As you may know, I coach with a focus on MAP—it’s effects, uses and how to enhance/change it—so I tend to collect articles and information that will help illustrate and/or drive home a critical point.

MAP is both timely and timeless with the same topics arising in successive generations of managers, so the past articles are often of just as much use now as when they were written.

Obvious as it may seem, fair treatment of employees is one of those things to which managers constantly make exceptions citing all sorts of ‘reasons’.

Years ago I read an article about a study by Sarah Brosnan.

Briefly, what Sarah did using capuchin monkeys working in pairs was to start by rewarding them equally with a slice of cucumber for performing a specific task, then rewarding one of the working pair with a grape instead (capuchins eat cucumbers, but love grapes). The results? The performance went from 95% success to 60%, but at least they still did the same amount of work. However, when one received the grape for doing less work, i.e., not performing the task at all, the success level dropped like a stone—all the way down to 20% for the cucumber crowd.

OK, back to the managers. Frequently, when I ask managers about a discrepancy in treatment, compensation, promotion, etc., what I often hear is along the lines of, “X and Y are equal with similar experience attitude, and duties, but…” and they finish the sentence with comments such as:

• “X should earn more because he’s supporting a family.”
• “X needs the promotion because her husband walked out on her.”
• “X just moved here and the housing is expensive!”
• “X is too short to be a manager.”
• “X and I went to the same school.”
• “X is cute.”
• “X reminds me of _________ so I will/won’t…”
• “I don’t like X.”

Enough! This list could go on all day, and it just gets sillier.

However, what never ceases to amaze me is that these managers see nothing wrong (let alone illegal) in their actions and expect either no repercussions or maybe some minor grumbling—or they just don’t care.

What they never seem to expect are significant drops in productivity, high levels of turnover (no matter the economy) and the occasional lawsuit.

In fact, most of them are shocked when something does happen, and harbor serious doubts as to whether the inequities actually have anything to do with it.

Of course, the most hilarious justification I hear is that “nobody will find out.”

You would not believe just how many line managers at all levels, not to mention HR people, actually believe that people don’t discuss their compensation/stock packages.

Some companies even have rules stating discussing it is not allowed and can be “cause for dismissal.” These aren’t old-line, dark ages managers I’m talking about, but enlightened, 21^st century, believe-in-empowerment types.

When will managers learn that secret compensation is right up there on the reality scale with Santa and the Tooth Fairy?

Being treated fairly has always been at or very near the top of people’s wish list. The only real change in the last thousand-or-so years is that it’s moving from the wish list to the demand list.

Since I first read the article I’ve shared it with managers who don’t have a clue; I’ve even emailed it to some of them, but it doesn’t always work.

In fact, the result can be hilarious. Once, when I was at my wit’s end, I sat down with the densest manager I ever worked with and we went through it together.

After discussing it in detail looked at me like I was nuts and said, “So what? I hire people, not monkeys.”

I kid you not!

Please join me tomorrow for a look at what ‘fair’ really means.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: Ivan Mlinaric on flickr

You’ve heard of Cesar Millan, the “Dog Whisperer,” but the item in the article that grabbed me was a quote from another article by Malcom Gladwell in the New Yorker article that “quoted scientists and dance experts analyzing how Mr. Millan’s bearing instills confidence. The conclusion: his fluid movement communicates authenticity better than words could.”

Sadly, the authenticity conveyed by the fluid movements of Jeff Skilling, Bernie Madoff and a host of recent “leaders” proves that authenticity isn’t always the best yardstick.

People are much like dogs, although the words used to describe their reactions are different.

We talk about dogs and other animals ‘sensing’ things; we accept that children have a kind of built-in radar that makes them pull away from fakes and evil-doers.

Adults insist on giving benefit-of-doubt to either their thinking or their gut, which means they frequently get burned.

I’m not saying that we should ignore the rational thinking in favor or instincts or vice versa; rather we should tune in to both equally and include them in our evaluation.

If there is anything we should learn from the people who brought us to the current economic point, it is that our judgment needs to encompass all the data we can accumulate and that we should ruthlessly strip out any assumptions.

We’ve always been told that if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it probably is a duck, but these days it may be a hunter with a great robotic decoy.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: Mark Watson (kalimistuk) on flickr

Yesterday I shared emails from a reader who, at the end of the day, realized that he was over-reacting, his boss was insanely busy and nothing was wrong.

Today I want to share another story with you, only this one happened shortly after I entered the workforce.

There were seven of us in the office, everyone pulled their weight and we were a very congenial group often going out together for lunch or a drink after work.

One day “Jenny” didn’t come in and the next day she was late. Over the next few months she became cranky and very touchy. Her work slipped and the rest of us found ourselves picking up the slack. People started grumbling and, as they always do, the grumbles got back to our boss.

Fortunately, we had a very smart, proactive boss. He called a brief meeting on a morning that Jenny was absent and explained to us that her mother had been diagnosed with cancer; she was getting treatment, but in the meantime Jenny had to fill in for her.

We all knew that Jen had two younger sisters and that her dad had been out of the picture for years, so suddenly the dark circles, grouchiness, and missed days all started making sense. He told us that Jenny hadn’t said anything because she wasn’t looking for pity and the best thing we could do was to wait until she told us herself. In the meantime, he would appreciate it if we would desist from the grumbling and not-so-subtle comments.

That episode taught me a great lesson.

From then on, when someone didn’t do as expected or let me down in some way, my memory would flash to Jenny and I would take a deep breath and stomp on my reaction, because I didn’t know what was going on in their world.

I’d love to say that I always did this, but that would be a lie. But the older I got the more successful I was and I never regretted it. If the behavior continued I look for reasons and more often than not I found them.

Sure, there were times nothing was wrong and the person was just taking advantage of me and others, but more often they were under the gun, whether a derringer or a bazooka, and I was glad I didn’t make it worse.

So the next time someone lets you down, think about Jenny and cut them some slack; you’ll be glad you did.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

There is much talk about building winning teams and how to lead them and much of that centers on “influence” and “visions.”

The ledgendary Alabama coach Paul “Bear” Bryant, an expert on winning teams, provided a far simpler approach that you can be implement in a matter of seconds.

The only caveat is that once started it must be followed exactly and whole-heartedly.

“If anything goes bad, I did it.
If anything goes semi-good, we did it.
If anything goes really good, then you did it.
That’s all it takes to get people to win football games for you.”

If more “leaders” followed this path we wouldn’t be where we are today.

Do you have the courage to implement Bryant’s approach?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

Leadership, people either covet it, are tired of hearing about it, ignore it or some, like me, see it as an abdication of personal responsibility (let the leader decide).

By definition, if you are a leader you must have followers, and Dan McCarthy over at Great Leadership wrote a terrific post listing 10 actions required to be a great follower.

I hate to disagree with Dan, but he’s wrong saying they are for followers when, in fact, the 10 actions he listed are just as important for the designated leaders—or for any human interfacing with others.

But nobody would be interested in 10 Ways To Be a Great Employee/Boss/Teacher/Student/Parent/Kid/Etc./Etc.; plus it would be lousy SEO and it probably wouldn’t sink in.

Now, Dan is a terrific guy and I have enormous respect for him, but I also couldn’t resist having a little fun by using his post to illustrate my point, which is this.

Skill and action lists aren’t just for the group described as the target audience. Yes, they may need to be tweaked a bit to fit your own particular situation, but they can be applied to anyone.

Maybe they should all be titled along the lines of ‘<whatever> To Be A Great Mensch’, but that wouldn’t fly with Google.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: dwogen on sxc.hu

I read a fascinating article today about Americans, their stuff and their penchant for storing it instead of getting rid of it.

