Out of all the commentary regarding Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts my favorite came from the Washington Post’s Monica Hesse, who pointed out that a woman who had posed nude for a major magazine probably wouldn’t be elected or recalled—even if she wasn’t nude.
The pictorial in question is a much-circulated 1982 centerfold from Cosmopolitan magazine, in which Brown was declared “America’s Sexiest Man.” In a two-page slice of beefcake, the then-22-year-old reclines on a blanket with nothing but a serendipitously-placed wrist covering his manly bits. … Cosmo offered a new campaign slogan: “Vote for Brown. He Has One Hell of a Stimulus Package.” … If Brown had breasts, the media and public response might have been more virulent.
No matter where you look on planet Earth you’ll find a double standard and a glass ceiling and it won’t change any time soon when the only motivating source is hope.
That’s why other countries are using legislation and quotas to move the gender issue forward.
France’s parliament is considering a law that would force big companies to appoint women to 40 per cent of their boardroom seats.
Norway introduced a 40 per cent rule in 2002 when women accounted for only 6 per cent of board seats there.
Spain has also just passed a similar law.
Germany is turning tradition on its head in a move to draw more women into the workforce. The driving force is demographics—one of the lowest birthrates in the world—while the method—extending the school day—may seem quaint to other countries it’s breaking a centuries old tradition and working.
A new survey of 22-35 year-old American women finds an upbeat attitude towards the future in terms of personal satisfaction.
Nearly all, 94 percent, believed they could achieve a balance between a satisfying professional career and a gratifying personal life.
When asked to rank barriers to their careers, 12 percent cited marriage, 19 percent said maternity policies and 30 percent named pay scales.
But that says nothing about the role women will play outside of their own lives.
Across the developed world, a combination of the effects of birth control, social change, political progress and economic necessity has produced a tipping point: numerically, women now match or overtake men in the work force and in education.
Will the convergence of these forces be enough to change the MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) of the men who still control the global business and political arenas?
Or will viable gender parity have to wait until they’re not only retired but dead?
A client called and during the conversation he complained about his receptionist. He said he was close to firing her, but would prefer a different outcome; he thought a third party could help resolve the problems.
When I asked “Jack” what the problem was he said that “Judy” was disrupting the culture and refused to do her work as expected. For example, she insisted on having two pencil cups on her desk; he preferred organizing his desk based on Feng Shui principles and that two cups were nothing but clutter. He had explained this to Judy to no avail.
This is an extreme example of the puppetmaster mentality, but not counting the micromanager who really believes her’s is the only way, I’m willing to bet you have been on the giving or receiving end of this attitude, if not both, at some point—most of us have.
Whether you consider yourself a leader, a manager or leadager, yours is not the only way—or even the best.
There are many ways to approach a task or goal. Some may seem more efficient, but, in fact, will lower productivity if they are counter-intuitive for a particular worker.
As long as the task is done or the goal achieved ethically, on time and in budget the route to accomplishment doesn’t matter.
Forcing your approach on your team forces them to become puppets.
Then, like Christopher below, they are dependent on you for all creativity, innovation and productivity—at least until they resign.
There is much talk about how empowering workers juices creativity and hikes productivity.
Some companies claim that the best empowerment comes from eliminating full-time employment completely so that workers can move freely from one company to another.
My own opinion is that while that may work for a small percentage, it will have the opposite effect on the great majority.
Google’s Eric Schmidt says, ”Employees have to feel empowered. That’s what makes people love what they do and where they work,” but if they don’t really work there why should they love it?
Before the turn of the century, Bill Gates said “As we look ahead into the next century, leaders will be those who empower others,” but many leaders seem more interested in accumulating, holding and controlling power.
They don’t understand that doing so makes them smaller and weaker, whereas, as Barbara Colorose said, “The beauty of empowering others is that your own power is not diminished in the process.”
Scott Adams has another take on the subject. He says, “I’m slowly becoming a convert to the principle that you can’t motivate people to do things, you can only demotivate them. The primary job of the manager is not to empower but to remove obstacles.”
While I don’t agree about the motivation, I do agree about removing obstacles—and one way to do that is to empower people with enough authority to do their job.
It is reality that bloggers, coaches, academics, and other gurus write about how to engage the workforce, build cultures, develop leaders, motivate, and increase retention; companies pay substantial amounts to coaches and consultants to develop and implement programs; management agonizes on how to increase productivity through better use of its human resources.
It is reality that many companies are moving to “just in time” workforces; using temps and contractors at all levels with no health insurance, no vacation, no benefits—hire when you need them and dump when the project is done.
Business Week offers a comprehensive overview of this trend in a cover story entitled The Disposable Worker.
The forecast for the next five to 10 years: more of the same, with paltry pay gains, worsening working conditions, and little job security. Right on up to the C-suite, more jobs will be freelance and temporary, and even seemingly permanent positions will be at greater risk.
Obviously, there are people, especially at more senior levels, who have no problem with this approach; they relish the movement, change and challenge.
But they are the minority.
Everything described in the first paragraph is geared for companies that actually hire their workforce.
Typically, it’s a different set of experts who advise companies on outsourcing and temp workforces.
