Are you familiar with the Darwin Awards?

They are given posthumously to people who die as a result of their own overwhelming stupidity for removing themselves from the gene pool. (They are well deserved; if you don’t believe me then read through a few of them.)

However, in these brave new days of social media we need a new award; one that honors stupidity, sans death.

We need an award for all those who through their bragging on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and YouTube draw the attention of law enforcement before they can do yet more damage.

The postings document illegal acts that go from mundane to murder.

Social media paved the way for one undercover cop to buy 250 weapons, including guns that could pierce body armor and multiple walls.

The actions are prevalent enough that they warrant a new award.

Call it the IYPITWC (If You Post It They Will Come).

Or maybe DITRA (DIY Rat Out).

Perhaps it could be a Get Into Jail Free Pass.

Wait! I have the perfect name.

The SMIA (Social Media Idiot Award).

Flickr image credit: Global X

Most businesses are lamenting the slow economy.

They have done all the cost-cutting possible and are still whining (through sky-high profits) that people aren’t buying.

I find this extremely funny (in a sickly way), since the reason people aren’t spending is that those same companies have slashed wages to the point they have no disposable income or they just aren’t hiring.

“The real reason businesses aren’t hiring is they’re not seeing consumer demand for their goods and services increase,” she said. “We need greater demand for goods and services. It is clearly true that if people receive higher incomes, that will help the economy.” —Heidi Shierholz, economist at the Economic Policy Institute

Even more revolting is the prevalent attitude that workers don’t deserve better pay, since they are strictly a “cost of doing business” and costs should be kept ultra-low.

That level of stupidity is breathtaking, although not terribly surprising.

Corporate America still hasn’t figured out that without people there is no company, but you would think they had noticed the connection between what people earn and what they spend.

That isn’t exactly rocket science thinking.

Henry Ford figured it out way back in the early 1900s when he raised his workers wages to a then-unheard-of level.

Ford was a pioneer of “welfare capitalism”, designed to improve the lot of his workers and especially to reduce the heavy turnover that had many departments hiring 300 men per year to fill 100 slots. Efficiency meant hiring and keeping the best workers.

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; instead of constant turnover of employees, the best mechanics in Detroit flocked to Ford, bringing their human capital and expertise, raising productivity, and lowering training costs.

Ford wasn’t being kind; he understood that if he wanted to sell cars people needed enough disposable income to buy them.

Ford’s policy proved, however, that paying people more would enable Ford workers to afford the cars they were producing and be good for the economy.

But Ford’s attitudes towards business, bosses and people don’t fly well in the 21^st Century world.

If anyone of significance today said, “A business that makes nothing but money is a poor business,” Wall Street would poop its collective pants.

(Hat tip to KG Charles Harris for sending the article.)

Flickr image credit: {Guerrilla Futures | Jason…

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read allIf the Shoe Fits posts here

Jim Heskett, Baker Foundation Professor, Emeritus, at Harvard Business School is my favorite brain at HBS Working Knowledge (if you don’t already subscribe, you should).

His postings are designed to stimulate discussion from a diverse and intelligent audience.

Most recently he asked why, since “servant leadership” has proved to be highly productive and valuable to both the organization and the person practicing it, it wasn’t seen more frequently.

(Many people like to infuse “servant leadership” with a religious theme, but that isn’t its source.)

Although Heskett was focused on CEOs, the conversation applies to everybody in a so-called leadership position, i.e., bosses.

Reading through some of the 116 comments, number 11, from Phillip Clark, Clark & Associates, caught my eye—probably because it perfectly summed up my own crotchety thoughts; he even ends his comment with one of my favorite lines.

Rather than write my own version, I thought I’d share his in its entirety.

Ego and Stupidity to put it bluntly stands in the way of having more servant leadership in the workplace. Normally, I am not so blunt but after 50 years in the workforce I am becoming old and crotchety about this discussion.

Let’s look at the issue. The “I’m more important than you” leadership usually limits performance and innovation because everything goes through a single control point the leader. The leader has to be always informed, has to give permission, always has “the best ideas” and focuses only on performance goals that make him, not necessarily the company, look good. That creates a huge bottleneck on the performance of the leader’s employees.

A servant leader, focused on getting the most from his or her employees, empowers and trains their employees to do their job, without the “mother may I” albatross hanging around their neck. The servant leader sends the employees working on the project to meetings and links them with resources to do their job. That way the employees can do their job without having to go through the single choke point “the leader”. This type of leader is not loaded with meetings because his or her staff are doing the job. It no longer is about ego but performance. What really is an eye opener is seeing the servant leaders influence explode throughout an organization since they seem to be everywhere. When really it is their influence being expressed by their entire staff at multiple points in the organization at the same time. Bottom line…hire right, support effectively, expect performance….and you will get it.

As a leader…do not become the choke point in your organization. How can you tell? Are you going to too many meetings where you have to follow-up and pass information to others? Are you overworked with too many interruptions from employees? Are you demanding deadlines to meet goals instead of having work appear on your desk completed? Are your employees happy and getting promoted? If not, take a close look in the mirror.

