Tony Hsieh has a dream to fix the world’s cities one by one, starting with Las Vegas, and he believes it can be accomplished via culture, just as it is at Zappos.

Two Q&A responses in the interview caught my eye, because they get to the crux of great culture.

Q. What is Zappos’ greatest threat?

HSIEH. Probably ourselves. The fundamental premise behind Zappos is culture. The belief is that if we get the culture right then most of the other stuff like doing great service, building a long-term, enduring brand or business will just be a natural byproduct of that. Most companies, as they get bigger, the culture goes downhill. Not only do we want to prevent that, but we actually want it to scale and get stronger and stronger which, generally, I think has never been done before. That is a challenge. The only way we have been able to think of to achieve that is if every employee views living in and inspiring the culture as part of their job description.

Great cultures are envisioned in the broadest strokes from the top—Hsieh wanted a happy place to work—with the visionary enabling people at all levels to contribute to and protect the resulting culture.

Q. If you are not there to do that, will there be someone there to do that?

HSIEH. It kind of goes back to it is everyone’s job to protect our values and to grow the culture. I guess we don’t really have an explicit succession plan. But I can also tell you that the only compensation I’m getting from Amazon is $36,000 a year with no chance of bonuses or stock options or anything. So, in theory, I could walk away at any moment but I haven’t. In a weird way, that only gives me more leverage over Amazon, because they know the only thing keeping me at Zappos is my happiness, and what makes me happy is us being run independently and maintaining our culture.

The bolding is mine and every boss at every level should commit it to memory.

The concept of leaving if not happy is applicable to every person who works no matter the size of their paycheck.

Not everyone can walk on the spur of the moment, but if they aren’t happy eventually they will walk.

Flickr image credit: Brian Nicklaus

Your comments-priceless

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

So very true. I once worked at a company where one of the Vice Presidents took obviously sadistic pleasure in torturing people below him in the company hierarchy.

He even said to me once in private, with a smirk on his face, “I love scaring the hell out of people. Watch how I can make them shake when I threaten their ability to support their family. It feels good to have this much power.”

Adult bullying—particularly in the workplace, where people are often terrified of losing their source of income—is a serious problem and society has to stop ignoring it. You may be “the boss” but that does not give you the right to brutalize and abuse the people who work for you. –Father and Husband, Seattle

This comment is from an NYT op-ed piece on about bullying and Lady Gaga’s official unveiling of her Born This Way Foundation at Harvard.

Sadly, the comment isn’t outlandish or even a recent phenomenon.

A memory dating back to the late Seventies is of a VP whose favorite pastime was forcing the managers under him to run layoffs a few days before Christmas; he really got off on that.

Last year Stanford prof Bob Sutton published Good Boss, Bad Boss about how power makes us focus more on our own needs and wants and less on others, also to act like the rules apply to others and not to us.

Based on new research Sutton has added more material on what he terms “power poisoning” to the recently released paperback version.

“Alas, recent developments suggest that staying in tune with the people you oversee is even more difficult than this book suggests. And the other disturbing effects of wielding power over others are even worse than I thought.”

Worse than Sutton thought? That, indeed, is a scary statement and one that should get your attention.

Bad Bosses are the source of bad cultures; there is absolutely no way to separate them.

Bad cultures are the source of bad results; there is absolutely no way to separate them.

This makes it simple for you to know if you have a case of power poisoning, as well as how severe it is.

Look at the results of your organization, whether team, department, division or company.

Just yours, not in combination with the rest of the company or in light of the economy or any other of the dozens of rationalizations available.

If you can actually do that you are at least half way to being able to counter the poison and reading Good Boss, Bad Boss will actually be worth your time.

Image credit: B Garrett

Your comments-priceless

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

“Employers are recognizing that it is helpful for employees to have boundaries. … People can learn to shut things off. It’s not easy, and it requires dedicated effort.” –Stewart Friedman, Wharton practice professor of management

There was a time when people bragged about always being available; how no matter where they were or what they were doing they were reachable.

Some still do, but many more are (or have) quietly burned out and are just going through the motions.

The spark is gone and that has put a major damper on innovation, creativity, productivity and caring, or engagement if you prefer.

While many companies still encourage that mindset others are moving to change it.

Companies from Atos, the French information technology services giant, to Deutsche Telekom to Google have recently adopted measures that force workers toward a better work-life balance, with scheduled breaks from the Internet and constant connectivity.

In a bid to combat employee burnout, staff at Volkswagen will be limited to only receiving emails on their devices from half an hour before they start work until half an hour after they leave for the day, and will be in blackout mode the rest of the time.

As opposed to warm and fuzzy work-life balance attitudes, these efforts are grounded in hard-headed, pragmatic, selfish business sense.

If people burn out, become less innovative and productive or have to deal with upheaval in their personal lives as a result of being always on it costs the company cold, hard cash.

Less innovation and lower productivity makes the company less competitive.

Replacing people is not only very expensive, but irreplaceable institutional knowledge is also lost.

Smart companies take care of their assets and these days that means both controlling connectivity and changing the culture, so that turning off is no longer a mortal sin.

Join me tomorrow for a look at what you, at any management level, can do.