“The US has 2.3 billion square feet of self-storage space. (The Self Storage Association notes that, with more than seven square feet for every man, woman and child, it’s now “physically possible that every American could stand — all at the same time — under the total canopy of self-storage roofing. …one out of every 10 households in the country rents a unit…”

According to Derek Naylor, president of the consultant group Storage Marketing Solutions, “Human laziness has always been a big friend of self-storage operators, because once they’re in, nobody likes to spend all day moving their stuff out of storage. As long as they can afford it, and feel psychologically that they can afford it, they’ll leave that stuff in there forever.”

I’ve said for years that people aren’t water faucets, able to turn off emotions and thoughts or change their MAP just because they change environments from home to work or vice versa.

Reading the article made me realize a hidden reason that makes changing culture so difficult.

It’s not just that the parts of the culture changes, but that the employees won’t let go of the parts that are changing or being replaced; instead they store them away to sort later.

But later never comes, so, like the stuff in the storage units, it sits in the back of their minds running up a bill that is paid in energy, focus and productivity.

As a result of the economy, many of the thousands of the units that were in use for no other reason than laziness are being cleared out, or at least downsized, and the stuff gotten rid of.

Perhaps this is a good time to work with your employees to clean out their mental storage places; to purge the cultural residue and clutter that fills them up.

So clear out the rubbish, open the windows and let the fresh air flow through reenergizing everyone.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

Is your company fair? Are you fair to your people? Is fairness part of your MAP?

How often have you heard (or said), “That’s not fair!”

People more or less accept that life isn’t fair, but are more than likely to walk from a company or manager they perceive as being unfair.

What do people expect within the business world in terms of fairness?

The obvious is that they don’t want to be shafted a la Enron. But fairness refers to more than the obvious, most often to the company/manager doing what they said they would do, i.e., walking their talk.

Fairness is what people want and companies/managers promise, but frequently don’t provide. For example:

Fairness excludes politics

• Official – people will be promoted based on what they do
• De facto – people are promoted based on who they know

Fairness is egalitarian

• Official – everybody will fly economy class when traveling
• De facto – senior managers fly first or business class

Fairness includes parity

• Official – similar skills are compensated similarly with any differences the result of merit
• De facto – compensation differences result from expediency, prejudice, or favoritism

All that’s fine and sounds wonderful if, in fact, fairness is part of your MAP.

Why be fair? If ‘doing the right thing’ doesn’t come all that naturally to you, is there a reason to embrace it anyway?

In other words, what’s in it for you?

Quite a lot, actually.

Fairness reduces turnover (and its associated costs), increases productivity, and fuels innovation.

These, in turn, make you look good as a manager, help your company’s street rep, which has a major impact on the caliber of the people applying for positions, making it easier to higher great people.

Bottom line: better reviews and increased compensation for you.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

You may be a tweeting guru, but can you sum up your life, career or tell a story in just six (real) words?

When challenged to tell a story in six words, Ernest Hemingway came up with “For sale. Baby shoes. Never worn.”

Starting in 2006, Smith Magazine challenged readers to write their memoirs in six words and the effort is still going strong. Here are three examples from the Smith site,

Ecstatic, elastic, eccentric, electric, ever-changing existence!

Dreams diverted; life proceeds. Embracing detours.

Lesser people would’ve given up already.

I wrote Birth, death, fun and happiness in-between because that’s always what I wanted and got from life—including obstacles and detours.

The great advantage six words have is to force clarity of thought upon the subject.

It’s easy to set up a place on your intranet for people to post their six-word thoughts—not once, but many times.

You can use it to explore your group and company culture, clarify projects and goals and for individual team members.

• Invite everybody to post their six word description of the culture.

• A biographical section gives people a place to document their growth professionally and personally along with specific struggles and triumphs.

• Boil down the essence of each project to six words. You may be surprised at how different the descriptions are reflecting the different visions of the project team—six words helps to get everybody on the same page.

• Provide a truly anonymous section for complaints. The six word limit forces clarity on descriptions of problems and can often give you a heads up before the molehill becomes a mountain.

Please take a moment to add your six word memoir, thought or description of Leadership Turn here!

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

Innovation is crucial to success, especially in today’s economy, and diversity is crucial to innovation.

But diversity refers to much more than race, creed, or gender.

Juicing creativity and innovation requires a strong diversity of both thought and skills within your organization—homogenizing your workforce dilutes the juice.

Thought Diversity

True mental diversity is about MAP and mental function, not just a race and gender. I’ve known managers whose organizations were mini-UNs with equal numbers of males and females, but they might as well have been cloned from the boss, their thinking was so identical.

There are three main ways to homogenize thought

• Hire all the same types, most often “people like me;”
• scorn/belittle/reject anything that doesn’t conform with your own MAP/ideas/approach; or
• allow others in your organization to do the first two.

As your organization grows more diverse you want to celebrate controversy, encourage disagreement, and enable discussions—all within a civilized framework that debates the merits of ideas, not individuals.

Skills Diversity

Skills homogeny is just as detrimental to innovation. As with MAP, people tend to gravitate towards people whose skills are within their or their group’s comfort zone; worse, managers may be unaware of the full range of skills available within the group.

The fix for skills homogeny is far simpler, since it requires awareness and mechanical action, rather than changes in MAP.

Use this three-step process to better identify and access your group’s skills

1. Skills survey: Have each person in your group create a complete list of all their skills, not just the ones they’re using in their current job, but also those from previous positions and companies, as well as skills they’ve developed outside of work. Have them rate each skill 1-5 (five being the strongest) based on their expertise. (I’ve yet to see a manager do this who wasn’t surprised at the results.)
2. Skills set matrix: Using a spreadsheet, create a matrix of the information.
3. Repeat and update: go through the entire process and update the matrix twice a year; add every new hire’s info immediately.

Be sure to consult the matrix every time you develop a new position or replace someone, whether through promotion or attrition.

Knowing all this gives you tremendous staffing flexibility. For example, you may have someone in your group who’s developed the needed skills on a new project and would be thrilled to move to the it. Then, using the matrix, you can design the new position to fill other skill gaps, both current and future.

The end result is a well-rounded organization of people inspired to learn new skills, because they know that they won’t be relegated to a rut just because “that’s what they’ve always done.”

Viva La Difference is the rallying cry for the anti-homogenizing movement.

(For more on how to diversify click here, here and here.)

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

In 2006, before I took over Leadership Turn, Mary Jo Manzanares wrote a post called Team Building & Interpersonal Communication; Saturday, Steven J Barker brought up an interesting point and suggested that we explore it.

“I would be interested to hear your thoughts on differences between personal ownership and group ownership. From first glance those differences seem subtle, but I have a feeling that they are far reaching.”

I thought about that, not just in the context that Mary Jo wrote it, but in the larger one of companies and individuals with whom I’ve worked over the years and here is what strikes me.

I think the difference isn’t just far reaching, but of critical importance because they can be dangerous to the organization.

How so?

Think of group ownership as a form of nationalism with the company in place of the country.

Now think of personal ownership as an ideology.

As long as the nationalism and individual ideologies are aligned or, at the very least, synergistic, then the organization benefits.

But when they are in conflict disagreements become wars, whether overt or covert, energy is wasted, productivity lost and progress comes to a grinding halt.

You have only to look around the world to see how inflexible ideologies tear countries apart and set one part against the other.

The solution to this starts by hiring people that are good fits with the company’s culture. That doesn’t mean they always agree—the last thing you want is a homogenized team—but it does mean that they are flexible enough to put the company first, and their personal ideology second.

Another critical factor in keeping the various ownerships aligned is communication.

By providing complete understanding of the company’s goals, how each person can best contribute to their accomplishment and how those contributions will help achieve the individual’s own goals unites the team and helps it achieve more than any member thought possible.

What else would you do to increase ownership convergence?

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: dominiqs on flickr