Which kind of leader are you?

Image credit: HikingArtist

Silos—they are found in almost every company no matter the size.

Silos are the scourge of collaboration

The most commonly noticed are departmental silos, but horizontal silos based on position and education are far more insidious and damaging.

I loathe horizontal silos and consider them second only to politics on the corporate stupidity index.

More times than I can count I’ve seen the ideas of an engineer 1 or 2 discounted or ignored by the 3s and senior engineers—of course, that’s better than stealing them, although that happens, too.

The attitude seems to be one of ‘your brain is incapable of any creative thinking until you are at least at my pay grade’, which is beyond idiotic.

People’s brains work differently; some see what is, others see possible improvements and a few see around corners, but that sight has little to do with position.

Steve Jobs saw around the corner of the personal computer market before there was a personal computer market and certainly before he had any credibility what so ever.

And I can personally attest that training and education don’t necessarily play a role. Decades ago I redesigned two street intersections where I lived in San Francisco, but I didn’t suggest the solutions to the traffic engineers—I knew they wouldn’t listen because I have no training.

Instead, I sneaked both ideas in through someone I know who was ‘accepted’ and both solutions are still in effect today.

Silos are built of egos, which is why, vertical or horizontal, they’re so difficult to break down.

The best solution is for CEOs to build a culture that values everybody’s ideas equally, but there’s no guarantee that they will or even that they agree.

Even when they do there’s you can’t count on every executive and others in management roles will embrace the approach.

Technology offers a leg up for bosses who see silos as blockades.

One approach I helped a client implement created an innovation wiki that completely obscured the name, level, grade and even department of the person posting the suggestion.

Each idea had a different ID and confirmation was automatically sent to the poster so they still had bragging rights if it was used or warranted a bonus.

That anonymity leveled the playing field and assured everyone that each idea was considered strictly on its merits, not on the merits of the person who thought of it.

It also encouraged people to post way-outside-the-box ideas without worrying about appearing silly, pushy or arrogant if the idea happened to be outside of their personal expertise.

Finally, when an idea was used, whether all, in part or as a springboard to something else, there was an announcement, kudos and request that the poster step forward and take a bow.

It’s a very popular program.

Productivity skyrocketed as a river of suggestions flowed that offered solutions to long-time problems, ideas for product enhancements and even next-gen products—often from the most unlikely places.

Flickr image credit:  johnny goldstein

Yesterday I told you how a company squashed my friend’s initiative by giving him a bonus that had no relationship to the value he provided them in annual savings.

This reminded me of something that happened back in the early 1980s when sales was truly dependent on the skill, relationships and reputations of salespeople.

Another guy friend, another incredibly stupid company.

In a nutshell,

• Guy outsold every salesperson both internally and at the competition. He had years of experience; relationships with customers that didn’t quit and unmatched skill at understanding customers and convincing them that his company (whichever it was) had the best solution available.
• One day guy was called into the CFOs office and told that his commission was being capped.
• He was on track to earn more than the president and that was unacceptable; he asked if they were sure that was the only solution and told yes.
• Guy proceeded to write a resignation letter on a sheet of paper he borrowed from the CFO.
• He left the offices without speaking to anyone.
• By the time he reached home there were three name-your-own-terms offers from competitors on his voicemail.
• He started with his new company the next day.

Over the years I’ve found that actions like these usually come from the company’s bean counters. (In this instance, ‘bean counters’ is definitely a derogatory term.)

Apparently, some bean counters involved never learned to do the math.

In both cases the actual cost was zero, since they were funded from direct actions well beyond anything expected of the employees involved.

The lesson here is that you never cap a commission and the reward for saving $5 million annually should be at least 1% of one year ($50,000) as opposed to .001% ($5,000).

I realize it’s difficult for some financial types, executives and managers to understand, but that is why bonuses and commissions are called incentives—not disincentives.

Flickr image credit: Finsec

Are you familiar with the saying “let the punishment fit the crime?”

It’s a valid approach, but it’s just as true that the reward should fit the action.

A friend of mine works for a Fortune 1000 company in a tech support role. He’s well respected lead tech in his group.

Last year he developed an idea on his own time and gave it to his company.

As a result, he was flown to annual dinner and presented with an award and a $5000 bonus.

Sound impressive?

His idea will save his company $5 million or more each year.

Still impressed?

My friend isn’t.

He has a friend who is very impressed, but that’s because his company doe nothing; no recognition whatsoever.

My friend feels that a $5K reward for saving the company $5M or more every year, while being better than nothing, is still just short of an insult.

Other than being disappointed what’s the fallout?

He likes his job and his boss, so he’s not planning on leaving, but…

He has another idea that he’s not going to bother developing.

He’s still one of the most productive people they have, but that extra edge is gone.

What do you think his employer should have done?

Join me tomorrow for another look at how, to quote another old saying, companies keep cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Stock.xchng image credit: dinny

Today is about resume stupidity by recruiters and management and the resulting lies.

