Monday, April 17th, 2017
It’s amazing to me, but looking back over more than a decade of writing I find posts that still impress, with information that is as useful now as when it was written.
Golden Oldies are a collection of what I consider some of the best posts during that time.
Money. Everyone’s favorite subject that no one wants to talk about. Especially when it comes to work, as in, “what were you making previously” and “what are you looking for now?”
Tomorrow’s post focuses on a new law enacted in Philadelphia and New York City that has the potential to change that entire, unwanted conversation, forcing managers/companies to focus on the future, as opposed to history.
Read other Golden Oldies here.
In a post last week I asked for opinions on the ideas presented in a series of articles in Business Week on managing smarter but especially one that claims that “treating top performers the same as weaker ones is ‘strategic suicide’” and said I would add my thoughts in a future post.
Bob Foster left two interesting comments (well worth your time to click over and read). Regarding pay for performance he tells the story of a company where everybody from the CEO down all quit.
“Taking on the task to salvage the company, I hired new people that met unusual qualifications: they had to be qualified for the job they were applying for; they had to be unemployed and available immediately; they had to work at sub-standard wages; they had to work while knowing the company could close at any minute; and they had to work without supervision. The team that came together produced a highly successful company, and it was not because of high pay, or performance bonuses (there were none). The team stayed together, and performed, because of mutual respect, trust, appreciation, and consideration—people were ‘valued.’ To me, this is the truest form of ‘pay for performance.’”
I agree that trust was one of the key ingredients in what Bob accomplished, but it wasn’t the only one—or maybe I should say that it needs to be based on fairness and honesty.
Bob says the pay was ‘sub-standard’, but I assume that it was universally sub-standard relative to position and experience. If he had chosen to pay part of the team, say 10% more than their peers, the team wouldn’t have coalesced.
And that is exactly why I disagree with the idea of paying top performers, AKA stars, big sign-on bonuses or higher salaries than their peers.
- Based on my own experience, 98% of star performers become stars as a function of their management and the ecosystem in which they perform. Change the management, culture or any other parts that comprise that ecosystem and the star may not survive.
- Just as a chain is as strong as its weakest link there is no star in any sport, business, media, etc., who can win with a team that is subject to constant turnover and low morale.
Consider this common example.
Two people are hired at the same time with the same background, same GP0 and similar work experience, but with the one exception. One graduated from a ‘name’ school and the other from a community college. Starting salary is $50K, but the manager adds a 20% premium to the first candidate’s offer on the basis that she must be better to have gone to that school.
Neither candidate lived up to their potential because the manager made poor choices. In doing so he set both up to fail but for different reasons; one thought she had it made and the other that he was low value.
Merit bonuses fairly given for effort above and beyond acceptable performance levels make sense as long as they don’t come at the cost of developing new talent.
But one problem with ‘pay for performance’ is the pay often comes before the performance, but there are others and I’ll discuss them more Thursday. In the meantime, here are links to five posts from 2006 that give more detail on the trouble with stars.
Stars—they’re in your MAP
More about stars and MAP
Rejects or stars?
Image credit: sxc.hu
There were several interesting comments on the original post; check them out.
Tuesday, August 2nd, 2016
Facebook really stuck its foot deep in the doo doo pile when it claimed its racial diversity numbers, which are even worse than its gender diversity stats, are the result of a lack of qualified candidates.
What is really going on is the very real human desire to hire “people like me,” but using “cultural fit” as an excuse for their bias.
In a post shared widely on social media, the computer science student and iOS developer took Facebook and its Silicon Valley peers to task for focusing on whether potential employees are a “culture fit” — an ambiguous gauge often used to defend discrimination.
But that, of course, depends on what is meant by culture.
Culture is a reflection of the founder’s/company’s actual values — values equaling stuff such as how customers are treated and whether politics will rule over merit.
Culture is not a function of perks — or it shouldn’t be.
“Most of tech recruiting is currently not built to look for great talent,” wrote Thomas in her post.
