Fistful of Talent

Crime and Company Culture - Broken Windows & Broken Companies

Everyone wants to work at a quality company.  Each of us wants to feel good about our place of employment and see our company's name on the "most admired" lists published each year.  It's an admirable goal and the right thing for your employees.  From a talent standpoint, it's critical.  Attracting the best and brightest - those you can rely on for superior performance year after year - is not only a function of great recruiting on the part of the recruiter, but also a function of the company's reputation in the market place.  Face it, it's easier to recruit for Google than for Countrywide Home Loans (voted wost company in America in 2008).

It's Not About the Big Stuff

When working with clients on ways to influence their employee behaviors and reinforce cultures, it seems that the first discussion is always about the "big" stuff - the program, the reward, the system.  The client almost immediately wants to launch something with a splash and show the employees they mean business with their reward and recognition initiative.

I'm not against big launches, but what's really important is the little stuff - not the big stuff.  I think we can take some direction from the "Broken Window Theory" (BWT).  While still a bit controversial among social scientists and psychologists, I believe there is enough directional evidence that we should pay attention to it.

For those that are unfamiliar with the BWT - it probably got its best press during the Rudy Giuliani years... 

"Thus, Giuliani's "zero tolerance" roll out was part of an interlocking set of wider reforms, crucial parts of which had been underway since 1985. Giuliani had the police even more strictly enforce the law against subway fare evasion, and stopped public drinkers, urinators, and the squeegee men who had been wiping windshields of stopped cars and demanding payment. Rates of both petty and serious crime fell suddenly and significantly, and continued to drop for the following ten years (see: the 2001 study of crime trends in New York by George Kelling and William Sousa). - wikipedia"

 

The concept is that by paying attention to small things like fixing broken windows, painting over graffiti, cleaning up areas of the city, cracking down on pettier crimes - it will have a positive affect on the people and a detrimental affect on crime.  By keeping up with little things in the environment it communicated to people that the area was a good place and that crime wasn't welcome.

Sweat the Small Stuff

When it comes to company culture and having a reputation that attracts and retains quality people, the small stuff is the important stuff.  If the boss adds a little to the expense account, maybe the CFO adds a little to the balance sheet.  If the person in the cube next to you treats a vendor poorly, then maybe that vendor adds a little extra to the invoice next time - or tells 100 people not to do business with you.  In fact, in November, CBS on line had an article entitled "Bad Behavior Contagious, Study Finds" - highlighting some of the research on this phenomena.  For me, steeped in social psychology and the impact of the social norms - it's a no-brainer.  But most folks blow off the effects of small behaviors.

Keeping your eye on the small stuff is probably the single biggest thing a company can do to influence culture.

Some Comic Relief

When thinking about the Broken Window Theory for this post, it reminded me of a Demetri Martin bit... for your enjoyment...

HR is about HUMAN resources - Do You Get That? (I'm Not Sure You Do...)

This post has been bouncing around in my head for a while with no home.  An itch I couldn't scratch, a sound with no location, a pixelated picture I couldn't make out.  Until now.

In the November issue of CRM magazine is an article entitled "Six Sigma:  What Went Wrong?"  The subhead to the article is "A 60 percent failure rate suggests process change requires behavior change."

Hmmm.... process change requires behavior change.

Who Should I Talk to About People Issues?

I've spoken to more than a few clients about how to use rewards, incentives and influence techniques to increase the adoption of new processes and technologies resulting in a better overall return on those expenditures.  It only makes sense.  The sooner I can get people to use the CRM system, or the new enterprise knowledge sharing platform, the sooner I realize the benefits - ergo - savings!  But, in most cases, the advice is brushed aside and (the CIO in most cases) goes on about how easy the software is to use and how folks will get it.  Or in extreme cases, the employee is simply told - "do it or lose your job."

What has bothered me - and what caused me to have that unsettled feeling that ended up in this post, is that someone in the organization should have seen the logic of instituting a behavior reinforcement program along side any major change in the process and requirements of the employee's job function. 