It is about the stupidity of a required set of buzz words that recruiters use to screen candidates.

It is about the stupidity of managers providing that list.

It is about the stupidity of lying—even when the lie is a recommended action.

Recruiters like screening lists because it eliminates the need for a lot of up-front work on their part, i.e., they don’t have to talk to anyone who doesn’t use those words.

Forget the fact that there are many ways to describe something and most people describe their work using the words of their current management.

Way back in the late 1970s I worked with companies that built communications equipment (DTS, ROLM, etc.) and most software managers required experience designing real-time switches for telecom.

I had a fabulous engineer who designed real-time switches for a process equipment maker.

The software manager was furious; ranting on that it wasn’t telecom.

That made no sense to me; it seemed logical that real-time was real-time whether a switch was flipped or a valve was closed.

So I asked him to please explain the difference, so I could understand.

He started to talk and then stopped. There was a long silence and finally he told me to have my guy there for an interview the next day—he was hired on the spot.

It’s not that I was technically knowledgeable, but real-time is real-time made sense and the other didn’t.

The same goes for many “absolute requirements”—degrees, industry, etc.

As to the lies, I guarantee that sooner or later any lie you put on your resume will come back and bite you—even when it is a recruiter who recommends it.

Flickr image credit:  Frank Jania

How much has really changed for entrepreneurial women in the last 50 years?

Not as much as you might think or as much as meritocracy hype might lead you to believe.

In the actual world of advertising in 1966, when the current season [of Mad Men] began, the most talked-about figure on Madison Avenue was the trim and determined Mary Wells, who hopscotched over the era’s endemic prejudices to develop Wells Rich Greene, the iconic agency she would run for more than two decades.

One reason stories like Mary Wells are so startling is that there are so few of them.

Yet even these successful women entrepreneurs are disappointing when you consider that most are in fashion, cosmetics/beauty products, advertising, retail, media, etc.

Although funding a tech company is almost as difficult for women as it always has been they are having more luck getting web startups funded—but  it’s still an uphill battle.

Would you expect anything different when high profile experts in the entrepreneurial community are still making stupid comments more suited to the 1950s.

One advantage startups have over established companies is that there are no discrimination laws about starting businesses. For example, I would be reluctant to start a startup with a woman who had small children, or was likely to have them soon. [emphasis added] But you’re not allowed to ask prospective employees if they plan to have kids soon…Whereas when you’re starting a company, you can discriminate on any basis you want about who you start it with. –Paul Graham, prominent investor and co-founder of Y Combinator

Sex is a long way from being out of the picture as Candace Fleming, founder or Crimson Hexagon, learned.

Another potential backer invited her for a weekend yachting excursion by showing her a picture of himself on the boat — without clothes.

(And I doubt that he looked like a Chippendale.:)

The point of all this is that women aren’t going to slink back to the kitchen anytime soon.

They will keep overcoming obstacles to have babies.

Some of which will grow up to be IPOs, while others will be entrepreneurs.

(If you are hung up regarding women entrepreneurs next week’s post will show you why your attitude is sure to hang you out to dry.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FYI

The Institute for Corporate Productivity (i4cp) is conducting a survey that looks at social media regulation within organizations, such as how companies are embracing new platforms as a productivity tool as well as restricting access – or even asking for Facebook passwords.

Participants completing this survey will receive a free copy of the preliminary results, which will be sent to you once all responses are collected and analyzed. Privacy is important to us; your responses will be combined with others, and your personal information will remain confidential.

SUBMIT YOUR STORY
Be the Thursday feature – Entrepreneurs: [your company name]
Share the story of your startup today.
Send it along with your contact information and I’ll be in touch.
Questions? Email or call me at 360.335.8054 Pacific Time.

Flickr image credit: Search Engine People Blog

The most recent act of executive ultra-stupidity brought down not only Brian Dunn, Best Buy’s CEO, but also Richard Schulze, its founder who was CEO for 40 years and Chairman for ten.

All over what was, according to Dunn and the 29-year-old woman subordinate, a platonic friendship, albeit one with some very tasty perks for the gal.

Schulze is out because he learned about it last December, but didn’t mention it to his board, HR or ethics officer. (Hell of a way to cap 50-plus years of amazing success.)

The report cited the effects of the relationship, including disruption in the workplace, damaged employee morale and perceived favoritism that undermined the employee’s supervisor’s attempts to manage her.

“Further, the C.E.O.’s relationship with this employee led some employees to question senior management’s commitment to company policy and the ethical principles the company champions,” the report said. “During interviews, some employees said that they felt that the rules appeared to apply to every employee except the C.E.O.,” it said.

When will they learn?

When will ‘but me’ be exorcised from executive/management thinking?

When will management learn the importance of walking their talk and that the higher the position the more important that becomes?

Three questions, but just one five-letter answer—never.

Image credit: unkown

Editor’s note: similar actions are to be found all over the government, private and nonprofit sectors.

Article credit: Register-Guard