Flickr image: Mr Fogey

Your comments-priceless

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

That’s right; multiple offers are worthless,.

It only takes one right offer.

Career experts and anybody with more than one job under their belt who can make the mental leap between cause and effect will tell you that culture is the number one reason to join a company, not to mention the number one indicator of how well a person will do.

Perhaps that’s starting to sink in to college dwellers, even those in the rarefied ultra-competitive Ivy atmosphere.

Yalies are a particularly competitive bunch, and nothing delights us more than an acceptance letter (though an open carrel at Bass is a close second). For us, life is a parade of applications, and acceptance is an indicator of self-worth.

During all the years I worked as a recruiter and since in this blog, I’ve spent a lot of effort to help people understand that getting multiple offers should not be their goal, whereas getting the right offer should be.

(In fact, interviewing everywhere just to get offers for the ego-boost can brand you as a shopper; no manager likes wasting time interviewing a candidate whose reputation/history says “shopper” and that reputation got around long before social media existed).

Being in the wrong culture is like being a duck out of water.

Most people aren’t looking for a job they are looking for a home.

They are looking for an environment in which they fit and feel challenged, appreciated and safe.

Isn’t that what you wanted growing up?

Then why is it considered strange that you would crave the same thing in the place in which you spend more than half your waking hours as an adult?

But even when you find the right culture and a job you love it’s worth noting that basing your self-worth on the success of your company is exceedingly dangerous.

Flickr image credit: David Blaikie

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

Way back in 2006 Tom Rath wrote a book called Vital Friends, in which he discusses the vital role friends play in our overall health, happiness and well-being.

“A vital friend could halve your chances of dying of heart disease; speed healing; and reduce your chances of getting cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, arthritis, Type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and certain cancers.”

Now fast forward to 2012 where for many loneliness is rampant in spite of having dozens, hundreds or even thousands of Facebook friends and a similar number of followers on Twitter.

The isolation that is a hallmark of loneliness impacts people at work; after all, human emotions can’t be turned on and off like water faucets and some researchers are finally focusing on that.

Executives and managers might be surprised to learn that employees who have best friends at work are seven times more likely to be engaged in their jobs — and, if they have at least three vital friends at work, 96% more likely to be satisfied with their lives.

Loneliness is easily fixed, unlike depression (they are not synonymous)—all that is required is a friend.

This is important to you as a manager, since loneliness affects productivity and creativity.

What can you do?

• Encourage better communications.
• Provide an avenue for your people to connect in a relaxed atmosphere, whether at work or a more social get together.
• Create a buddy system as part of your on boarding efforts.

But the most important action you can take is to pay attention to your people and not assume the problem will fix itself.

Flickr image credit: zedbee

Your comments-priceless

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

Shawn Parr, whose company works with large corporations, such as Starbucks and MTV, on innovation wrote a meaty post called Culture Eats Strategy For Lunch.

It reminded me of something I wrote back in 2008, because the title is from a quote by Dick Clark, CEO of Merk and after rereading it I decided it’s worth reposting, so here it is.

Culture Trumps All

A post on Dave Brock’s blog led me to an article at IMD’s site called “An Unpopular Corporate Culture” and, as Dave said, it’s a must read for anyone who still thinks that corporate culture is some ephemeral concept with no real impact that consultants use to sell their services.

And a double-must for those who talk about culture’s importance, but don’t walk very well when it comes to creating a great corporate culture.

For those who prefer to put their faith in plans and strategy, hear the words of Dick Clark when he took over as CEO of Merck in 2005 and was asked about his strategy for restoring the pharmaceutical company to its former glory. “His strategy, he said, was to put strategy second and focus on changing the company’s insular, academic culture.” The fact is, culture eats strategy for lunch,” Clark explained. “You can have a good strategy in place, but if you don’t have the culture and the enabling systems that allow you to successfully implement it… the culture of the organization will defeat the strategy.””

If you’re looking for a best practice corporate culture silver bullet forget it—one size doesn’t fit all.

Rex Tillerson, CEO of ExxonMobil, describes that company’s top-down command and control culture of consistency and discipline as “the source of our competitive advantage,” and has made it a priority to reinforce it.

Meanwhile, Robert Iger and Steve Jobs, in their discussions about the acquisition of Pixar by Disney, have been concerned with avoiding an Exxon style command and control culture. Jobs says that, “Most of the time that Bob and I have spent talking about this hasn’t been about economics, it’s been about preserving the Pixar culture because we all know that’s the thing that’s going to determine the success here in the long run.””

It took Lou Gerstner a decade to remake IBM.

The key lesson Gerstner learned in his time with IBM, as he later reflected, was the importance of culture.”Until I came to IBM, I probably would have told you that culture was just one among several important elements in any organization’s makeup and success—along with vision, strategy, marketing, financials, and the like… I came to see, in my time at IBM, that culture isn’t just one aspect of the game—it is the game.”

The article is more than just additional proof for my favorite hobby horse.

The analysis of the role of employee complaints/negativity play in culture and the importance of what to keep when setting out to change a culture as opposed to what to jettison will give you new insight on your own company’s culture.