I ask you:
What will motivate workers to contribute at the level needed in today’s competitive global enviornment when they have nothing vested in the company?
Why should people who may not be there tomorrow put forth the initiative that underlays all leadership today?
How do you engage people when they have no idea how long they’ll be around?
In short, how do you get people to care when they know without a doubt that the company doesn’t care about them?
I think if I read one more op-ed piece saying the path to improving US education is paved with better teachers I’ll scream.
I’m not saying that good teachers aren’t important, but I don’t believe that teachers are the root of the problems.
Before I start with examples, let me ask you this: how well would you perform if you were
terminated for insisting that projects not only be done, but done on time;
poorly compensated in comparison to most people with similar education and experience, but in other industries;
subject to pressure, tirades, insults and having people constantly go over your head to change your decisions; and
shown little respect by your direct reports, indirect reports and management.
Does that sound like an environment that would encourage you to do your utmost? I actually find it surprising that there are as many good, dedicated teachers as there are.
Staying with the current analogy, direct reports = students, indirect reports = parents and management = administrators.
Teaching is like any other form of work—it thrives in a good culture, sags, wilts and gives up in a bad one.
The Dallas Independent School System is a good example of what is happening. DISD is where the teacher was fired at the instigation of parents for being too tough and giving homework—the fact that the kids scored well on tests didn’t count.
It’s DISD that hired new teachers in 2007 with no way to pay them leading to a $64,000,000 budget shortfall that grew to about $84,000,000 in 2008. Their solution was to layoff the teachers—no damage to the administration idiots—maybe they all took math from teachers who passed them rather than lose their jobs.
Her rise in DISD in a span of three years has been frowned upon by some observers. She was making $87,000 as a division manager in 2006 and ended her career grossing around $140,000.
Some DISD trustees had questioned an organizational chart change that left her husband overseeing the department that she worked in. Her boss was reporting to her husband.
Ya think?
And then there is the saga of Taylor Pugh, AKA Tater Tot, who was growing his hair so he could donate it to a charity that makes wigs for cancer patients—but his suburban Dallas school saw it as reason for in-school suspension for violating the district dress code.
<
Back to our analogy. How engaged, productive and innovative would you be working for a company where management performed similarly?
Dallas isn’t alone; it has plenty of company across the country.
So before ranting and blaming the dismal state of US education on teachers, check out your district and state administrations—and then look in the mirror.
When you’ve coached or written a blog for years you can find yourself answering the same questions over and over, but that’s OK. I’d rather have you drop me a line or use the chat box in the right frame than search for something and become frustrated.
And that’s what happened last night about 10:30.
“Ken” pinged me and asked if I remembered a post that talked about compensation and used a stool as an analogy for the company. He said he’d read it a few years ago and wanted it as part of a presentation for his boss.
No Problem. I’ve used that analogy with clients for years and in posts three times. After I gave Ken the URL he said I should post it again.
I agreed, but added a bit to cover the current situation.
Success is like a 3-legged stool—
Customers / equity-holders / employees
If one leg becomes too long, the stool tips over!
Taking care of the first two is a given, whereas taking care of employees seems to be based on the labor market.
If the market is hot, people are showered with money and perks, as the market cools, so does employee care.
Yes, you can buy people and you can replace people, but it’s very expensive.
In the kind of tough economic times we’re going through people understand when there are no raises and even when their compensation is cut to avoid a layoff.
But if that treatment extends only to workers and lower management, while executive compensation and perks continue, you can count on a steady exodus as business improves.
When the market is tight and companies are throwing cash, stock and perks right and left it’s the wise manager who remembers that people who join for money/stock/perks will leave for more money/stock/perks.
Do you have the courage to hire people with quirks? Those who are unconventional or have unconventional experience for the position? Will you hire someone who is flawed in some way?
Would you hire a ‘cracked pot’ for your team?
An elderly Chinese woman had two large pots, each hung on the ends of a pole which she carried across her neck.
One of the pots had a crack in it while the other pot was perfect and always delivered a full portion of water.
At the end of the long walks from the stream to the house, the cracked pot arrived only half full.
For a full two years this went on daily, with the woman bringing home only one and a half pots of water.
Of course, the perfect pot was proud of its accomplishments.
But the poor cracked pot was ashamed of its own imperfection, and miserable that it could only do half of what it had been made to do.
After two years of what it perceived to be bitter failure, it spoke to the woman one day by the stream.
“I am ashamed of myself, because this crack in my side causes water to leak out all the way back to your house”‘
The old woman smiled, “Did you notice that there are flowers on your side of the path, but not on the other pot’s side?”
“That’s because I have always known about your flaw, so I planted flower seeds on your side of the path, and every day while we walk back, you water them.
For two years I have been able to pick these beautiful flowers to decorate the table.
Without you being just the way you are, there would not be this beauty to grace the house.”
Managed correctly, appreciated instead of tolerated or, worse, homogenized, the idiosyncrasies of your team, the unusual backgrounds, your cracked pots, are what push productivity, juice creativity and drive innovation across the board.
And often it’s another’s management failure that gives you the opportunity to increase the strength of your team.