I have to ask, who is responsible for making sure the resources that use the tools are prepared and engaged with the change?  Who, in an organization, has the responsibility for the resources that are human within a company.  Who?  Hmmm, who...?

Then it hit me... HUMAN RESOURCES is!!!

That's right.  Under our collective noses is a group of folks whose charge, responsibility and raison d’être (reason for living, for those of you in Rio Linda) is making sure the resources that are human, perform best.

Yet, it is rare that HR would even be involved in the process.  If manufacturing was to change the process for putting together the product on the assembly line, I'm sure there would be folks there from facilities to make sure it's set up correctly.  I'm sure Maintenance would be involved to make sure they understood the impact on service, cleaning and repair. 

But, whenever there is a change in the process that involves people - (cricket chip sound effect here) - nothing.  I find it hard to believe that a million dollar installation of new accounting software, a million dollar installation of a CRM system or something like Windows SharePoint wouldn't be discussed in a fairly high-level meeting, around some mahogany table on some top floor of a building.  When the heads of all the departments got together to chat about business, did they discuss the new software or the new process being considered, implemented, installed?  If so, where was the person from the department that is responsible for resources that are human? 

Why didn't their hand go up and say..."Excuse me, but I think I can help the transition be simple, easy, accepted AND save the company money."

There have been a lot of posts out here in the ether about HR having a seat at the table.  Having a seat is one thing.  Knowing how to use it is another.  Expand the HR thinking from managing the paper that surrounds the people to managing the environment that surrounds the relationships people have to the company. 

HR is about resources that are human - how do you define your role when you change the order of the words?

Editor's Note - Paul Hebert is the brain behind Incentive Intelligence and a recognized authority on incentives and performance motivation... 

No Free Prize Inside - Why Don't You Prepare Your Team Like The Sports World Does?

Living in the upstate of South Carolina, you either root for the University of South Carolina Gamecocks or the Clemson Tigers.  There is no middle ground.  Unfortunately, I’m a Buckeye fan and our history with Clemson (anyone remember Woody Hayes and the 1978 Gator Bowl?) makes that even more difficult.

Recently Tommy Bowden, the coach for the Clemson Tigers quit or was asked to leave, depending on your source.  He received a contract update last year, and as part of that contract he gets paid $3.5 million dollars over the next 6 years – and doesn’t have to work.

Big Money = Big Rewards = Big Effort

Now, this isn’t about the high cost of top coaches, or a rant about golden parachutes (sports-related or business) it’s about the fact that collegiate and pro sports are big money games.  We all know that whenever big money is on the line, performance is demanded – or you’re out.  But what is rarely talked about is the behind-the-scenes work that goes into a top-ranked sports team.  Yeah, the results they demand are big and the money they pay is big.  But the effort that the teams put into getting to the results is also big.

We’ve seen the movies and heard the stories about the practices in 100 degree heat, the players who leave the field dehydrated after giving 120%.  We know that they have one-on-one attention for the different parts of the game – specific Coaches for receivers, for the defensive backs, for the offensive line.  Each element of the team gets very specific and focused attention.  This effort is there because we’re talking big money. 

Where is the business effort?

Many companies put big money on the line with their incentive programs.  Big payouts for top performers - expensive trips to reward the elite performers - bonuses for the top brass.  But rarely, and I mean RARELY, do I see the same effort going into the preparation of the team tasked with hitting the big goal.  Not the effort that the sports world seems to invest.

Too often, companies put a program in place, with the associated budget, in order to motivate the troops to hit their goals.  But most of the time, the program is announced, the awards delineated and the “auto-pilot” button is pushed. 

Everyone sits back and assumes because the reward is big the folks will do the job.  Where’s the one-on-one coaching?  Where is the daily practice on areas that need it?  Who is watching from the tower and yelling instructions to the team below?  In most cases, business is talking big money too.  Lack of performance – whether that be your sales organization or your call center, can lead to either big wins or big losses.  But we don’t want to put in the effort.

I spend my time talking to clients about the design of the incentive and reward system that helps align their audience to the goals for the organization – but I also ask what effort they will be putting into coaching, training and leadership.

