Dispatches from the New World of Work

Organizational Excellence

On April 30th, Tom spoke from a studio in Watertown, MA for the Skillsoft Leadership Development Channel that was broadcast out to about 10,000 people. At the end of the hour-long talk, Tom was asked to record some short videos on various topics. And then Tom added a couple of his own. The folks at Skillsoft have been kind enough to let us use these videos at tompeters.com. The first one is called Organizational Excellence (length is just under 3 minutes) in which Tom says that "fundamentally the brand is the talent." And that the best way to serve your external customer is to be sure to serve your internal customers, your employees, first. By happenstance, this topic coincides with the slide set Tom published today called "The Customer Comes Second."

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.

????????

Jan Gunnarsson and Olle Blohm, in Hostmanship: The Art of Making People Feel Welcome, write:

"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?

Depression as Opportunity?

At a client meeting this week, I was taken aback when he deliberately chose to describe the current economic outlook in the UK with the word "depression." I have become used to talking to colleagues and clients alike about the coming recession, but a depression is entirely a different matter. I've never lived through one of those! This client is the CEO of a financial services group and extremely well connected in UK banking circles. If he's thinking and talking this way, so, too, I bet, are the heads of many other sizeable financial institutions.

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?

A Focus on Talent

Is your company adequately prepared to meet your company goals and objectives this year? In a recent article in Training magazine, this issue was discussed. Many senior leaders are concerned that they aren't hiring the right people and that the existing talent may not be ready to perform as needed.

I found it interesting that the majority of senior leaders (92%) rank hiring the right talent as important. I totally agree that hiring the right people is critical to the essence of business, but I also believe that there is a gap when it comes to retaining the people that are hired. Equal attention must be given to existing staff.

Can you recall how excited you were your first day on the job and how exhilarating you thought things would be? Do you still feel that way now? Are you doing work that truly engages you, are you sufficiently challenged to tap into all your talents, and do you feel that your opinions and ideas are valued?

The culture that organizations create has everything to do with how people feel in the organization. Time, money, and effort can be spent hiring the right person, but if the same amount of energy is not put into creating and sustain the right culture, it is like playing a slot machine—you waste a lot of money trying to get a few wins. I agree with this statement in the article: "To successfully address senior management's concerns, human resources leadership needs to embrace its strategic role as an executive partner, and define and execute a holistic human capital management strategy that builds a superior corporate culture based on performance and accountability." I would add that not only must HR be strategic and holistic, but senior and mid-level managers must be, as well.

We know that at the heart of any organization, regardless of its size or type of business, is the talent within it. I have been in many organizations and talked with people at all levels, and I can see the untapped potential that so many organizations are missing. Taking talent for granted and not providing tools and opportunities are a recipe for disaster. Most talented people just have to be given challenges that stretch their potential, a support net that helps them to bounce back from adversity, and a leader who cares. Hiring the best is step one, retaining the best is step two.

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!

PRAISE BE!

The management of high performing creative-types is certainly on the agenda for many of my clients. Who else can we rely on to come up with the next breakthrough idea in our organisations, but our high performing "talent"? But, as Lucy Kellaway in London's Financial Times recently wrote, there is an important balance to be struck in dealing with such folks.

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?

You Can Be Serious Without a Suit

I had a conversation with a friend who recently helped set up a new furniture retail store on behalf of his employer. It was a labor-intensive job that called for all-hands-on-deck. It required everyone to chip in and do things outside their "normal" job description, which could be cause for resistance by some. Fortunately, everyone eagerly jumped in. The point of the story, however, wasn't so much about their cooperation, as it was about the fun they had. They had music playing in the background, and some sang along, while others just joked and laughed. "It was so much fun," he said, "It didn't feel like work."

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:

Do people have the general opinion that work can't be fun? If you laugh too much at work, does it mean you aren't working hard enough? Google seems to think having fun is necessary. As a matter of fact, the title of this blog, "You Can Be Serious Without a Suit," is #9 on Google's list of "Ten things Google has found to be true." An excerpt from their website is as follows: Google's founders have often stated that the company is not serious about anything but search. They built a company around the idea that work should be challenging and the challenge should be fun. To that end, Google's culture is unlike any in corporate America, and it's not because of the ubiquitous lava lamps and large rubber balls, or the fact that the company's chef used to cook for the Grateful Dead. In the same way Google puts users first when it comes to our online service, Google Inc. puts employees first when it comes to daily life in all of our offices."

Do you think we (as a society) are conditioned to feel a sense of guilt when we have too much fun at work ... like if it feels good it must be bad? And, we certainly wouldn't want to get caught. We generally agree that engaged employees are more productive, right? Aren't employees who have fun more engaged? (I know this is another "which came first ... " scenario ... do engaged employees have more fun ... or are employees who have fun more engaged ... and, is there necessarily a direct correlation between employees' fun factor and their level of productivity???) What do you think? Should companies encourage fun? If so, could it get out of hand? Will we then have to establish "Fun Rules" or policies to ensure that people manage their fun appropriately? Would that just take all the fun out of it?

