We have known for years that the focus should be on talent and not jobs. I was intrigued as I read this article today in the New York Times telling people to think of their careers like a business.

Even people inside organizations today should view their work and career as if they owned them. How differently would we act if we approached our work with an entrepreneurial spirit? Would you go after new skills, would you promote yourself more, would you find new projects to associate yourself with?

Talent is still key, work doesn't get done without the right talent in place. Today, however, the way organizations obtain the talent they need is changing. Talent will be brought in for projects, short and long term, and then released, and the cycle will start all over again. People who keep their skills up to date, watch the market for future skill needs, and adapt will survive. Some companies have cut personnel too deep and will be looking for the right talent to bring onboard.

So, now would be a great time to think about how you differentiate yourself in the market when your only opportunity to "interview" may be via one of the social networking media. I recently hired someone from the Elance site to do some IT work for me. I never met them in person—our entire relationship was Web based. From this site, you can put out a request for proposal on what you need done, people bid on the job, and you have your pick of great talent. You can even see the feedback and ratings from others that they have worked for, so it is in the best interest of talent to do excellent work. What if your company put up a public rating scale, how would you fare? How would you rate others on your project team?

It is certainly something to think about as we strive to manage our careers and do our absolute best work.

Julia Child changed, no, redefined, the American kitchen, American cooking, American life. A housewife of a State Department operative in Paris, she fell in love.

She fell in love with Paris.
She fell in love with Parisians.
She fell in love with French ingredients.
And French chefs.
And French food.

And she made many, many of us fall in love with all those things, too.
(And we never looked back.)

"Julie and Julia," the movie, is a love story.
To watch the movie was, for me, to fall in love with Julia Child.
To fall in love with Julia was easy.
How could you fail to fall in love with her?

You watched her shriek with unabashed delight as she fondled a pepper or shallot or mushroom in a tiny Parisian grocer's shop—and you marveled as you watched the French shopkeeper, doubtless no instinctive lover of Americans with their questionable grasp of the language (Julia was no linguist), fall in love with Julia's raw, unadulterated Exuberance.

The movie was Exuberance defined.
A, dare I say, perfect picture of the unregulated-unregulatable Power of Exuberance to make the world wobble on its axis.

(NB: Friends of the "real" Julia, to the person, agree that Meryl Streep's continuously "over the top" effervescence was, hard to believe as it may be, Julia pitch perfect!)

The movie was also Excellence defined. Julia's Book #1, Mastering the Art of French Cooking, merits the use of the word "mastering," defines the term "mastery." Ms. Child brought to the party, along with her off-the-shelf exuberance, only one prime attribute, of which she delightedly informs us at the start: She loved to eat!

From that love of food ingested came her years-long journey to mastery. She haunted the food shops of Paris and learned the ins and outs of the ingredients themselves. Fighting an oppressive, "males only" culture, she graduated from Le Cordon Bleu cooking school; the skeptical master joined the ranks of those fallen victim to JC's exuberance, and her pit bull+ tenacity. She then engaged in a tireless and ceaseless and pothole-strewn Long March to cookbook publication by Alfred Knopf—prior rejection slips and last-minute publisher jiltings were almost too numerous to bear, even for the casual viewer of the movie.

But the story—including the unreported years following the first book in which more books followed, the TV show blossomed and America and its kitchens and pantries succumbed to Julia's thrall—is, in the end, a story of Exuberance.

Julia did indeed master French cooking. But it was her pleasure therein (joy, effervescence, etc—see the epigraph at the top of this post) per se, captured in her prose style and in front of the TV camera, that conquered America. Her delight became our delight. Her sunniness became our sunniness. Her self-effacement in the kitchen as she booted another grounder (flipped an omelet out of the pan and onto the floor) became our license to play. It was ... EJ/Experience Julia ... we bought into as much as or many, many times more than the accuracy or novelty of the recipes she presented.

It was a helluva movie.
And a helluva message.

(Hats off, too, to Julie Powell as played brilliantly by Amy Adams. Julie's own Relentless Pursuit of Excellence—producing all 524 recipes in Julia C's first book in the space of a year, and recording it all at her Blog—was damn near as impressive as her mentor's.)