So cherish the pots you already have and never hesitate to hire another.
Last month I wrote a post at Leadership Turn on the incredible stupidity executives have exhibited by focusing on the Boomers and Gen Y, while ignoring the depth of talent available to them in Gen X.
Based on the comments I really hit a nerve.
A few days ago I received an invitation to review a new book. I’m not accepting it, so I want to make it clear that I have no idea whether it has value or not—this is not a book review.
But the fact that it was written, whether it’s good or not, proves to me that the stupidity I referred to previously is worse than I thought.
The book is “Millennials Into Leadership: The Ultimate Guide for GenYs Aspiring to Be Effective, Respected Young Leaders at Work.”
I don’t disagree that companies are prone to throwing people into management roles and expecting them to swim, but I also don’t believe that reading a couple of books takes the place of a decade or more of experience even when that experience isn’t coupled with the kind of development that companies should do.
I’ve worked with thousands of managers at all stages of their careers and the majority all say the same thing.
Few talk about having a mentor or working for extraordinary managers; most say they learned what not to do working for poor managers and did the opposite when they were promoted—they learned by doing.
Leadership/managing isn’t at it’s best as a DIY function. Books can discuss the tools and even describe how to use them, but that is a far cry from doing it.
I don’t like waste and that is exactly what is happening.
Current management wasted the Gen X resource and rather than admit the error and reclaim the resource they look to a new, larger generation to come to the rescue, while books such as this make that generation believe they are ready to do it.
Now is the time to change that pattern. As the economy turns around business can turn around their attitude and recognize the need to utilize their Gen X resources and develop Gen Y beyond what they will find in popular books.
When possible I prevail on someone I know to attend the major AlwaysOn conferences, usually it’s KG Charles-Harris, but more recently it’s been Chris Blackman.
Last week Chris attended this year’s AlwaysOn Venture Capital Summit at Sand Hill Road in the heart of VCland and got a glimpse into the future investment strategies of that storied world.
From Chris Blackman
A culture of innovation? Customer driven? Family oriented? Work hard play hard? Top down or bottom up?
Do companies still embrace and boast about these corporate attitudes anymore?
Judging from what I heard at the AlwaysOn Venture Capital Summit they have taken a back seat to burnishing a reputation of being a green in many companies—but not all.
Amiel Kornel, senior managing director of the Emerging Technology Group at venture firm Spencer Trask still cares about those values and behaviors.
In particular, he looks for “companies that will define new market categories of business while emphasizing a top down approach to a balanced lifestyle.”
Innocentive is Kornel’s poster child for such values.
It also created the business category known as crowd sourcing.
For example, last week, the US government announced an online challenge with the aim of discovering a process for how the Internet can help with rapid problem solving. How was it won? A group of MIT students used incentive-based collaboration techniques to encourage individuals to share the winning information.
Innocentive is fast becoming the nexus of such competitions. They have the ability to bring together thousands of minds to solve intellectual challenges quickly.
Mr. Kornel reminds us why company culture is important: “Key individuals must be fun to spend time with because at the end of the day, this relationship is like a marriage.”
And to be productive it needs to be a good marriage.
The dreaded annual review is on us once again, so I rounded up some great information to help you deal with them.
The second most important thing to know about performance reviews is that using software to write them creates a totally inauthentic experience for your people.
Number one-and-a-half is a great commentary on the stupidity of waiting to apply a retention tourniquet until an employee is frustrated, disgusted and ready to leave.
The most important thing to know about performance reviews is that they should be ongoing conversations throughout the year.
Most managers understand the need to help their people grow and do their best to give them timely feedback—although some do a better job than others. But even the managers who are good at it have trouble when it comes to providing feedback to their top performers, even though they are often the most eager for challenges and growth—neither of which can happen without candid feedback.
Out of all the commentary regarding Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts my favorite came from the Washington Post’s Monica Hesse, who pointed out that a woman who had posed nude for a major magazine probably wouldn’t be elected or recalled—even if she wasn’t nude.
A client called and during the conversation he complained about his receptionist. He said he was close to firing her, but would prefer a different outcome; he thought a third party could help resolve the problems.
There is much talk about how empowering workers juices creativity and hikes productivity.
It is reality that bloggers, coaches, academics, and other gurus write about how to engage the workforce, build cultures, develop leaders, motivate, and increase retention; companies pay substantial amounts to coaches and consultants to develop and implement programs; management agonizes on how to increase productivity through better use of its human resources.
When you’ve coached or written a blog for years you can find yourself answering the same questions over and over, but that’s OK. I’d rather have you drop me a line or use the chat box in the right frame than search for something and become frustrated.
Do you have the courage to hire people with quirks? Those who are unconventional or have unconventional experience for the position? Will you hire someone who is flawed in some way?
Last month I wrote a post at Leadership Turn on the incredible 
When possible I prevail on someone I know to attend the major AlwaysOn conferences, usually it’s KG Charles-Harris, but more recently it’s been Chris Blackman.
The dreaded annual review is on us once again, so I rounded up some great information to help you deal with them.
Subscribe to MAPping Company Success 