Individualism in Business

"There's no 'I' in TEAM, but there is a 'Me' if you look closely."—Ricky Gervais

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!

Competing To Achieve Excellence: You Are Your Only Competitor!

Fact is, and I'm not happy about this, I got into a bit of a verbal tussle with my client over some "word issues." It was a meeting of HR execs, and the topic was the, yes, the "war for talent." Now I've used the term—and God only knows I believe that in this age of "intellectual capital" top talent is arguably more important than ever. (Whoops, I actually think that's 86% bullshit; top talent has always been the difference—e.g., the quality of the sea captains in the Royal (British) Navy, circa 18th and 19th century, comes quickly to mind.) But I digress. The point is that the discussion at the meeting in question was warfare-ish to a significant degree—how to quickly nab the best people from the grasp of the competition, etc. I doubtless exaggerate, but to stick with the ancient Navy theme, it was like building tools to create the best Press Gangs for "recruiting" sailors from the pubs of Liverpool in 1790.

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!

The "Best" Way to Deal With a Termination

The need to upgrade talent can create heart-wrenching decisions for even the most battle-hardened executives and small business owners these days, especially the firing of long-standing employees or partners who may have been critical to the development of the business, but who now appear to stand in the way of progress. But how do you as an executive/owner deal with this?

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.

I had the chance to chat with Pete Best three weeks ago, and he showed surprising equanimity—he certainly did not consider himself a victim. "It's fine—I moved on," he said, cheerfully commenting on his life since the Beatles. After raising a family as a civil servant in England, he eventually returned to playing the drums and is currently touring North America with the Pete Best Band, a very capable rock & roll unit. But to this day he doesn't know why he was suddenly dropped by the Beatles and replaced by Ringo, a few weeks before they recorded their first hit in England, "Love Me Do," in 1962. Despite Pete's 3 years of performing with the Beatles in Hamburg and Liverpool—and being a critical component of their distinct "wall of sound" rock & roll brand at the time—John Lennon, George Harrison, and Paul McCartney never spoke to him again, despite numerous opportunities to do so. The reason for his firing, according to most accounts, is that EMI recording engineers and producer George Martin thought Pete couldn't cut it in the recording studio. But engineer Norman Hurricane Smith, who was present for the Beatles' EMI audition, was adamant in his denial when he spoke to me in March: "We thought Pete had trouble getting the right beat for one particular song, but that certainly wasn't grounds for replacing him in the band." (After all, many drummers—including Ringo himself—were replaced by "studio musicians" on particular records.) Many other reasons have been cited—including jealousy by other band members that Pete got the lion's share of teen adulation—but the truth in such matters becomes more elusive with time.

If you ever have to deal with the firing of a partner or direct report, obviously you should communicate immediately and directly to the individual, and explain your reasoning in detail. And if you're the individual being terminated, you can aspire to display the grace and good spirit of Mr. Peter Best.

Appreciating Talent

We hear all the time, "talent is important," "our people are important," or "our greatest assets are our people." We know that talent is the center of organizations. Without talented people, an organization will not be successful, can't grow, won't have great ideas, and will not be able to execute its strategy. Are we really appreciating and caring for the talent that makes things happen in organizations?

In a recent newsletter from the National Association of Women Business Owners, I read a report of a poll they'd done asking respondents what kind of praise was offered at their workplaces. Here are the results [newsletter is not available online—CM]:

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?

President's Day 2007 Post #2: All Men Are Created Equal

Pres W and Pres L, the birthday duo, guided us to a sort of freedom and autonomy that the World had never seen before. Permit me to link that to the 22 January Fortune’s annual cover story on "The 100 Best Companies to Work For." (I only read it upon return from NZ.)

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.

Talent Fatal Flaw

At one time it was the executive parking lot that was coveted, and over time, many organizations moved to open parking. A story appeared in the New York Times last week about Bob Nardelli, former CEO of Home Depot, and how he used to provide daily catered lunches for the company's officers on the executive floor, free, while the talent, aka "worker bees," ate in the cafeteria. This separation of leadership from the people who do the work is a fatal flaw for an organization. It sends the wrong message—it reeks of elitism. If we believe in our talent, if those we hire are people with brains, skills, and potential, why would we separate ourselves from them? Why wouldn't a leader see the advantages of getting to know the people who carry the brand of the organization and are vessels of great ideas? As Tom says, "If we would only bother to ask, the answers are on the front lines." Frank Blake, the new CEO of Home Depot, is quietly changing Nardelli's stance. The executives will take the elevator down to the cafeteria and eat with everyone else. I certainly hope that they don't all sit at one table and create a different kind of divide. Having lunch with associates is the best way to build a relationship, to get to know people, and to find out what is really going on in the "world" of your organization.

