This is the first of eight videos ranging from "Organizational Excellence" to "Yes, You are in Sales!" We'll be posting these sporadically over the next week or two, whenever we think you may need a jolt of inspiration. Hope you enjoy them.

"The path to a hostmanship culture paradoxically does not go through the guest. In fact it wouldn't be totally wrong to say that the guest has nothing to do with it. True hostmanship leaders focus on their employees. What drives them is finding the right people and getting them to love their work and see it as a passion. ... The guest comes into the picture only when you are ready to ask, 'Would you prefer to stay at a hotel where the staff love their work or where management has made customers its highest priority?'"

"We went through the hotel and made a 'consideration renovation.' Instead of redoing bathrooms, dining rooms, and guest rooms, we gave employees new uniforms, bought flowers and fruit, and changed colors. Our focus was totally on the staff. They were the ones we wanted to make happy. We wanted them to wake up every morning excited about a new day at work."

Works for me.
And you?

Our conversation moved on to what the best strategies were for both our businesses to successfully navigate through the testing times that lie ahead. What could he do, and did we have anything different to offer that might help him to do it better or more quickly? You won't be surprised that most of the "common sense" stuff we began to discuss, in nautical parlance at least, focused on "lightening the ship, battening down the hatches, and hoping to be amongst those who survived the storm." But we're the Tom Peters Company, dammit!

Back in 1990, Tom released a brilliantly counterintuitive video called "Recession as Opportunity—smart moves for tough times!" Its core message for those dark days was that "smart people should redouble their attention to improving product quality and service excellence." This was a good place to start and changed the tone of our conversation. We then talked about the importance of engaging peoples' hearts and minds, and especially so in tough times. Everyone on the payroll has to do work that is worth their wages. How to make "the work matter" to people. Creating a context where people can do the best work of their lives. Spreading messages of doom and gloom all round the patch certainly won't do that.

I left the session feeling quite pleased with my contribution to the debate. I might have helped my client to get past his personal malaise and into some "uncommon sense" areas where he could deploy his considerable leadership talent to potential competitive advantage. But I came back to earth with a bump today when I read the current Annual Review and Summary from HBOS plc (a competitor of my client), and found this comment prominent in CEO Andy Hornby's remarks: "As we face the unprecedented financial turmoil in global markets, our focus on colleague [talent] development has never been more important. Our ability to execute our strategy within these tough markets relies on engaging with, and motivating, our colleagues to deliver consistently outstanding performance."

Perhaps the common sense stuff came at the end of the discussion, and not at the start? Does anyone have any stories of people who are already making smart moves for tough times?

I am curious—how does your organization retain the right people? Do you think that your organization is as focused on retention as they are on hiring? Let me know!

There is something almost mystical about real talent, whether it be artistic, scientific, sporting, or creative, but as Lucy points out in her article, adulation and excessive appreciation alone can result in the creation of a monster. We end up with someone who feels able to make excessive demands, without any resulting requirement for performance improvement!

The article made me think about the delicate balance that my singing teacher manages to pull off. She typically manages to leave me with the feeling that I am making progress, and sounding good, but that there is another level to which I should be aspiring. So I am generally left feeling energised and excited, but certainly not complacent. I think that many sporting regimes manage to pull off this approach through the persistent measurement of personal best performance.

What is it about our relationship with our talented professionals in our work organisations that can get in the way of pointing out where (even they!) can improve?

What is your best experience of being encouraged to stretch and develop your talent when there was no obvious need to do so?

His story reminded me of a time when I was recording a web seminar with a friend/colleague. We were cuttin' up and havin' a good time, accentuating our Southern drawls and sharing "what if ... " stories. At the time, I commented that if anyone walked in on us, they would think we weren't working, because we were having too much fun.

Which leads me to this question:

Continued reading You Can Be Serious Without a Suit...

TrackBack (0) | Posted by Darci Riesenhuber | Comments?

At the risk of starting another sport blog-spat, I want to start by saying that I watched the English rugby team beat the French group and reflected on how often it is we see groups beaten, who, at least on paper, "shouldn't be." On the pitch, they are beaten by a team effort because they can't collaborate. My thought here is that, in the absence of a strong sense of collective aspiration, individualism kills collective effort, which, in turn, spoils the result. Is there any learning here for business leaders? We all talk the talk on the importance of good teamwork. But just how prevalent is it in our respective organisations?

