I came across an old article I’d saved and thought it would be of great value during these trying times.

Thinking about and understanding risk is important whether you consider yourself a risk-taker or not.

Last year, Bill Buxton, researcher, professor, and author wrote a great column on risk in Business Week.

“Entrepreneurs, like ice climbers, are often said to risk their necks. But there are ways to cut danger to sane levels—and some very good reasons to try.”

People often comment that both groups are, politely speaking, nuts.

After offering up a detailed explanation of ice climbing Buxton says, “…the four considerations employed by the ice climber are exactly the same as those used by the serial entrepreneur or the effective business person…”

They are training, tools, fitness and partners.

But to me, the most important thought is found in the final four sentences.

“The most dangerous way of all to play it is so-called safe. Safe leads to atrophy and certain death—of spirit, culture, and enterprise. There is not a single institution of merit or worthy of respect in our society that was not created out of risk. Risk is not only not to be avoided, it is to be embraced—for survival.”

It is risk without evaluation that helped get us where we are today.

Evaluating risk requires not the best case analysis of which Wall Street is so fond, but also worst case analysis wherein you think about the absolute worst results if the risk is taken.

Then think through whether and how you would deal with the results. If they can be handled go forward; if not revise the action.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

I received and email in response to last Tuesday’s post about the value of adding QF to your culture’s DNA that absolutely floored me.

“Jess” said that “the disruption caused by indulging in QF” was expensive and difficult considering today’s economy. He said that this wasn’t the time to look for innovation, but to focus on survival; and that even in good times innovation was expensive and not all companies could afford that level of brain power.

Granted, a lot of CEOs have a hunker down mentality right now, but even casual reading will show that the smartest companies, whether large or small, are using this time to innovate and build, so they can move swiftly when things turn around.

But it was the special brain power for innovation that blew me away.

Innovation isn’t about hiring a Steve Jobs think-alike, but about tapping into the people you have and creating a culture that encourages and rewards ideas—even if they upset the status quo.

One of the most innovative and creative business segments these days (and historically) is the wholesale drug trade, AKA, drug lords.

The constant innovation required to smuggle their product is amazing and I doubt that the innovators have special training or degrees from Ivy League schools (other than their financial and legal talent).

The innovation is driven by market forces and necessity.

Creativity is a mindset that can be cultivated in everybody IF the company’s culture supports it and managers have skin in the game.

The requirements for a culture of innovation are already well represented here and in numerous other places.

Skin is accomplished by tying part of managers’ compensation to the group’s innovation.

This requires a well publicized set of measurements, not a boss’ opinion that changes with mood or whim.

(Hat tip to Biz Levity for the drug link. Subscribe if you want to add some business-irreverent laughter to your life).

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

Are you looking for a good way to make your company or group more innovative? To move it from where it is to where you want it to be?

A good place to start is by encouraging your people to question the fundamentals (QF) of the company.

QF is one of the best ways to overcome the “…but we’ve always done it that way” school of thought and foes a long way to overturning “not invented here” syndrome; both are major stumbling blocks to innovation, productivity, retention and a host of other positives moves.

QF also goes a long way to attracting Millennials and other creative types, because there are no sacred cows—everything is open to improvement and change.

However, making an announcement isn’t going to do it.

Start by identifying your company’s fundamentals, not so much the official ones (although they can also be problematic) as the unwritten/unspoken ones your employees deal with every day.

It’s easy to find them, just ask—but ask knowing that you may not like the answers. (One client found that, contrary to its stated policy, their people believed that quality wasn’t as important as shoving the product out the door.)

Depending on your current culture the identification process can be anything from a public brainstorming session with a whiteboard to some kind of “suggestion box” that’s truly anonymous.

You may be very surprised at some of the perceptions that turn up.

Once you start on a list of fundamentals you want to open them up to debate—the more passionate the better—using a combination of technology (forum, wiki, etc.) and in person discussions. The object being to decide whether to modify/jettison/keep each one, as well as what to add.

Unless your MAP dictates a company that functions in Dilbertland, this is an ongoing, proactive management task to encourage employees to question, rethink, revamp or even dump the company’s fundamentals.

