Archive for the 'Retention' Category
Wednesday, October 28th, 2015
Monday we considered the idea that a team can have too much talent, i.e., stars.
Bosses claim they hire stars because they are the rocket that drives a team further, faster.
I think many do it because they are lazy.
As Wally Bock puts it, “We live in a world of microwavable answers and quick fixes” — and bosses see stars as quick fixes.
Which, if you will excuse the bluntness, is really stupid for two reasons.
The so-called slow fix takes more effort, but provides far greater ROI.
And you, personally, do much better, and have more fun, with fewer regrets, building your own team of stars — usually the only things lacking in this approach are egos, prima donnas and drama.
A slightly offbeat story illustrates the kind of stars that can result.
Faculty from Bard College coach a debate team from the Eastern New York Correctional Facility, a maximum-security lockup.
They recently beat the national and world champion Harvard team. They have also beaten the University of Vermont and West Point teams.
They are home-grown stars, since it’s doubtful that a world-class team of debaters were all incarcerated at the same facility.
The point of all this is that if you want to be known as a great boss, then be the coach who builds an extraordinary team, as opposed to being the one who hires shooting stars.
Flickr image credit: Michael Pollack
Monday, October 26th, 2015
Stars. Everyone wants to hire stars.
Sports teams buy them for astronomical salaries.
Companies use salaries, stock, sign-on bonuses and anything else they can.
Beyond bragging rights, stars are supposed to goose innovation, boost productivity and all kinds of good stuff.
But do they?
In 2010 the Miami Heat bought LeBron James and Chris Bosh to add to the triple the star power of Dwayne Wade — and had a terrible season.
Stars want to be stars.
When individual interests take precedence over what is best for the collective, group performance declines. It no longer functions as a cohesive whole. (…) For chickens [another example], businessmen, and basketball players alike, high-levels of performance comes with high-levels of competitive spirit. These status conflicts drive performance down.
Down, not up.
You can still hire brilliant individual contributors if you are willing to put in the time and effort to make them a team.
It takes work, because they won’t become one left to their own devices.
Just remember that all teams aren’t created equal, so be sure your team plays basketball and not baseball.
Bill Simmons referred to baseball as “an individual sport masquerading as a team sport.”
President Barack Obama referred to basketball as “the quintessential team sport”
Flickr image credit: Kentucky National Guard
Wednesday, October 14th, 2015
The media loves making it a big deal when people leave companies, especially if
- they have been there a long time;
- they have a high profile/big title; or
- the company is one of the golden ones, e.g., Apple, Google, Facebook, Uber, Salesforce, etc.
Not counting layoffs or termination, why do good people leave good companies?
Actually, it’s not so much where they are leaving from as it is what they are going to.
No matter how great the company; how talented the boss; how good the career path; at some point people just want to see what’s on the other side of the mountain.
That isn’t a reflection on the current company/boss/career, it’s a reflection of the natural desire to challenge/test oneself in a new environment.
That doesn’t always mean starting their own company.
It simply means they found something attractive enough that they decided to pursue it — and it is rarely found in compensation..
One of the few constants I’ve found through decades of dealing with people in the workplace is that those who join a company for compensation (money/stock/perks) will leave for more compensation.
However, this is a concept that seems beyond most media understanding — or perhaps it’s not what the public wants to hear.
So the next time you see one of those stories, think “where is she going” as opposed to “why is she leaving.”
Would you hire someone who was fired?
Join me tomorrow for the reasoning behind the unexpected answer.
Flickr image credit: BK
Tuesday, August 18th, 2015
I sent an article about the “frat house” (AKA, sexist) culture prevalent in ZocDoc’s sales department to “Kevin”, a good friend who works in sales.
While agreeing about problematic sales cultures, he had a different take on culture in general.
His viewpoint, from someone who has been there/done that, may not be socially acceptable and could probably get him in trouble if posted on social media, but I can share it here — anonymously
Whether you’re a nigger or a bitch, this is the shit you have to deal with. I prefer environments where it’s obvious what the culture is, like this, than politically correct cultures where bigotry is the norm but you never onto why you won’t get the bonus, promotion or accolade with superior performance. Screw political correctness!
I believe it’s important to know where you stand, because then you can make informed choices. Give me this culture anytime – when I enter, I will know what the rules are. If I stay, it’s to accomplish a particular personal goal. When I leave (if not immediately), I will know why I stayed, left, and what I gained. I’m richer, they are poorer.