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?

The Era of Talent?

What comes to mind when you hear the word "talent"? A favourite musician or top fashion designer? Maybe the British football (soccer) icon David Beckham as he sets a new U.S. sports earnings record with his transfer to the L.A. Galaxy in what will be the swan song of his playing career?

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"?

Bah Humbug, Circa 2007

Quote: "If you've got 16 employees, at least two are turkeys."

Source:

Gandhi?
Welch?
Mandela?
Benedict XVI?

(Quote source: Selling Power magazine, Special Edition 2007)

An Old Debate, Revisited

I recently read Marcus Buckingham's Now, Discover Your Strengths. I bought in to the idea that tapping into and developing an individual's innate talents is the way to go. He argues that training is ineffective if someone does not have a natural propensity to learn what it is you are trying to teach. However, someone could have an unrealized talent that, once discovered, can be developed through knowledge, education, and experience.

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?

A Few "Talent Lessons" from the Arts

Been meaning to publish this for a while. If we are in an Age of Talent, then we can turn to guidance from arenas where the Big Idea of Talent has been standard fare for eons. Namely, the likes of the arts. I put together a single PPT slide called "A Few 'Talent Lessons' from the Arts." You'll find the content (pretty self-explanatory) below—and then another tiny Special Presentation. To wit:

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.

More YouTube

Someone has posted a short clip of Tom from an HSM event called Sixty Second Insight. Tom talks about talent and how if you can still stand after your "performance," whatever it is, you haven't given it enough.

Impact on Organizational Creativity

We (at the Tom Peters Company) have known for a long time that innovation is important and that companies must become more innovative if they are to survive. We also know that the talented people in an organization are capable of solving the most complex of business issues and are a wellspring of great ideas. As Tom has espoused, "All the answers to our problems are inside the front line staff, if we would only bother to ask them!" Well, in recent Gallup research, they studied the impact of employee engagement on the creation of innovative ideas. So, it should be of no surprise as to the results. Drumroll, please ......

When Gallup asked people to agree or not with this statement: " My current job brings out my most creative ideas," the responses based on levels of engagement are as follows:

Engaged Employees = 59% agree

Not Engaged Employees = 17% agree

Actively Disengaged Employees = 3% agree

See the report of the study here.

The more engaged employees are, the more they are able to generate creative ideas. How do we foster high levels of engagement? What keeps you engaged and what makes you disengaged?

Whoops! Huh?

I guess I shouldn't have been surprised. Warren Bennis and Pat Biederman wrote one of my favorite management-leadership books, Organizing Genius. Its topic-data is "great groups"—e.g., the Manhattan Project, Disney's 1st animation lab, Xerox's fabled Palo Alto Research Center. Warren shared with me a copy of a handwritten note he'd gotten from his great friend, Peter Drucker, when the book appeared. PD complimented Warren on the book, but challenged the choice of title. He wrote to Warren, as I recall (and I'm sure I've got this right), "It should have been 'organizing idiots.'"

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?

Time to Get Engaged

I've often wondered why many organizational leaders don't get it about "workforce engagement." Some pay lip service to it but don't invest in it, while others simply discount it. I had a conversation with a Big Pharma executive a few years ago who thought "employee passion" was "fluff." He said his company focused on talent and bottom line results, period. (He couldn't see that a company with a reputation for having an engaged, inspired workforce MIGHT be a better talent magnet.) Meanwhile the latest Gallup survey shows that only 31% of employees are "actively engaged," 52% are "not engaged," and 17% (over 23 million U.S. workers!) are "actively disengaged."

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?

More for Less?

I came across this factoid on workforce.com while gearing back up after Labor Day. The current expansion may be the first period of sustained economic growth since World War II that failed to bring an increase in real wages for most workers. The value of most workers' benefits is also failing to keep pace with inflation, government data show. Meanwhile, productivity rose 16.6 percent from 2000 to 2005, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. All of this means that most people are working more and making less.

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.)

Another One Bites the Dust

The technology tsunami is still in full force. The Cincinnati Enquirer reports in an article on July 31st that radio transmitters are revolutionizing how the water company reads your meter.

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?

For What (Little) It's Worth

I always reply to the juvenile, "There's no 'I' in Team" with an equally juvenile, "But there is an 'I" in Win." In truth, I believe it is eminently possible and accurate to believe simultaneously in Team and I. (I'm in O'Hare as I write this ... think Bulls & Michael Jordan & Scottie Pippen & Dennis Rodman. A lotta "I" and a lotta Team ... and a lotta Championship Rings.) So if you're a "Team & I" person like me, I guess it's, "There is an 'I' and 'T' in Victory."

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.)

Robert Altman

Mr Altman won the lifetime achievement award at the Oscars last night. I loved this from his acceptance remarks, and I paraphrase: "The role of the Director is to create a space where the actor or actress can become more than they've ever been before." (Or, maybe: "dreamed of being." Better yet. I'll have to find a transcript.)

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

Amusements

From "WhatIveLearned," an Esquire interview with William Shatner:

"You have to create your life. You have to carve it, like a sculpture."

"We meet aliens every day who have something to give us. They come in the form of people with different opinions."

"Being an icon is overblown. Remember, an icon is moved by a mouse."

Best First Job

I'm off to the Cold Stone Creamery annual franchise meeting to lead workshops on what it means to provide the "Best First Job."

What do you think makes a Best First Job? Anybody have any great (or not so great) memories of early jobs?

Disruptive Stars

I recently came across the brief article below in my Workforce Week management online newsletter, and I thought it would be worthy of discussion by the tompeters.com community. This issue, of course, relates to the business world as well. So, what are the implications?

Disruptive Stars: The controversy surrounding pro football star Terrell Owens is generating much discussion in the business community about how managers should deal with disgruntled high performers. Owens, a multitalented wide receiver with the Philadelphia Eagles, recently was suspended by the team for making disparaging remarks about teammates. Professors at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania say Owens' case points up management lessons for people in human resources, especially relating to acting swiftly to deal with a star employee's disruptive behavior. Says Thomas W. Dunfee, a professor of legal studies and business ethics at Wharton: "For corporations, it's understood that if you have a double standard and look the other way for your star performers who are behaving poorly, you are corrupting the organization. The stars think ethical rules don't apply to them." Katherine A. Nelson, another Wharton instructor, says failing to address bad behavior is "tantamount to lobbing a grenade into a conference room" that produces resentment and undermines performance. "The Eagles are a perfect example of this." Adds Robin Bond, a workplace expert who is not affiliated with Wharton: "High-performing individuals who require excessive praise, have unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment, or lack concern for the feelings and needs of others can initially make a positive impact on an organization's bottom line, but are often destructive (in the) long term."

Stats

I just read somewhere that CEO pay in the U.S. of A. is now 400+ times that of the average company employee, up from a meager 40X as recently as 1980. But that may pale by comparison with yesterday's A-Rod stats, courtesy USA Today. Mr Rodriguez pulls in: $16,492.58 per inning; $37,145.65 per at bat; and $276,699.03 per Yankee win. Wow!

I append no moral or economic commentary to all this, just offer it for your amusement-edification.

The Right Stuff

Britain's Conservative Party has been struggling in the wilderness since fiery Margaret Thatcher was busted by her mates oh so long ago. Things got so bad that one leader even had a McKinsey background (a frightening thought concerning political leadership). All the Conservative pretenders have been brilliant, but fearfully unable to connect with those ever so annoying voters. A new leadership race is underway, and young newcomer David Cameron is causing quite a stir. The principal reason is brilliantly captured in these two quotes. First, from the Sunday Times (10.09): "At last the Tories realize they need a hugger, not a thinker." And this from a powerful party supporter of Cameron's, quoted in the Financial Times (10.10): "killer combination of conviction and inspiration."

Win or lose, now or later, interesting commentaries on leadership in general.

Drucker Supplanted? Re-writing the Book on Effective Management Under Life & Death Circumstances?

I'd read it before and winced, but was doubtful it could be true. Now I've read it again based on a repeat performance, so perhaps it is. Re-organizing-reforming intelligence operations may top the list of anti-terrorist defenses. Relatively new (and controversial) CIA chief Porter Goss, responding to recent defections among the old pro crowd, passed on answering a query about the departures with this record-shattering non-answer: "I don't do personnel." Having spent a little time with the CIA in my "Nixon years" in D.C., I've no doubt at all that a few senior "retirements" would/will do the Agency a world of good. But a CEO who says "I don't do personnel"? A few blocks away from my Boston house, in which I'm ensconced as I write, is the residence of J.F. Welch, he of GE fame: I could hear the cringe from here! Jack's calling card for four decades was mastery of talent development like no other.

Shifting Values

External, uncontrollable disruptions such as 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina have an astounding impact on the economy. Some businesses are affected more than others, but the impact is immediate, forcing the need for a quick response and a shift in priorities. Other, less apparent disruptions, can be more damaging to the long-term health of an organization. For example, such disruptions include shifts in consumer preferences and buying behaviors, a reprioritizing of values that influence consumer and employee wants and needs. We witnessed this phenomenon as a result of 9/11. Individuals suddenly had a desire to connect with family, friends, their community; they had a need to feel engaged, to have a sense of belonging. Organizations responded to consumer preferences by focusing on creating experiences that evoke a positive emotional response ... "branding" as opposed to marketing.

What BusinessWeek reports about Microsoft—losing "key" talent, reminds us that the same value shifts that change consumer behaviors also change employee behaviors. A growing economy creates opportunity for talent. Great talent has no reason to tolerate work that is not meaningful, organizations that don't value individuals' contributions, workplaces that are so bureaucratic they make innovation nearly impossible. A culture that breeds complacency and leaders in denial can kill a company, but it's such a slow process that companies often don't feel the pain until it's too late. Microsoft is a perfect example of this.

Government: No!

I was in the U.S. Navy for 4 years (1966-1970). I enjoyed most every minute of it—and I remain a hopelessly loyal Navy "alum." Nonetheless, I was outraged by a story I read in the New York Times yesterday. Two Navy helicopters were delivering supplies to New Orleans. On the way back to Pensacola they received a human distress call. They were out of radio contact with their base, and proceeded to the trouble spot—no other choppers were at hand. Their subsequent acts were heroic and Herculean to an extreme. They made difficult landings, went through collapsing buildings to extract two trapped blind people (a/k/a U.S. citizens!); all in all they rescued 110 stranded folks. Expecting, if not a hero's welcome, at least an attaboy upon returning home—they were excoriated instead. Commander Michael Holdner, the base air ops chief, chewed them out for not promptly returning to get more supplies. As to their inexcusable rescue of humans, Holdner said, "We all want to be the guys who rescue people." Huh? Or: Duh! Or: What the %#&*? For his trouble, one of the pilots, Lieutenant Matt Udkow, was relieved of flying duty and assigned to oversee a temporary kennel (you read it right ... KENNEL ... Bow-wow, etc.) in Pensacola.

My urgent recommendation to the Chief of Naval Operations: Immediately remove Commander Holdner from the command of human beings and re-assign him to LT Udkow's kennel—as an inmate.

(NB: Of course I understand that the pilots possibly violated standard procedure—and used, Oh My God, "initiative." My take, tested in Vietnam oh so many years ago, is that innovative marginal disobedience in service to the cause is to be welcomed in 9.9 cases out of 10; okay, I'll even countenance Holdner chewing out the pilots privately—but a kennel re-assignment? What was the idiot—stronger words come to mind—thinking? I'm delighted to see that he has caused a mini-firestorm, and pray it will effectively end his career. Maybe he can start a second career in an animal shelter. Nah, forget it; I'm too fond of animals.)

Be Decisive

Fortune magazine is all about making decisions this issue. They are onto something, and they've interviewed some cool people.

But folks, who made the decision to pose Jim Collins on a mountain ledge with a dark and stormy night brewing behind him? It's a little strange. Yes, he's a mountain climber, but ...

Alas ...

Yes, alas. That's pretty much my response to the sad state of GM. I cannot say I'm surprised; in fact I doubt this is the last of the bad news. I've only worked with GM a few times, years ago. My memory is "decent people, insane bureaucracy." I guess nothing changed.

As to Rick Wagoner, doubtless a very bright fellow; still, he gives credence to my long held belief that Chief Financial Officers rarely make great CEOs. The last big Detroit turnaround was crafted by Master Marketer Lee Iacocca. He was an incredible salesman—to employees, to Washington, to the consumer. (Remember, his breakout was the first Mustang while at Ford.)

In fact GM has been saddled with three of the least inspiring chiefs in recent big-corporate history: Roger Smith, Bob Stemple, and now Wagoner.

As I said, alas.

Pretzel Logic

Another corporate drama is playing out on the great rust belt stage here in the Midwest. Five years ago, Ford Motor Company spun off its component parts business and formed Visteon. The logic at that time was simple enough. If the company's parts plants had to compete on the open market, competitive pressures would drive performance improvements. They changed the structure, but the old culture never quite morphed into the new entrepreneurial, nimble entity they hoped to create. So, Ford buys back the Visteon plants. Once again, the US auto industry responds to change with its back to the wall. Visteon would have certainly filed bankruptcy without the bailout.

Here is where the logic gets twisted. In the course of a couple of weeks, they attack the cost problems by renegotiating the UAW agreement, cutting wages from $38/hour to $17. And yes, $38/hour does seem a bit ridiculous to me. Then they cut 850 white-collar workers. The remaining 8000 learned this week that their merit pay increases have been postponed indefinitely, and there would be no cost of living increases. Again, not paying merit makes some sense to me if they are working on a pay for performance basis. But then, they hire a new CEO, paying him at least $4.65 million the first year, including a $3 million signing bonus. That is where I lose the logic chain.

Weren't most of the mistakes that crippled Visteon made at the strategic level? Why in the world would a company make workers at the execution level of the organization suffer huge financial cuts, while those at the strategic level get professional superstar athlete's wages? Visteon will need the highest level of commitment possible from their workforce to succeed. Does anybody else have the sense that this logic will have a huge negative impact on morale, and a resulting decline in commitment?

Jackpot?

A participant in one of my recent programmes had an interesting spin on incentivising 'good' behaviour. He called it the Jackpot theory. When coaching youngsters in sports he introduced the possibility that good performers ('good' being defined by whatever behavioural norms you are trying to stimulate) become eligible for a significant prize that will be awarded to only one person on a relatively random frequency. In his experience the desirability of these prizes and their irregularity keeps the youngsters really focused on doing well all the time.

I was pleased to find a business example of this approach in a recent Financial Times article by Lucy Kellaway: The UK's Royal Mail has adopted just this approach in grappling with their unacceptable attendance levels. "If they show up for work every day for six months, they will be entered for a prize draw and could win a car or a holiday in the sun." Absence levels have plummetted by 15 percent!

The randomness and surprise elements seem to me to add excitement and fun to a subject that many managers agonise over—who to select for recognition! As long as someone worthy gets the prize, the others are always in with a chance for the next big payout! Could this approach be used more widely in organisations that have challenging change agendas (i.e., EVERY organisation)?

[Note from Cathy: Madeleine McGrath is co-founder, with Richard King, of tompeterscompany!UK. They've been working with Tom since 1988.]

Is It A Flat World?

In yesterday's Sunday New York Times Magazine Thomas L. Friedman wrote an interesting piece on globalization called, "It's A Flat World, After All" raising many concerns about outsourcing. It's based on his new book, being published this week by Farrar, Strauss & Giroux.

He suggests technology has leveled the playing field for bright and innovative people worldwide (especially in India and China) and America runs the risk of being left behind. Is he onto something?

Can You Outsource Innovation?

BusinessWeek is asking interesting questions about outsourcing innovation in this week's issue.

"R&D used to be treated as one big black box," says Vivek Paul, CEO of Indian info-tech services giant Wipro Technologies (WIT ), whose contract R&D service employs 8,000 engineers. "Now, companies are deconstructing the whole R&D chain, sorting out what's strategic and what's not."

To help provide answers, Parametric Technology (PTC), a Needham, (Mass.) producer of collaborative design software for 31,000 clients worldwide, commissioned a study of a typical R&D workforce of a typical electronics company. It concluded that about 30% of the jobs were "portable," meaning companies could shift them offshore. (From: R&D Jobs: Who Stays, Who Goes?)

Is there a point of no-return with offshoring and outsourcing?

My Guilty Pleasure

I've been reading a biography of Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy Onassis and they recount a weekend visit she made to someone's country house where the hostess was annoyed at how often Jackie would disappear to READ! A girl after my own heart.

Wanted to mention I'm just done with that book and diving into Obsessive Genius, The Inner World of Marie Curie by Barbara Goldsmith. I expect Jackie and Marie had fairly different lives, but I also expect I'll find some things in common.

And big thanks to Tom for reminding us (nearly every day around here) what a great pleasure it is to read.

A Passion for Change

This evening my organization, Clear Path International, was an invited guest of the McKnight Foundation at a dinner party for non-governmental organizations funded by McKnight and working in Cambodia. The room was filled with so many people working in their passions, that it is hard to remember which of my conversations with which program director was more inspiring. The director of medical education at the Angkor Hospital for Children? The program director of World Education? The country director of Cambodia Family Development Services? These good (and smart as hell) people are largely westerners whose passions (and an admitted hunger for adventure) have led them to a life well beyond their borders. All of us this evening were charged up by each other's commitment to our causes.

I am regularly inspired most, though, by my dear friend and colleague, Doeur Sarath. Executive Director of Cambodian Volunteers for Community Development (CVCD), Sarath (SAR-ROT) was four years old when he last saw his father, chained to a horse cart to be hauled off and killed by the Khmer Rouge. Sarath himself was a soldier as soon as he was strong enough to carry a gun.

Today, Sarath's army is a volunteer force of teachers in much needed literacy programs and vocational skills training courses in Phnom Penh and well into the rural reaches of Cambodia. They currently have classes teaching over 600 people of all ages how to read and write and have assisted 150 landmine survivors in adapting new skills after their accidents (yesterday I was recruited for a brief English class, my 'students' included three saffron robed Buddhist monks).

Sarath is well aware of the challenges facing Cambodians, but his eyes light up when he tells me of his program ideas and new, creative sources of funding ... just one example is CVCD, in partnership with my organization, is selling rice ... currently 30 tons a month... and putting the profits back into our joint programs to help build sustainability.

Tom often says passion trumps ambition; my friend Sarath has both in spades.

Oh, Mr. Trump!

Okay, I'll admit it. I Love The Apprentice. Here's the link to last night's episode.

They have the perfect set-up this season with one team of non-college grads (Street Smarts) and the other team of BAs, MBAs, JDs (Book Smarts). As we head into Superbowl weekend, which Apprentice team are you betting on?!

I always go with the team that's been hitting the pavement, working the asphalt, wearing out the shoe leather—the Street Smarts guys who know how to sell! (Taking a leaf from Tom's book on this—but I know you've all read Re-imagine! on selling, right?)

The "Eye-sparkle Factor"

Some people's eyes have an engaging, infectious "sparkle." Some don't. Hire [only?] those who "have it"?