Even when QF is deeply embedded in your culture you can’t assume your people will keep doing it and new people coming from other cultures will need assurance that QF is indeed part of your company’s DNA.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

Last week’s discussion about the difference between busy and productive featured a comment from Jim Gordon. In a follow-up comment he expanded how he deals with this problem when teammates complain, whether by word or look, that he’s goofing off because he isn’t ‘busy’.

“One strategy I used in my groups was to map out every single task we were doing, have the team agree that it is a fair and balanced, distributed workload, and completed the tasks on my terms. By doing this, I was able to finish everything quickly. In fact, on multiple occasions I gave myself MORE work only to finish it hours before the rest of the team to prove a point. I am not saying I recommend this, as I had the time to do it, but the underlying idea behind the method is what’s important.

What this does is put everyone on a common ground – it makes everything transparent. In a sense, it almost divides the group into a set of individuals. Although it may seem counter-intuitive, unless you have booming chemistry it is the best way to accommodate opposite personalities. Busy people will always like busy people better than productive people (think in terms of “misery loves company”). Productive people will like the other productive people. The idea is to work “together” separately and on common terms. I didn’t run into a single other problem after we began agreeing to these common terms. I would say “I’ll crunch these numbers, translate them, write the report on them, and email it to you if you do this other task… does that sound fair?” If they said “Yes,” then as long as you finish your task, they cannot say anything.”

Smart thinking—especially considering that Jim did this in college (he just graduated).

But what if you’re work isn’t quantitative? It’s a difficult solution to implement when your work day isn’t comprised of set duties.

Think about it. How many of your people really understand what you do and why you spend your time the way you do? And that means that when you’re managing by walking around, which is very productive, they think you’re just goofing off and leaving all the work to them.

The solution is simple, whereas the implementation can be difficult.

The solution is to communicate; to talk. To describe to your people what you do and why, so they see your wandering around the department as a job duty and not a time-waster. To make sure that your people can track your productivity even when you don’t seem busy.

Implementation depends on your willingness to share the details of your work and that depends on your MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™).

There are many managers who don’t know what they do beyond the obvious parts and you can’t share what you don’t know.

And more managers than you might think don’t want to share; they want to keep the managerial mystique intact, which means shrouding much of the work in secrecy or at least no details.

The former just takes some effort to identify and describe all the intangibles that make up your invisible work.

The latter is between you and your MAP, but as I keep saying, MAP can change and it’s always your choice.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

A senior manager I work with is having high turnover because he’s rewarding and promoting those who are busy instead of those who are productive.

He’s concerned when his people aren’t busy. He believes that if they have they aren’t working they must be slacking or are under-utilized in their position and gives no thought to their productivity.

In a comment Jim Gordon said, “In school, people are taught to do WORK and not to be productive (well, they don’t say “don’t be productive,” but rather “stay busy”).  The problem is that of conforming to peoples’ constant need to stay busy.  Often “work” is seen as productivity – if you are one who is productive and you aren’t busy, people consider that to be counter-productive.  So the tragic upshot of this perception is that you have to put forth equivalent “work” alongside them.  The result is a lot of work and a little production.”

A manager who focuses on ‘busy’ instead of ‘productive’ will not only alienate her best experienced people, but also drive away her most promising new talent who, like Jim Gordon, do know the difference.

Always being busy may be visually impressive, but it lacks substance and leaves people exhausted.

Productivity drives success, both the company’s and the manager’s, but it’s also necessary for individual self esteem—it’s what gives people satisfaction in a job well done and energizes them.

So the choice is yours.

Do you want your people productive, excited, up for the challenge or busy, bored and polishing their resumes?

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

Last week I described way to use an innovation wiki to juice creativity and garner ideas from all parts of the company. In the comments Jennifer Brown said, “…[is a] platform across the entire enterprise wherein the innovation “conversation” occurs – not just team by team/vertical by vertical, but across verticals that typically don’t talk to each other (hence leading to silos) or collaborate. …harness the power of the workforce, break the silo’d thinking of functional structures, and revolutionize business models.”

I agree, but done with a small innovative twist an innovation wiki will break down not only departmental silos, but also the insidious horizontal silos that are based on position and education.

Personally, I loathe horizontal silos and consider them second only to politics on the corporate stupidity index.

More times than I can count I’ve seen the ideas of an engineer 1 or 2 discounted or ignored by the 3s and senior engineers—of course, that’s better than stealing them, although that happens, too.