It’s Not Just The Prize

The greatest incentive program in the world won’t get you to the results you want, unless you’re willing to put in the time with your audience to make sure they have the skills and the information needed to help achieve the goal.

The National Championship is a big prize – the Super Bowl is a big prize.  Just offering them as an incentive isn’t enough to drive performance for those that compete at that level – and it shouldn’t be for you either!

Schroedinger's Cat and Management - Who Knew?

One of the things I try to do is connect with a very wide variety of input sources.  Ideas rarely come from a single point of view but are the result of a mash-up of disparate thoughts that somehow connect.

Scott Adams - creator of Dilbert does this for me on a pretty regular basis.  If you don't subscribe to his blog you should - not always "work-approved" but always interesting.  When I read his comments, it reminds me of the movie "History of the World Part I" by Mel Brooks.  In the movie, Mel plays a "stand up philosopher."  I wonder if in 3,000 years our comedians will be our philosophers.  Or is it that philosophers are comedians.  Who knows? 

In any event, Scott Adams had a great post the other day that really hit home as a foundational idea relating to talent management within an organization.  To excerpt the important part:

"It's nice to think that you can be your own person, true and accountable to no one but yourself, but I don't think life works that way. We are what other people allow us to be. We exist more in their perceptions than in our own, if you had some way to add it all up and compare."

No Person is an Island

Managers must understand that most people have to know they have value and they do that based on input from others.  There are some very rare individuals who exist in their own world with little if any outside validation.  Most of the time we label these folks as eccentrics, crazies, weirdos.  But for most of us, the real test of value is the opinion of others.

In most organizations, we only get validation once a year - during review time.  This isn't enough.  The main purpose of recognition within a company is to fill this gap in validation.  Companies must include a way to recognize and validate employees.  Existence isn't enough.  Validation of existence is required.

For each individual, the validation is different.  For most senior management types, who get bonused based on company performance, watching stock values rise (or fall) is commentary on their performance.  Most of the rank and file, however, don't have a direct connection to these metrics.  Managers must find a way to connect the employee to a metric that validates their existence. 

Who is the Witness

In Scott's post, he says that people get married to have a witness to their life and the key to life is picking the right witnesses.   In the business world, Management is the "witness."  Unfortunately, most employees can't pick their Managers.  If you have people who work "for" you, with you or around you - you are their witness - whether you like it or not.  And your job is critical to their performance and their ability to grow and be better each day.

I really like Scott's reference to Schroedinger's Cat - a thought experiment where a cat is sealed in a box with poison and two outcomes are possible - the cat is alive or the cat is dead.  Until someone observes the cat (opens the box) the cat exists as both alive and dead.  In other words, until someone witnesses the result of the experiment - there is no result.

Business is no different - until someone recognizes my effort - there is no effort.  The act of recognition creates the output.  I know - weird science. 

What have you witnessed in your organization today?  Make being a good witness a top priority, and your employees will see that you value them - and their effort.

Pay for Performance, Your Schools and Unions....

Jessica Lee recently riffed about pay-for performance efforts in the Washington DC schools, outlining  how the buzz of change has become louder and louder in the past year under the leadership of the new chancellor, Michelle Rhee.

If you didn't read the article by JLee, check it out here.  It's a hopeful account of how hard talent leadership in the public school systems may bring about real change. 

Unfortunately, school systems in America have a mix of elements that make them almost impossible to turnaround - 1) a lack of experience with pay-for-performance or even true merit pay, 2) a base of workers (teachers) who aren't exactly risk takers, and 3) unions.

Not a match made in heaven.  For every hopeful article like JLee's, there's an account of a turnaround gone bad.  Such is the case in Denver, as reported by the the Wall Street Journal:

"The Denver Public Schools' pay-for-performance plan to motivate teachers was hailed as a model for the rest of the country when it took effect three years ago. It now stands on the verge of collapse after months of contract negotiations have stalemated.

Some teachers have staged sick-outs; others plan to welcome families back to school this week by handing out fliers denouncing the district's contract offer. There is even talk of a strike.

