Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

Today’s Oldie is a lead-in to tomorrow’s post, which will consider the difference between respect and nice on culture, creativity, innovation, and success.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

Why is common sense often treated like rocket science?

If you want to increase your overall retention rate start by respecting your people.

There are too many managers who only respect their ‘stars’ and then wonder why turnover is rampant in the rest of the organization.

Then there are the legions of managers who believe that if they can’t demonstrate their respect with perks because their budget was cut there is no way to prove they value their people.

Ahem! Respect isn’t a matter of perks.

You’re people aren’t stupid, they know the score, so tell them the truth and build trust.

Provide what tangible proof you can to show that you value your workers, from health care to chocolate, but don’t insult them by saying the company can’t afford something when it obviously can.

Respect isn’t about benefits and benefits, no matter how exotic, don’t give you the right to disrespect them.

Nor will benefits underwrite bad management—you don’t get to micromanage, insult, play favorites, or bully your people just because the company offers health insurance.

The bottom line is simple—if you treat your people as replaceable don’t be surprised when you have the opportunity to do so.

Flickr image credit: Martin Abegglen

I first mentioned Public-benefit company (PBC) as a viable alternative to the typical Inc corporate structure in 2015, especially for entrepreneurs with an eye on more than money.

The next year I expanded on that when Kickstarter changed its legal status to PBC.

Don’t confuse PBCs with B-corps; both are profit-making entities and both have stated values, but PBCs are legal entities and legally held to their specified values and mission.

“A value is only a value if it’s non-negotiable.” –Kickstarter co-founder Perry Chen

PBCs come in all sizes, both public and private. The variety is obvious in this list of the Top 25 PBCs globally in 2016, including

Method Products, Patagonia, Etsy, Toms, Clif Bar and now Danone.

What is Danone?

Danone is a French multinational food-products corporation based in Paris and founded 99 years ago in Barcelona, Spain. The company is listed on Euronext Paris where it is a component of the CAC 40 stock market index.

Danone is present in over 130 markets and generated sales of €21.9 billion in 2016, with more than half in emerging countries. In 2015, fresh dairy products represented 50% of the group’s total sales, early life nutrition 22%, water 21% and medical nutrition 7%.

Some wonder how/why large, public companies would even consider a legal status that doesn’t put shareholder interest first.

Emmanuel Faber, Danone Chairman & CEO , explains.

The reason I am writing is because this new major milestone is a breakthrough point for Danone on our global B Corp roadmap. With our major North American activities being certified as of today, it is now proven that it is possible to certify as a B Corp for large organizations that are committed to being change agents, for business and for the world we live in.

Obviously, if a company with such far flung parts can do it shoots holes in those who claim it’s not possible.

And before you claim that startups can’t spend time/resources on stuff like this, remember that Marc Benioff implemented his 1/1/1 philanthropic model when he founded Salesforce in 1999 and that certainly hasn’t slowed its growth.

These days, the definition of success involves more than just money.

Image credit: Danone via Wikipedia

Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

Have you ever thought about what makes a great comic? By and large they are timeless, because their subject is people and human emotions and actions are (often unfortunately) steady through time. This is especially true when it comes to bad management as witnessed by the continued popularity of Born Loser, Dilbert and many others.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

Does your newspaper carry The Born Loser by Chip Sansom? Actually, I don’t find Brutus, the main character, to be a loser—just a slightly naive guy who works for an arrogant bully who constantly belittles him.

In the July 26, 2007 panel the dialog is as follows:

Boss: I am looking for a unique spin to put on our new ad campaign—do you have any ideas?

Brutus: Gee, Chief, I’m not sure—are there any ideas you think I should think of?

Boss: Brutus Thornapple, master of thinking inside the box.

it reminded me of managers I’ve known, who, no matter what happened or what feedback they received, never could understand that it was their MAP and their actions, not their people’s, that was the root cause of their under-performing groups.

After all, if you

• ask for input and ridicule those who offer it, why be surprised when you stop receiving input;
• claim that you want to solve problems while they’re still molehills, yet kill the messengers who bring the news, you should expect to grapple with mountainous problems requiring substantially more resources;
• tell people their ideas are stupid, whether directly or circumspectly, or, worse, that they are for thinking of them, why should they offer themselves up for another smack with the verbal two-by-four?

So, before you start ranting or whining about your group’s lack of initiative and innovation, try really listening to yourself and the feedback you get and then look in the mirror—chances are the real culprit will be looking straight back at you.

Image credit: Kleefeld on Comics

Lately I have become very involved with the look of my pool. I live in Florida and we are almost to swim time, my apologies to my northern friends. I’m not obsessed in a vain way, more in that the activity of scooping out leaves calms me in some way.

I find that the gentle swirl of the water and satisfying thunk of leaves pulled from the pool can relax me immensely.

During the activity there are always one or two leaves that have escaped my net and I think, just a bit more and I will have them all.

While this may be a simple analogy I have found it can be applied throughout my daily activities.

I’m in sales and the results of my actions are very apparent on the big sales board. I manage a practice within my company that is unique and still being nurtured.

One aspect of that is I receive very little feedback on how I am doing on a given day. It can take months or years before I truly see the impact. That can be a bit debilitating if you need a constant ego stroke. My solution for this is to look at short term successes and activities. I try to do a bit more each day.

As we go through the week, I would imagine you’re facing challenges that may require a bit more. Sometimes I’m overwhelmed with the big stuff, so I break it down. Build upon and expand. How do you approach those activities?

Perhaps it’s a single minded focus, micro doses of acid, or just the elephant approach of taking one bite at a time.

This week make it a point to do just a bit more.

I can assure you that you’ll be happy with the results.

Image credit: KimManleyOrt

Fortunes 2018 list of 100 Best Places to Work is out and guess who isn’t on it anywhere?

Google.

Why?

Because the criteria was tweaked this year.

But there’s something different about this year’s list, which was based on responses from more than 300,000 employees at large companies that opted into the survey. A change in methodology this year put greater emphasis on feedback from survey respondents who self-identified as women, minorities, or LGBTQ. It is the first time, says Michael Bush, the CEO of Great Place to Work, that the list reflects what he has dubbed a “Great Places to Work For All” mindset.

At first, adding “all” to the pot scared the heck out of many CEOs, but after explaining, most came back.

His clients could see that a “for all” commitment would mean the firm was “maximizing the potential of all employees.” (…) Bush reports that organizations scoring highest under the new “For All” methodology “grew their revenue about 10 percent faster over the same period than the companies that scored best according to [Great Place to Work’s] old methodology.”

Some of the Top 10 may surprise you, but Salesforce in the top slot shouldn’t.

One reason Google didn’t participate in the survey may be found in job site Hired’s 2018 State of Salaries report.

The average worldwide salary for a tech worker in 2017 was $135,000, says Hired, up 5% from the 2016 survey. (…) But the data also showed that a person’s race has what Hired called “a significant impact” on salary in the tech industry. And black tech workers are the ones getting the most shortchanged — Hired found that black tech workers are making $6,000 a year less than their white peers, on average.

Interestingly, the data suggests both a cause and a solution. Black candidates and Hispanic candidates tend to begin their salary negotiations at a lower point than their white counterparts, according to this data.

White candidates tend to ask for the highest salary, $130,000, and get offered $136,000 (+4.6% on their request).

Meanwhile, black and Hispanic candidates using Hired’s platform say their preferred salary is $124,000, on average. But even when an offer beats their initial request, it’s still relative to the lower number. Black workers are being offered $130,000 (+4.8%) on average and Hispanic candidates are offered $131,000 (+5.7%). Asian candidates ask for $127,000 on average and are offered $133,000 (+4.7%).

I guess it’s just simpler to ignore this and similar surveys and ignore the media questions about why you didn’t participate, than it is to fix the problem — and this one is definitely fixable.

No one ever said solving fundamental problems like diversity was easy, especially when it takes more than data and algorithms.

Join  my tomorrow for a look at why most diversity efforts fail, what works, and how diversity programs are being considered trade secrets.

Video credit: Fortune

I am a former Marine, I served five years and learned a lot while in. Marines tend to have some quirks and one of those quirks is the idea of motivation.

If a Marine is said to be motivated it means they are professional, diligent and an all around squared away Marine. To not be motivated basically means you are a poor performer or worse.

One takeaway from this experience was that the idea of motivation was skewed for me for a while.

In the civilian world I have never once heard one person call another motivated. However I have heard people say that someone is disciplined or that they have a strong work ethic. And maybe that’s what the Marines meant, discipline and motivation were really one and the same.

So that takes me back to my question. Is it better to be disciplined or motivated?

Getting up early for a run typically sucks; I don’t know many that want to leave the comfort of their warm bed to go for a run or to the gym. What gets them up? Rarely motivation, it’s usually discipline.

Working toward a task at work can be tedious. Discipline will get you to the finish line, while motivation can be that spark that gets an idea flowing.

Perhaps it’s motivation that tells you to get up early and discipline carries you through.

I’ll be honest. I lack discipline. It’s a constant struggle for me and something I strive to achieve. Since it’s an area of opportunity I tend to dwell on it.

It has slowly become apparent to me that motivation and discipline are not mutually exclusive. They are compatible.

So, as you go through your day tomorrow consider what is driving you?

Is it motivation or discipline or all of the above?

Image credit: Pati Morris

Are you suffering from high turnover? Are your people disengaged?

Do your stakeholders have high expectations of your next product/service?

Are you spending time and money competing for the same skills that your competitors — and everyone else — need, while trimming your current workforce through attrition or layoffs?

According to the Greek poet Archilochus, “We don’t rise to the level of our expectations; we fall to the level of our training.”

Companies are swift to blame a talent shortage when they aren’t meeting market expectations, but are slow to invest in their own people. And when hiring they only want people with X years of direct experience in [whatever], even when whatever just launched.

Moreover, hiring someone to do what they did previously practically guarantees one of two results (or both).

High turnover and/or a lack of engagement due to boredom.

Very few people enjoy doing the same thing year after year (do you?) and that is the big danger of hiring someone who has been there/done that, especially if you don’t provide a learning environment and new challenges.

However, providing them goes directly against the prevailing attitude that only the young can learn.

If that describes your own mindset, I suggest you read Bruno Michel’s description of his 35 year career (and counting), currently an IBM researcher, who radically reinvented himself six times resulting in a total of 160+ patents and 250+ peer reviewed publications.

You may not care about the publications, but the patents should make you sit up and rethink your ideas about how you value your people.

Michel’s belief is that people should change jobs every seven years.

That means you have a choice.

You can supply talent to other companies.

Or you can supply training and opportunities internally and keep your people happy and engaged.

Image credit: Patient Care Technician

Poking through 11+ years of posts I find information that’s as useful now as when it was written.

Golden Oldies is a collection of the most relevant and timeless posts during that time.

There are two lessons in this post.

The first is that managing at any level requires you to be present, conscious, and focused on your people — not on your social media, where you’re having dinner, or the work being done on your home.

The second, is that if you are one of the truly bad ones, who messes with your people’s heads and inflicts intentional hurt on them, you will get yours, because eventually what goes around does come around — no matter how long it takes.

Read other Golden Oldies here.

“Is there a single devastating thing I may do unconsciously that messes my people up the most and, if so, what are the effects?”

I’ve heard variations of this question from many managers over the years.

The answer is yes, there sure is and if you aren’t doing it unconsciously then you’re one of the really bad guys and I can only hope that your turnover soars and your reputation spreads.

The action is inconsistency and the primary effect is fear. Secondary effects include intimidation and insecurity.

The end results in the business world are distrust, low productivity, less innovation, abysmal retention and, on a more personal level, poor reviews, fewer promotions and less opportunity.

It doesn’t matter that the inconsistency is unintentional, arbitrary or whimsical the results are the same.

It’s not knowing that really gets to people—even more than expected abuse.

Think about it. It’s one thing to have someone who constantly criticizes (unconstructively) or disparages you, because you can learn how to turn a deaf ear if, for some reason, you can’t get out of earshot.

But when a zinger comes out of nowhere in what’s normally constructive, or at least neutral, feedback you’re caught unaware, thrown off balance and it really gets to you.

Actually, the more infrequent it is the worse it is when it does happen. And after it happens a few times people find themselves waiting for it, wondering when it’ll happen again and almost holding their breath to see if this is the time the other shoe will drop.

That fear grows exponentially once it takes root and distrust typically increases at the same rate.

Can you think of a worse scenario for people to labor under?

But when it’s unconscious, how do you know?

If you actually focus on the person with whom you’re talking, instead of checking your phone or thinking about something else, you’ll see the zinger hit and you should be able to identify what it was. If you can’t, then ask! Acknowledge the reaction, state that you know it was something you said, but you’re not sure what. Be gentle if you expect the person to open up, but you stand a better chance if you ask immediately, while they’re still in shock.

But if you did it on purpose, to enjoy the show and then get them to open up so you can twist the knife, I sincerely hope that all your teeth and hair fall out and Zeus’ thunderbolt strikes you where you stand and chars you into tiny little bits.

Image credit: sxc.hu

I’ve written a lot on the both the why and how of face-to-face communications, so today will be a short post, with links to previous content.

Do you wonder why 69% of managers aren’t comfortable talking with their team?

Perhaps it’s because they aren’t comfortable talking period.

What’s going on? What happened to verbal communications a la conversation?

It’s not just tech, although tech has made it much worse.

Modern managers have avoided discussions with employees, especially about performance issues.

Before computers they tried to manage by memo; post computer by email and most recently by texting. None of them work.

Problem 1: screens kill empathy and empathy underlies all positive human interactions.

Solution: Turn off your screens. And if you believe everything will fall apart if you are unavailable for 20 minutes here and 40 minutes there each day then your organization is in far worse shape than you realize.

Problem 2: AMS; it stands for assumption, manipulation, self-fulfilling prophesy.

Solution: Build internal awareness of your AMS (we all do it), then work to control it. Don’t try to completely eradicate it; it’s a waste of effort.

Problem 3: Two-way street.

Solution: Learn to listen, not just hear. Active listening is at least 50%, often more; if you talk, but don’t listen it isn’t a conversation.

Good communicating is like writing good code.

You can study it forever, but eventually you need to get out there and just do it.

And the more proficient you become the more you will enjoy it.

Scary? Sure.

But not nearly as scary as stunting your future, both at work and in your wider world.

Image credit: Flickinpicks

This is one of the worst stats about managers I’ve come across recently.

… 69% of respondents [US managers] said that they found “communicating in general” to be the hardest part about communicating with employees.

If you are one of that 69% then you should consider the flip side of the equation — employees.

The percentage of US managers who say they don’t like talking with employees mirrors the 67% of US workers who say they’re not engaged at work. That figure comes from the most recent Gallup survey of the US workplace, the company’s annual in-depth report on more than 31 million workers across US industries.

Why?

…one of the primary things employees say they need to feel engaged and productive at work is regular, meaningful communication with their managers.

It’s black and white; cause and effect.

It’s a simple bottom line.

If you don’t make the effort and learn to be comfortable having face-to-face conversations with your people, then you lose the right to complain about their engagement, motivation, productivity, creativity, and turnover — not to mention damaging your own career path.

As usual, it’s your choice.

Image credit: Get Everwise