I came to the movie with a 35-year-old appreciation of Ms Child, an almost equally long obeisance to Ms Streep's acting skills, and a demonstrated 30-year Search for Excellence under my belt. But the movie sent me scurrying back to Kay Redfield Jamison's book—and reminded me of the Power of Exuberance Unbound, of the Power of Exuberance Unbound and the Spirit of One Person to, literally, change the world.

As a practical matter:

I urge you-beg you-command you to inform your HR department today that Attribute #1 in the hiring of anyone in any job, non-technical or technical, shall hereinafter and forevermore be enthusiasm, effervescence—exuberance. And that goes triple or more when it comes to any and all promotions.

Remember the days when, during a job interview, you were asked questions like "If you were a car, what kind of car would you be?" or "Tell me how you would handle an upset customer?" Companies started to question whether the answers to such hypothetical questions were helpful in predicting successful job performance.

To reduce subjectivity and increase predictability of job success, companies have adopted a behavioral-based interviewing approach. In essence, behavioral-based interviews assume that past behavior predicts future behavior. The predictability comes from posing statements or questions to the candidate phrased something like: "Tell me about a time when you led a virtual project team—what were the outcomes?"

I question the validity of this approach. Why? Because if you are basing your hiring decision on someone's past experiences, aren't you disregarding their capacity to learn and be good at things they have yet to try?

Had the manager, who ultimately hired me for my first training position, asked me the question, "Tell me about a time when you had a difficult participant in one of your classes. How did you handle it?" I could not have given an answer, having, at that point, no experience at all. Had he used the behavioral interviewing approach, would I have gotten the job? I doubt it. However, my inability to respond effectively to that question was certainly no indication of my ability to do the job.

So I ask: Is basing the hiring decision on someone's past experiences the best way to predict future success? Isn't it possible that someone who has no experience leading a virtual team can be great at it? Perhaps even better than someone who has?

The question I have been asking my clients now is whether the strategies they put in place to deal with the economic downturn have made their organizations more capable of producing excellence as they move forward? Most respond that the emphasis on lean structure and cost control were necessary adjustments that made their companies "more fit" for the future. Certainly the cost reductions have had a positive impact on margins, but I wonder how long this can be sustained? I suggest that there are a number of areas ripe for scrutiny to determine if they will, in fact, lead the business to a better place once that corner has been turned.

First, the increased scrutiny on spending may have some unintended, and unmeasured, consequences. I wonder about the speed of execution when new checkpoints are added into a process. New layers of managerial waste and delays may eat up the apparent savings in cost reduction in time to market. Also, it may be sending a message to the management that executive leadership has little confidence in their business savvy, undermining their potential contributions. It may be time to loosen up the controls a bit.

Second, I have seen some pretty good talent leave organizations because the new, leaner management structure doesn't seem to have the upward mobility they want. A more fluid project approach to work might be the ticket here. Top talent demands work that matters!

Third, oddly enough, executives may have to prove their competence to the workforce—who paid some prices in the downturn. Many executives have been using the "economy" as the reason for poor performance, but my coffee chats with their employees lead me to believe that the rank and file aren't totally buying that. It is important that the road forward is seen as doable by the employees in an organization, and that these workers believe that the current executive team can lead them to success.

And last, I might suggest that it is a good time to focus a little less energy on Wall Street analysts, and a little more on employees and customers. I continue to marvel at how much executive time is focused on pleasing the analysts. Yes, they need attention paid to them, but long-term success is more dependent upon employee and customer satisfaction. And that means switching the focus to them.

The formulation that follows came from a speech I gave in Shanghai a couple of weeks ago. I was part of a program that included consultants, economists, etc. For better or for worse, I stuck to character and began by trashing ... consultants and economists. I said, "In the next several hours you will hear many prescriptions for dealing with today's shaky times—and preparing for China's future. Many of those prescriptions will involve the role of the government in the economy, the sort of help that big firms and smaller firms need. Despite my rather snide remarks, I will in fact find many of the suggestions on the money—figuratively and literally."

I meant every word of it.

