Once again EYM is dedicated to culture. Five excellent articles showed up this week, mostly fairly short and very informative.
If you have followed Microsoft for many years you’ll know that it has never been known for its great caring, give-back culture. But times are changing; Microsoft is aging and it needs to get its cool back if it wants to have a shot at hiring the quality and quantity of people needed to remain relevant. Part of that effort is focused and driven by the philanthropic actions of alumni and employees.
“To attract the next generation of employees, making a social mission part of the company’s DNA has become a vital recruiting tool,” said Lisa Brummel, senior vice president for human resources.
Microsoft isn’t the only company changing its culture; take a look at what SAP has done.
…the effect on SAP of the co-CEOdom of Bill McDermott and J.H.Snabe seems to be truly dramatic. Without hesitation, I would say that I have never, in all my years of experience with high tech companies, or companies of any kind, seen such a fundamental transformation in the outlook, direction, and tenets of company life from any company than the one I’ve seen at SAP.
Now see how a national retailer of computers, electronics appliances and furniture has used sports to infuse its culture, brand its business and reach its customers.
Sports is something our employees and franchisees embrace, but most importantly, sports are engines we use to brand our company.
Next, from Working Mother learn how the five Best Companies for Multicultural Women are embedding diversity deeply in their cultural DNA.
Diversifying the workplace is one thing. Creating a companywide sense of belonging, and a deep knowledge that all employees are playing on the same team as equals, is quite another.
Finally, a quick note from Portland, OR wondering if the following is the start of a trend. What do you think?
“People have actually been coming up to me and telling me that they are in too nice of a building for their corporate culture.” Considering corporations on the whole have taken a beating in the forum of public opinion since the recession started, lots of them have set policy on what class of space local affiliates can be in. Some corporations have even cut back on the types of cars executives can drive and how flashy the offices can look.
Our first view of culture looks at Lehman Brothers, whose corporate death touched off the financial meltdown in September 2008. In case you didn’t see a news article there is a 30 million dollar 2200 page report on what went wrong, but if you don’t feel like tackling that here is a readable review and analysis you’ll find useful.
While Lehman’s huge indebtedness and other mistakes have been well documented, the $30 million study by Anton Valukas, assigned by the bankruptcy court, contains a number of surprises and new insights, several Wharton faculty members say.
Another symbol of the mortgage mess is Freddie Mac, which Charles Haldeman is turning around using the same template he has used in the past.
Haldeman applies the same management principles to any company he joins. “The first day you come in,” he said, “you literally don’t know one person. You’ve got to have a template … some philosophy to bring” that can be applied to an organization and the culture that already exists. Haldeman said his ideal management model has eight necessary ingredients:
Make integrity and high ethics prerequisites.
Create a workplace that’s open, direct, candid and honest.
Make sure employees understand the company mission.
Develop a business plan that all employees can understand and repeat.
Communicate the mission and plan constantly.
Give other people autonomy.
Enforce teamwork.
Senior managers must spend time walking around.
Our third view explains why the right culture needs to be in place before collaborative-enabling technology can work—no matter what the under 30 crowd believes.
The tools alone have failed to make the company collaborative. … Are the tools the problem? More likely, the problem is the organization. When tools fail to create value, it’s usually because decision-makers adopt tools before the company’s culture and processes are collaboration-ready.
Adjusting to an employer’s corporate culture may be the hardest part of starting a new job. In a recent survey by OfficeTeam, nearly one-third (32%) of workers interviewed said acclimating to a new corporate culture poses the greatest challenge when re-entering the workforce after an extended absence.
And it applies whether you have been out of work for awhile, recruited from your current position or joining your first company after school.
Flickr photo credit to: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pedroelcarvalho/2812091311/
I really enjoy Dan McCarthy over at Great Leadership; we may not always agree, but he has never wasted my time and I always learn something.
Saturday was no exception and I want to share the survey Dan posted, because I think it’s of major importance whether you are a manager or a worker.
Engagement is high on management’s list of preferred employee attitude, but management seems to have a disconnect when it comes to how to engender it.
Too many managers choose to ignore that the most basic, necessary ingredient in engagement is trust and, for good reason, trust is in short supply these days.
04.14.2010 – A new Maritz® Poll conducted by Maritz Research, a leader in employee satisfaction research, paints a dire outlook of American workforce attitudes toward employers. Employees’ trust toward their workplace has taken a severe hit, with employees across all industry segments citing a lack of trust in not only senior leaders, but direct managers and co-workers as well.
According to the poll, few (11 percent) employees strongly agree their managers show consistency between their words and actions. In addition, only seven percent of employees strongly agree they trust senior leaders to look out for their best interest, and only seven percent strongly agree they trust their co-workers to do so. Approximately one-fifth of respondents disagree that their company’s leader is completely honest and ethical, and one-quarter of respondents disagree that they trust management to make the right decisions in times of uncertainty. While workplace trust has been dwindling since the Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco scandals of the earlier part of the decade, threats of layoffs and downsizing have only exacerbated the problem.