I was lecturing on "talent selection"—and the use of unconventional measures for so doing. At a break I made the following comment to a youthful Participant: "Suppose you & I were opening the restaurant of our dreams. We'd both put in $75,000 ... effectively our life's savings. We were 'betting the farm.' We had a great idea, a very good location, a terrific chef. Now the time had come to hire waiters & waitresses. Numerous applicants had satisfactory+ 'restaurant experience,' but several didn't. One young woman [man] in particular was a rank amateur—but had the most compelling 'sparkle' in her/his eye. How would that 'sparkle' rank in your hire-no hire consideration?" No great surprise, we both agreed, despite a 30-year experience differential, that the "sparkle" pretty much ruled. (Or some like measures—e.g., hustle, enthusiasm.) Fact is, the Participant in question ran a 40-person bit of an IS/IT department. And my real goal was to urge her to use the "Eye-sparkle Factor" in IS/IT hiring almost to the same degree as in "our" choice of a waiter/waitress!

Speaking My Mind

As a Rumsfeld supporter, I Blogged a couple of days ago that the machine-signing bit has led me to say, "Enough." Most agreed. Some didn't.

I love dissent, this topic included. In fact, I live for dissent. But that does not preclude me from responding. I'll bet my last Christmas present that those who think the machine-signing story is a tempest in a teapot either (1) never were on active duty in the Military or (2) surely were never in Combat. As I said above in an entirely different context, I was in I Corps Vietnam for two Christmases. And if I'd run over a mine and been sent home in a body bag ... I'd have been appalled in the Afterlife if then SecDef McNamara had sent my parents a machine-signed letter. No letter is fine! A Fake letter is the Ultimate Profanity! (Hey, I drafted a couple of my Commanding Officer's letters to families—which he tore up and made ever so deeply personal. My CO was a busy guy, and I observed him spending days on those handwritten missives.)

I think it was Napoleon who instituted the idea, a central tenet to this day, that one risks lives to retrieve the dead bodies of one's valorous mates. We sailors & soldiers expect no less. Honoring those who have fallen is arguably the most important contributor to the morale & integrity of a fighting force. It tells the living, "When my number is up, I will have been seen to have mattered." Shame on Rumsfeld! (That's all I'll say.) (And, hey, this is an apt part of a Christmas message—after all, religion is ultimately about the sanctity of the human spirit.)

Merry Christmas!

Sure-Fire Employment Test

Trying to evaluate a potential new hire? Here's a great test: Arrange for them to work for a day—a particularly slow day—at a place like Best Buy or a hotel check-in desk. Make sure that there are ropes set up to control long lines—you know, the kind that corral the crowd and make customers walk back and forth many times before making it to the counter. Remember: Be sure to choose a slow day.

Now, station yourself at a place where you can surreptitiously observe your prospective new hire. Watch him as he watches the occasional customer walk back and forth through the empty labyrinth, following the course of a long line even though there is no line and no other customers. What does your potential new employee do as he watches customers take these extra steps? Does he do nothing? Does he assume that "the powers that be" (I hate that term) have decided the ropes are necessary, even on slow days? Or, does your future star worker take the initiative to undo the ropes and let customers walk right in?

The formula is simple: If he does nothing, don't hire him. If he takes the initiative to change the configuration of the ropes, hire him.

The other day an America West airport gate agent—standing in front of an empty counter with no other customers in sight—saw me duck under the ropes, carrying a large portion of my family's luggage, to avoid walking the empty maze. She, in a very friendly way, said, "Cheater." I smiled, but thought to myself, "You should be ashamed of yourself. Do you consider yourself so unimportant or helpless that you can't imagine that it is within your power to walk ten feet and rearrange these ropes, making the customer's path more sensible? Do you think yourself to be so unaware and undiscerning that you won't be able to notice when, an hour from now, things get busy and you have to put the ropes back up to control a line?"

If a company was great at marketing, its employees would instinctively move the ropes.

Ethics

Would you buy a used car from this ad exec?

A new poll by the Gallup Organization showed that only 9% of people rated the ethics of advertising professionals as "high" or "very high." Ad execs scored higher than car salesman (6%) and telemarketers (5%), but less than stockbrokers (12%). 36% of people rated the ethics of ad professionals as "poor" or "very poor," compared to only 27% last year.

So—what's going on? Have they become less trustworthy, or are we just less trusting?

"Top Line," If You Please!

My snailmail offerings recently included an opportunity to donate to the Stanford B.School. (Admission, though reluctant: I've done so in the past.) Part of the inducement was a photo of four recent Deans. To be sure, one bagged a Nobel in Economics; however, he's offset by another who was chief of Enron's board audit committee.

But it was something else that struck me. The quartet represented: finance, economics, accounting, finance. What's missing in this picture?

Duh!
THE TOP LINE!