But then I added that my role was to simplify—to boldly, and perhaps foolheartedly, assert that there was only One Thing that mattered in the long run to the health of the enterprise—and, indeed, the economy as a whole.

The quality of the work force.
(And, perhaps 1.5, the devotion of the leadership to developing that work force to the utmost extent of its talents and prospective talents.)

I said "there is only one 'winning formula.'"
People who are 100%, everybody, no exceptions, Receptionist to EVP R&D:

Committed.
Engaged.
Growing.
Learning.
Fearless (unfailingly encouraged to try new things).
Respected.
Trusted.
Appreciated.
Independent-minded.
Team focused.
Focused themselves, even when fresh caught, on the growth of others
Passionate about their work, their mates, and their customers.
Informed.
Open (fanatic about sharing).
Caring.
Committed to EXCELLENCE in everything they do.

And, in turn, that demands 100% "servant leaders," to shamelessly steal from Robert Greenleaf, who are 100% devoted—as Priority & Job #1—to developing people, in good times or bad—100% of people—who are:

Committed.
Engaged.
Growing.
Learning.
Fearless (unfailingly encouraged to try new things).
Respected.
Trusted.
Appreciated.
Independent-minded.
Team focused.
Focused themselves, even when fresh caught, on the growth of others
Passionate about their work, their mates, and their customers.
Informed.
Open (fanatic about sharing).
Caring.
Committed to EXCELLENCE in everything they do.

I explained that, in my opinion:

This applies throughout the world—in America and Brazil and Lithuania and Estonia and Korea. And in China, as it pursues a future obviously more and more dependent on incorporating intellectual capital into its economic portfolio (already China bridles at being assigned a role as "the world's workshop").

This applies to 100% of people in the workforce. As in a football team or symphony, there are no "bit players."

This applies in every industry and every pricepoint strategy therein. In Brazil, Magazine Luiza, the country's Wal*Mart, is invariably near the top of the "Best Companies to Work For" list, just as Wegmans, the regional grocer, and the Container Store are at the head of the pack, peers of Google and Amgen, on the American "Best" list.

This applies to companies of all sizes—from microscopic to humongous.

This applies in good times—and especially bad times. Engaged workers and an unwavering Commitment to EXCELLENCE will not make problems in the market evaporate, but they, nonetheless, represent the best chance of weathering the storm and coming out stronger on the back end.

Strategy is important.
Systems are important.
Financing is important.

But this is ... The Only Thing You Need to Know.
I'd bet my life on it.
(I guess I have.)

Yet another survey on employee engagement (available with registration) was published in December last year, by YouGov commissioned by Engage Group). Polling 23,600 directors, managers, and employees, they found that employee engagement is seen as one of the top three factors that drive an organisation's success (it ranks higher than strategy) and 75% of board members believe that it improves bottom-line performance. In these times, when the news is full of redundancies (layoffs), re-organisations, and failing businesses, I’m not sure if employee engagement is high on the business agenda.

I believe it should be; the constant changes in these potentially traumatic business conditions are forcing businesses to constantly review and change how they organise themselves to be more innovative, productive, and customer-focused—in both the products they make and the services they offer. Becoming innovative and productive relies on having the right people engaged with what the organisation is aiming to deliver; with the capability and freedom to anticipate and respond to changing market requirements. These times are uncertain; engaged employees are more likely to not only cope with the changes, but also to contribute to how the business can survive (and maybe thrive).

It seems to me that, although we must pay attention to those people who are losing their jobs, we must also pay attention to the people who are staying in the business. Even before the current economic conditions hit, we found it difficult to "engage" employees; surveys reveal that only about one-fourth of the workforce is engaged and about the same amount are actively disengaged.

In my work I have seen pockets of excellence where employee engagement seems to be occurring, and many places where it is obviously not! I have been asking questions about what is happening where engagement is prevalent. A pattern appears to be taking shape in the responses I get; engagement is more likely to occur when managers purposefully include, and share power with, people within the organisation, co-creating a way of working together with their teams. There is a sense that the diverse range of people within the workplace community (not just the managers and leaders) are involved in, and feel accountable for, finding the solutions that are right for them, the business, and the future.

Is employee engagement seen as a priority in your organisation? And, if it is, how are you going about creating an environment that encourages engaged employees?

[Ruth Smith is a consultant working with Tom Peters Company in the UK (you guessed that from her spelling), and she's contributing to the blog for the first time. Welcome, Ruth!—CM]

I think the real question should be "Is someone really employable in the new economy or not?" but that's a topic for another discussion.

This is a quick exercise to do a status check on the "safety" of your job. The questionnaire is in no way complete. The focus is to make you think beyond the "job responsibilities" outlined in your offer letter.

Note: Not all questions are relevant for people at all levels.

1. Is your job core to what the company stands for?

When there is a crisis, an organization tends to drop non-core and adjacent activities. The approach will be to play to their strengths to survive and thrive. If your job does not contribute to the strengths of the organization, you have to quickly re-invent yourself so that it does align with the company core purpose. If what you bring aligns with the strengths of the company, the follow-up question is "how much capacity are you adding to the company?"

2. What will the company/department lose by eliminating your job?

Please note that the question is not, "What will the company gain by keeping you in that job?"

During a crisis, avoiding threats (rather than going after opportunities) will take center stage. If there is no significant threat, there is no big safety net for the job. Even when you are in a strategic R&D project, look at what this R&D project will mean to the company. If you are not happy with the answer, it's time to re-think, re-invent, and re-act.

3. Who is borrowing the brand power?

Is your department proud of you because of your personal brand? OR

Are you proud of the brand of your department?

The answer should ideally be: Both

4. What is the assessment of your "value" in the eyes of the stakeholders?

If the answer is vague, such as "A lot" or "Significant," you have to re-visit the topic. Can you quantify your value in some measure, and is that value justifiable?

5. Is your job "offshorable?"

If your job can be moved offshore, then chances are it will be—in some form or fashion. In other words, you have to question yourself about whether you are doing commodity work. If you are doing work that a machine can do or someone in another country can do for a smaller fee, the chances of those moves may be very high. The thing is that you may not have control of your job if you are engaged in commodity work.

6. Do you care as if it's your own?

If you don't care about your product as if it's your own, you can't expect the company to do that (about you) either. When you care as if it's your own, the passion is clear. Passionate people win—all the time. In troubled times, an organization needs passionate people to keep the place alive. And, the thing about passion and caring is that you can't fake them.

7. Can you handle office politics well?

OK, you may not like office politics, but if you are working in an office, you better learn to deal with it. All else being equal, someone who knows how to deal with office politics will always come out a winner.

8. What is the cost of maintaining you?

There is the cost that you can measure (money, overhead, etc.) and there is the cost that is "real"—which includes, but is not limited to, the emotional cost of dealing with you everyday. For example, if you like to whine a lot, you increase your cost of maintenance. In troubled times, if your real cost to the company is significantly higher than the measurable costs, you are in trouble.

9. Are you likeable?

Unless you work for NASA, you don't have to be a rocket scientist. In tough times (and probably all times) a combination of 7 out of 10 on skills and 9 out of 10 on attitude is preferred to the other way around. If you are not likeable, it will hurt you in ways you would never imagine. People don't always make rational decisions, but they will definitely rationalize it after they have made the decision. So, people may not dismiss you because you are not likeable, but they will find a way to justify why they dismiss you beyond the likeability factor.

[Thanks to Cool Friend Raj Setty for providing us all with these questions for self-examination. Raj works with entrepreneurs to bring ideas to life and spread their adoption. You can learn more about him at www.rajeshsetty.com or follow him on his blog, Life Beyond Code, or on Twitter @UpbeatNow.]

It brought me back to a consulting session I did with a VP years ago in which I was helping him evaluate his senior management team. I suggested he list which departments the "frontline leaders" were emerging from, to see if there was a pattern worth noting. (These young dent-makers without title were easy to spot. They were taking command of cross-functional WOW! Projects—exciting, big-impact, bottom-up, break-the-rules endeavors that were producing tangible results for the operation.) Interestingly, a disproportionately large number of these frontline leaders came from departments run by two very people-focused leaders, who LOVED to spot and develop talent. In fact, like Stewart Copeland, they took special pride in the blossoming of particular individuals under their watch. It struck me at the time that one way to evaluate a manager's performance is by simply tallying the number of leaders who are sprouting up in that person's purview. (After all, it's a quantitative result.) Yes, of course it's an imprecise measurement, but if managers have up-and-coming leaders popping up like shoots all around them, they're likely to be doing something right.

