In our wired era being available 24/7 generates both bragging rights and work/life balance complaints and nowhere more so than the high-powered world of management consulting.

It was in this world, as represented by a small team at Boston Consulting Group, that HBS professor Leslie A. Perlow initiated an experiment four years ago on the extreme benefits of “predictable time off” (PTO).

She shares the story and documents her findings in a new book called Sleeping With Your Smartphone.

Supposedly, the unpredictability working across time zones requires constant availability, but is that true?

“What caught our attention was that the more people were on, the more unpredictable their work time seemed to become.”

The key to success was predictability.

Perlow’s research started with a small team and three basic steps.

“First, team members have to agree on a specific unit of time each week that everyone can turn off. Not at the same time, obviously, since team members have to cover for each other. In our first experiment, it was one night a week. But whatever the goal, it has to be valued by the team, as a group. It has to be small but doable. And it has to be concrete and measurable.”

“Second, the team needs to meet weekly to discuss the challenges and successes they’re facing as they try to achieve the goal. These meetings are crucial for PTO to work, but they offer much more. They’re a regular forum for productive conversations about work, conversations that empower people to speak up. In theory, people are speaking up about process, which allows the team to meet the time-off goal. But really they’re speaking about all aspects of the work experience.”

“Finally, the team’s leaders — bosses, managers — have to show support for the project and for team members’ efforts. That’s not just about allowing colleagues to speak up and to use their time off. It’s also about doing the same themselves.”

Four years later 86% of the consulting staff in Boston, New York, and Washington, DC are practicing PTO.

According to BCG’s CEO, Hans-Paul Bürkner, the process unleashed by these experiments “has proven not only to enhance work-life balance, making careers much more sustainable, but also to improve client value delivery, consultant development, business services team effectiveness, and overall case experience. It is becoming part of the culture—the future of BCG.”

Retention is up, job satisfaction is up, productivity is up, client satisfaction is up.

Given proven results and a reliable methodology to follow, PTO can be instituted by any manager at any level even where the over-arching culture is hostile.

Nor is there any need for HR approval.

Go ahead; reap all those rewards and be a hero to your team—all it takes is 20 bucks and synergistic MAP, both of which are in your direct control.

Image credit: Harvard Business School

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

A study by Bain & Company, published in 2001, showed that acquiring a new customer can cost six to seven times more than retaining an existing customer, and that increasing customer retention rates by 5% boosts profits by 25% to 95%.

Why is it that so many managers ignore the connection between happy employees and happy customers?

Why do they insist on putting the cart before the horse and only invest in their people after revenues increase?

In yet another study researchers again found that customer retention is a function of great customer service, in other words, happy employees result in more loyal customers who spend more.

Zappos may be the poster child of the happy workforce, but there are many ways of achieving the same happy results.

2006, American Express, the credit card issuer, started an internal program that involved training and incentivizing its staff to get customers more engaged. The company transformed its traditional service call by getting rid of scripts and taking customer service representatives off the clock — which allowed the representative to decide how long he or she wanted to spend on each call. It also changed its employee compensation structure, directly linking a big portion of incentive pay to customer feedback. The result: Customers increased their spending on Amex products by 8% to 10% and overall service margins widened, according to a case study by Joseph Handelman, a professor at Ross. In the most recent quarter, the company announced that card members spent a record amount on their Amex cards; total revenue was $7.74 billion, up 5% from a year ago.

Underlying Amex’s actions was recognition of the intelligence of their customer service workforce and a decision to trust their people to treat their customers well and the payoff for doing so was substantial.

Lack of trust in employees is the elephant in managerial corridors and while it sometimes stems from a manager’s own insecurity it’s more often the result of poor hiring.

Managers claim that careful hiring is time-consuming and takes too long, but that’s a cop-out to short-term thinking, as is gutting customer service when the economy slows.

“When sales and profits are down, customer service is easy to cut. It [poor customer service] doesn’t show up right away. Where it shows up is in long-term customer profitability.” –Ronald Hess, professor of marketing at William & Mary School of Business, who studies customer satisfaction and loyalty.

And while you can’t control the economy, you can focus on eliminating the elephant within your own organization.

Flickr image credit: Phillip Martyn

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Consider this a Valentine message from me.

Last summer I wrote that the solution to having employees who care about their work and company was to look in the mirror, since their caring was a direct result of your management and the culture it engendered.

A few days ago Jeff Haden wrote in Inc. magazine about eight things people want that are a function of your MAP as opposed to your budget.

1. Freedom
2. Target
3. Mission
4. Expectations
5. Input
6. Connection
7. Consistency
8. Future

The words and explanations vary slightly, but this is the same advice I and dozens of other culture mavens have been saying for years.

Culture matters; it matters more than strategy, planning and even compensation.

Culture is your responsibility.

Culture is how you show you care.

Culture is you.

Whereas it’s barely possible to effectively live a personal lie, it just isn’t possible to propagate a culture based on one.

Not in ten lifetimes could you implement a culture that deviates from your basic values, your MAP, your essence.

You can provide what people crave, because you can change at any time you choose.

That’s the key, the choice is yours; it can’t be made for you by someone else or made by you because another desires it.

You can change, but only if you want to change.

Valentine’s Day is a good day to choose to start changing.

It won’t be easy; it will take more than a day; but it will take longer if you don’t start now.

Flickr image credit: AForestFrolic

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

“We are not made, or unmade, by the things that happen to us but by our reactions to them.” (from a comment on the original post)

I guess everyone has some kind of September 11^th story. I wrote mine in 2009 and am reposting it below.

A Different View of September 11

Much will be done today to commemorate the lives lost on September 11, 2001. The story I’m going to share has a different focus than most and one I believe is worth your time.

Among those who died that day was the husband of a woman I knew casually and because our acquaintance was casual I was surprised when she called nearly six months later.

I’ll call her “Kerry” and we talked for hours, but the kernel I want to share is this.

She needed support to move; not just move on, it was too early for that, but to physically move.

Kerry said the reaction to “Craig’s” death changed when people found out he died in the attack. It changed from sympathy or empathy to an almost macabre interest in how she felt because he died “that way.”

Many seemed to feel that her politics should change (she is ‘liberal moderate’, her words) and that the event should be the main focus not only in her life, but also for her two young daughters and she didn’t want that.

Kerry said she called me because she remembered my saying that I found it sad that John Kennedy Jr.’s life seemed to be defined by his father’s death; that he never was able to become anyone other than the little boy who saluted at the funeral.

Kerry said that she didn’t want her kids to be forever known as “Kristy/Jenny-her-father-was-killed-in-the-September-11-attacks”

The problem was that many of her family and friends were horrified at how she felt. They acted as if losing Craig September 11 made his death a national symbol, not a personal tragedy.

We talked many times over the next few months and the upshot was that Kerry did move far away where no one knew them. When Craig’s death came up in conversation Kerry just said that her husband had died; she said when her daughters were mature enough she would tell them what happened, but not until they had the opportunity for a normal life—not one filled with other people’s baggage.

I think for Kerry I was “the stranger on the plane,” the uninvolved person to whom you can say anything because you will never see or hear from them again and I was honored to play that part.

The death of a parent is always tragic. I know; I was five when the driver of the car in which my father was traveling fell asleep at the wheel and drove off a mountain road.

The point I want to make today is that we don’t forget, but we do move on and as we move we grow and change.

No matter how horrendous the event we all have the ability to choose what defines us and what memories rule our lives.

Never allow others to force you into a role that fits their view of what should define you.

Image credit: Foxtongue

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

This article was originally published as The Cost of Being Comfortable on Technorati.

I read an interesting article from a Forbes advisor called A Young World is No Place for Old Corporations; in a nutshell it talks about nostalgia for “what the WSJ calls America’s  ‘Midcentury Moment’, those post war  “golden years of the 1940’s, ‘50s and early ‘60s?” The boom years when Americans forged the world’s new super power, as those in Europe diminished.“

It goes on to say, “During this time US companies became dominant corporations on a world stage, strongly influencing how business was conducted all over the world.

Fast forward to 2011, America now competes in a fierce global market against young and dynamic economies.”

It lauds the dynamic spark that drove the US economy; a common theme, but one I get tired of seeing.

Tired because it only tells only the upside of the story and ignores so much.

I am neither an economist nor an historian, but here is my view of the same history.

• European industry didn’t diminish, it was crippled by WWII.
• The US became dominant because we were the only country in a position to produce as opposed to spending our efforts and money to rebuild.

In other words, in comparison to the material and psychological devastation experienced by the rest of the world what the US suffered was more like a serious inconvenience.

But not too inconvenient, since we kept on producing and selling.

War’s end left us in the cat-bird seat—not rebuilding, just retooling to sell what the rest of the world needed to rebuild.

A lack of competition breeds arrogance, sloppy practices and fat—fat management and fat labor; it is easy to succeed in a world with little-to-no competition.

When countries no longer needed us because they produced their own we were surprised; when they went beyond and more efficiently produced what we produced and innovated where we had not bothered we were shocked.

When comfortable, we humans seem to believe that some version of what is will always be; it isn’t that we don’t believe in change, but we seem blind to radical change.

We are taken by surprise when it happens and long instead for whatever version of the “good old days” brings us back to our (false) comfort zone.

Flickr image credit: Bruce Turner

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

There has been much written about implementing change in an organization. I’ve written several articles on change focusing on the need to change yourself before you can expect those around you to change and I stand by those. (Two of them are here and here.)

And as you know I often link to articles and offer my take on them. The trouble with that is that many of my time-pressed readers read what I wrote and promise themselves that they will read the link later, but never do. They either forget or the reminder gets buried under a never-ending avalanche of new stuff to read.

I think today’s link is important, so I’m not going to comment or offer a few quotes.

Since this post is only 188 words, you’ll have time to click and read That’s the Way We (Used to) Do Things Around Here: With a little knowledge of neuroscience, reframing behavior can be the essence of organizational change.

You also might want to consider signing up for strategy+business; you may not always agree with them, I don’t, but I believe you will find them useful.

stock.xchng image credit: http://www.sxc.hu/photo/880737

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Ask people why they blog or “work” social media and you’ll eventually hear that they want to “build their influence” or “extend their reputation and have more influence.”

Much of the commentary around “leadership” cites “vision” and “influence” as hallmarks of a leader.

I know these terms have made me vaguely uncomfortable, but didn’t pin the reason down until recently.

The pinning came during a conversation I had with a client. She was looking for ways to increase her influence with her team. When I asked her the specifics of what she wanted to accomplish she said that she wanted to lead them to do things differently.

Long story short, after more discussion the bottom line was she felt that having more influence would mean that her people would do things her way.

Add that to a recent comment by a blogger that he blogs to share his knowledge and influence people and I had my ah-ha moment for identifying all the vague discomfort I feel when I hear that word.

The definition of influence is the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others.

Notice there is nothing that states the effect is to homogenize others with yourself, although most people see that as implied.

Perhaps I’m an anomaly because I see influence as a goad; a goad that drives people to think, reconsider, reformulate and possibly change along lines they consciously choose as opposed to blindly adopting thoughts/ideas/attitudes/actions—whether mine or someone else’s.

What do you think about influence?

Image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/arenamontanus/269431673/

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

“New opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common.”

Obviously it’s not a new problem, since the above was written by John Locke in 1690, and I’m sure you’ve come up against it more than once.

People go to extreme ends to

• preserve the status quo;
• avoid change;
• indulge a not-invented-here mentality; and
• ‘buy IBM’ (it’s better to be safe than sorry).

The attitude wasn’t original in 1690 and the MAP that fosters it will still be around in 2090.

But despite yards of books and thousands of article and blogs (my own included) on creating change in a company, too many people still don’t get it.

They believe, or want to believe, that if all the right words are said it will happen.

They keep looking for a magic bullet instead of looking in the mirror.

But the only bullet around is the one they need to bite, the one that says that

• change must start with themselves and that it starts with how they think;

• nobody acts differently without thinking differently; and

• talk is cheap, actions speak louder than words, and the actions must be sustainable.

What’s really in your mind will eventually come out, either in word or action, people will notice and they won’t forget.

Image credit: SheCat on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Today’s post will be relatively short, because I want you to take time to read a NY Times article called Building a Better Teacher.

Education is an industry and from any viewpoint, it’s obvious that American education is in trouble—poor quality, low productivity, enormous turnover and bad press.

There is a raging argument about who are responsible—politicos (who hold the purse strings), administrators or frontline workers, i.e., teachers.

There is a move to shutdown underperforming plants and fire those frontline workers en masse.

Out with the old ad in with the new; the assumption being that “new” always means “better.”

In education as in any industry there are innovators and traditionalists—think Steve Jobs and the executives of the music industry.

Innovators: Deborah Loewenberg Ball, Michigan State’s school of education assistant professor, part time math teacher and originator of Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching, and Doug Lemov, teacher, principal, charter-school founder and author of Lemov’s Taxonomy. (The official title, attached to a book version being released in April, is “Teach Like a Champion: The 49 Techniques That Put Students on the Path to College.”)

Traditionalist: Jonah Rockoff, an economist at Columbia University, who favors policies like rewarding teachers whose students perform well and removing those who don’t but looks skeptically upon teacher training. [because]… no research he can think of has shown a teacher-training program to boost student achievement. So why invest in training when, as he told me recently, “you could be throwing your money away”?

Hmmm, there was no market research to show that a personal music player would sell before the iPod changed history.

Read the article, it points the way to changes that will affect you no matter your age or if you have kids.

Changes that will determine America’s future.

Image credit: St Boniface’s Catholic College on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Have you noticed that all the stuff written about culture and how to create one that sparks innovation, attracts Millennials, boosts productivity, retains people, etc., consistently boils down to some pretty simple advice.

That lesson was driven home again in a Harvard Business Review post by Melissa Raffoni called Eight Things Your Employees Want From You.

Now think about the kind of culture created when the boss provides them,

Tell me my role, tell me what to do, and give me the rules.

Discipline my coworker who is out of line.

Get me excited.

Don’t forget to praise me.

Don’t scare me.

Impress me.

Give me some autonomy.

Set me up to win.

The descriptions change from writer to writer, but the underlying principles stay the same and have for decades. In fact, workers have craved these basics for centuries, long before the idea of business culture took form.

So, if the desire is that ancient and the pay-back that great why don’t more managers provide the desired environment—they certainly talk enough about it.

Both experience and observation tell me that the lack of implementation tracks back to the boss’ MAP—and the boss’ unwillingness to change it.

Image credit: Svadilfari on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL