In a comment Monday Denis asked, “What do the people you hire tell about your leadership style?”

The short answer has been around a long time in one form or another.

Good leaders (managers) hire people smarter than themselves and don’t feel threatened by people who are better at given tasks.

The people you hire tell more about who you are than just your leadership style; they are a reflection of  your MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) and your confidence.

No matter what the reality, the more insecure a leader/manager feels the weaker the people he hires.

At lower levels, you find that those less willing to delegate rarely hire people with skills similar to their own.

Just as your friends reflect your thoughts, attitudes, beliefs and prejudices, so do those you hire. If you want to know who someone is, just look at who they hang with and who they hire, but not who they date and marry.

All bets are off when love/lust enters the picture.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: sxc.hu

As you probably know there are hundreds of ways to mess up a culture and a lack of authenticity is one of the big ones.

There’s a lot about written about authenticity, but are you aware that one of the quickest ways to announce your lack of authenticity is to issue ultimatums?

Thousands of times a day, day after day, bosses in every industry, in companies both large and small, issue “or else” ultimatums, sometimes without even realizing it.

These threats aren’t always direct (Do it or start looking.), more often, they are subtle (“I expect employees who work here to be team players.”), but the threat is there: Do X if you want to keep your job.

Obviously, this is not only atrocious management, since

• threats are tremendously debilitating to those receiving them, often costing them the confidence to do their job; but
• the manger who uses threats loses the most—the credibility to run the organization.

Bad enough, but beyond the direct effect of the threats, there is a ripple effect that is far worse—the seeding of a self-propagating culture of intimidation—as with hazing people start thinking, “I’ll do it to you because the person above did it to me [and I want to get even].”

Ultimatums kill creativity, innovation, motivation, caring, ownership, in fact, everything it takes to create a culture that allows a company to successfully compete in today’s economy.

If intentional you need to look long and hard at your MAP and decide if that’s who are and how you want to be, then change—or not.

When not intentional, ultimatums are often the result of poor communications but they can be stopped—the choice is yours and yours alone.

If you do it you can change it.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: flickr

Years ago I watched a 40 story office tower being built in San Francisco’s Financial District across the street from where I worked. I learned that when building in earthquake country enormous pilings are pounded down into the fill and the building goes on top of them. It’s all about flexibility; the pilings act like giant springs so the tower can sway during an earthquake instead of cracking because it’s rigid.

And I’m here to tell you that sway they do; I know having several years in an office on the 35th floor of 50 California Street (and in the bar on the floor above).

Your culture needs the same flexibility if it’s going to survive the quakes and storms implicit in the business world.

A few weeks ago I offered a list of what I call IBBs that provide structural support to culture and the stressed the importance of not allowing them to morph into bureaucracy.

Bureaucracy shouldn’t be confused with process.

• Process is good—it helps get things done smoothly and efficiently;
• bureaucracy is bad—it’s process calcified, convoluted, politically corrupted, or just plain unnecessary and it feeds on people’s fear of change.

Of the three categories of IBBs, philosophy, attitude/style and policy, the first shouldn’t change at all; the second may morph to take advantage of new technology or show different styles; the third, policy, is the most likely to cause problems.

Here are five actions you can implement to avoid those problems.

1. Watch out for dozens of variations of “because we’ve always done it that way…” attitude in you and in others—some are very convincing, so pay attention.
2. Review and revamp your IBBs regularly.
3. Encourage input and take suggestions from all levels of the company and act on them.
4. Understand, and make sure that your people understand, things will change based on company growth, the economy, etc., but that the really important stuff, such as fairness, open communications, etc., will be preserved.
5. Communicate any/all changes to everyone.

Culture is a living entity and IBBs are its limbs and organs. Every living organism requires TLC and feeding—culture is no different.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: flickr

I’ve mentioned from time to time that there are the two basic principles that you need to believe in if you want to implement the kind of culture that I and most other pundits describe.

Here’s the first one.

People are intelligent, motivated, and they genuinely want to support their company in achieving its objectives.

Sadly, many managers don’t believe this. They may say they do, but deep down their thoughts run more along the lines of ‘people are stupid, lazy and don’t really give a damn’.

I’ve know managers who would actually say this out loud, while in others it’s buried so deeply they may not even realize it themselves—but they all manage accordingly.

The second principle is even more open to distortion.

People are most productive when they receive all the information needed all at once to do their job efficiently.

Based on the games so many managers play perhaps we should rewrite it—

People are most productive when they receive all the information needed all at once to do their job efficiently.

Not dribbled out over the course of the project, given grudgingly or only when asked and then only the narrowest parameter forcing the employee to return over and over.

You would think that managers would do everything in their power to create an environment that enabled the highest levels of creativity and productivity.

But for better or worse, what they produce in fact is a reflection of their MAP.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: flickr

The list of basic cultural IBBs prompted a phone call from a reader asking for more information on the dual career ladder. When we were done, he suggested that I put that information on the blog this week. Who am I to argue with a reader?

I’m not an historian, but I think that the need for the ladder was seen first in the technical world at least 40 years ago and although they may not have been the first, IBM and the original Bell Labs were two of the highest profile early adopters.

People work to improve their situation, but companies need only so many managers and only so many people want to manage. This is especially true in tech companies where many people are ill-suited to management roles, yet that was the only road to a raise.

So the two driving facts behind the dual ladder were

• a limited number of management positions—the number is still shrinking as corporate structures keep flattening; and
• recognition that not everyone is suited to management.

Enter the Dual Career Ladder; it’s simple, logical and most easily explained with this graphic

IBM Called their highest level Sr. Fellow, Bell Labs used Principal Engineer. Both positions were more than just an honor for which people strove, since they carried with them the same compensation and status as a director or vice president.

My caller asked why the model wasn’t in wider use if it was so effective.

That’s easy, ego and culture.

Accepting, for example, that a software architect is of equal value to the company as a vice president and should be compensated accordingly is hard to swallow. Few executives are comfortable with the idea that people who do hands-on work are as valuable to the organization as they are. This plays out at every level of management from team leader up.

And it’s not just in tech that this happens. I still remember when the top salesman in a certain industry had his commissioned cut because he had sold so much product that his earnings were more than the company president’s salary. That was deemed “unseemly” and so the decision to cut his commission. His reaction was what you would expect and he gave his notice less than a week later.

Because of that ego, the ladder needs to be deeply embedded in the company’s culture so it can be implemented fairly and evenly throughout the organization.

It’s the egos that prevent that from happening.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: flickr; graphic courtesy of RampUp Solutions

Today is the story of why it is better to ask than assume and how a so-called follower can lead. It all started with Denis’ post December 31 describing what was happening in his company.

“I do not trust the developers I work with to do the right thing,… I used to be able to trust people in the team to correct me and help me get better … Work is a lot less enjoyable when that trust is gone.”

Denis is a reader and we’ve gotten to know each other over the last year, so I asked what happened.

“Let me see management changed, over committed failed to motivate people. The more experienced and talented members of the team left which provided less structure and safe guards. Now as we know unmotivated people don’t give their best. They do just enough to satisfy their management.”

I asked for more details and our conversation moved to email over the next week and have Denis’ permission to share them.

Over the next week three were additional management changes and Denis didn’t sound hopeful about how things were likely to work out. There was a 9% company-wide staff reduction; Denis and three other people became the basis for a new team and its management was taken over by the group that was actually funding the project.

“My impression is that the manager who we report into now was forced to take our project by his business sponsors. The manager himself has a decent reputation though and is in the process of hiring someone to put between him and us.”

Regarding the culture,

“The company thinks of it has a consensus culture. In reality it is a company that works on loyalty networks and temporary alliances among peers.”

As you may have guessed, none of this was exactly a moral booster; in fact, you might call it management by rumor with the assumptions generally falling on the negative side.

Typically, when stuff like this is happening, people’s reaction is to hunker down and polish their resumes, but, in spite of his assumptions, Denis took a chance with a more direct approach that yielded extremely positive results.

“The meeting was triggered by an email I sent expressing interest in him explaining his vision and how we fit in it. I was requesting a one on one but he made the meeting for the whole team. He took 1h 45 minutes of his time to talk when 1h was planned. And he mentioned we will do a social event for the whole group so we get to meet everyone.

So far he is the most competent manager I have met in this company. My direct manager has not joined the group yet but I hear good things about him so there is hope.”

We’ll never know what would have happened if Denis hadn’t sent the email; if the manager is as good as he seems to be he probably would have done the same thing, but maybe not quite as soon and likely with much more damage.

There are at least three important lessons to be learned

• Management must become as competent at communicating bad news as it is at communicating good.

• Remember that the result of no communications is a rumor-ravaged workforce and that once started rumors never go away.

• There are better ways for workers to handle difficult situations than to hunker down or just sit and wait; they can take the initiative and ask for information; most managers will appreciate the request.

What else can be learned from this?

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit:

Doing more for less. Productivity is always important, but it’s especially critical as the economy toughens.

The 40 year-old Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) is the world’s largest private network of corporations focused on improving workforce productivity.

Although i4cp requires membership to access much of its data, the Trendwatcher archives are free and loaded with useful information.

The research that caught my eye shows that “the most productive organizations furthest outstripped the average ones in four areas:

• Culture: 79% of the most productive organizations say that, to a high or very high degree, the cultures of their organizations help raise employee productivity.

• Leadership: 76% of highly productive companies said that, to a high or very high extent, leadership in their companies raises productivity.

• Employee engagement: 59% of highly productive organizations use engagement practices to a high or very high extent. Engagement means that workers are mentally and emotionally invested in their work and in contributing to their employer’s success.

• Employee health/wellness programs: Although It could be an anomaly, “People like to work for organizations that send strong signals that they care for their employees. These particular programs may be sending those signals more than most other types of initiatives do,”

How does your company rate in each of the four areas?

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: srbichara   CC license

Post from Leadership Turn Image credit: Sarah and Nic

Culture is at the forefront of the corporate mindset.

Almost every article and comment regarding the workplace is, directly or indirectly, a comment on culture—what works, or not; what’s needed, or not. Want to innovate? Change the culture. Increase retention? Fix/keep the culture.

For Boards, CEOs, executives and managers at all levels it’s a case of ignore culture at your peril.

Keeping people (customers, employees and investors) is the key to sustainable success and culture is one of the main reasons that people join/buy/invest in a company—and its demise is a major reason why they leave.

Think of a stool with customers, investors/stockholders, and employees comprising the legs and culture being the seat that unites them. Over-favor one leg and it will get too long, ignore another leg and it will shrink, but the end result is the same—the stool tips over.

For everything that’s been written regarding creating good, let alone great, cultures you need to start with the basics:

• Open, honest, constant communications
• Never kill the messenger
• Accept and act on input from all levels
• Walk your talk

Sure, there’s tons more you can do, but I guarantee that if you do only these four you’ll be well on your way to creating a positive, sustainable culture.

What do you do to help create a positive culture in your company?

Your comments—priceless

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

Post from Leadership Turn Image credit: weirdvis

The best way to guarantee lots of media exposure is to be successful and in some way on the bleeding edge of your market—two feats that Google has managed since its inception.

Although it recently blew away its financial nay-sayers the media seems to grab for anything that looks like a weakness and pundits love nothing better than taking a poke at a high-flyer.

This is expecially true when high-profile employees leave, which they do no matter how great the company—it’s a personal thing—people get restless, annoyed, bored, follow their friends. Then there’s change—change that messes with people’s comfort zones because stuff is different.

CEO Eric Schmidt’s comment when asked about those leaving helps put things in perspective, “Let’s do some math. We have 18,000 people. What is 1% turnover [per month]? 180. Do you think 1% turnover is reasonable? In this area, it’s quite low. Ours is some small percent, 1, 2, 3%.

What bothers me is that some people write: “So-and-so left the company.” Well, they don’t also write that we hired 120 people that week, five of whom have Nobel prizes, three of whom have PhDs, and so on, who are beginning their career here now.”

Whereas most companies tightly control IT, Google keeps it’s people happy by giving them as much choice as possible in technology.

CIO Douglas Merrillsays, “Google’s model is choice. We let employees choose from a bunch of different machines and different operating systems, and [my support group] supports all of them. It’s a little bit less cost-efficient — but on the other hand, I get slightly more productivity from my [Google’s] employees.”

Other companies, not just technology, take heed. A wave of that could easily turn into a tusami fueled by Millennials and iPod lovers are agitating for and getting Macs in the workplace—an effort not instigated by Apple.

Considering how much money companies spend on incresing productivity and improving retention catering a bit on tech issues seems like a no-brainer.

How open are you/your company to choice?

Your comments—priceless

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

Post from Leadership Turn Image credit: snackx

Monday TWR Lighting CEO Ken Meador shared information and insights on what works in his company and doing business in general; Tuesday I wrote that satisfying most people’s top four desires was more important than money if you want your people to stay.

Considering the 11 year average tenure, TWR seems to have nailed the retention issue, but I wondered about salaries and the demographic challenge the company faces to grow, so I asked Ken.

Me: Are your salaries comparable to the area? Higher? Lower?

Ken: Geographically we are marginally comparable, market/competitor wise we are a bit lower. Houston is still a tight job market with plenty of jobs and limited amount of educated (legal) talent from which to draw. Those employees who make up the heart and soul of the TWR Lighting stay because they “feel” a part of, rather than apart from the company.

Me: Do have profit sharing?

Ken: No. We have a company wide bonus pool based on performance metrics, revenue, SG&A & EBITDA. Also, 11 key people in the company have been rewarded as shareholders.

me: I ask because I’ve always believed that people don’t stay for money and I think you prove that, but thought I’d better check:)

Ken: We find that those who leave for “tha money” are typically at the lower end of our employee spectrum or Gen Ys.

Me: What’s the median age of your workers?

Ken: 41

Me: What are you doing about hiring and keeping Gen Y workers?

Ken: At the moment, little. They have a different point of view regarding “work ethic”, team participation and adaptation to our culture, which by most counts TWR is progressive in comparison to others. A “take it or leave me alone” attitude surfaced after a period of time.

Me: Your comment that it was your Gen Y workers who left for money seems to be a real world contradiction of what they claim—that they’re more interested in culture and responsible management, etc. than money.

Ken: Yeah , I’ve read the same things and what companies are doing to “accommodate” to the whims of the Gen Yers. Talk about a “tipping point”, paranoia in business, even big business, that geeks will inherit the business by techno-proxy has altered business models, changed HR hiring practices and has created a whole new industry in the “kid-glove” handling of these mercenary newbie’s. The Gen Yers are only interested in responsible management as long as it doesn’t interfere with their personal culture. Down deep they want the money just as much as any generation before them.

Me: What do you think is their real attitude?

Ken: See the answer to the question above. Suffice it to say we are a small player in the Gen Y arena, basically techie CAD types. Even using our interview processes (never said we were perfect) we were prone to give the benefit of the doubt that once they were immersed in our culture, they would adapt. However, our experience has been that they have less than essential people & communication skills (preferring instead great texting acronyms), strictly 8-5ers which doesn’t fit well with a 24/7/365 model and carried an unreal expectation of their “worth” to the business.

Me: Based on your employee longevity you must be facing the problem of replacing retiring workers. How do you plan to retain all their knowledge and pass it on to newer/younger workers?

Ken: Tribal knowledge transfer is probably the most critical aspect of transitioning employees. To date, we accomplish the transfer of knowledge by continuous cross-training in the most critical areas of product manufacturing and assembly, materials logistics and inventory control and sales. Supplemental to this is the participation by so many in the hiring processes, involvement and feedback in the lean manufacturing processes and cross-functional involvements in project prioritization and execution.

Ken says he will respond to your comments and questions himself.

Your comments—priceless

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