I've been recommending this simple "leadership measurement" ever since.

One of our commenters, Chetan Dhruve, suggested that we include the transcripts from the videos. We've added them to the previous video posts as well. Here's the transcript for this video in PDF form: Passion!

Tom Peters on Passion! from Tom Peters on Vimeo.

In fact, we can't live life, personal or professional, awaiting a Black Swan to alight on our pond. Still, one may-probably will do so—and our response-behavior will, as Mr Taleb claims, determine our life's course.

Well if we can't plan for it, and we can't let it distract us 24 hours a day every day, what can we do?

Beats me, is mostly my response.

But I have fallen deeply in love with a word that may be of use ... Resilience.

To deal with the absurdly unlikely, we can find resilient people and shape our organization to be more or less able to respond to a knockout blow—right out of left field.

Below (and in a Special Presentation attached), you'll find some musings (exactly the right word) on the idea of resilience. These are raw, "key words" really, meant to do no more than get you moving on this topic—which I heartily suggest.

Possible Attributes of Resilient People:

Inner calm (Buddhist-like?); think Tiger Woods
High self-knowledge ("comfortable in own skin")
Breadth of experience—drove a cab, worked construction, ran Alaska tours ... not just a variety of assignments in a traditional career progression.
Sense of, "Ah, my moment" (e.g., Giuliani)
Lover of modestly controlled chaos (bored amidst calm—e.g., FDR)
Reach out effortlessly to a wide variety of people (in general and on the fly)
Bizarrely energetic
Known for integrity, in the sense of "straight shooter"
Hires resilient people per se in key positions! (All senior leadership roles?)
Sense of humor
Empathy ("I feel your pain")
"Cruelty" (Must make tough decisions instantaneously, without looking back; not "confident," but overwhelming sense of urgency to press ahead)
Decisive, but not rigid
Strong individual, equally strong team player
Understands the chain of command—and evades it as necessary
Comfortable being challenged by thinkers, but a strong "doer" bias overall
A person of Hope (religious or "religious-like"?)

Not necessarily: ex-college quarterback with a history of comebacks (Why: All within the rules, within the context of that which has been practiced)

Better(??): Ocean sailboat racer; ER doc; public health doc; astronaut; combat experience; hostage negotiator; survived in hopeless circumstances through guile and grit; seeks "independent duty"

Tests: Have the lights "unexpectedly" go out during an employment interview, followed by fire alarm, etc; focus on resilience per se in reference checks

Possible Attributes of Resilient Organizations:

Hire resilient folks at all levels and in all functions—explicit about so doing
Promote resilience—explicit about so doing
Decentralization!!!!!!!!! (organization structure, physical configuration, systems)
Shadow "emergency organization"—ready to roll
Very serious "War gaming" (better than nothing—unless it leads to false confidence)
Redundancy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Culture of (1) self-starting, (2) caring and respect, (3) Execution is Priority #1, (4) Accountability-responsibility—100% of folks
Culture of Resilience (as de jure explicit "plank" of organizational values set)
Talk it up!! (but in terms of "growth opportunity"—not fear mongering)
MBWA—e.g., great, intimate communication all the time about everything
Transparency (all in the know, none in the dark)
Financial padding
Excellent equipment (But ...)
Training >>>>> Equipment
Ability to get by for (quite) a while without IS-IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Test whole org in uncomfortable situations
Promote an unusually high share of mavericks
Diversity per se!!!!!!!!!!!

Tom Peters on The Dream Manager from Tom Peters on Vimeo.

[If you'd like a PDF transcript of this video, you can download it here: The Dream Manager]

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.

Tom Peters on Organizational Excellence from Tom Peters on Vimeo.

[If you'd like a PDF transcript of this video, you can download it here: Organizational Excellence]

"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...

Posted by Darci Riesenhuber |

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...

Posted by John O'Leary |

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?