There is no such thing as “politically correct”. The term itself is an oxymoron that implies consensus building, popular sentiment or sinister machinations. Politics is about popularity — we never let others know where we stand or what we stand for in order to win a popularity contest. It is giving in to the tyranny of the mob, not daring to have unpopular opinions or stances, because one will not be popular.
Being a black man, I prefer a racist that’s honest about who he is and what he is. I prefer working for such a person because I know what to expect. I presume it would be the same for you as a woman regarding sexists. These days no one is a racist, we just have “unconscious biases” that prevent us from taking unpopular positions and that ensure that the powerful can continue to exclude the less powerful.
Politically correct environments rob me of information, choice, and the ability to navigate astutely to attain my objectives.
I agree with Kevin, even in those instances where bias has its basis in neuroscience, it’s better to know.
Flickr image credit: Zaskoda
Wednesday, August 12th, 2015
Decades ago when my office was on the 35th floor of a Financial District tower in San Francisco I always had a sweater or just dressed warmly no matter the season, as did most of the women.
The cold never seemed to bother the men.
Fast forward to August 2012 when a friend emailed to say she had changed companies.
I was surprised, to say the least, since she held a senior position along with sizable stock options and I knew she would be leaving a lot on the table.
When I asked why she said it was a great opportunity, but the deciding factor had been the ambient temperature during multiple interviews — she was tired of always being cold.
Imagination? Personal idiosyncrasy?
No, actual fact, according to an article describing a new study published last week.
Finally, scientists (two men, for the record) are urging an end to the Great Arctic Office Conspiracy. Their study, published Monday in the journal Nature Climate Change, says that most office buildings set temperatures based on a decades-old formula that uses the metabolic rates of men. The study concludes that buildings should “reduce gender-discriminating bias in thermal comfort” because setting temperatures at slightly warmer levels can help combat global warming.
Just as a too warm office can slow people down and make them sleepy, so can a too cold office.
Bosses can alleviate the problem to some degree.
- If your physical space operates by zones rearrange workers based on their temperature needs, as opposed to functional or gender lines.
- If there is only one central control raise the temperature or at least try splitting the difference.
- Provide snuggies, blankets and space heaters when needed.
- Treat it as the problem it is and not as a joke or gender weakness.
While addressing the problem may have little-to-no impact on global warming, it could have a substantial impact on your talent acquisition and retention.
Flickr image credit: Lara
Tuesday, May 19th, 2015
It’s been proven that the happier the workers the higher the productivity and creativeness.
So what really makes people happy?
Lawyers provide a good example, in spite of all the jokes.
Researchers who surveyed 6,200 lawyers about their jobs and health found that the factors most frequently associated with success in the legal field, such as high income or a partner-track job at a prestigious firm, had almost zero correlation with happiness and well-being. However, lawyers in public-service jobs who made the least money, like public defenders or Legal Aid attorneys, were most likely to report being happy.
I wrote What People Want one week short of nine years ago and after rereading it see no reason to update it.
As research continually proves, the basic human operating system doesn’t really change.
Flickr image credit: tico_24
Wednesday, March 25th, 2015
Yesterday we looked at how a new IBM analytics tool that analyzes tweets found that customer loyalty was severely impacted by employee turnover.
A decade ago research by Frederick Reichheld found that a 5% improvement in employee retention translated to a 25%-100% gain in earnings.
Deloitte recently released its annual survey, which seems to back up the need for improved retention.
2015 Global Human Capital Trends report, their annual comprehensive study of HR, leadership, and talent challenges, the top ten talent challenges reported for 2015 are: culture and engagement, leadership, learning and development, reinventing HR, workforce on demand, performance management, HR and people analytics, simplification of work, machines as talent, and people data everywhere.
The first three are nothing new; the terms have changed over the years, although not the meaning behind them or their ranking as top concerns.
In a major employee retention push, companies are turning to algorithms and analytics to mine a raft of data, identify which employees are most likely to leave and then try to change their minds.
But some things never seem to change and until they do companies won’t make much headway.
At Credit Suisse, managers’ performance and team size turn out to be surprisingly powerful influences (emphasis added –ed.), with a spike in attrition among employees working on large teams with low-rated managers.
With decades of research saying the same thing, it makes one wonder why the finding was “surprising.”
In fact, nothing will change until companies, bosses and the media stop being surprised every time a survey shows that talent acquisition and retention is most influenced by
- the culture in which they work;
- the bosses for whom they work;
- the work itself; and
- the difference they can make.
Gee, maybe it really is rocket science.