“I’m not interested in ping-pong, beer, or whatever other gimmick used to attract new grads. The fact that I don’t like those things shouldn’t mean I’m not a ‘culture fit’. I don’t want to work in tech to fool around, I want to create amazing things and learn from other smart people. That is the culture fit you should be looking for.”
You wouldn’t necessarily expect tech, with its penchant for data-based decisions, to cherry-pick the stats, but Facebook is an amalgamate of human beings and their biases, so it’s not that surprising.
Then, of course, there’s the data — which you’d think a company like Facebook, reliant as it is on algorithms, would’ve parsed before blaming education for its diversity ills. There simply isn’t a pipeline problem as long as there are twice as many black and Hispanic computer science graduates as there are actual hires from these minority groups.
So, once again, the old programming saying ‘garbage in/garbage out’ proves true.
A perfect summing up of Facebook’s, and tech-in-general’s, “no pipeline” excuse.
Flickr image credit: gorfor
Friday, August 15th, 2014
A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here
Since Spring the media has been sharing stories and statistics about the rampant sexism, ageism and general bigotry in tech, its self-proclaimed “meritocracy” and the amazing male hyperopia (farsightedness) that seems almost incapable of recognizing bigotry in themselves or those close to them.
Y Combinator President Sam Altman and founder Paul Graham are a good example.
Last month Altman posted the importance of eliminating the gender bias in tech and Silicon Valley in particular, and that people need to stop pretending.
“One of the most insidious things happening in the debate is people claiming versions of ‘other industries may have problems with sexism, but our industry doesn’t.'”
He cited Y Combinator’s track record of accepting women founders into the incubator as proof that it isn’t sexist.
He did not, however, explain Graham’s statements in May that he doesn’t fund founders with strong accents or women who have/want kids.
Altman thinks HR can be a solution.
“Our sense is that many will benefit by doing it [human resources infrastructure] earlier. Traditionally, startups have thought of HR as a drag on moving fast and openness, but a well-running team is one of the best assets a company can ever have.”
However, the dozens of women who work for established companies with plenty of human resource infrastructure and have shared horrific stories on platforms from Whisper to Fortune are proof that rules don’t work.
The real solution in any company, from startup to Fortune 50 is a founder/CEO who backs a culture that is blind to gender, age and color and, most importantly, walks the talk, both professionally and personally.
This puts you, as a founder, in a position to truly change the working world.
Image credit: HikingArtist
Tuesday, May 20th, 2014
The recent conversation I had with a group of managers was both eye-opening and depressing.
The managers were from a variety of companies, from startups to enterprise, most at mid-to-senior level.
They ranged from late twenties through fifties and, although not intentional, all were white.
The subject was diversity/inclusiveness.
Without exception, they claimed that their organization really was a meritocracy and that the media stories of gender/racial prejudice, especially in tech, were overblown or untrue.
Several commented that there was no real research that proved bias.
I pointed out a recent rigorous study that showed that the prejudice started long before careers.
Our analyses, which we reported recently in a second paper, revealed that the response rates did indeed depend on students’ race and gender identity.
I almost laughed when several held the tech startup world up as an example of how meritocracy worked, since nothing could be further from the truth.
The sad part is that they are good managers whose organizations are meritorious—at least in comparison to most.
I’m not sure if it’s naiveté, ignorance, wishful thinking or secret agreement, but when the people doing it right assume everyone else is, too, nothing will change.
Flickr image credit: Geordie Hagan
Thursday, September 26th, 2013
Hey entrepreneurs, you heard it here from a founder a year before another founder said it in Fast Company.
“It” is the time you waste at so many of the events dedicated to startups and the personalities that populate the entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Networking is presented as the great equalizer; providing situations that are supposed to bridge the chasm faced by new founders and those with well-connected Rolodexes.
But believing that is in the same league as believing in Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy or the Silicon Valley Meritocracy.
There is no way to minimize the intensity and energy—mental, physical and psychical—involved in founding and building a company; the most likely result of adding networking to the schedule is faster burnout and more damage to your other relationships.
One of the most important skills a founder (or anyone) needs is the ability to prioritize.
To that end, skip the networking and at least 70% of the time you spend on social media and spend it on high ROI actions, including time with family and friends.
You’ll be glad you did.
Flickr image credit: David Orban
Tuesday, April 9th, 2013
These days most CEOs acknowledge the importance of culture.
Most incoming CEOs either want to protect and extend that current culture (think Apple) or radically change one that isn’t working (think Yahoo).
There is also a percentage that want to revamp the culture in their own image even whether the current culture is working (think Home Depot) or not (think Penney’s, which I wrote about last month, and that just fired their ex Apple CEO yesterday).
Red Hat CEO Jim Whitehurst was in the first group when he joined in 2007, but it was a real stretch (more like an unexpected bucket of ice).
He came from Delta Airlines command and control culture to a cultural meritocracy based on an open source mindset.
He calls it a “meritocracy” meaning leaders arise based on their brains, not their spot on an org chart.
“The chaotic nature, the fact that people can call me up whenever and often call me an idiot to my face. We yell and we debate and we have these things out. Our culture matches the culture around open source, so the people who want to be involved in open source feel at home.”
The proof that it works is in the pudding of revenues and retention.
Red Hat, the first and only open-source software maker to crack $1 billion a year in revenues, is growing like mad.
The company has about 5,700 employees now, hiring about 1,000 workers in 2012. It will hire another 600 to 800 in 2013.
Yet the attrition rate of his R&D group—the company’s biggest group of engineers—is only 1.5%, compared to an industry average of about 5%.
Those are numbers any CEO would be bragging about, no matter what industry.
While merit rules and open source attitudes are sacred, Red Hat is in no way a democracy.
Red Hat still has managers and those managers are still responsible for decisions.
“It’s about transparency not democracy, I can make wildly unpopular decisions and at times I have to do that … as long as I have gotten feedback and articulated my reasons clearly, I can do that.”
It doesn’t need to be. People don’t want to work in a company where decisions are based on majority rule; what they want is to be heard.
They want to know that their colleagues, whether bosses, peers or subordinates, will listen to them and discuss the merits of their thought/idea/complaint no matter who they are or what they do.
Even if you didn’t click any of the above links be sure to check out these 12 Red Hat Management Tips.
The more you implement them the more things will change or, as I keep telling clients, to change how they act change how you think.
Flickr image credit: Dave Lobby
Wednesday, April 3rd, 2013
I was going to call this post “How to Make Money,” but then I remembered the lyrics from Peter, Paul and Mary’s hit song and decided it was a much better title.
After all, diversity of all kinds is a war and it’s one being lost in companies every day, whether they are old line industries or the supposed meritocracies of the tech world.
And not just diversity in the form of race and gender, but in terms of management.
Funny how so many companies that don’t “get” the need for a great culture that spawns a happy, therefore productive and innovative, workforce also don’t get diversity in fact.
They all get happy and diverse in theory and in talk, but unfortunately theory and talk frequently never make it to fact.
The facts, however, speak for themselves.
Analyzing the performance of Fortune’s “100 Best Companies to Work for in America” over a 28-year period, the author found that these firms generated higher yearly stock returns than comparable companies not on the list. They also systematically beat financial analysts’ earnings estimates, an indication that job satisfaction is an important variable that the market does not fully value. –strategy+ business (free registration required)
And the real numbers of the future carry their own warning.
The figures highlight the rapid growth in the Hispanic and Asian populations, both of which have surged by more than 40 percent since 2000. Hispanics were 16.7 percent of the population in July 2011 and Asians were 4.8 percent. The black population has grown 12.9 percent since 2000 and makes up 12.3 percent of the nation. Non-Hispanic whites rose only 1.5 percent from 2000 to 2011, slower than the national growth of 9.7 percent, and are now 63.4 percent of the population.
It also turns out that hiring those pesky females in senior positions and putting them on your board pays off handsomely.
Over the past six years, companies with at least some female board representation outperformed those with no women on the board in terms of share price performance, according to the latest study by the Credit Suisse Research Institute. —Credit Suisse
But the stats I really love come from Dr Genevieve Bell, a Social Scientist/Anthropologist at Intel Corporation.
So it turns out if you want to find out what the future looks like, you should be asking women. And just before you think that means you should be asking 18-year-old women, it actually turns out the majority of technology users are women in their 40s, 50s and 60s. So if you wanted to know what the future looks like, those turn out to be the heaviest users of the most successful and most popular technologies on the planet as we speak.
So for all those stuck in the command & control past or believe, as Carl’s and TV advertisers do, that the world actually turns on 18-34 years old males I suggest you update your prejudices and get with the program.
Flickr image credit: Tanja Föhr
Monday, June 25th, 2012
Last Thursday we looked at the need for women employees (with clout) considering the new reality where women have become the majority of early adopters.
Let me make something crystal clear; diversity involves far more than people looking different—true diversity will occasionally make you uncomfortable.
Not the discomfort that stems from bigotry, but the kind that that rattles our assumptions and makes us think.
Rather than reinventing the wheel I am reposting (with light editing) something from several years ago that hits the true diversity nail on the head.
Is Your Team Diverse Or Just Look It?
In an earlier post about diversity I ended with this—
Another way to look at it is that if spending $100 results in a bottom line increase of $1000, did you really spend the $100, or did you gain $900? That $900 that wouldn’t be there if you hadn’t invested the initial $100.
Any increased spending on diversity development is an investment and will be more than offset by the increases in innovation, productivity and revenues.
The real question is how do you define diversity?
Old diversity focuses on diversity of race, gender, orientation, creed and national origin.
New diversity includes all of the above plus diversity of thought.
Think about it, with a little effort a manager can create a diverse group who all think the same way—George W. Bush’s initial Cabinet looked diverse, but their MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) was homogeneous.
It’s far more difficult to put together a group of totally diverse thinkers. Managers tend to hire in their comfort zone and more and more that refers to how people think, rather than how they look.
So what can you do to ensure that you’re building a truly diversified team?
Here are five key points to keep in mind before and after hiring.
- Avoid assumptions. People aren’t better because they graduated from your (or your people’s) alma mater, come from your hometown/state or worked for a hot company.
- Know your visual prejudices. Everybody has them (one of mine is dirty-looking, stringy hair), because you can’t hear past them if you’re not aware of them.
- Listen. Not to what the words mean to you, but what the words mean to the person speaking.
- Be open to the radical. Don’t shut down because an idea is off the wall at even the third look and never dismiss the whole if some part can be used.
- Be open to alternative paths. If your people achieve what they should it doesn’t matter that they did it in a way that never would have crossed your mind.
Most importantly, if you’re totally comfortable, with nary a twinge to ripple your mental lake, your group is probably lacking in diversity.
Flickr image credit: lumaxart
Thursday, June 21st, 2012
For years I’ve wondered why the target of advertisers and companies was 18-35 year old males; a target that, based on my experience and observations, was incredibly fickle and rarely had the money to spend that other demographic groups had.
But what did I know?
Apparently more than I thought.
If you are a startup, especially a tech startup, you need to do two things.
First take a hard look at stats that could make or break your success.
It turns out women are our new lead adopters. When you look at internet usage, it turns out women in Western countries use the internet 17 percent more every month than their male counterparts. Women are more likely to be using the mobile phones they own, they spend more time talking on them, they spend more time using location-based services. But they also spend more time sending text messages. Women are the fastest growing and largest users on Skype, and that’s mostly younger women. Women are the fastest category and biggest users on every social networking site with the exception of LinkedIn. Women are the vast majority owners of all internet enabled devices–readers, healthcare devices, GPS–that whole bundle of technology is mostly owned by women. –Genevieve Bell, Intel researcher
Along with the stats, you would do well to keep in mind that women are social creatures who love to share—especially tips and opinions.