The attitude seems to be one of ‘your brain is incapable of any creative thinking until you are at least at my pay grade’, which is idiotic.

People’s brains work differently; some see what is, others see possible improvements and a few see around corners, but that sight has little to do with position. Steve Jobs saw around the corner of the personal computer market before there was a personal computer market and certainly before he had any credibility what so ever.

Nor is it always about training and education. 20 odd years ago I redesigned two street intersection where I lived in San Francisco, but I didn’t suggest the solutions to the traffic engineers—I knew they wouldn’t listen because I have no training. Instead, I sneaked both ideas in through someone I know who was ‘accepted’ and both are still in effect today.

Silos are built of egos, which is why, vertical or horizontal, they’re so difficult to break down.

The best solution is for the CEO to build a culture that values everybody’s ideas equally, but technology offers a leg up on this.

When building your innovation wiki assign a random ID to each suggestion—sort of like match.com. They must be completely random so that level, grade and even department are totally obscured. Each idea has a different ID, so that when a person’s idea is used the next one is still anonymous; limit access of the actual name to a few top executives.

That anonymity truly levels the playing field and means that each idea is considered strictly on its merits, not on the merits of the person who thought of it. It also encourages people to way outside-the-box thinking and to post ideas without worrying about appearing silly, pushy or arrogant for offering ideas outside of their personal expertise.

Just be sure that the contributors of ideas that are used, whether all, in part or as a springboard to something else, receive plenty of public acknowledgement, kudos and anything else you’re in a position to do.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

A few days ago Kiva left this comment on a post talking about diversity of thought as opposed to visual diversity, “My office engages in some diversity of sex and skin color, but they’re stuck at only truly valuing rank and position. Any way to get them beyond that when they don’t seem to even see others?”

I felt that the subject would be of interest to many of you and said I would respond this week in a full post.

There’s no simple one-size-fits-all answer to this because the cause depends on the circumstances and people involved.

So let’s look at four basic scenarios of what may be going on and what you can do.

Scenario 1: The most common assumption is that the TD (top dog) from whom the company/department/team’s culture flows is a jerk. This is also the cause that many people prefer, since it takes all responsibility off their shoulders, leaves them free to complain, solicit sympathy from friends or wallow in self-pity.

It’s not the most common cause, but if you’re absolutely sure of your appraisal the solution is simple—polish your resume and get out. Until you can leave do the best work you’re capable of doing, learn everything possible and cultivate senior colleagues who can serve as references in the future.

Scenario 2: The TD doesn’t realize it’s happening. Actually, it’s easier than you think for this attitude to invade a culture and grow into something that is highly demotivating for “the rest.” Discuss your perceptions with an ‘insider’ whom you trust to consider it openly and speak honestly with you.

I’ve found that a conscious effort by some of those in the ‘in-group’ to seek out and publicly laud unrecognized talent based on pure achievement can wake up an oblivious TD. Of course, high turnover of those outside the magic circle will do the same thing, but it’s a tougher road. Just don’t be upset if you’re not one of those recognized.

This brings us to the next two scenarios, both of which respond to the same corrective measures

Scenario 3: The problem is one of perception (yours) as opposed to more objective fact. This frequently happens when workers feel they are contributing at same level and quality as those being recognized.

Scenario 4: An enormous number of Millennials were raised on praise. When employees look for recognition for doing what they were hired to do adequately as opposed to doing more or doing it better they can be disappointed.

For both three and four, start with a non-partisan discussion with someone knowledgeable of the situation who will be objective can tell you if you need to rethink your own actions and/or attitudes, since

None of this is very comfortable, but the second two are actually easier to correct than the first two, since you have far more control over yourself than you do over others.

Have you faced similar situations? How did you handle them?

I hope you’ll take a moment to share your experiences with the rest of us.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

Few companies would consider doing a major project using individual contributors instead of teams.

Hiring is a major project, one that has substantial long-term impact on the group, department, and company.

So, why are teams used in every part of business today—except staffing? Why is it assumed that the various parts of staffing are a function only of managers and HR?

Sadly, some managers are not comfortable involving their people. The reasons range from control issues (involvement in staffing is very empowering) to fear (the manager feels insecure) to disinterest (staffing has a low priority).

But in today’s fast-paced work environment, it’s hard for managers to block out several consecutive minutes, let alone the hours, needed to read resumes, let alone source any candidates, screen, etc.

Speaking as an ex-headhunter, I’m here to say that the mechanics of recruiting aren’t rocket science; they may not be intuitive, but anybody can learn them, especially in these days of LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.

More importantly, when it comes to recruiting, there is no manager, no HR person, certainly no headhunter who is as impressive to an outsider as employees excited about their company.

Candidates really respond positively to being recruited by a peer! A peer who likes her company so much she is willing to put time into the staffing process? A manager to whom hiring is not about control but rather about empowerment? Who sees hiring as a chance to shine, not a necessary evil? Who not only understands the desire to make a difference but actually gives people extra opportunities to do so?

Wow! That’s the kind of manager most good candidates want to work for! Nobody can sell the company or the group or the project or the manager with the same intensity and passion as the company’s own people!

More bodies ease the work load, as well as supplying creative ideas and fresh energy to the staffing effort. Further, teams

• empower and give people a feeling of ownership;
• engage people in the present and future of their group and the company;
• teach critical managerial skills;
• spreads the workload; and
• helps minimize new employee friction.

With the exception of technical interviewing anybody in your company can be on the team, whether they are from that department or not. Sure, it takes a well written job req, but almost everybody in your company knows as much technically as most headhunters—and they certainly know more about the company. Best of all, they really care!

None of what I’ve written hinges on the economy; the time to teach people new skills is not, not when you have multiple openings and are under pressure to fill them.

Think of it as an investment—one with an amazing ROI.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

If you read me often you won’t be surprised to learn that I love culture. I believe in the power of culture. I believe that good culture is the difference between great companies and the rest.

Most importantly, I know that if it’s going to succeed culture must be stain not paint.

Unfortunately, many companies use culture paint, believing they can pass it off as culture stain.

The difference is obvious, just as stain is absorbed by wood, culture stain is absorbed into the very fiber of an organization affecting everybody’s thoughts and actions.

And just as paint covers a surface masking its imperfections, culture paint sits on the surface where it is paid lip-service and its effects are grounded in convenience.

In great cultures the CEO enables ideas and desires to percolate up from many quarters to become part of the culture.

In others companies, CEOs only include them to make people feel good; they don’t really buy into them and the result is culture paint. As with real paint, culture paint hides the imperfections, dry rot and structural weaknesses.

Today’s employees have a deep distrust of paint and an abiding desire for stain.

And employees always vote on culture with their feet.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

The world is full of acronyms and many are part of corporate culture, but all acronyms are not created equal.

Many are benign, as in executive titles,

• CEO – Chief Executive Officer, COO – Chief Operating Officer, CFO – Chief Financial Officer, CTO – Chief Technology Officer;

or defining the legal entity,

• DBA – Doing Business As, LLC – Limited Liability Company, LLP – Limited Liability Partnership;

or general business terms,

• COB – Close Of Business, COGS – Cost of Goods Sold, PL – Profit and Loss, PO – Purchase Order, QA – Quality Assurance, QC – Quality Control;

or oriented to customers,

• CRM – Client Relationship Management, CSR – Customer Service Rep.

And, of course, the hundreds that are used in the technology world.

Common acronyms or those used within a particular industry are relatively harmless, as long as they’re used sensibly and not to confuse—people who overuse acronyms are PIBs (pain in butt).

There are acronyms that identify dysfunctional people, the ones that aren’t pulling their weight because they’re using,

• OPT – Other People’s Time, OPR – Other People’s Resources, OPM – Other People’s Money.

Then there are the ones that identify actions and MAP that spell big trouble for any culture and need to be eradicated immediately.

• NIMBY – Not In My Back Yard
• NIH – Not Invented Here
• WAM – What About Me
• WIIFM –  What’s In It For Me

NIMBY thinking can stifle innovation when it causes discomfort to an individual, group or even division under the corporate umbrella.

NIH also stifles innovation by blinding people to events and new products produced by the competition or other changes in the marketplace.

WAM is different than WIIFM. WAM is usually in response to something good happening to another person; it may be as minor as a compliment from the boss or as substantial as a raise or promotion, whereas WIIFM is the desire to know what personal benefits accrue in return for doing what’s asked. WIIFM isn’t always bad; it can be put to good use by channeling it into positive VSI.

What about your workplace? What acronyms do you hear? Which do you use?

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: flickr