In case you still doubt the power and value of culture I hope that Dick Clark, Rex Tillerson, Robert Iger, Steve Jobs and Lou Gerstner combined with the articles in Fast Company and IMD have finally changed your mind.

Flickr image credit: Bengt Nyman

Your comments-priceless

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

A McKinsey study on the value of corporate social responsibility found “…highly innovative Fortune 1000 companies derive greater financial returns from their corporate-responsibility activities than their less innovative counterparts do,” and suggested three actions to improve CSR ROI,

• Don’t hide market motives.
• Serve stakeholders’ true needs
• Test your progress.

DuPont’s success suggests a more far-reaching approach, i.e., embed sustainability deep within your corporate culture and that an “energy culture” is a great place to start.

“Upwards of 40 percent of industry’s energy efficiency improvement opportunities can be realized through low or no-cost projects rooted in corporate culture change”

They must know something since dollar savings to date are not millions, or even hundreds of millions, but billions.

“The key to this model is the formation of multi-disciplinary, cross-functional site teams, with insight from operators, maintenance, mechanics, core process experts, energy experts, engineers and management.”

These are initial steps that follow Richard Branson’s “doing well by doing good” approach.

Two of the biggest stumbling blocks on this path are Wall Street, with its short-term, i.e., quarterly, focus and the current definition of “stakeholder.”

Typically, stakeholders are viewed as investors, management, customers and workers; progressive companies have added the local communities where they do business and a few have tiptoed further.

Whereas Richard Branson points out in Screw Business As Usual every living thing and the planet itself are stakeholders.

Sadly, rather than being in the lead, the majority of US corporations are staying focused on short-term results and narrow definition of stakeholder.

But the winners in the future will be those companies, large or small, whose thinking is longest and definition is broadest.

I hope you are one of them.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kung Hei Fat Choy
(Wishing you an abundance of wealth and prosperity!)
Happy Year of the Dragon

Flickr image credit: Bengt Nyman

Your comments-priceless

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

A few days ago an article about titles in Forbes caught my eye—and got my goat.

It caught me because I’m not a lover of sweeping generalizations, since very few hold up against reality and this was one of them.

In this case, the author, with a typical consultant-pundit in support, denigrates as silly the raft of new CXO functions in business.

While I agree that they can be empty window dressing, the majority I’ve seen are powerful positions. You can tell the difference by the report structure—if the position doesn’t report directly to the top boss—CEO, COO, President or owner—it’s likely fluff.

Another statement, that titles were “likely dreamed up by the marketing team,” was really hilarious considering the corporate examples cited.

Kodak and Dell appointed Chief Listeners. Facebook recently added two Chief Privacy Officers. Coca-Cola is really gung-ho on the trend, employing a Chief Administrative Officer, Chief Sustainability Officer, Chief Scientific and Regulatory Officer, and Chief Quality and Product Integrity Officer, among others. Microsoft has a Chief People Officer; IBM a Chief Information Officer; Xerox a Chief Strategy Officer; and New York City has its very own Chief Digital Officer.

I find it hard to believe that the likes of Sam Palmisano, Michael Dell or Steve Balmer, let alone Michael Bloomberg, have marketing designing their organization.

The list also displays a high level of ignorance, since several of those “silly” titles, e.g., Chief Information Officer (CIO) and Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) have been around for decades, while others reflect important new priorities.

It’s not that I condone title inflation, but making sweeping statements that disparage efforts by companies to focus knowledge, skills and resources on specific problems and increase accountability by putting one person in charge are worse.

Creating new areas of responsibility to meet the needs of a changing world is necessary and bosses who ignore the changes or the need are setting their companies up for failure sooner, rather than later.

As long as the CXO has a well-defined mission, the authority to achieve it and direct access to the top the position deserves respect and support.

Outsiders who belittle that effort should be ignored.

Flickr image credit: Bengt Nyman

Your comments-priceless

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

I have often heard managers refer to their job as “herding cats;” this is especially true in technical fields where much of the work requires individual efforts.

Scientists are probably the most difficult, since they often come from an environment where publish or perish is the mantra and egos are super-sized.

This was the difficulty that David Ferrucci faced when he set about building the team that created Watson for IBM. He not only had to herd cats he had to hire cats.

As most of the world knows, Ferrucci’s team was wildly successful and created a computer that won playing Jeopardy against its two top past champions and is moving on to far greater challenges.

He says, “In the end, the hero was the team, not any individual member or algorithm.”

What do the researchers think? This comment from one of them pretty much says it all, “Compared to the way we work now, it’s like we were standing still before.”

These scientists are all considered ‘stars’ in their respective fields, but none of them could do anything close to Watson on their own.

Nor could they have done it if their egos and desire for personal recognition had stayed their driving force.

“As for the members of the original Watson team, they’d tell you that never in a million years could they have imagined what we accomplished. Just like Watson itself, we all learned that the sum is much greater than the parts.”

Hiring and herding cats is the true talent of a great manager/leader and absolute proof that in today’s world the boss needs to be both.

And Watson is proof positive that the only stars worth having are the ones who join the team.

Flickr image credit: Bengt Nyman

Your comments-priceless

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