“In times like these, trust is an especially critical issue. Companies need their best people more than ever to be engaged and productive. But, often, this process starts at the top,” says Rick Garlick, Ph.D., senior director of consulting and strategic implementation, Hospitality Research Group, Maritz Research. “You’ve got to maintain credibility with your workforce as a means of getting them to totally buy in to the mission and vision of your company. Anything less fosters a disengaged workforce that puts self-interest at the top of its list of priorities.”
In cases where management trust was strong, the study found that employees were significantly more committed to working for their companies. More than half of respondents (58 percent) with strong trust in their management were completely satisfied with their job, while only four percent of respondents with weak trust in management cited they were completely satisfied with their job.
The study also revealed:
• Nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of respondents with strong trust in management would be happy to spend the rest of their career with their present company. This compares to only seven percent of respondents who have weak trust in management.
• More than half of those surveyed (51 percent) with strong management trust would invest money in their company if they could versus only six percent of those surveyed with weak management trust.
• Only three percent of respondents with weak management trust look forward to coming to work everyday. For those with strong management trust, 50 percent responded they look forward to coming to work everyday. Which Industry Fares Well? Hospitality Employees and Its Customers
While the survey suggests there is room for improvement across all sectors, the hospitality industry seems to have some advantages over others. For example, hospitality employees (14 percent) are more likely than other industry segments (9 percent) to rate their company as a “fun place to work.” Hospitality sector employees also tend to rate their companies better on customer service-related issues and the impact they make:
• More than one-third (34 percent) completely understand how their work impacts customers’ experiences, compared to only 23 percent in other industries.
• Twenty percent believe they have the authority they need to respond promptly to customer problems and requests, versus just 15 percent of respondents in other industries.
Approximately one-fifth (21 percent) of hospitality respondents believe their customers would rate the service they deliver as excellent, compared to only 14 percent of respondents in other segments.
However, there is room for improvement. Only 15 percent of employees agree that their company has the policies, systems and procedures in place to deliver outstanding customer service.
“With the hospitality industry taking one of the biggest hits due to poor economic conditions and negative perceptions, it is promising that employees feel positive about the connection of their daily work to customer service issues. But, it is still not a rosy picture when it comes to engagement. The results show that a lack of trust runs rampant in this sector as well, which impacts employees’ perceived long term career development opportunities, co-worker relationships, and productivity levels,” says Garlick. Don’t slash that recognition program
The weak economy forced companies to cut costs across the organization. And, unfortunately, formal recognition programs were frequently sacrificed. More than one-third of respondents (33 percent) cited their company scaled back or eliminated their recognition program in the past year. There is some data, at least from the employees’ perspective, to suggest these cuts have had an impact on the quality of service they deliver to customers. Among employees whose companies kept recognition programs intact, 25 percent strongly agreed their customers would rate their service as excellent. Among those whose companies cut back on their recognition programs or never had one, only 14 percent strongly agreed customers would rate their service as excellent.
“Recognition programs are critical to demonstrating to employees that they are valued and appreciated for the work they perform. It’s an important engagement tool, as it helps to reinforce messages about how people are making an impact,” says Garlick. “This is a wake-up call for management teams that consider employee recognition programs as expendable. Not only do recognition programs positively impact employee engagement levels, they ultimately lead to positive customer service perceptions, which impact the bottom line.” About Maritz® Poll
Maritz® Poll is a copyrighted poll conducted since 1988 by Maritz Research. Maritz Poll comprises regular surveys on topics related to the automotive, financial services, hospitality, retail, technology, and telecommunications sectors as well as workplace issues. This poll was conducted March 1-5, 2010. The 2,004 respondents were people who were employed full time and drawn from a national e-mail panel. Sampling error for the overall poll is +/-3 percent. Results of the poll may be used in print or broadcast media, provided credit is given to the Maritz Poll and/or Maritz Research. About Maritz Research
As one of the world’s largest marketing research firms, Maritz Research, a unit of Maritz, helps many of today’s most successful companies improve performance through an actionable understanding of their customers, employees, and channel partners. Founded in 1973, Maritz Research offers a range of strategic and tactical solutions concentrating primarily in the automotive, financial services, hospitality, telecommunications and technology and retail industries. Maritz Research projects are carried out in compliance with the International Standard: ISO 20252:2006 Market, Opinion, and Social Research Standard. Maritz Research is a member of CASRO and official sponsor of the American Marketing Association.
If trust is lacking in your organization don’t go looking for a quick fix.
Trust is the opposite of weight; gaining weight is fast and easy, while losing it is slow and difficult. Trust can be lost in the blink of an eye, while regaining it may never happen.
If you were considering purchasing stock in a large corporation or a large bequest to a major non-profit and read the following comments about the CEO from people with firsthand knowledge of him would you buy the stock or donate the money?
He was never interested in bureaucratic stuff because he did not want to work as a manager.
He would be the first to concede he was much more interested in the life of the mind than the nuts and bolts of administrative work.
Last year when I wrote that bad managers didn’t make good leaders Mike Chitty responded, “I think you can lead if you are lousy manager. You just need good managers to cover your back. Teamwork you see.”