The district is offering large increases in incentive pay. But the biggest rewards will go to early- and midcareer teachers -- and to those willing to take risks by working in impoverished schools or taking jobs few others want, such as teaching middle-school math. Yearly bonuses for such work would nearly triple, to about $3,000.

The union is all for boosting bonuses but also wants an across-the-board pay increase. Most crucially, union leadership objects to proposed changes that would hold down the salaries of veteran teachers to free more money for novices."

Full disclosure - I haven't read more than the Wall Street Journal article, and readers of this spot and the HR Capitalist know where I'm at regarding unions. 

Still, all I have to do is look at the chart displayed below that outlines the pay-for-performance  opportunities in the Denver school system, and it's clear that they don't have enough skin in the game to make a conservative group of teachers embrace merit and pay-for-performance.

Here's why.  After earning a graduate degree, the remaining award amounts represent between 2-3% of the teacher's salary.  Not enough for teachers to give up the across the board increase that's long been the domain of the union.  Additionally, there's little to be had for teachers who don't want to change schools, or don't have a focus in math or science.

With that in mind, of course, the teacher's group as a whole doesn't see value in the change.  If you're going to call a new era of pay-for-performance, you have to provide true opportunity for everyone to bring their "A game" and get the rewards.  This plan doesn't do that.  As a result of the poor design, the union remains strong because there's no real value to cause change. 

Contrast that plan with the DC plan, where a two-tiered system would allow confident teachers to "opt in", and potentially earn bonuses of reportedly up to 20K per year (over 50% of the base if you use the Denver numbers above), with raises based on student test scores and other evaluation measures, regardless of degrees. Tier two would require teachers to give up their seniority rights and tenure, however, and enter into an initial probation period.

Contrasting the DC plan with Denver's provides a nice case study on change and pay for performance.  Which one do you think has a better chance of improving the schools?  The answer is obvious... 

Talent Primer - Was That Milli Vanilli at the Beijing Olympics?

Was Milli Vanilli performing in spirit at the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics?  Girl, you know it's true...

If given a choice when selecting talent, do you go with skills and aptitude or are you more apt to select the prettiest face? 

Right - you go with the skills, because you're a knowledgeable broker of talent, immune to the discreet laws of attraction.  Plus, you've got that personal code of ethics thing going for you.  Well done.

Now, imagine you're the program director for a major event that will be televised to a billion people. You've let your team handle a lot of the talent selection that includes 14,000+ performers.  You get to the day before the big event, and discover that Billy, in music casting, has a crooked-toothed kid in the lead role.

What do you do?  Fire Billy, then go get a more attractive stand-in if you are part of the Chinese Olympics.  From the Times Online (UK):

She warmed more than a billion hearts with her sweet and pure rendition of one of China’s favorite revolutionary anthems at the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics.

As Lin Miaoke sang sweetly through Ode to the Motherland in the Bird’s Nest stadium on Friday night, an emerging superpower swelled with pride at their beautiful little songbird in her red dress and cute pigtails.

Far from being angel-voiced, it seems Miaoke was simply angel-faced, as it emerged that she did not sing a note. The real singer was Yang Peiyi, a seven-year-old deemed not pretty enough to be the face of China’s most watched moment in history.

Chubby-cheeked with crooked teeth, she was substituted at the eleventh hour by Communist Party officials desperate to present the best possible image of Chinese youth to a curious world.  After watching a rehearsal with Peiyi in the lead role, a senior member of the Politburo told Beijing Olympic organizers that they had an urgent problem that needed fixing.

The solution was to front Peiyi’s “perfect” voice with the more acceptable face of Miaoke, who had already appeared in a television advert.

“The reason why little Peiyi was not chosen to appear was because we wanted to project the right image. The reason was for the national interest,” said Chen Qigang, the renowned contemporary composer and French citizen who directed the music for the opening ceremony.

Sigh... First up, it's sad, but it seems like this kind of stuff hits every culture.  Part of me is actually encouraged that China (still a communist state, people) has opened up enough where this thing would surface, be reported on, then have some communist official go on TV and try and defend it.  In a sick kind of "entertainment tonight" way, that's progress.

Of course, if it were you (the talent agent for your company), this thing would have been packaged the right way. After all, the less than perfect look just smacks of authenticity and street credibility (see Little Miss Sunshine and the bumblebee girl from the Blind Melon video).

You can make that work - see the videos below.  Keep it real, FOT nation.

 

Executives Need to "Eat the Dog Food" When It Comes to Company Culture...

Many companies ask that I help them design and develop programs to reinforce and, in some instances, create a company culture.  Through a reward and recognition strategy, you can highlight and popularize the behaviors that define your company’s culture.  However, don’ think a “program” can create the result you want, if you’re not part of the program.

“A fish stinks from the head down.”

I was reminded of that old saying the other day during a discussion with a consultant at a large firm who was transferring information from one tool into another.  She probably spent a good hour or so taking information from their corporate CRM tool and putting it into another format, because her Manager liked the second format better.  (Pssst… a little secret here…the CRM tool had reporting built into it for managers to see summary data… but you didn’t hear it from me – wink, wink, nudge, nudge.)

When I asked why she did that, she told me that her management didn’t really use the enterprise tool because they weren’t up to speed on the system to the level that would allow them to pull reports.  The result is that she spends at least 50 – 100 hours a year transferring data from one system into another so her managers can see the information that already exists.  Do the quick math – at a couple hundred dollars an hour – each person who has to do this is spending up to $20,000 a year to ensure management doesn’t have to use the tools that they require the consultants to use.  $20,000 here, $20,000 there – soon you’re talking real money.

This is the perfect example of how corporate cultures get sidetracked and damaged.  When the behavior Senior Managers want isn’t modeled by the Senior Managers in a company, the company is on the fast-track to chaos.

Think about the two levels of “culture” in many companies.  To give you a head start, here are a few:

-Working from home – VPs do it, CEOs do it, even educated Directors do it – but don’t let that Marketing Manager do it – he may take a nap.

-Dinner on the expense account – How often does the VP of “X” get with the VP of “Y” for dinner to discuss organizational stuff and the meal is expensed?  Quite a bit.  But let's see how fast the expense report for a programmer and an operations person meeting over pizza and beer to work out a glitch in the system gets kicked back.

-Cubes vs Offices with Doors – hey – all you people without doors on your office – you’re our most important asset – but knock first when you come to my office – I've got a door (neener, neener, neener.)

-Assigned parking spaces – I’m guessing this started because top dogs rarely come in early and they didn’t want to walk too far to the front door.  Want a good space – get there early.

Now, don’t take this as a rant on Senior Managers – hey – I’ve been one.  My only point is that as a Senior Manager in a company, you have responsibility to model the behaviors that define your company.  Don’t think little transgressions go unnoticed by employees. 

If you are a Senior Manager, and you are unhappy with the culture in your organization, look for the mahogany – in other words – look at your peers.  Are you and your ilk creating a divide in the company between what you want and what you want your company to be.

When Senior Management requires employees to do something that increases their work load without adding value to the business - you’re subtracting value from your customers and communicating that there is more than one company culture.

No recognition program or incentive program can compete with smelly fish.

Editor's Note - Paul Hebert is the brain behind Incentive Intelligence and a recognized authority on incentives and performance motivation... 

Incentives Aren't Just For Sales People...

Incentives.  The word brings up a variety of images in most people's minds.  From "cash back" at the dealership to sales bonuses for getting more people to buy your products - most people immediately go to the "sales" arena as if the only place incentives have a place is when pushing something.

Nay, nay I say.  Expand your mind.  Incentives (and by extension - rewards and recognition) belong anywhere you have people.  Incentives aren't goal specific - they are people and behavior specific.  Incentives can and should be applied anytime you have a goal that isn't being attained, and people and their associated behavior are some of the reasons the goal is being missed.

I have presented the chart below many, many times and each and every time the response is..."gee... I never thought about it that way before.  You're right - I can use incentives and rewards in a variety of ways."

I now share my secret weapon with you. Here's the chart.... (click for a larger image)

The way to read the chart is to start at the left and go to your right. 

As a business manager, you have pretty much one goal in mind - increase the value of the shareholder (or stakeholder for private companies) investment in that company.  That's the one measure everyone can agree on.  I know, I know, there are other goals and objectives - employee satisfaction, engagement, etc. that are important.  But, I submit they exist to drive profit for the company and those that have invested their money/time/capital.  But I digress.

As you move from left to right you can see that there are a variety of ways that a company can increase its value to the shareholder... from increasing sales, decreasing costs, making better use of the investments already in the pipeline.  Each of those areas can then be subdivided, and ultimately you arrive at something people can do to influence the output/success of that area.

Need more cash - look at receivables - is there a way to motivate the teams to work a bit harder at collecting owed money?  Need to get that new software online - can you influence the behavior of the employees to adopt the new tool faster - you bet!

If you print off the chart and keep it handy you can probably add 10-20 other areas where people have the ability to impact results.  It's not always sales. 

Think differently about where and why you apply incentives, rewards and influence - you'd be surprised where a little nudge to the right people can help you hit those elusive goals and objectives.

What Tony Snow Taught Me About Dealing With People In The Workplace...

Last weekend Tony Snow, conservative broadcaster and former spokesman for President Bush, passed away of colon cancer.  Over the weekend and this week, lots of people have and will weigh in on the great stories about Snow, what he meant to his team, etc.

For me, it's a similar situation to Tim Russert.  Regardless of political affiliation, when you see  someone repeatedly on the news and understand they're gifted and a gamer, you learn from how they handle things. 

I doubt we'll see the same level of heartfelt coverage for Snow as we did for Russert.  Snow wasn't as ubiquitous of a name in the media game and played from the conservative side rather than the middle, which means the other party will hold back a little bit on the compassion.  Still, whether you are Democrat or Republican, Snow's someone to model your professional approach by.

Here's what I learned about dealing with people from Tony Snow, specifically from him making the decision to join the Bush Administration and deal with what had become a hostile situation in the White House Press Corps:

-You Have To Be Willing to Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is - Looking back at articles, he was critical of Bush for backing down to the Democratic leaders and not being more systematic about getting his message out.  Bush reached out to him and asked him to help fix it.  By all accounts, he walked into a cesspool of a situation and did well.  Regardless of your affiliation, you have to respect a guy who is willing to get involved in what looked like a no-win situation.  Who needed to have "successor to Scott McClellan" on their resume?  Still, he took the job.  Stand-up guy....

-Stay Classy San Diego - Snow was an upbeat guy who was hard not to like.  Too many things play into this to list, but contrast him against the other talking heads within the broadcasting/political spectrum.  He was likable because he took the high road in multiple situations where he could have been chippy.  People sensed that, and cut him slack when they could have attacked him.  That's an edge any of us could use. 

-You Can Defend Without Taking It Personally - You take the job as press secretary late in the Bush presidency, you know you are going to get hammered.  By being classy and upbeat while defending the administration, Snow connected with the press corps to a much greater degree than Fleisher or McClellan.  He never took the attacks personally, seemingly moving forward with the opinion, "that's show business".

-You Can Say "I Don't Know" and Build Trust and Respect - Imagine that - saying "I don't know" when you don't know, rather than going into buzzword land.  That builds trust, respect and authenticity regardless of the positioning of those you are addressing.  Just don't say "I don't know" to every question. 

Rest in Peace Tony Snow.  Thanks for being different enough to make people notice.

FOT in the News....

You know, the grind here at FOT is such that I forget that these people have lives, even after they run into the virtual newsroom 3 minutes before deadline with their copy...

It's an active bunch - here are some headlines about the FOT crowd from other locales....

-Kelly Dingee has the AIRS Sourcing report going strong...

-Jennifer McClure is a networking goddess...

-Tim Tolan may have enough media juice to run for mayor of Charleston...

-I see Maren Hogan more places than "Kung Fu Panda"... Here's one of note...

Good stuff.  I just hope the FOT crew remembers little ole' FOT when they make it big.  Not that they haven't already...