is equally concerned with opportunities for career advancement, rewards and recognition, management style, and company culture. Together these blend to make up the employer value proposition and employer brand, that impact the employee experience and, ultimately, the hire's decision to join and remain with an organization.

So I decided to check with one of my Age of Conversation co-authors, Dan Schawbel, who lives and breathes "Brand" every day. For those who want a peek at what a pro is seeing when it comes to employer branding, here's a stream-of-consciousness insight from Dan:

Employer branding isn't revolutionary, but it has  been streamlined by the outbreak of social media. With a minimal budget, any company can portray an honest and impactful brand to a worldwide audience.  From podcasts highlighting what it would be like to work there, to a strong presence on social networks like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter, companies can almost physically touch applicants like never before.  Why would they want to do this?  Companies are looking to recruit passive candidates, whom are either happily employed at respective companies or who are attending colleges or universities.  In this war for talent, companies are being forced to break out of their "legal chains" and embrace new tools to communicate with excellent candidates.  Although employers are not yet ready to accept video resumes and websites, there is research to show that they will screen candidates by their personal eBrand through Google.

Who are out in front of the employer branding pack? 

Some companies, such as Microsoft, have had breakthroughs in the employer branding regime, with viewmyworld.com.  Other companies have stepped foot onto the Second Life platform.  They have met candidates through virtual job fairs online and actually hired them in real life.  Other companies have leveraged Twitter to push out job postings to candidates interested in the company.  What better to communicate the opening of a job or introduce a candidate into a new role than a blog.  Polly Pearson (www.pollypearson.com) is one of the first HR Executives from an enterprise to blog about corporate culture and actually interview employees for her blog posts.  The goal with employer branding is to close the gap between hearing about a job and actually holding a position in the company.  Those who will succeed in this area will use social media in order to attract, recruit and retain new talent.

Is this what you're hearing in your organization? If so, is it being done well?

Person Dan Schawbel

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Every Time You're Together It's Team Building

"It's time for the human race to enter the solar system."
        --Dan Quayle, former U.S. Vice President

That has nothing to do with anything here. I just hated to see it go to waste.

OK, it's clear: based on the comments from yesterday's post, we've all had some strange experiences with team building. (Some stranger than others).

Organizational success depends on people working together to get "it" done. So the whole working together thing is--well, huge. In an era where we deify leaders, none of them can get anywhere without everyone else. If you're one of those people "in charge" of something, here's a tip:

Every team meeting is team building

It is. The dynamics are like dinner at home with the family.

Ever time you come together, the interactions lead to some degree of increased satisfaction and performance or a sense of disarray and dysfunction.

The effectiveness of regularly-scheduled meetings is likely to impact the health of the group more than a "one-off" to get things back on track. (Although if you need to get back on track, do it).

Here's a shopping list of what people are looking for:

1. Clear sense of direction.

In an era of misunderstood "participative management," people are seeking direction and clarity. That's  the only way a group can understand and rally around a shared sense of purpose.

This is a leadership issue. If you are the leader, continually check your own clarity compass. If people are running in ten different directions that means that you are, too. Focus.

2. Talented colleagues.

I don't know how you operate, but my own commitment and performance is either lifted up or dragged down by the people around me. When I join a team I quickly check out two things:

• Do we have depth and breadth of talent to accomplish what we want to do?
  

• Are these the kind of people I want to do it with?

Note: "I have found the enemy and it is me." There are times when I'm the one that doesn't fit. When that happens, it's important to acknowledge it and either:

• Make a physical change and move elsewhere

• Make a personal change, if possible, and suck it up if the goal is important enough to me.

3. Clear, alluring responsibilities.

Who is supposed to be doing what, are they in their "talented" zone, and how do we make sure we pass the baton to each other at the right moment in the right way?

4. Procedures that work.

It's enticing to point fingers when something goes wrong. But the question to ask first is, "Do we have a systematic approach that works for everything from designing effective meetings to manufacturing our product?"

Good systems can allow talented people to use their talents. Bad systems cause award-winning landscape architects to spend their time fixing lawnmowers.

5. Healthy interactions.

Back to the dinner table. People want to know they can have a dissenting point of view that gets heard without getting stomped on. Likewise, when something really good happens, we want some kind of acknowledgment or celebration to follow.

Über-note: I've experienced much less willingness among some team leaders to "spend valuable time" celebrating than on arguing opposing viewpoints. It's ok to debate, because "that's work." It's not ok to celebrate: "They're already getting paid to do what they're supposed to do."

Maybe I travel in the wrong circles, but I can't begin to tell you how often I have this conversation with some clients. I can also tell you unequivocally that their upward mobility has been stunted (read, "halted") as a result of that attitude.

6. Noticeable accountability and related rewards.

This is different than #5.

You and I notice when someone who doesn't do their fair share ends up with the same goodies as everyone else at the end of the year. And if teamwork is so important, then it's important for team contribution to somehow be factored in to the organization's "reward" equation.

There's somewhat of a conundrum, too, when it comes to team performance. On the one hand, things get done by people working together. On the other, each person has a well-defined role to play in that. If the manager doesn't pay attention to the individual accountabilities involved, the genuine performance issues can be lumped inappropriately under the banner of "we've got a team problem."

Well, you do. And it's called Larry.

7. Good relationships outside of the team.

Ah, back to the whole "organizations as systems" thing.

It's tough to get things done when IT hates the Customer Call Center or if another department is using a software program that's incompatible with yours. It's a really good idea to ask the diagnostic question, "Where is the organization itself getting in the way of our success?" 

That gives the manager one more thing to deal with when the meeting is over:-)

Did I say manager?

If you look closely at #1 and #7, these are areas where the team leader really has the most "juice" when it comes to addressing the item.

Thought for today: When it comes to effective teams, the leader has both the responsibility and position power to pull it all together. Groups get things done in organizations. It's just as important for a manager to know how to orchestrate and respond to group dynamics as it is to interpret the quarterly financials.

I contend that anything with such an impact on performance isn't a "soft" skill if it's so directly related to generating "hard" currency.

photo source: daysofourlife.wordpress.com

 

Person Dan Quayle

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

We Need Team Spirit! (So I've Set Aside Thursday).

Team Bonding: Would you prefer a masked hijacking or a walk on burning coals?

Managers at Ericsson, the Swedish telecom company, were apparently hard pressed for a memorable team-building exercise for their international sales conference in Athens this February. They probably wanted something more than the standard fare: ropes courses, white-water rafting, and other extreme sports. So they turned to...hostage taking.

Unbeknown to salespeople on a corporate bus headed for Corinth, Ericsson had hired two men with masks and weapons to stage a hijacking. The exercise was reportedly designed to test the employees' cool under stress. But the performance was cut short by a meddling passerby with a cell phone who called the authorities. "Definitely, this was very unfortunate," says Ericsson spokesman Lars Ostlund. "The mistake was not giving notice to the police."

While most companies stick to torturing their workers by forcing them to hold hands and accomplish pointless tasks--preferably while blindfolded--others have gone to extremes. Unfortunately, these exciting games have put some team players on the disabled list. In England in 1998, for example, insurance company Eagle Star sent 13 salespeople walking across a bed of hot coals on the advice of a management consultant. Guess what? Seven burned their feet, two badly enough to require hospitalization. Eagle Star says it has learned its lesson and now sticks to more conventional bonding exercises.

-- The above story is Copyright Time, Inc., 2000

ATW public service: Tips for walking across burning coals at your next team function.

Focus, People. Focus!

Building business teams is about business results. The assumption is that if people can find ways to work more smoothly together, better results will follow. That's usually true, especially when reducing conflicts involving lack of role clarity (who should really be doing what) and process (how do things get handed off and when).

Here's where it begins to fall apart:

1. The team leader wants to "improve morale and cooperation." So she hires a consultant to "do something" that will boost morale and cooperation. The problem: Morale is usually a function of leadership and organizational policies and procedures. Cooperation is, in part, what the manager is getting paid to produce.

2. The team leader may not understand the distinction between building effective work groups and having a "group event."

3. The team leader may not understand the array of "help" that's out there: Here are a few examples:

    a. Genuine business team consultants who work closely to understand the immediate issues, interview the team members, then work with the team leader on a design that will address what's really happening so that things will be different afterward if people choose to address them  honestly. This requires an experienced consultant/facilitator, a leader who is also willing to look at his/her part in the team's performance, and a group of people who believe they can improve with some focused help.

    b. "Event" consultants who do the rafting/paintball/trust walk sort of thing. Leaders need to understand--and be clear with their people--that an event is being staged with the hope that some lessons will be transferred back to the job. It's possible to have these work well if the specific activities are designed to be "processed" after each one in the context of an on-the-job issue. The consultant also has to have done a real-life diagnostic and know how to direct an activity toward the "live" business issues.

    Note: Absent the organizational expertise, these activities can still be fun if they are framed as just that. When everyone agrees beforehand that it could be good to blow off some steam together and swing from trees and mountains, it probably beats karaoke. If it's a big surprise and participation is required in activities that are uncomfortable at  many levels, the best result might be a lawsuit settled out of court.

    c. "Team Therapists" who work their mojo. It's pretty amazing what is sold--and bought--as "team building". These types usually have their favorite intervention, jargon, and model of "being" that they bring into the workplace masquerading as team building. What I've learned from seeing these people appear on the scene is that they view the "group" as an entity with a "problem." They are the doctors. But there is often a twist with this crowd. They are often "doctors" who haven't performed a diagnosis, don't understand the business issues, and don't offer a cure. Instead, they opt for a reflective approach, tossing a verbal bone to the group every so often with the assurance that "you are the experts and architects of your own lives...you can figure this out." Without context and a  structured group task focused on real-life team performance, participants wonder where they are and how they got there.

Too Important to Stop Now...

Work gets done through people collaborating. That makes legitimate group development a high priority item for every business. In my next post I'll highlight what team leaders and team members need to do to boost their chances of being more successful at the team building process.

In the meantime, share your favorite team building story with a comment. All contributions gratefully accepted.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Communicating: Vanilla Isn't Really Safe

Communicate Better With Verbal Whitespace caused  a stir with the kind of discussion that leads to a lot of learning.

I was trying (and still am) to emphasize the effectiveness of brevity vs. long-winded, convoluted speech.

My efforts at brevity apparently undermined the intended message. Dr. Peter Vajda pointed out the fact that brevity doesn't automatically equate with clarity. He's right. The point to remember is that clarity comes from thinking before speaking. That leads to "editing" in a way that helps you be understood using crisp, concise language.

The Dangers of Vanilla

Some words are like vanilla: they are filling but don't really stimulate the taste buds. We use them a lot because, well, vanilla is easy, non-threatening, and may intentionally hide what we really mean. Here are three of the most vanilla words I know:

• Good

• Bad

• Interesting

They each substitute for something that has real, specific meaning. Like vanilla ice cream, they don't have any taste until you add some toppings. In fact, Peter and I discovered that we each have a word that our clients are not allowed to use in  discussions. With Peter, "Good" is verboten. For me, it's the word "interesting."

Here's how their generic qualities get in the way of effectively connecting:

1. "Pam, you did a good job today."  Pam needs to know specifically what she did and how it added to the outcome. Right now she's unsure.

2."Ken, that was a bad way to handle the sales call today." Hmm. I wonder what she didn't like about it, why it was sub-par, and what I need to do differently?

3. "Keith, that presentation you made yesterday was very interesting."

Really?  So was my appendectomy.

If we want to do this a little differently, here's what it looks like:

1. "Pam, you laid out the marketing program using terminology that was understandable to everyone in the room. That made it easy for the VP to give approval on the spot. Now we can actually start ahead of schedule, which will take some of the pressure off of everyone."

2. "Ken, when you asked for a commitment today, the customer hadn't asked any questions. That's often a sign that there may actually be some concerns and that he was formulating them. I've learned that until a discussion takes place, it's premature to ask for the sale. The next time we go out on a sales call, I'll help you design some probing questions to ask at certain intervals so that we know where the customer stands each step of the way."

3. "Keith, the presentation had all of the right facts but didn't do anything to engage the managers at a gut level. I think it would be more effective if you showed them exactly how each fact will lead to their success at reducing manufacturing costs."

Good or bad, I hope you found this interesting.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Steve Roesler featured at Inside Knowledge

The folks at Inside Knowledge magazine published a piece that I did this month titled "Does Generational Difference Really Matter?

Tip of the hat to editor Jerry Ash.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

How Do You Measure Workplace Happiness?

I was checking the statistics here to discover the search engine queries that bring people to All Things Workplace. I figured that the keywords were going to be mostly about leadership or management.

I was wrong.

"Job Satisfaction"..."Happiness at Work"..."Where Can I Find the Best Job?"..."Strengths and Weaknesses"..."How Can I Find A Job Where the Boss Listens to Me?"...those were the themes. Career issues--sometimes disguised as communications--turned out to be the number one driver.

Make no mistake. People are searching for how to feel good at work. We want to do well...and we want to feel good in the process.

Think about two variables

There's a relationship between how much you love your job and how well you perform. That's not a mystery. But there is a dynamic you need to know about in order to manage yourself and others:

1. Some people have to feel good about their job and their workplace before they can get busy and perform at their max.

2. Others have to have to first achieve super results in order to feel good about their jobs.

It's a "Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?" phenomenon. I picked up on this some years ago during a stretch where I was diagnosing "performance issues" for a client.

My conclusion: Managers hadn't caught onto the validity of the two approaches to performance. Naturally, the "feel good first" people were perceived as weenie-like non-performers. However, they actually had a huge commitment to doing well. They just needed something else to help them be able to get there.

What was it? They wanted the managers to understand who they were and what made them tick. That went along way to having the "right feeling" about the job.

The second category of people wanted a scorecard. They weren't about to "feel" good until they checked off their tasks and accomplishments.

Target yourself and your people

1. Which approach most naturally fits you? Figure out what that means to the way you work and the way your work is managed. Then talk with your manager about your desire to excel and how you might use this natural preference to make that happen.

2. Managers: The next time you're in a meeting (or one-on-one), have an informal conversation about the two approaches. Let people talk about what comes first for them. You'll learn a lot about how to manage each person; and they'll get more of what they need in order to hit the top of the job satisfaction/high performance curve.

Do you come onto the work scene each day with one of these in the front of your mind? How does that play out for your job satisfaction and performance?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

The Reward for Conformity Was. . .

This post originated as the above slide.

After a few comments it became apparent that the depth of personal meaning tweaked some synapses.

Tweakee Peter Vajda was moved to add this:

"On the path of evolution, we move from being a willing and obedient member of the group to wanting to take control over our own lives. This is a necessary but difficult transition if we are to mature emotionally and spiritually.

Many are afraid of being themselves, of being unique and different. For these things stand against the old ways (read: neurological pathways in the brain representing beliefs and assumptions about how I have to be; fear in the body that represents “flight” or “freeze”, i.e., emotions that communicate "dare not to be different") that told us that conformity was right and individualism was wrong and are the unconscious scripts that run our lives…unbeknownst to many of us.

Focused on wanting and needing approval from others, and being accepted and popular, many seek the comfort of conformity to overcome their fear and feel more secure, safe and comfortable.

So, at times when folks conform, they don’t experience the fear of living. But they often lose the juiciness and new sense of adventure, discovery, daring and zest for life. Once in a while it really hits people that they don’t have to experience the world in the way they have been told to and experiencing this new sense of life, also discover they won’t die in the process.

As Dr. Seuss said, 'Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.' "

 

Person Peter Vajda

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Communicate Better With Verbal Whitespace

Graphic designers know how to focus your attention.

They frequently communicate through the use of whitespace.

Less is more. The message is clear. There's no clutter.

Use Verbal Whitespace

You can increase your verbal impact  the same way. How many times have you wished that someone would just "say what they mean?"

Boss says: "We finished the senior level meeting and it looks as if we have to increase our numbers. We've been working hard on that project for a long time. I told the management team about the obstacles, how much overtime people have been putting in, and what the client has been saying. You know how much I appreciate your...."

Boss means: "We have to increase our sales by 10% and decrease our expenses by 5%. It's not really negotiable. I want to decide before the end of the meeting  how we can do that."

Father: "You know, son, there are a lot of people out there who could get you into trouble. I know that you are really a good kid and don't want to get into trouble. Man, when I was your age, there were a lot of kids in my class who were doing things that their parents never knew about. One of them even ended up going to jail for awhile. We live in a tough world. When..."

Father means: "Son, I love you. I found out for sure that John on your soccer team is taking drugs. I don't want you to do that or even try it. You can die. And I love you."

The Power of Noun-Verb-Object

We think that piling on extra words somehow makes our communication more palatable and therefore, better. More than likely it will make it confusing and incomprehensible. Which can lead to "Uh, just what am I supposed to do?"

Start thinking the way your fourth grade teacher taught you: Noun-verb-object.

"Please (you) give me the first draft of your report by 5 o'clock on Thursday."

"We will meet on Tuesday at 10 am."

"Let's (us) start a new marketing campaign. I want to announce the kick-off in March."

Your brevity will be appreciated. Really.

Your message will be clear and understandable.

Your trust level with others will go up because your verbal packaging will go down.

Roesler communication principle #1: Truth comes in sentences. Bull**** comes in paragraphs.

Photo Source:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/smartfat/38625613/

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

All Things Workplace Named One of Top 50 Productivity Blogs

We're jazzed to find ourselves on this distinguished list. Evan Carmichael does a very credible and thorough job providing motivation and strategies for entrepreneurs.

Since we're talking productivity, here are some of my "must reads" when it comes to organizational life and productivity:

Wally Bock at Three Star Leadership. This is where you'll find the "how to" of developing managers along with experience and depth of thought to support the suggestions. He also analyzes the business news of the day in ways that make it meaningful to office and cube dwellers everywhere. Wally, quite simply, knows his stuff.

Jim Stroup examines issues of Managing Leadership from every angle and every level in organizations. When he gets on a roll with a topical series, I don't miss a post.

Kris Dunn, The HR Capitalist, will help you tackle on-the-job issues like this one.

You'll never think of presentations and design the same way again after following the guidance of Garr Reynolds at Presentatation Zen.

Whether you are planning to leave corporate life or just change careers, the "Two Pams" will be happy to aid and abet your escape: Escape from Corporate America / Escape from Cubicle Nation.

For blogging tips and resources that flow throughout the day, ConverStation's Mike Sansone is in my reader.

Brainiacs everywhere can get their synapses connected by Dr. Ellen Weber at Brain Based Business along with equally brainy colleague Dr. Robyn McMaster.

David Zinger will keep you on top of employee engagement with his writing as well as his totally engaged  Employee Engagement Network.

Person Jim Stroup

Right click for SmartMenu shortcuts

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

But (S)He's So Intelligent!

When individual performance issues are being discussed and the conversation consistently ends with, "Yeah, but (s)he's so intelligent," there is a problem.

For years I've watched clients try to figure out what to do with high potential, growth-stunted people. Most of the companies I've worked with have invested huge amounts of time, money, coaching, and education in an effort to prompt behavioral change in some "exceedingly intelligent" people. You've no doubt seen the same thing.

Do any of these situational factors look familiar?

Global Operations Director who hits all of the monetary goals but no one wants to work with her. They don't trust her because she withholds information and doesn't include other managers in decisions that impact how they do their work.

Brilliant Vice President of Finance who can't conduct meetings, doesn't like to plan, and knows more ways to help the company earn money on its money than its bankers do. Up for promotion for top job. Really doesn't want it. People love working with him because they learn from him. He wants to continue developing investment methods and models.

Director of Regulatory Compliance. No one explains new (regulated) products to the government better than this guy. So what's the problem? To the company it means the difference between a commercial product or nothing new to sell. His direct reports described their feelings toward him as "hate" (never a real good sign). They say he is a "bully," "condescending," and "has no patience with anyone he thinks is less intelligent than him." When offered the possibility of being a high-level individual contributor, the director digs in his heels and says, "No. I want to be a manager."

What are we seeing here?

It's actually easy to explain: we simply cannot believe that someone who is "intelligent" could actually act so "stupid." What we're doing is responding to a single, outstanding talent or skill automatically ascribing  other attributes that we think must certainly be there. We then look at academic credentials and technical performance and believe that, somehow, we must be wrong. (Otherwise, why would we have hired and then promoted the person? Here it becomes a little self-defensive on our part, but who wants to look at that?:-)

It's Not Smart to Misunderstand Intelligence

It's easy to make the mistake of believing that making great presentations, investments, operational decisions, or engineering breakthroughs is a sign of superior intelligence. These certainly indicate an outstanding ability to think and reason within given circumstances and topics. However, take a look at just a few definitions from those involved in intelligence testing and research over the years:

"The capacity to learn or to profit by experience."
(Dearborn, 1921)

"A global concept that involves an individual's ability to act purposefully, think rationally, and deal effectively with the environment."
(Wechsler, 1958)

"A person possesses intelligence insofar as he had learned, or can learn, to adjust himself to his environment."
(Colvin, cited in Sternberg, 1982, p.30)

Learn, adapt, adjust. None of our managers is willing, able, or both. So we need to stop praising their "intelligence" and start recognizing an inability or unwillingness to adapt and learn.

What to look for and what to do

If you are trying to manage situations similar to those above, here are some field-tested tips:

1. When "intelligence" becomes the mantra-of-excuse after you've coached and counseled a person, you are stuck. Stop looking at what you think they are and start defining what they actually do well and where they are refusing to learn.

2. When you've defined what they do well, talk with them honestly about where they'll fit best over the long run. Yes, they may not see it that way and leave.

3. When you find that 90% of your energy is spent trying to figure out or explain 10% of your stunted performers, stop. Look at what you want from performance; compare it with what you are getting; and avoid explaining away the gap. We've all done it. We want people to succeed. And if they are likeable it's even harder. Fact: We aren't being helpful to them or the organization.

4. If it's a manager, remember this: bad managers are toxic. It's easy to believe we're dealing with a single performance issue. We're not. Toxic managers are impacting the performance of everyone around them.

5. If you think you can't live without someone, you can. What would you do if, God forbid, they dropped over tomorrow? It could happen. And life will go on.

What about our friends in the examples?

The Global Operations guru will soon become an individual contributor and technical advisor. It will work well.

Brilliant Finance Whiz has become the Chief Economic Officer (newly created role) of a major global enterprise. His second-in-command, a good manager, got the top job. Everyone is satisfied with the outcome and performance is top-notch all around.

Regulatory Compliance bully: we don't know yet. The company is still willing to invest in professional development.

Do you have a "But they're so intelligent. . ." story?

Can't wait to hear it.

www.researchinformation.info

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

I Want To Work For You But You Won't Let Me

An international survey of more than 500 HR executives by global talent management firm, Bernard Hodes, found that the quality or reputation of products and services, the corporate culture and the work environment were a business's most important attributes when it came to bringing talent aboard.

Ethical reputation also scored highly. But benefits and compensation were, perhaps surprisingly, toward the bottom of the list.

What does it tell us? That job seekers have a keen idea about the kind of atmosphere in which they want to spend their work life and are savvy and discerning in their search. Discerning to the point that the Bernard Hodes people have a group dedicated to helping companies create a "brand" for recruiting. I think that's a worthwhile service. But consultants and their client companies have to pay more attention to what's actually happening: "the war for talent" can be hidden by a real life system-to-make-it-as-difficult-as-possible-to-get-through-the -door.

Is Anyone Else Experiencing This?

My daughter graduated from a well-known university four years ago. High GPA, two semesters of study abroad in two different countries, fluent in a second language and quite conversant in a third; leadership experiences during college, worked at a real job for a government agency in her junior and senior years and had additional work experience with a professional firm. Most of all she was motivated to work and clear about where she wanted to be.

Here's how the job search actually went:

1. All resumes had to be submitted online (not unusual or surprising). She understood the whole "keyword" deal in order to get through internal search machines.

    a. More often than not, there was no response indicating that the document was actually received.

    b. Many websites seemed to be designed by IT people for IT people. They were difficult for even the web-savvy to navigate.

    c. Frequently--very frequently--three quarters of the way through the process all of the information would disappear. On numerous occasions she had to enter the information multiple times before the site remained "up" long enough to complete the application.

2. Seldom did she ever receive any acknowledgment from a real human-being that the resume had been received. I understand that huge corporations receive many applications. If there is a "war for talent" and "company culture and reputation" are really important, then spending dollars on public  relations is wasted capital if no one is actually talking to the talent.

3. Career Fairs. My favorite. She figured that if the online application system wasn't yielding results,   then some face-to-face contact could move things along. So she registered for the Career Fair and  showed up with the requested twenty resumes. Please feel free to use the following dialog if you are a stand-up comedian and need some job-related material:

    Daughter: HI, I'm interested in talking with you about___________.

    Recruiter: HI, my name is_____________________.

    (Casual conversation, brochure distribution by Recruiters)

    Daughter: I think this might be an area where I'd like to contribute. Here is a copy of my resume.

    Recruiter: Go on our website and fill in an application.

    Daughter: Uh, I thought this was a place to talk about jobs and exchange information.

    Recruiter: We don't take resumes. Go on our website and fill in an application.

    Daughter's evil thought: (What are they paying you for if you don't handle resumes. I already knew there was a website. Maybe I should get a Recruiting job with your company so I wouldn't actually have to do Recruiting and could travel and turn in expense reports for meals and hotels.)

    Her target companies were well-known and in the Fortune 500 with some in the Fortune 50. Many tout their Talent Management initiatives. Experience tells me that the internal presentations may be more impressive than the practical execution.

Happy Ending: She started working at a global firm on a temporary assignment. She liked the company a lot. The relationship worked well and she was hired as a full-time professional.

If companies are waging a "War for Talent," then it would be useful to remember that wars are won by people on the front lines --not in the staff headquarters or the PR office. 

Carol Barber, Executive VP at Bernard Hodes Group, has offered some thoughts on this with a free Executive Summary for Recruiting in a Wired World.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

The Employee Free Choice (?) Act

HR pro Kris Dunn raises a bright red flag with his informative article on a little-known but potentially chilling piece of legislation cleverly called The Employee Free Choice Act. Kris' intro:

"This piece of legislation would cripple the competitiveness of American business, limit the rights of employees and eliminate the need for independent-thinking HR pros, all in one easy-to-sign law."