Then take a hard look at your staff.
How many women have been hired? In what roles? How many are in a position to provide input to your products or services? How often is that input applied, i.e., how much weight does “her” opinion actually carry?
Does it matter? Are her ideas really so different?
It definitely does matter if you plan to sell to her.
And the one thing you should have learned in the course of your life, whether you are 20 or 60, is that boys and girls are different.
They do not
- think alike or even about the same things in the same way;
- use language the same way (“men negotiate status; women talk for connectivity” –Deborah Tannen)
- run on the same time table;
- consider the same things important or
- prioritize similarly.
The list goes on and on.
Given that, how do you propose to develop products and services they will pay for if your whole team thinks like a guy because they are guys?
Sunday was Father’s Day and I shared Martin Sheen’s thoughts on fatherhood, but the thoughts from some of Silicon Valley’s “hottest dads” are definitely worth the read.
I WANT YOUR STORY
Be the Thursday feature – Entrepreneurs: [your company name]
Share the story of your startup today.
Send it along with your contact information and I’ll be in touch.
Questions? Email or call me at 360.335.8054 Pacific time.
Flickr image credit: moodboardphotography
Thursday, June 14th, 2012
How much has really changed for entrepreneurial women in the last 50 years?
Not as much as you might think or as much as meritocracy hype might lead you to believe.
In the actual world of advertising in 1966, when the current season [of Mad Men] began, the most talked-about figure on Madison Avenue was the trim and determined Mary Wells, who hopscotched over the era’s endemic prejudices to develop Wells Rich Greene, the iconic agency she would run for more than two decades.
One reason stories like Mary Wells are so startling is that there are so few of them.
Yet even these successful women entrepreneurs are disappointing when you consider that most are in fashion, cosmetics/beauty products, advertising, retail, media, etc.
Although funding a tech company is almost as difficult for women as it always has been they are having more luck getting web startups funded—but it’s still an uphill battle.
Would you expect anything different when high profile experts in the entrepreneurial community are still making stupid comments more suited to the 1950s.
One advantage startups have over established companies is that there are no discrimination laws about starting businesses. For example, I would be reluctant to start a startup with a woman who had small children, or was likely to have them soon. [emphasis added] But you’re not allowed to ask prospective employees if they plan to have kids soon…Whereas when you’re starting a company, you can discriminate on any basis you want about who you start it with. –Paul Graham, prominent investor and co-founder of Y Combinator
Sex is a long way from being out of the picture as Candace Fleming, founder or Crimson Hexagon, learned.
Another potential backer invited her for a weekend yachting excursion by showing her a picture of himself on the boat — without clothes.
(And I doubt that he looked like a Chippendale.:)
The point of all this is that women aren’t going to slink back to the kitchen anytime soon.
They will keep overcoming obstacles to have babies.
Some of which will grow up to be IPOs, while others will be entrepreneurs.
(If you are hung up regarding women entrepreneurs next week’s post will show you why your attitude is sure to hang you out to dry.)
The Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) is conducting a survey that looks at social media regulation within organizations, such as how companies are embracing new platforms as a productivity tool as well as restricting access – or even asking for Facebook passwords.
Participants completing this survey will receive a free copy of the preliminary results, which will be sent to you once all responses are collected and analyzed. Privacy is important to us; your responses will be combined with others, and your personal information will remain confidential.
SUBMIT YOUR STORY
Be the Thursday feature – Entrepreneurs: [your company name]
Share the story of your startup today.
Send it along with your contact information and I’ll be in touch.
Questions? Email or call me at 360.335.8054 Pacific Time.
Flickr image credit: Search Engine People Blog
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 2 quick ways to get rid of kinks, break a logjam or juice your creativity!
Crises never end.
$10 really does make a difference and you'll never miss it,
while $10 a month has exponential power.
Always donate what you can whenever you can.
The following accept cash and in-kind donations: