The only people who aren’t aware of the importance of culture in today’s working world must have been living off planet for the last few decades.

“…a toxic culture can trigger actions that ultimately lead to business failure. When money is viewed as the singular motivator, leaders will not be able to engage the hearts and minds and to get the best out of their people.”

Further, they are aware of what research shows people feel is most important.

For most people what really counts (apart from fair compensation) is respect, recognition, a sense of accomplishment, a sense of belonging, and a feeling of purpose.

Manfred Kets De Vries, the Distinguished Clinical Professor of Leadership Development & Organizational Change at INSEAD has an simple, one-word solution.

Gratitude.

The first and most basic thing is to respect people who work in the organisation. As gratitude evokes cooperative responses, so too it creates mutually supportive relationships, helps neutralise conflict, generates positive energy and fosters a collective “we’re in this together” mentality. It gives people due recognition, fair treatment, a sense of belonging, and a voice.

If gratitude, as displayed in authentic thanks from bosses at whatever levels works, why are there still so many toxic cultures around?

The answer to that is also found in one simple word.

Ego.

Your take-away is also simple.

If you have trouble walking gratitude, as opposed to just talking it, the it’s time to have a real heart-to-heart with the person in your mirror.

Flickr image credit: Wagner Machado Carlos Lemes

A few years ago I asked why companies thought they could cut pay, benefits and hours and still expect their workforce to stay engaged and give a damn about the company’s success.

The answer, of course, is they can’t and the employees don’t.

Even as they cut pay and hours, retailers that sell “value pricing” still expect people to buy.

A good example is Wal-Mart, long known as the poster child of low compensation and king of the part-time workforce.

But in earnings calls the blame is on the costs that are going up with no mention of wages going down.

“Their income is going down while food costs are not,” William S. Simon, chief executive of Wal-Mart, said of the company’s customer base. “Gas and energy prices, while they’re abating, I think they’re still eating up a big piece of the customer’s budget.”

And down it has gone.

Adjusted for inflation, the national minimum wage reached a peak in 1968 and has lost about 6 percent of buying power since it was last raised in 2009.

I sometimes think Henry Ford was the last executive who understood that you can’t run a consumer economy if the consumers aren’t paid enough to buy stuff.

Ford astonished the world in 1914 by offering a $5 per day wage ($110 today), which more than doubled the rate of most of his workers. (…) The move proved extremely profitable…

Obviously, Wal-Mart has never had an executive who understood that simple principle.

Congress doesn’t either.

Simon says income is going down, but apparently he can’t make the connection between that and his company’s actions.

Simon and his ilk know that people need disposable income to buy stuff, but for that to happen they need to stop treating their people as disposable.

Flickr image credit: Bernard Pollack

An AlwaysOn post explaining How to Get Yelled AT caught my attention and should catch yours.

Verbally it had the typical male orientation, but there is plenty for women who are just as likely to be alpha males as guys, so ignore the gender stuff.

Supposedly, those who yell in the military and sports do so because they care, which is true only when the words yelled aren’t abusive (as they so recently have been).

Outside of those two areas, with the caveat mentioned, I don’t believe there is any reason to yell, since yelling rarely accomplishes anything positive.

This is especially true when bosses are yelling at staff (or parents at kids).

Often when I call startup bosses for yelling at their people they respond by saying something to the effect that if it was good enough for Steve Jobs it’s good enough for them—forgetting that from a management prospective Jobs is a lousy role model.

Generally, yelling is the fastest way to make sure that folks tune out and disengage.

So what do you do when something happens and you are justifiably angry?

Use the process I described way back in 2006; a lot may have changed, but it still works.

Flickr image credit: AlishaV

The following email came in over the weekend (edited and shortened for clarity).

Hi Miki, About seven months ago my company (name deleted) started providing most of the perks you see written about, including teaching how to be an entrepreneur. We thought that our efforts paid off when we were about to hire some amazing people. Fast forward to the beginning of July when two of my top developers quit because the entrepreneur class was canceled due to the launch schedule of a new product. To top that off, Friday my architect gave notice, explaining that he had found an angel investor and it was a guy he had met at one of our classes! What the hell is going on?

I’ve received seven similar emails and four phone calls over the last few months; they’ve come from executives and managers in development, sales and marketing at all levels in new startups, growth companies and larger, public corporations.

They all say they have gone to extraordinary lengths to attract people, but many of those hired left in 15 months or less.

They all complain that talent is scarce and that many of the people they do manage to attract have no loyalty or interest in anything except their own career.

The managers say they hear variations of the same stories over and over at events they attend, over lunch or when grabbing a beer after work.

My response to each is tailored to their personal situation and much gentler than what I’m going to write now.

You know the old saying that you get what you pay for? That is just as true when it comes to hiring as it is when shopping.

People who join for money or stock or perks will leave for more money or stock or perks.

They have no loyalty because they are not invested emotionally—there is no reason to be. Many candidates get the feeling they are doing the company a favor by joining, based on the lengths to which companies are going to recruit and hire them, and if they leave, they leave. No big deal.

The next part of our discussions focused on where to find and how to hire people who would be invested in the company. Obviously, no silver bullets, but the basics of solutions that each could tailor to their own needs.

Please join me tomorrow when I share that information with you.

Flickr image credit: stevendepolo

I’m hearing the same lament from a lot of managers these days; the words and circumstances are different, but it boils down to the same thing—s/he has the knowledge, but doesn’t do anything.

It’s not just younger workers, but all ages.

The current term is “unengaged” and the problem is rampant.

Most managers who call don’t use that term, they complain that people just don’t care. They don’t care about doing more than the minimum; they don’t care about doing great work, instead of just adequate; they don’t care how the company is doing; the list of ‘they don’t care’ goes on and on.

They all see this as a problem with the people they hire.

They ask me where to source good candidates; how to better interview, so they can hire “people who give a damn.”

Some complain that the so-called entitled attitude of Millennials has spread to all ages.

These managers are a disparate group; they come from different industries and range from management newbies to senior executives, but they all have one thing in common.

None of them sees “not giving a damn” as a result of the way they manage, but 98% of the time it is.

So the next time someone you know (or you) complains about people not caring, suggest they ask the only person who really knows the answer—the one they will find in the mirror.

Flickr image credit: antkriz

Last week I wrote about both the need and approaches for management to communicate bad news openly and honestly. Wes Ball commented on the need to keep employees involved, which is what I was planning to talk about today.

The language of employee involvement keeps changing, so if you want to do more research, “engage,” in its many forms, seems to be the term of choice for now.

There are five basic rules that must be followed when your focus is to create, enhance or increase engagement.

Rule One: Engagement is based on trust. If employees don’t trust their management then management can forget about engaging its employees.

Rule Two: Engagement requires involvement. Asking for employee input after the decision(s) are already made is a con and breaks trust.

Rule Three: Engagement is based on fairness. Treating a select minority as royalty and the rest like replaceable dirt disengages everyone (including the royalty) and breaks trust.

Rule Four: Engagement requires management to make its decisions first for the sake of the company, second for the sake of the group and third for the sake of themselves. Done in any other order break trust.

Rule Five: Engagement requires courage, authenticity and genuineness (see Notes). Any form of lie/cheat/steal/trash breaks trust.

And while Rule One is the primary rule it is also the corollary of the other four.

Engaging your people, whatever your level of management, starts in your MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™).

No matter how well taught, implementing the mechanics of engagement can proceed no further than your belief in, and adherence to, the five rules.

If your MAP acknowledges a need to break the rules don’t waste your time on engagement efforts, because they are doomed to fail. That energy would be better used on recruitment, since your attrition rate will be far higher than any layoff could account for.

NOTE: Two of the best sources on engagement mechanics are Steve Roseler and David Zinger.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: flickr