I work closely with HR VP's on a daily basis and have never heard this mentioned.

Read it and ponder the implications regarding freedom for the individuals and the businesses involved.

Note: Before you shrug this off as "Managerial Steve" dumping on the legitimacy of unions, I have been a member of three different unions as well as the president and chief negotiator for one.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Is Communication The Real Issue?

         

"What we have here is a failure to communicate"
               (Cool Hand Luke, 1967)

About 80% of the phone calls I receive from clients and prospective clients are described at the outset as "communications problems". That seems to be a catch-all for anything having to do with people. Here are three issues that come up quite often along with related solutions:

Issue: "People aren't making the changes I want them to make."

Solution: Go back and define the changes as goals, not philosophical visions. More often than not your people are willing to do what it takes if they understand the specific results you want.

Issue: "I can't get my boss to take my suggestions seriously."

Solution: Start by explaining how the the situation is affecting results. Then ask if that is also a concern to your boss. If it is, be prepared to show 2 or 3 solutions that have differing amounts of complexity, cost, resources, and likelihood of success. If you show up with just one suggestion you put your boss--and yourself--in a place where you can only get a yes or no answer. I don't like those odds. Do you?  Instead, offer a choice of "yeses."

Issue: "I'm planning a meeting and can't seem to get commitment replies from the emails I sent."

Solution: Do you invite friends to an intimate dinner party via emails? (If so, do you also give everyone a wifi-enabled PDA to order hors d'ouevres before having them play Charades using only programming code?) Commitments come from relationships. Relationships come from personal interaction--tone of voice, inflection, urgency...

Emails are terrific for announcements and sharing information. To gain commitment, pick up the phone or get face-to-face. Think about the goal, the situational variables, and the ultimate methodology. It really is all about relationships.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

People Looking For Jobs Want. . .

. . .what they've wanted throughout a couple of decades of surveys:

• Interesting, challenging work
  
  
• Recognition and rewards for accomplishments


• A chance for fast career growth and advancement

These were the top employer attributes cited in an Accenture survey of 4,139 job seekers in 21 countries.  FYI: Those surveyed included both entry level and experienced workers in North America, South America, Europe, and the Asia Pacific region. The results published by Accenture are shown on the  chart.

Does this mean that money and benefits don't matter?

No. Like vitamins,when it comes to compensation we all have our minimum daily requirement. Once that is met, though, professional satisfaction and recognition for a job well done make a job--and therefore an employer--more or less appealing.

Most large corporations peg their compensation packages to some percentile of the competition. They'll decided to be in the top 15%, 25%, 30% and so forth. Job seekers can find that information either before or during the interview process. Once they realize their basic financial needs can be met, they start moving to the intrinsic motivators to make their decisions.

This is why good managers are so important!

If you look at most of the characteristics, the manager is the mediator of satisfaction. Challenging assignments, professional development, rewards and recognition, approachable, team orientation--all of these are within the purview of managers. That means that managers need to be tuned in to this kind of information. At least one of the implications for companies is to develop managers who can deliver the kind of "people focus" as well as financial and other metrics. I know that's nothing new. But neither are the results of the survey. Which is why I'm thinking that we still have a way to go with applied management.

Another thought: job design.

If challenging work is ranked so high then maybe part of the solution is to look at how work is designed and what can be changed, expanded, or even narrowed. As a manager, any time I had people in the right roles with the right mix of challenges they required less direct supervision but more recognition. Finding the right recognition is a pleasant price to pay.

Take a look at the complete results. Job seekers and employers, what do you think?

Chart source: Accenture

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Forget Excellence. How About "Really Good"?

When Tom Peters  and Bob Waterman  originally penned In Search of Excellence back in 1982, they lit a spark of life in managers everywhere. Peters and Waterman concluded that there were 8 keys to excellence that were shared by the 43 "excellent" firms cited in the book:

1. A bias for action
Do it. Try it. Don't waste time studying it with multiple reports and committees.

2. Customer focus
Get close to the customer. Know your customer.

3. Entrepreneurship
Even big companies act and think small by giving people the authority to take initiatives.

4. Productivity through people
Treat your people with respect and they will reward you with productivity.

5. Value oriented CEOs
The CEO should actively propagate corporate values throughout the organization.

6. Stick to the knitting
Do what you know well.

7. Keep things simple and lean
Complexity encourages waste and confusion.

8. Simultaneously centralized and decentralized
Have tight centralized control while also allowing maximum individual autonomy.

It has become de rigeur to weave the word "Excellence" into corporate brochures, annual reports, Powerpoint presentations, and business conversation. Just look around you and you'll see it. But I would ask you this:

Where is the Excellence that so many claim as theirs? 

My observation is that Excellence has become a meaningless buzzword whose sole function is to comfort those who use it, as if "declaring 'Excellence' " makes it so. Wave the banner of Excellence...people will believe it. Kind of like. . .

Zero Defects: The Precursor to Excellence

When I was 17 my dad asked me to drive him to work at RCA in Camden, NJ. Since he usually took the train--a 15-minute commute from our doorstep--I was surprised at the request. And the chance to legitimately show up late for high school classes stoked my altruism.

He had recently become a supervisor and was pretty excited about the new role. What he was not excited about was telling me about the union problems at the company. When I pulled up in front of his building, I noticed this: A huge banner--probably 40 feet long--with the bold statement "Zero Defects." Wow. Perfection. No mistakes. What a place to work. 

As my father got out of the car and started for the steps, I saw a group of people quickly gather. They were union folks who had a gripe of some sort (I was 17 and not up on the latest IBEW union issues). The moment he broke the imaginary us-vs.-them barrier on the steps and reached for the building's door handle, the crowd pelted him with eggs. The only Zero Defect I noticed was in the accuracy of the egg tossing. From that moment on, every time I saw an RCA "Zero Defects" pen, pocket protector, or paper weight I visualized flying eggs.

The Case for Really, Really Good

You and I "get" the ideas of Excellence and Zero Defects. We also live every day with the reality of quality and customer service as they really are. So I propose that we start using real words that convey real meaning in order to bring about the kind of real-ity that we want:

1. Provide us with really, really good customer service that gets to the real problem.

2. Do it with real people who really know what they're talking about.

3. Let's talk to our employees using real information with words that convey what we really mean.

4. No matter what we do for a living, let's get really, really good at it.

If those four things happen, other people can say "excellent" job. Wouldn't that be really, really good?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Make Some Real Music Managing Talent

They had a vision for what they wanted to be.

They looked at what was needed to do that.

They tried out their act in bars and nightclubs in cellars.

They thought their drummer wasn't good in the studio, so they got a new one.

They talked about all of the above with each other and their manager.

They were the Beatles

They managed their talent.

Something counter-productive is happening on the way to developing your workforce.

