It’s pretty well accepted these days that culture eats strategy in terms of moving a company forward.

It’s also a given that you need to take time to consciously build your culture, whether for company, group or team, since culture will happen regardless.

However, your cultural structure won’t stand long without some very pragmatic infrastructure.

In other words, culture needs to have teeth.

If you’re counting on an honor system where nothing happens to those who violate the culture then, over time, it will erode.

Not because you hire “bad” people, but because you hire humans and humans often tend to do what is convenient, instead of what they should do.

They also tend to follow a “monkey see/monkey do” pattern, so if a new hire sees an old hand cut a tiny corner here and skirt a little something there and nothing happens, then expect her to think it’s OK.

Teeth aren’t about bureaucracy they’re about the obvious repercussions that happen when the culture is violated.

They aren’t sneaky or hidden; they don’t demean or embarrass.

Above all, teeth don’t bite selectively; they apply equally to everybody—which is why they work.

Their purpose is to strengthen your culture, not undermine it — which is what happens the moment someone becomes exempt.

Flickr image credit: Claudio Gennari

The following is from an email sent to me as a political statement about Congress and, while applicable, it’s also a cautionary tale about many attitudes embedded in corporate culture and every other human organization.

It addresses the infamous “we’ve always done it that way” reasoning explaining how it takes root and perpetuates itself.

Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana.

As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all the other monkeys with cold water. After a while another monkey makes the attempt with same result, all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put the cold water away. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs.

To his shock, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one.

The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm.

Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs he is attacked.

Most of the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. After replacing all of the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana.

Why not?

Because as far as they know, that is the way it has always been done around here.

So the next time you say or hear “we’ve always done it that way” remember the monkeys and take a hard look at whether what was done in the past deserves to be done in the future.

Flickr image credit: http://www.flickr.com/photos/pazzani/4233059189/

Last Monday we discussed some of the ridiculous reasons that managers use to excuse their lack of fairness and Tuesday we covered what most employees actually mean by ‘fair’.

The main focus was on compensation and that doesn’t begin to cover it.

Unfair treatment from pay to perks to training to strokes to any form of attention will create problems.

Note: I didn’t say ‘might’ or ‘may’ cause problems, but will cause them.

Not just engagement, motivation and retention problems, but also problems with creativity, innovation, initiative (AKA leadership) and especially trust—there won’t be any.

So let’s be clear.

There is no acceptable reason to treat any of your people unfairly.

How do you know that you are being unfair?

I have never met or heard of any managers who didn’t know deep down that they were being unfair.

They may ignore their actions and practice extreme awareness avoidance regarding their reasons, but they know.

The solution is simply to stop; there is no fancy action list; no books to read, no research to do.

You know when you do it, so you’ll know when you stop.

Simple—yes; easy—no. But it has to be done if you want your team to excel.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: HikingArtist on flickr

Yesterday I told you how monkeys lose productivity when treated unfairly.

Unlike the managers I described in that post, good managers know that unequal pay, but they also know that it’s not just a matter of title/grade.

Not everyone with the same title deserves the same compensation—in fact, to do so would be extremely unfair!

Most companies establish a range for each job and some guidelines within each range, but the guides frequently fall short of what’s needed in the real world.

How do you draw the lines to achieve fairness?

You might think that ‘fair’ is some kind of universal one-size-fits-all yardstick, but all the people I’ve talked with over the years define ‘fair’ relative to themselves and those around them.

Developers working in a small local company didn’t compare their salaries to the developers in IBM, nor to their bosses. They compared them to their peers, i.e., similar job, experience, background, company, industry, location and, lastly, title.

Workers are well aware that every position has a salary range; what they want is for their level within that range to make sense.

The problems arise when the person they sit next to gets X more dollars or a promotion for reasons such as those mentioned yesterday, reasons having nothing to do with skill, experience, attitude or actual work.

This is the critical knowledge that helps you develop working guidelines for your company’s ranges.

Let’s say that ABC Corporation uses a three-level structure in engineering: engineer I, engineer II, and senior engineer and that there’s a $20K range within each level. They currently have five people who are Engineer II. The salary range is $60K – $80K. Of the current people:

• Judy was recently promoted and is at $62K;
• Jim, $68K, and Craig, $72K, both have been working for six years. Although Jim has an MBA, he started in sales engineering while Craig had three years’ experience in a specifically needed skill when he was hired.
• Tracy is making mid-seventies with five years of direct experience; and
• Kim, at $80K and due for promotion, has a Masters’ and 17 years of experience, 5 of them in ABC’s field.

Although they’re all Engineer II, because the salary differences are based on factual points, not charm, politics, or managerial whim, the group is satisfied that they’re being treated fairly.

As usual, it’s not rocket science, it’s common sense—but I’m starting to think that common sense is rocket science these days.

But fairness is about more than just pay; please join me next Monday for further discussion.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit:  ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

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