And so I was led to wonder:

Will my alma mater ever have a ... MARKETER ... as Dean?*
Will my alma mater ever have an ... ENTREPRENEUR ... as Dean?*
Will my alma mater ever have an ... INNOVATION GURU ... as Dean?*
Will my alma mater ever have a ... SALES SPECIALIST ... as Dean?*
Will my alma mater ever have an ... PEOPLE/HR PERSON .... As Dean?* **
(*Fat chance!) (**HR/People Person is not, strictly, "top line" ... though it's a helluva lot closer than accounting!)

Now this will surprise you, but I'd vote (this is a "voting" day ... see riff on Gerstner above) for bringing back a deposed prof, who was a student favorite: Jim Collins! Actually, I'm not so sure Jim is a "top line" guy ... but at least he's not from the finance-accounting-economics school-of-passionless-management. Hey, a guy who invented B.H.A.G.s—Big, Hairy Audacious Goals—can't be all bad!

Quote Of The Day

"The less people like their jobs, the more they focus on balance." —John Wood, ex-Microsoft Asia exec (from the new worthwhile magazine)

Comments?

Born? Or Made?

One thing is sure ... WE WON'T SOLVE IT HERE! "It," being a query within a Comment on my Nelson post. Upon reading my post, our colleague was moved to say that surely such leadership traits are born ... and that's that.

On this eternal issue, I've come down on the "born" (more accurately, born or bred early) side more than the "trained" side more than most of my colleagues—no surprise since many of them are leadership trainers!

Intelligence, dispositions such as energy and enthusiasm, and the likes of a proclivity for hard word work are pretty well set in something like stone before we "employers" get our mitts on a person.

Consider: I worked briefly with a speaking coach decades ago. He declared me a "pleasure" to work with. I remember him saying, "Tom, it's a lot easier to work with someone energetic—and try to help them round off the rough edges—than it is to try and 'spice up' a turnip."

I think that personal vignette is very near the heart of the matter. There is—clearly!—some stuff that one can help with. I had a colleague, a fine and caring person, who never took the time to send "Thank you" notes or perform other overt acts of recognition. (My assessment: He had been raised in a very reserved setting, and one mostly kept one's emotions to oneself.) Now if this person had been a misanthrope, I wouldn't have bothered. But that not being the case, I banged on him for a period of years—and today he surpasses me in this vital area of human interaction.

There are a lot of things, then, that can be brought to life, or things that have worked for others that one can be made aware of. I've observed—back to Nelson—that a lot of high-powered leaders, up to and including U.S. Presidents, devour good biographies and autobiographies. Read enough, a few hundred I should think, and one sees some commonalities in the way certain types of situations are handled—e.g., building support for unpopular causes, such as Roosevelt's efforts to convince a skeptical Congress of the wisdom of going to England's aid in WW II.

Bottom line: Train "fundamental dispositions"? Tough! Provide a bushel of useful strategies for working with people and situations? Yup!

To allow myself to lean a little to the "trained" side, I admit that I am trained in part as a Rat Psychologist. (No, alas, I didn't inspire Spencer to write Who Moved My Cheese.) Thence I believe in the primacy of repeated positive reinforcement—even when dispositions are at issue. Get a person hooked on Toastmasters, for instance, and after she or he has declaimed in public 50 times, the "Inherent" Fear of Public Speaking will indeed wane, even if one does not become the next Reagan.

Annie ... Say It Ain't So!

"Ask Annie" is my favorite stop in Fortune. Not this week! "Ask Annie" reports on a recent survey that finds only 20% of 1,500 companies "see individual drive as a desirable trait."

Could it be true?
Are bosses truly the idiots Scott Adams/Dilbert claims?

That Damned AV Guy!

Giving a seminar.
Everything went wrong!
Small sins.
Big sins!
Un-professional!
Un-forgivable!

And I was in a deservedly foul, foul mood about it all. (No way to go into a speech.)
And then I did by last stop before ShowTime ... my AV check.

That damned AV guy!

I was in a foul mood.
Conference organizer a weenie.
I savored ... self-righteously ... my Foul Mood.

That damned AV guy!
He was in a Great Mood!
Happy with the World!
Humming!
Can you believe it ... HUMMING!

And, in spite of my full-load of determination, my damned mood started to improve. We started joking about this or that, talkin' shop, and in short order I was bordering on ... CHEERFUL.

You get the point, I'm sure. Despite one's Very Best Efforts to Harbor a Grudge for Various Injustices ... Another's Cheerfulness acts as a Contagion!

That damned AV guy.
He saved my Speech.
He saved my neck.
Cheerful people will do that.

(Message I: HIRE CHEERFUL!)
(Message II: Avoid-Dismiss FMCs ... Foul Mood Carriers. THEY SCREW YOU UP!)
(Message III: All Hail "that damned AV guy"!)
(Message IV: One "damned AV guy" can change the mood of a Battalion!)