We seem to live in an age of increasing comfort and selfishness. Most of us are fortunate enough to be hovering nearer the top of Maslow's hierarchy than the bottom. Yet we live in a society that seems to value celebrities more than teams. Prima donnas more than grafters. Individualism more than cooperative effort. The media try hard to turn team efforts into the individual virtuoso performances. Count how many post match/event interviews are spent with the interviewee shying away from the accolades and reminding the reporter that it was a team effort? Are we witnessing the sound-biting of performance? Is the neat icon/success package the only good story? Is great teamwork poor press?

It seems increasingly rare to find a true business "team." (Dys) functional reporting groups appear to be much more common. The more senior the group, the less likely they are to be collaborative. The old adage of "No one wins on a losing team" does not seem to be true in the boardroom.

What are the drivers of this willing acceptance of mediocrity? Do we trade results for an ego boost? Does a need for control force us to inhibit the threat of collaborative effort? Did we get to be senior managers for being individualistic? Will we only collaborate when there are more serious threats than most of us face every day? Will individual interest and greed always win ... ??? Investing in process and systems improvement feels more reassuringly tangible than investing in talent, it seems. An SAP R4 ERP system feels more likely to deliver ROI than "teamwork development." Even though the stats on ROI for ERP implementation are frightening, they are more tangible than the "soft" stuff.

Are managers just unaware how much better their organisations could be performing, so that they consequently fail to pay attention to the development of the team?

Should I buy SAP or invest in my team? Please give me some investment advice!

Well, I think that's all (98%) wrong. I contend that the bedrock of finding and keeping and co-creating with great folks is not about clever tools to induce prospective "thems" to "shop [live] with us," but a 99% internal effort to create such an exciting, spirited, entrepreneurial, diverse, humane "professional home" that people will be lining up by the gazillions (physically or electronically) to try and get a chance to come and live in our house and become what they'd never imagined they could become!

I.e., it's not an externally directed "war to snatch talent from the other guy" by "being more aggressive than the competition"—but an internally directed competition against ourselves (and our outrageously strong beliefs about people) in which we aim to create an unimaginably attractive workplace. Think Apple, BMW, Cirque du Soleil, Wegmans. And back to the Royal Navy, the Brits built a model of Excellence that had no parallels in its sphere in human history—it was a model about what could be that had never been before, and it was "the other guys" who were forced into the externally aimed "competitive," inferior, reactive, copyist mode.

"All this" led me to spend the day after the speech (while traveling to Sydney) creating and heavily (!) annotating a 36-slide Special Presentation, The Case for Internal Focus: "Brand Inside" Rules! For those of you bugging me to annotate more heavily, all yours—it was good fun, actually!

Pete Best is a mini-case study of how NOT to deal with it—especially if you're a small business. 1) Break the news to the partner through a third party. 2) Don't explain the reasons why the partner is being fired. 3) Don't ever speak to him again (even 45 years later). In this case, the firing became all the more significant to the individual because the small business went on to become a billion-dollar revenue producer.

Continued reading The "Best" Way to Deal With a Termination...

TrackBack (0) | Posted by John O'Leary | Comments?

28% said verbal.
2% said monetary.
3% said tangible rewards or incentives.
43% said a combination.
24% said praise isn't often awarded.

Though the sample was not statistically determined, this is a telling result. If we want higher levels of engagement from our talent, then 24% is an unacceptable number of workplaces where no recognition of good performance is customarily made. How hard can it be to acknowledge talent for work that is excellent? Could it be that in 24% of organizations polled, there is no excellent performance to be recognized? I wonder. What are your thoughts? Is excellent work recognized or rewarded in your organization?

The #1 spot went to Google—which is appropriate enough; they are attempting to innovate in organization-people practices as much as in the marketplace. But it was #s 3, 4, & 5 that caught my attention—Big Time. The likes of Google and last year's winner, Genentech, are pretty obvious "types"—at least in retrospect. But retail, which employs huge #s of folks in less than a Goldman Sachs-like pay bracket? Well, #3 was Wegmans (a previous #1), #4 was Container Store, and Whole Foods bagged the #5 slot.

Yes! Retail took 3 of the top 5 slots! Which means to me that "we the people" (not only "cool" Googlers and Genentechers, #2 this year), can find seriously Cool Places to Work in surprising places.

Hooray, say I!

(Also in the top 27: David Weekly Homes at #12—builders are not normally "great places to work"; Nugget Market as #13; Starbucks as #16; and REI, Recreational Equipment Inc., at #27. Thus, 7 of the top 27 in mundane, mass employment retail, are Top Dogs. As I said ... very, very nice.)

Presumably, the lesson here is obvious. No "excluded categories" in the world of Top Employers. (Incidentally, the research methodology behind these rankings is Top Drawer.)

Happy President's Day.

Apparently, the value of talent wasn't clear under the old regime at Home Depot. Older, experienced workers were "alienated," and Home Depot lost its edge on knowledgeable staff. It would appear that the ambition of the company got lost in the desire to make faster profit, the value of talent was lost in an attempt to save dollars, and, therefore, it should come as no surprise that the performance of the organization began to suffer.

As the New York Times wrote, "People who have met with [Mr. Blake] since he became chief executive, or have been briefed on these meetings, said he planned to improve the retail business by single-mindedly focusing on employee morale and customer service in the chain’s 2,000 stores." Mr. Blake is going to focus on the talent and reset the ambition of Home Depot back to the basics of providing service and a great experience to shoppers. It's to be hoped that he can correct the talent problem, because until the talent can trust leadership and get on board with service as defining the brand again, any other changes won't matter much.

Some key questions to ponder: Are there any elitisms in your organization? What are your opinions on how leaders should interact with the talent of the organization? If you were an employee at Home Depot, what would it take for you to believe?

Back in 1997, Tom boldly pronounced in The Circle of Innovation that "Everyone is a Michelangelo." But how many people who run businesses today really believe that, or more importantly, where can we see this thinking profitably in action?

In my experience, Frederick Taylor's Principles of Scientific Management still dominate most organisations. The senior managers I meet can all make great speeches on the need for innovation, but observably spend most of their time managing compliance. A recent conversation with a supermarket executive was illuminating. He was talking with a group of senior managers about how to get staff in their stores to be more willing to try out their new ideas. "They should try doing what they are told for a change," he quipped, "That would be something new round here!" Forced laughs all round.

In our high wage economies, exploiting the talent of our people is critical, and yet a small elite, maybe the output of our best universities or business schools, get the privilege of being treated as if they have "talent" when they join us. How many companies would have spotted the talent of an Eric Clapton, a Stella McCartney, or a David Beckham if they were lucky enough to have recruited them? How would their multi-million-dollar talents have blossomed in this so-called "Era of Talent"?

Well, if you've read the recent Fortune magazine (October 30, 2006) cover story, "What It Takes to Be Great," you know that recent research shows that "the lack of natural talent is irrelevant to great success." It all comes down to "practice and hard work."

On which side of this debate do you stand?

Each person hired and developed and inspired and evaluated in unique ways (23 contributors = 23 unique contributions = 23 pathways = 23 distinct personalities = 23 sets of motivators)
Attitude/Enthusiasm/Energy paramount!
Re-lent-less!!!!!!!!!!!
"Peculiar" = Requisite (Each expected to make unique/"peculiar" contribution)
"Practice is cool" (Practice stars = Performance stars. See George Leonard's Mastery; Twyla Tharp's The Creative Habit)
Team and Individual "performance" equally cherished
Aspire to EXCELLENCE = Obvious (Excellence = Cool)
Ex-e-cu-tion
Talent = Brand = Duh
"The Project" rules
Emotional language Okay
"Bit players"? No! (All = Vital)
Standard = B.I.W. (Best. In. World.)
Different events = Different rosters (Duh.)

Needless (??) to say, the above is quite a few miles from standard HR practice.

I thought that rather revelatory, but it slipped into the recesses of my mind until last week when I was in Adelaide. To do my "Australia prep," I read several issues of their Management Today. There was an interview with Drucker, apparently one of the last before he died, in the magazine's Jan-Feb 2006 issue. PD was asked about the importance of management schools, to which he had contributed so much. Here's his take on their raison d'être: "The purpose of professional schools is to educate competent mediocrities."

His take, my double take. Did Drucker really have such a low, even malign, view of his fellow human beings? To be sure, he had personal experience with Nazis, and had closely observed Mao and Stalin. So skepticism is warranted—I carry around a wagonload of it myself.

Still, what the hell am I doing with my life? Working to develop "competent mediocrities" ("idiots")? While I may not believe in the likelihood of salvation to the extent that Billy Graham or Tony Robbins do, I get up in the morning—and travel to Australia for one day's work—because I enjoy (love!) hanging out with seminar participants wrestling with their lives and the whacky professional world we all inhabit in 2006.

Do I think they are all Einsteins? Of course not—I ain't either. Yet I do think we can aim higher, perhaps achieve some measure of Abe Maslow's "actualization"—and occasionally create enterprises of the Starbucks or Virgin variety that do indeed offer worthy challenges to their employees and "astound" their millions of customers with something special in the way of service rendered. (NB: I laugh at Dilbert—but openly decry Scott Adams' patent cynicism.)

There's a question I dearly want to ask former Girl Scout head Frances Hesselbein. PD repeatedly labeled her the best CEO in America, as I recall. And she in turn is a genuine devotee of his work. So, Ms H: Did you view your Girl Scouts as "mediocrities"—who you were presumably trying to improve? Somehow I doubt it. I own no rose-colored glasses—how could you if you read the papers these days? Nonetheless I love talking to cabbies and sewer crew guys (several on my street Sunday); I learn a ton. I also love—yes, LOVE—talking to young duos who own tanning salons, and middle managers in big companies. Quite simply, though no owner of those rose-colored glasses, I "get off on" people—considering them neither "idiots" nor "mediocrities." What about Drucker? And how did it influence his work, assuming that what's above is in any way representative?

For those who want data on the quantitative value of employee engagement, there's plenty of it. Gallup estimates that the lost productivity of the 17% "actively disengaged" employees costs the US economy $370 BILLION annually (not to mention the lost productivity of those 52% who are merely "not engaged").

Curt Coffman and Gabriel Gonzalez-Molina in Follow This Path reveal that business units in the top half of employee engagement (compared to those in the bottom half) have a higher success rate of: 86% in customer metrics; 70% in productivity; 70% in reducing turnover; 78% in safety metrics; and 44% in profitability.

And according to a 2004/2005 study by Watson Wyatt USA "the financial performance of organizations with highly favorable employee attitudes is typically nearly 4 times better than the financial performance of companies with poor employee attitudes."

There are plenty more studies to cite, but you get the picture. How come more business leaders don't?

I'd love to hear your comments on what you think this trend will lead to. For instance, I do see a potential resurgence in the labor movement as employees become weary of rising executive pay. My guess is that there will be serious organizing efforts in the middle management and supervisory levels. I also believe we may see greater shareholder activism and more scrutiny on wage and salary policies. What do you think? Will employees "fight back"? Is it the beginning of a new norm for the value of work? Will productivity continue to increase or are we near burnout stage?

(You may also want to take part in the poll on workforce.com.)

I can still recall when the meter man (yes, at the time there were only men) would knock on the door shouting, "Meter Man!" before using a key to let himself in. Later, the water companies positioned the meters outside your house, so then all they had to do was tramp across your lawn!

As one meter man put it in the article, he has worked for the water company for 16 years reading meters, but now he drives a van as a "field service representative." (Side Note: What he misses most is the exercise—I guess the job was pretty routine.) What he used to do is now done by low-frequency radio transmitters that can read in one hour what it used to take 20 people a day to do!

What the Greater Cincinnati Water Works did, and I applaud them, is to migrate people into new skills long before the conversion to the new technology was complete.

The other big thing that this meter man misses is the contact with people (especially the senior citizens), which raises the question, how do we stay socially connected in this highly technical era?

At any rate, the real point of this Post, I did find to read in today's USA Today sports section that in the NCAA tourney the nation's leading scorer has not been on the national championship team since ... 1952! (The occasion was yesterday's losses by both Duke and Gonzaga, who between them have the nation's #1 and #2 scorers.) (Whatever.)

To me that's the essence of leadership—in any context.