It's called Talent Management.

Right. I have sinned. I should know that Talent Management is "what's happening."

Not universally.

It has too often become a bloated, navel-gazing, bureaucratic, software-selling non-panacea that substitutes for the real thing.

What Does Real Talent Management Look Like?

Managers sitting down and talking with each other over a (insert your favorite drink) about the following:

1. Where is the business headed over the next few years?

2. What kind of talented people will we need?

3. Do we have them?

4. Where can we get the ones we don't have? (Maybe elsewhere in the organization before we go outside).

5. How can we set up the hiring process to make sure we get what we really need?

6. How can we develop our people to be able to do business the way we need it done?

7. Let's take the flip chart pages that we've written on and go make this happen.

8. Let's get together again in 3 months to see how we're doing and what we need to do next.

I know. That sounds like Talent Management. Except it's based on real people--who are responsible for managing the organization--having real conversations about the real thing.

If you can have the conversation above, you can manage your talent.

And it's time to go to the next step:

What Does "Developing People" Really Look Like?

Focus on these three people factors and you'll design a developmental program that works:

1. Who Am I?

Everyone needs to take honest stock of themselves and their professional wants, needs, strengths, and things they wouldn't do even if their lives depended on it.

Pick a good self assessment tool. Not  4 or the the tool-du-jour. Pick one and stick with it. Run meetings and workshops that clearly take the theory into the realm of personal application. Then show them how their results might interact with the way your organization wants to do business.

2. What's My Impact on "The Team?"

I've written this before: Most people don't get nudged out the door because of technical incompetence. It's usually because of some inability or unwillingness to play well with others.

a. Do a periodic team assessment among the members. Then have real conversations about the results.

b. Do 360/multi-rater feedback. This will help people understand the difference between how they think they're doing and how other people are seeing them. It's also the basis for an Individual Development Plan that will help them grow; and,it will give their managers the kind of meaningful information to have ongoing "how are we doing?" discussions.

Note: Don't forget that feedback is information from other people. Each of us then chooses whether or not we want to do anything about it. The first questions to ask after someone thoroughly understands the implications of feedback is:

• "Do any of these areas matter a lot to you?"

• "If so, are you willing to do what it may take to grow professionally and personally?"
  

c. Do "a" with sensible regularity. I trust that you know what is sensible.

3. Organizational Savvy: How does this place really work?

People need to know how to navigate your organization successfully in order to get things done.

Jim Brownhill, long-time manager at Minerals Technologies, uses a worthwhile activity to help people get at the heart of this issue. He brings people together and has them respond, in depth, to this question:

What are the unwritten rules of our company?

It works. All of us know that how things are supposed to work doesn't always match how they actually work. And, that there are values and principles that mean a lot.

Teach those to new hires and people with short tenure. Let them know how things  get done and what is and isn't acceptable. Tell them that, in organizations, savvy  trumps a genius IQ most of the time.

Note: I'm big on developing talent. When unwieldy programs get in the way of practical application, it's a red flag.

4. What Assignments Can We Give to Provide Real Chances to Grow?

Ask your people--no, ask yourself first--what the best experiences were for learning professional expertise or leadership?

That's correct. It was actually doing something. Having a chance to try, struggle, fail, learn, succeed...

The classroom gives a foundation for what to do. Only experience offers the chance to learn how and gain confidence. Put people in a role that allows them to learn. It's a risk. Not doing so will guarantee that you will never know what they are capable of doing.

Finally,

Keep It Simple. Whenever something becomes totally institutionalized and programmatic it somehow stops being an engaging solution.

Is your talent management approach unwieldy? Does it focus more on HR activity than on developing people? Are the managers responsible for results intimately involved or "kept informed?" If they aren't intimately involved, the talent isn't getting managed.

What's your experience?

Photo source: muziek.paginablog.nl/

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Building People: Where to Begin?

 Start by seeing clearly who they really are. 

How many people at work know who you really are?

How many people do you see clearly for who they are?

I was thinking about the things an executive coach really does--or should be doing. One of the most important is this: Seeing people for who they are, realizing what they can be, and helping to take them there.

If that doesn't sound very "business-like," it probably isn't in the traditional sense of "business-like."

And therein lies the issue. Organizations of all kinds hire the best people they can find. Those folks look at the "people are our most important asset" blurbs in the corporate recruiting brochures.Then they  sign on with high hopes.

What happens later on that causes discontent, retention issues, and the need to search for "talent?" Weren't they talented when they were hired?

Here's what I see.

I see highly motivated people getting performance appraisals that are designed to force rankings on a curve so they never accurately portray an individual's contribution and worth. I see employees at all levels  getting feedback on the gaps in their performance--and then receiving direction to "close the gaps." I see the same people then coming to workshops and seminars, hearing theoretical--but good--teaching, only to go back to work and say "what do I actually do with that?"

In nearly 30 years of managing, consulting, and coaching, I can count on one hand the number of people I've seen fired for technical incompetence. They get released for issues of character,  the inability to relate well with other people, or not being able to "close the gap."

Here are my thoughts as a result:

1. The character issue can be discerned during the hiring process. Discernment should be a highly valued talent possessed by those interviewing.  If not, get a coach to help with that element. Someone who sees others clearly and quickly for who they are.

2. Relating well with other people. You can send people to class to learn some skills. My question is this: does the day-to-day interaction at work model, support, and reward good relationships? A coach can impact that issue--or help the individual see that another role--maybe even in another organization--would be a better match. It's the coach's job to see those things clearly and to help the other person gain the same clarity.

3. Workshops and Education. Two things I enjoy with a passion. None has ever changed my own behavior very much. But I have learned a lot that has helped me think differently and more clearly. When do they work? When a manager or coach shows someone how to actually do what was taught--in the context of the organization's strategies and culture.

Manager As Coach

Before you get the idea that this is a treatise on why you should hire me, let me propose this: Managers can coach if they choose to see their people clearly by building relationships that let them know who their folks really are. If they don't have the time or inclination, then get some help to build the talent that seems, at times, to be hiding. It's probably not hiding. It might just be invisible to the naked eye.

And that brings us back to the opening:

If you want your talent to be valued, you've got to let people around you know who you really are. Make it impossible for them not to see you clearly.

If you are a manager, start thinking about intentionally "seeing clearly." And if it's tough, then get some help.

You and I wouldn't build a house in the dark. We need light to see in order to build. And unless you're a truffle, you need a lot of light in order to grow and use your talent to perform.

As always: weigh in. Share your thoughts on clarity, talent, and building people by seeing them clearly. Let the community learn from what you've learned. Click on Comments and join the discussion.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

You, We, I

Are you looking for a way to increase your effectiveness with people?

We're going to look at that right now. And I want to share something that I've learned.

Think this way: You--We--I

When you approach someone to talk, you're asking for their time and their attention. Your topic might be interesting, it might have some tension attached, or maybe it's about something you want to change. Regardless, the other person wants to know that you are thinking of them.

The next time you need to engage someone--especially if it's a difficult conversation--approach it by thinking this way:

You are important to me and this conversation.

We are in this together.

I (hope, need, want) ...

Examples:

"Sarah, you've been designing our marketing materials for three years. We need to sit down and see if there are new ways to look at our product line. I have a new stretch goal to get into the Asian market and believe you can be a  big part of that success."

"Raul, you and I have been talking for a few months about how to improve your performance in presentations. Your information is good. We need to talk about how you can become more engaging and hold people's attention. I want to discuss some ways to do that and what you think might be getting in the way."

The principle

This is the most engaging and least threatening psychological sequence.

You are putting the other person first; providing emotional support by indicating the "we" nature of the discussion; and laying out your own needs last. It is not manipulative. In order to do it you have to care to prepare.

Isn't that what you want from other people, too?

Photo Source: www.ciadvertising.org

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Collaborate or Evaporate

"Collaboration is a key driver of overall performance of companies around the world. Its impact is twice as significant as a company’s aggressiveness in pursuing new market opportunities (strategic orientation) and five times as significant as the external market environment (market turbulence).

As a general rule, global companies that collaborate better, perform better. Those that collaborate less, do not perform as well. It’s just that simple.”

That is a pretty powerful claim. It is substantiated by a research study done through a collaborative effort of Frost & Sullivan, Microsoft, and Verizon. 

The researchers created a collaboration index to measure a company’s relative “collaborativeness” based on two main factors:

	An organization’s orientation and infrastructure to collaborate, including collaborative technologies such as audioconferencing, Web conferencing and instant messaging
	The nature and extent of collaboration that allows people to work together as well as an organization’s culture and processes that encourage teamwork

Do You Play Well With Others?

This may seem like an abrupt switch from the serious tone, depth, and breadth of the study. But I needed that kind of data to help lead into an important career trait: playing well with others.

The study is right on target by highlighting the need for the right tools, systems, and culture. Yet it ultimately comes down to the individual. If you work in a global organization, you've got some extra challenges: time zone differences, language differences, cultural differences in what constitutes teamwork...(add your own experience by sending a comment!)

I just spent 3 hours coaching a client who is now forced to deal with a highly intelligent, high-performing manager who isn't viewed as collaborative. By anyone. No one at any of their worldwide locations gave him decent feedback on teamwork and collaboration. And this has been happening for a few years. (He continues to achieve all of the goals set out for him--and no one dislikes him personally.)

His side of the story

I sat down and spoke with the manager some months ago about these perceptions and what that might mean to his career. He understood that people didn't see him as collaborative. His take on it is that they are universally wrong. He communicates when he believes it's necessary. I told him that he had to simply initiate more, share more information--even if it didn't make sense to him--and mend some strained relationships with those who thought he was actually hiding something. He  listened, gave intellectual rebuttals for why that didn't make sense, and chose not to do anything differently.

What happened?

His management career is finished...at least with his current employer. He'll probably have a shot at being an individual contributor in a specific discipline; but upward mobility is no longer a possibility.

Some people burn bridges. He never built them. We should take seriously the lessons we can learn from this real-life situation:

1. Organizations thrive because of collaboration. If you want to be seen as a player, then be one.

2. A high IQ doesn't compensate for low EQ. Your Emotional Quotient--your willingness and ability to relate and connect--is important to your company and your career.

3. Task results don't always matter if your behavior disrupts the rest of the system.

4. The study I cited noted the importance of processes, systems, and culture. This company's culture valued teamwork. That was one of their systems. Roesler's rule: Unless you have 51% of the vote, don't fight the system. The system always wins.

Photo source: Pacific Lutheran University

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Are We Numbed to Change? Here Are Your Thoughts

When I asked the question above, All Things Workplace was trying out the Disqus commenting system. In the midst of returning to the Typepad system, the responses to the "Numbed to Change" post didn't make the--uh, change.

The discussion here always brings out a variety of good thinkers and organizational minds from around the world. So, here's how the conversation unfolded, beginning with. . .

Spiritheart's Dr. Peter Vajda:

Hi, Steve,

Great question and inquiry.

You say…”deliberate change efforts that once were popular, even the norm.”

For me, perhaps common, not the norm. Obesity and cancer are common, hopefully, not a “norm.” Abuse and violence are common; hopefully not a norm. Change perhaps is/was common, but doesn’t seem to be a norm. What is more common is perhaps different flavors of what is, but not true and real “change”.

And, “…We're still ordering books, reading blogs, and doing all kinds of things to bump up our game or make a transition.”

For me, this reflects the appearance of (wanting to) change…lots of “activity”, talking about, but, little real and sincere “action”.
I think many folks want change for themselves and others — at the 50,000-foot level — cognitively, intellectually, and even from that “hope” perspective.

In reality, at ground level, when it comes to self-responsible, intentional, purposeful, consistent, and self-disciplined action toward making change, many folks still want it for others (your “ways to improve something” or someone), but not for themselves. It’s too much like “work.” So, in this case many folks are comfortably numb, not to the concept or “activity” or “thinking about” change, but to notion of taking honest, sincere, self-responsible and sustained “action”. Like the difference between working “on” your business and working “in” your business.
                ________________________________________________________________________________________

Karin H. joined in:

Change dead? Never.
Numbed, no don't really think so. Tiered of hypes on change 'dictated' by this or that guru? Yes.

We - persons, relationships, businesses, circumstance - always are changing something - that's human nature otherwise we would still be living in caves hunting bears. And through chance we learn, everyday.

I've learned not to take everything some guru states for the whole truth and nothing but, I've learned that listening to good advice, specially when it's a case of 'leading by example' will keep changing/improving my business.

No, definitely not dead ;-)

________________________________________________________________________________________

What does a personnel psychologist think about being numb to change?

This is what the U.K.'s Jo Jordan had to say:

Steve, I doubt this will change until an organization changes its basic presumption about who 'owns' the job.

I've researched non-performance in voluntary organizations. Things 'don't get done' just as often. People are embarrassed by their non-performance though and cover it up. What it takes is some wisdom about all the events that lead to non-performance. We often have less wisdom than we need. Hence I would prefer to see a kid out on the beach playing games than stuck passively in a classroom!

To have one wise person who can interpret a fiasco and point out what was out of our control, what we might be able to control in the future, to relieve anxieties about belonging particularly, to focus on the next step.

And we come round the full circle to ownership and control. I suggest to young managers (usually when they have been a bit snotty to a perceived underling) that the manager supported by the most people wins the organization. We have to want this badly enough too!