Image credit: Steve Jurvetson
Tuesday, March 24th, 2015
Back in October Twitter and IBM announced a new service to give enterprise a way to mine its 15 billion daily tweets.
Of the research done since the, one result surprised them.
The more a customer shops at a particular store or eats at a particular restaurant, the more likely they are to stop shopping there when employees leave. It stands to reason that you would get to know the people at a place you patronize often, but IBM found that really loyal customers get so attached to employees that they complain on Twitter about having to “start over” if a favorite employee leaves. If they don’t feel like employees know them, this can really impact revenue because the loyal customers are the ones who spend the most money.
Do you find that surprising? I don’t, having done the same thing myself. (I’ve also switched brands when a favorite was acquired by a company I didn’t trust.)
Cost of customer acquisition is the most critical, prime metric when valuing any business, from startup through Fortune 50.
For the last few decades the prime focus has been on investors, while customers came in a long second; IBM’s findings move customers much closer to investors.
Why employee turnover results in customer defections isn’t the least surprising.
It’s a well accepted dictum that people don’t leave companies, they leave managers — or leave because of management turnover, so customers leaving for a similar reason makes sense.
However, employees are still a long third behind investors and customers.
When I started writing this blog back in 2006 I cited research by Frederick Reichheld that proved a 5% improvement in employee retention translated to a 25%-100% gain in earnings.
You would think that a 25% earnings increase, let alone higher, would be enough to get the attention of even the greediest Wall Street types, but obviously not, since low employee turnover is still cause for amazement.
Perhaps the new Twitter/IBM findings will help drive the needed change.
Image credit: BetterWorks Breakroom
Tuesday, January 27th, 2015
Looking for a perk or bonus for your people that won’t break the bank?
Consider paying for them to take a course that interests them at sites such as Pluralsight or Universal Class, whether career oriented or just of personal interest.
Because it’s a perk/bonus, it’s similar to providing movie tickets, i.e., while you choose the theater you don’t pick the movie.
It doesn’t matter if they want to learn a new programming language or how to make wine.
The point is it’s a reward, beyond normal compensation, for their hard work.
Yes, the classes provide them with new skills they may choose to apply elsewhere, but if they don’t have the opportunity to learn new skills, face new challenges or get bored they will leave anyway.
Providing learning opportunities won’t hasten the process; what it will do is give them reason to sing your praises as a great boss/company to work for in the event they do leave.
All of which will positively impact your street rep and improve/enhance your recruiting efforts.
Image credit: Eric Harrison
Wednesday, November 19th, 2014
What do SAS; Warby Parker and Toms Shoes; FullContact; Petagonia have in common?
Flexibility, AKA work/life balance.
I’ve written about all of them and for the same reason—they get it.
They get that people are their most valuable asset; they get that replacing them costs far more than the cost of an ad; they get that top talent is looking for more than a fat paycheck.
Lisa Horn, who tracks workplace policies for the Society for Human Resource Management, which represents more than 200,000 members from the HR departments of companies around the world, said many businesses, which, since the Great Recession, have forced employees do more with less, are facing new realities: Millennials who value time for both work and life, and fierce competition for the most highly skilled employees who can easily jump ship for something better. “Already 87 percent of employees say flexibility and balance is important or very important in their next job. So it would behoove companies to adopt these strategies for competitive advantage.”
Companies that get it thrive and not just in the short term.
SAS has been doing it successfully since 1976; so much so that Google’s very own Larry Page and Sergy Brin visited to learn SAS’ approach.
Family-owned Patagonia has doubled in size and tripled in profits since 2008; it has 2,000 employees around the globe and minimal turnover.
A comment from TSD (10/24/2014 5:38) on the Petagonia article sums it up nicely.
I never have figured out why treating your workers well is such a hard concept for so many businesses. I work harder and faster and better when I’m happy and not terrified. Granted, I’ve never owned a business, but it seems pretty simple. Miserable workers will not be productive.
It’s not rocket science—or maybe it is.
Flickr image credit: Steve Jurvetson
MAPping Company Success
Clarify your exec summary, website, marketing collateral, etc.
Have a question or just want to chat @ no cost? Feel free to write or call me at 360.335.8054
Download useful assistance now.
Entrepreneurs face difficulties that are hard for most people to imagine, let alone understand. You can find anonymous help and connections that do understand at 7 cups of tea.
Give your mind a rest. Here are 4 quick ways to get rid of kinks, break a logjam or juice your creativity!
$10 really does make a difference and you'll never miss it.
Always donate what you can whenever you can.
The following accept cash and in-kind donations: