Startup or not, people are working longer hours even if they aren’t in an office.

Millennials are burning out, because they feel guilty unless they are working.

People of all ages, even those well into their seventies are working longer and proud of it. Having spare time has become a symbol of low value, while being always busy equates to high status.

So it’s no surprise that companies and individual bosses are taking advantage and always pushing people to increase productivity.

When what they should be doing is sending them home, since working longer hours has been proved to lower productivity.

As countless studies have shown, this simply isn’t true. Productivity dramatically decreases with longer work hours, and completely drops off once people reach 55 hours of work a week, to the point that, on average, someone working 70 hours in a week achieves no more than a colleague working 15 fewer hours.

But that doesn’t stop various media from writing job shaming articles making fun of successful, well-known people working retail jobs.

Fans wondered why it was deemed newsworthy that a mother of two had taken a job in a different sector when her best-known role as an actor had wound down. (Soap stars, even on massive hits like EastEnders, do not earn early-retirement-level salaries.)

The fiasco echoed a similar attempt at job-shaming by another British tabloid last year, when the Daily Mail published photos of American actor Geoffrey Owens bagging groceries as a cashier at a Trader Joe’s, a retail chain known for its excellent job benefits. Fox News picked up the story in the US and both media outlets were ridiculed for it.

And, for a change, the trolls crawled quietly back under their rocks. Will wonders never cease.

Many of those working so-called low-level jobs are college graduates.

McKinsey findings show that 48% of employed U.S. college grads are in jobs that require less than a four-year degree.

Geoffrey Owens summed it up best.

“There is no job that’s better than another job. It might pay better, it might have better benefits, it might look better on a resume and on paper. But actually, it’s not better. Every job is worthwhile and valuable,”

Image credit: Kat

Back when Jack Welch implemented forced ranking throughout GE. was perched at the top of management gurus he

Also known as forced distribution and, derisively, as “rank and yank,” the practice was championed by former General Electric CEO Jack Welch, who insisted that GE identify and remove the bottom 10 percent of the workforce every year.

Hundreds of companies used it, including tech giants, but most (all?) have stopped. Some took longer than others, Microsoft got rid of it in 2015.

As I said in a post when Amazon finally dumped it in 2016,

Amazing how it’s only taken 30+ years for management to figure out that setting employee against employee does not foster teamwork.

Having to watch your back, knowing it’s “you or them,” doesn’t foster anything.

But even without a formal forced ranking policy, some managers still believe that pitting team members against each other is the fastest way to boost productivity.

However, it’s a great way to increase your experience hiring

Image credit: russel harris

When I remember all the years I spent convincing executives that culture wasn’t an idea propagated by consultants with an eye to their bottom line I have to laugh—otherwise I’d probably cry.

These days, culture is on the front page and front line of everybody’s’ mind, credited or blamed for company success and failure.

Take Goldman Sachs (please!) and its ‘culture of sharing’, which is good, except it doesn’t seem to extend to shareholders, and the coming bonuses are as obscene as always.

Google is a touchstone for any conversation about corporate culture. Inside The Mind Of Google is a multi-part, in-depth look at the company starting December 3 on CNBC. Get ready for it by taking this quiz and find our how much you know about Google.

Companies know that hiring an executive, or merging companies, that aren’t at least culturally synergistic is often a road to disaster, so organizational psychologists are finding ways to scientifically evaluate the fit; of course, as soon as the tools are developed people will find new ways to game the system.

And then there’s Asana, a startup that has a “…grand vision of de-Dilbertizing corporate culture by creating technology that enables a workplace to function with greater efficiency and a minimum of miscommunication.“ But as the article points out, technical solutions don’t neutralize pointy-haired bosses.

Finally, take a look at what happens when you don’t just add windows, but actually move the entire office outside.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit:  nono farahshila on flickr

Is your company fair? Are you fair to your people? Is fairness part of your MAP?

How often have you heard (or said), “That’s not fair!”

People more or less accept that life isn’t fair, but are more than likely to walk from a company or manager they perceive as being unfair.

What do people expect within the business world in terms of fairness?

The obvious is that they don’t want to be shafted a la Enron. But fairness refers to more than the obvious, most often to the company/manager doing what they said they would do, i.e., walking their talk.

Fairness is what people want and companies/managers promise, but frequently don’t provide. For example:

Fairness excludes politics

• Official – people will be promoted based on what they do
• De facto – people are promoted based on who they know

Fairness is egalitarian

• Official – everybody will fly economy class when traveling
• De facto – senior managers fly first or business class

Fairness includes parity

• Official – similar skills are compensated similarly with any differences the result of merit
• De facto – compensation differences result from expediency, prejudice, or favoritism

All that’s fine and sounds wonderful if, in fact, fairness is part of your MAP.

Why be fair? If ‘doing the right thing’ doesn’t come all that naturally to you, is there a reason to embrace it anyway?

In other words, what’s in it for you?

Quite a lot, actually.

Fairness reduces turnover (and its associated costs), increases productivity, and fuels innovation.

These, in turn, make you look good as a manager, help your company’s street rep, which has a major impact on the caliber of the people applying for positions, making it easier to higher great people.

Bottom line: better reviews and increased compensation for you.

Your comments—priceless

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

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

Post from Leadership Turn Image credit: lusi

This is the second in a series discussing whether Warren Bennis’ 13 differences between leaders and managers still holds in light of today’s modern workforce.

The manager maintains; the leader develops.

In today’s global economy the company that only maintains fails. And I think that applies to every part of a company—department, group, team. If the person in charge merely maintains, but doesn’t improve the parts and processes of the organization it will be passed by. Moreover, today’s workforce demands professional growth and challenge; the manger who doesn’t know how or spend the effort developing people and providing them with opportunities and help to grow will see only lowering productivity and rising turnover.

The manager focuses on systems and structure; the leader focuses on people.

This one really gets me. Today’s workers won’t consider working for a manger who doesn’t focus on people and in the event they do find themselves in that position they start looking as quickly as they can hit ‘send’ on their resume. Moreover, the basis for some of the best innovation and productivity increases stems from a focus on, understanding of and willingness to change systems and structure.

What do you think?

Your comments—priceless

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