Do you recall Raymond Katz three facets of management: technical, human and organizational. The last seems to be totally underplayed and yet is so critical.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Experienced executive Dean Fuhrman has an idea:

Is this one of those word usage things? I think people generally have on their horizon (a) getting somewhere/accomplishing something and (b) improving, which may just be a subset of (a). These generally have not gone away and are not likely to.

Maybe change is still in the air and it is wearing different clothes.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Tom Haskin blogs about Change every day, so he always shows up with something hot off the press:

Lately, I've been exploring the difference between outsider and insider perspectives. I think Peter nailed the insider perspective with how change feels to most like work, gets managed by keeping it at a high altitude and is something we want someone else to do. We outsiders are passionate about change, reading widely and identifying models that make change easier for others. Change goes on an insider's to-do list or items to discuss in the next annual review. Change is the mission statement, value proposition and deliverables for us outsiders.

Perhaps you're getting told that "talk of change" is going to be a tough sell to the "management fad du jour" niche market. In that case, your value proposition will be the next thing to change. Then your expertise with change becomes the means to some other end, elusive result or desired outcome in the eyes of your customers. then you're selling what they get from changing and how changing with your expertise is faster, better, cheaper or more useful somehow.

When it comes to being Totally Consumed, our HR pro in Oregon is fairly certain its time for a name-change:

There is quite a bit of business literature out there already under the heading of 'change' or 'change management'. While the theme of 'change' is definitely relevant, the word and topic is growing tired. Maybe it's time for a new word ... metamorph? Transmogrify? Evolve.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Finally, Joe Fusco, sees a little problem with the notion of delayed gratification:

My question, Steve, would be "why doesn't change work?" Why is it that change efforts are "ineffective," as you put it, beyond just ascribing it to semantics?

My own gut instinct is that organizations and individuals want change, but the cost is too high. The sacrifice, selflessness, surrunder and plain old hard work is often too high a price to pay for many. Instead, we want and expect "microwave change" -- throw a plastic bowl in, press a few buttons, and instant gratification.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Alexandra Levit & Wally Bock managed to add their viewpoints after the comment changeover.

The result: Apparently we're all seeing that "change" itself is changing.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Changes: Return to Regular Reader Comments

ATW Update:

1. Old is New.

I've returned to the regular Typepad comment system that we used here since the start of All Things Workplace.

The Disqus system was a bit confusing to some. Most of all, many readers commented or sent emails saying that we had already established a "community" here and that it was comfortable commenting and tracking comments in the usual manner. It's important to me to create the atmosphere and methodology that will continue to prompt good conversation with maximum ease.

I'm going to be interviewing Daniel Ha from Disqus regarding where it's headed and what he hopes to see happen down the road. He is a very responsive, hard-working guy with a model that could work well as a result of listening to users--which he is doing.

2. Your comments that disappeared will re-appear.

I can't put them back in the "comments" section, so I'm going to do a post using the comments. That way we can keep things rolling without losing the contributions and thoughts added in recent days.

3. Speaking of recent days...

This week has been a blur. The great "hamster-wheel-of-consulting life" is continuing to spin at record speed through next Thursday. Am working on a client project that involves being in-person in NYC as well as coordinating tele-conferences and calls with Europe and China. Those of you involved in that kind of scheduling and the time zone/sleep trade-offs made to accommodate participants will recognize the routine. (There isn't one!).

I am going to post along the way...they may pop up on the feeds at unusual times.

Thanks so much for your willingness to try out the new system, offer honest comments, and keep the discussions rolling at the same time.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Are We Numbed to Change?

"Change isn't what's really happening anymore. No one cares. Don't do it."

That's a direct quote from a long-time, globe-trotting manager and client. Here's the context:

I talked with him about three book manuscripts that I have in process. One is all about making changes, personally, professionally, and in organizations. It's the result of what I've synthesized after 30 years of managing and consulting globally, and even more years of living and making transitions. Of course, I think it's darned good stuff.

He thought so, too. But he says no one cares anymore: " 'Change" is a topic that's had it's day."

In part, I think he's correct. You don't see companies devoting the time and effort to large-scale, deliberate change efforts that once were popular, even the norm. There's actually good reason for that: a lot of the time they simply aren't effective.

But that doesn't mean that people and organizations don't want to get better in some way. We're still ordering books, reading blogs, and doing all kinds of things to bump up our game or make a transition.

Perhaps what has happened is that the word "Change" has become institutionalized. It's been associated with hype, programs, and unsupported initiatives. We're numb to the word.

Yet, my everyday professional practice shows that we're all involved in looking for ways to improve something. And that means making changes.

I'm not ready to let go of the idea yet.

Is change dead or are we just numbed to the word?

photo attribution:www.totallyteeshirts.com/

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Are You Waiting For Them To Change?

Sure you are. Me, too.

And why not? "They" have received performance reviews, performance feedback, 360 feedback, assessment center feedback, team feedback, and feedback about the validity of the feedback.

Then, "they" were exposed to workshops, seminars, leadership and management development programs.

It's reasonable to think that we're going to see changed people; people who have learned and decided to use the very best knowledge and methods for managing their organizations.

Dan McCarthy started me thinking about this with his post about retaining middle managers and a related Knowledge at Wharton Article.

Dan's synopsis:

"OK, so we need to engage them, treat them with respect, and recognize their contributions. Sounds like the same things we need to do to develop and retain generation Y, generation X, diverse employees, or any other employee. This all seems to simple - and doesn't cost anything!

I've gotta believe any reasonably intelligent leader gets this. So why the big gap between "knowing" and "doing"??"

Why the gap?

I spend the bulk of my time working with organizations who want to answer that question and do something about it. Here's what I've observed:

After decades of verifiable research, first-hand observation, and workshops/seminars, etc., managers don't really exhibit much change--other than the fact that people "know" what they should do but often don't do it.

So, we have to go back to each organization and ask: "What are you really rewarding?" vs. "What do you say is right?"

What people "know" is that if they "do" a certain thing, it will either be rewarded or at least not punished.

If we watch each organization, we can find out the unspoken rules that actually drive managerial behavior. These can include systems that reward short-term cost cutting while asking for long-term growth; sales goals that are acknowledged as unrealistic but are still measured each month with a warning "from above" about the consequences of not making your target (even if we all know, (wink), that they can't really be reached; or, creating self-directed teams who discover at year-end that each has still been paid according to his/her individual scale with no financial acknowledgment of outstanding team performance.

Every time there is a mismatch between stated purpose and reality, there is an increase in the gap between "knowing" and "doing."

Why not? There's nothing to be gained by doing the requested "right" thing.

What's causing the knowing-doing gap in your organization?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.