I disagreed then and I haven’t seen any reason to change my opinion—in fact, just the opposite. Right now the largest leader vs. manager mess is playing out on a global stage.
In a commenttwo years agoNick McCormick said, “Leadership and management are very tightly intertwined. Ignoring characteristics of one is done at the expense of the other.”
According to a NY Times article, The church said the decision to allow the priest to resume his duties in 1980 was made solely by Cardinal Ratzinger’s top aide at the time, but church officials also said the future pope was sent a memo about the reassignment.
Obviously, leaders focus on visions and managers read memos.
The Catholic Church is the largest and probably the richest multinational in the world, so there are many business lessons to be learned from what is going on.
The two most obvious that I’ve noticed are
protect the brand no matter what, and, more recently,
Office politics has many definitions, but one characteristic remains constant—your ‘voice’ is positional. In other words, your ability to be heard is based on your position in the pecking order. Ideas below X level are ignored, between X and Y are acknowledged, Y to Z are heard and sometimes implemented.
But to have a full voice you either need to be part of the C suite or a “star” (stars below the Y level are scarce as hen’s teeth). Some argue that star systems are merit-based, but that argument falls flat if only those at a certain level are heard.
Few people like office politics and its presence has always been responsible for a large percentage of turnover.
One way to substantially reduce office politics in your organization by making sure that everyone has a voice.
Even in highly political corporations individual managers can improve their team’s performance and retention by making sure ideas receive a fair hearing no matter who thinks of them.
It’s easier when you are a first line manager, because you have only yourself to blame if a pecking order establishes itself in your group. If it does happen have a candid talk with the mirror and decide what’s important to you and what you want your ‘management brand’ to be known for.
As you move up, with one or more layers of management below you, it becomes more difficult because you are working to propagate an attitude that may not be wholly shared by those who report to you.
Your success depends partly on how consistent your own actions are and partly on what procedures you create to reinforce the desired behavior.
One of the most successful approaches is to tie bonus compensation to measurable results for soliciting suggestions from all levels and let VSI do the rest.
Of course, as with health, it is better route to prevent office politics than it is to cure it once it gets a toe-hold.
Simply put, that means not hiring managers at any level whose past behavior reflects the wrong attitude. You have two methods to accomplishing this. Obviously, it is something to discuss when doing reference checks.
But more importantly, if you make it clear during interviews that part of the candidate’s compensation depends upon it. It’s amazing how quickly a candidate will withdraw when her pay depends on a behavior with which she doesn’t agree.
Youngme Moonm, the Donald K. David Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, created The Anti-Creativity Checklist, a wonderfully irreverent video incorporating every cliché, past and present, used to kill creativity.
All around us people kill creativity through their frequent, unconscious use, as shown in a quote from last Thursday’s post by Jonah Rockoff, an economist at Columbia University, who said, “…no research he can think of has shown a teacher-training program to boost student achievement. So why invest in training when you could be throwing your money away?”
Not doing something new because there is no proof that it will work is number five in this video by Youngme Moon, a business professor at Harvard Business School.
Which have you heard recently in your workplace?
Which have you used?
Did their use kill creativity or just put it on hold?
Leadership is one of those things that everybody talks about, lots of people write about and some do it. My preference is to focus on those who have performed as leaders.
Although leadership doesn’t always equate to being in the top position, the links today refer to positional leaders who do a superb job leading.
Let’s start with an interview with Kip Tindell, chief executive of the Container Store, who talks about the principles underlying the culture, communications, hiring execs and a very interesting concept called the size of your wake.
Most people’s wake is much, much, much larger than they can ever imagine. We all can’t imagine that we have as much impact on the people and the world around us as we really do.
Next is David Hauser, co-founder and CTO of Grasshopper, a virtual phone system specifically for entrepreneurs. Started when he was still in school it reached profitability quickly; like most entrepreneurs Hauser wears many hats, including the company’s culture.
When we started we did not clearly articulate the values at all and that was a big mistake and today we talk about it all the time.
If you read books on great companies, they usually leave out a dirty little secret. It doesn’t make for good public relations — like talking about how you “empower people” or how your “greatest assets” are your people. Both of these well-worn clichés are true. What is also true is that it’s hard to build a great company with the wrong people.
Instead of unhappy, I probably should have said disrespectful (to others, not me), incompetent, unreasonable, undependable, irresponsible, unproductive, dysfunctional (I did say that one), angry, whiny or mean — and beyond a manager’s ability to repair.
When I finally got a management position, I found out how hard it is to lead and manage people. The warm, fuzzy stuff is hard. The quantitative stuff is easy…
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.
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 desiredenvironment—they certainly talk enough about it.
I really enjoy Dan McCarthy over at 
The leader in question is Pope Benedict and the 
Youngme Moonm, the Donald K. David Professor of Business Administration at Harvard Business School, created The Anti-Creativity Checklist, a wonderfully irreverent video incorporating every cliché, past and present, used to kill creativity.
Subscribe to MAPping Company Success 