3 Ways to ruin rewards and recognition

A professional colleague recently shared her story of being summoned to the executive conference room of her employer. Normally such a summons would spark nerves, but she knew something good was about to happen. Laverne* and a teammate, Shirley, had just completed a big project that brought compliments from their client. Laverne was excited and eager to hear from the management who normally attended such meetings.

When she arrived to the conference room, Laverne was greeted by her supervisor. The supervisor’s boss, Lenny, also was there but did not speak to Laverne. The executive spoke to Shirley because they had worked together longer but did not address Laverne upon arrival, while recognizing the accomplishment, or upon their departure.

While bestowing a nominal reward to the pair, Lenny made three crucial errors:

1. He never looked at Laverne
2. He misstated Laverne’s contributions
3. He mocked the dollar amount of the award

When Laverne told me the story, she said it still irked her even though it had happened weeks ago. She said she would not have cared that the write-up was incorrect if the presentation had been kind and sincere.

Management failed to capitalize on the opportunity the situation offered. Lenny could have solidified a bond with a super employee while he enjoyed reminiscing with a long-time coworker, yet he missed it. He could have inspired two superstars to continue their strong performance, yet he did the opposite. He could have motivated two staff members, yet he became a laughingstock as they shared their story with other coworkers. He became a laughingstock and so did the award.

What the company intended as a sincere gesture failed because management did not buy in to it, or was too stressed to execute accurately, or was unable to recognize the real opportunity in front of him. The reward and recognition backfired because of the delivery.

Laverne’s experience is not unique, unfortunately. 

Many managers treat recognition meetings as intrusions on their day. Check out the video below to see several different bad approaches to reward and recognition meetings. 

Real leaders will see reward and recognition meetings as great opportunities to cement employee commitment to the company. All-In leaders will see the value of the meetings and will treat the recipients of the awards with honor, which will in turn inspire them to keep performing well.

* Names changed

Did Thanksgiving fly by?

Where were you one week ago? It was Thanksgiving. Did you spend it with family or friends? Did you tell others how thankful you are for the people you live and work with? Did you feel a little more grateful before the main meal that day? Were you thankful the Lions, Cowboys, or Steelers won their NFL games?

No matter how you spent the day, I hope you had a chance to ponder the good things in your life.

I wonder, though, how many people have kept the gratitude attitude since that day? Have you been as thoughtful about life’s goodness since Thanksgiving or did you return quickly to the routines of the week?

I traveled to Montana for the holiday, and I confess to returning to the routine upon the return home. It’s like I left the extra special feelings far away from home. I realized that earlier today during yet another conversation about how time flies. In the book Put Your Whole Self In!, I mention that time often flies the fastest when we are not paying attention.

Being thankful is one way to slow down so life doesn’t pass us by.

Counting blessings causes greater satisfaction in life. 

According to study results published a few years ago in The Wall Street Journal, adults who frequently feel grateful have more energy, more optimism, more social connections and more happiness than those who do not. They earn more money, sleep more soundly, exercise more regularly and have greater resistance to viral infections.

Another fantastic outcome of counting blessings is that it stimulates reciprocity. Research shows people who recognize how they have benefitted from help of others, eagerly help others more than ungrateful people do.

Since gratitude can stimulate more positive behaviors, we should seek to live more gratefully and inspire others to do the same whether we are managers or teammates. Right?

If you’re ready to count your blessings more deliberately, consider the list below and choose the ones that will inspire you the most.

1. Take 3 minutes each morning to ponder the good things in your life.
2. Write up to 5 things you’re grateful for in a journal each day. Consider listing people, experiences, challenges, material things, and skills.
3. Have a Gratitude Visit once a week with a colleague. While it is certainly okay to email to express appreciation, it often means more when delivered in person.
4. Express appreciation for the mundane, not just the monumental. The tendency is to thank those who go the extra mile, but don’t forget those who worked hard to complete the mile. Don’t overlook those who do the daily routines that keep this place, or your team, humming along.
5. Ponder what you don’t have. Be thankful for unanswered life requests or desires. (Did Garth Brooks’s song Unanswered Prayers come to mind?)

If the gratitude you felt a week ago has subsided already, consider taking a few actions to bring it back. Slow life down a little by counting blessings, and you will be more satisfied and will start a chain reaction of helpfulness. Ah! Now, that would be something to be grateful for every day!

You may be wasting time at work without even knowing it

We all need a break now and then. We need to call home, write the list of errands to complete on the way home, or email a professor coursework due that night. Taking ten or fifteen minutes once in a while to handle personal business is not wasting time at work.

Of more concern than a few minutes now and then is when time is wasted without awareness.

Here are a few examples:

When entering a division meeting, a colleague within David’s division asks him how a project is going. The colleague, Glenn, is not David’s supervisor but is someone he has worked with on other projects. David happily tells Glenn all about the project as they walk into the meeting and get seated next to each other. Glenn emails David an idea about the project the next day. David replies that the idea is very helpful and will be considered as the project proceeds. He includes something about keeping Glenn informed about the project going forward. Glenn responds that he looks forward to keeping in touch about it.

How could this situation lead to wasting time?

Here’s another one.

A five-person team is working on a project. One teammate, Pauline, writes an article about it for the intranet site at the team’s request. It is an internal article, not an external one or a promotional piece. Pauline sends the article to all teammates for review. One teammate sent the article to his own supervisor to get his input.

How could that lead to wasting time?

Here’s one more.

Peter and Mary were asked to create and deliver a new training course for their division. They have weekly meetings to discuss actions taken thus far and next steps. After the weekly meeting, they divide and conquer with each doing whatever task they named at the meeting. When they get the first draft, they will set a time to meet with the division head about the program and will take it from there.

How could their approach waste time?

Okay, one more.

Jill is working on a proposal due in three days. She just found out one of the most important subcontractors, with unique skills needed for the solution, backed out today. Without a key area of the solution covered, Jill needs to decide how to proceed. She can get a new subcontractor to replace the one that exited the proposal. Or, she could advise her management team that the proposal cannot go forward.

How would either of those options impact Jill’s time? Or, others’ time?

Even with good intentions and the culture of trust at the forefront of our minds, it is not always easy to spot the potential for wasting time. The following ideas can help us avoid spending time ineffectively:

Stop winging it. Nearly all projects need some kind of plan. Whether it is ten pages long with timelines and a team or it’s a list of five bullets, every project needs some thought in advance. Winging it rarely leads to efficiency, and more often causes swirl. At minimum, write a list of tasks needed to be completed and dates for each. Don’t rely on memory for work if you’re trying to be efficient or at the top of your game.

Understand your span of authority. We all have a certain span of authority with our positions. Understand yours and gain input from others as needed. The tendency to gain input for everything can slow teams down. With that said, however, be absolutely certain you have the experience to operate within the span given. If you are attempting something new or making a decision that affects more than one or two people, get support. Seek guidance from colleagues with more experience often; however, do so without relinquishing your responsibility for the decision.

Say “Yes” first. When you work somewhere for a long time, it’s tempting to bring up history along with each new project or idea. Every day people say, “We’ve already tried that here and it didn’t work.” Or, “We have always done it this way.” Keep those historical experiences in mind and share them when ideas develop, not when they are first brought up. They waste time because the conversation ends up being about history, why it did or did not work, or how now is different. Save that battle. It might be unnecessary anyway.

Avoid the weapons of mass distraction. Turn off alerts for Facebook, Snap Chat, and other social platforms. Turn off email pop-up notifications, set a time to check email throughout the day instead of one at a time upon arrival, and create rules to manage incoming email efficiently.

Stop multitasking. Multitasking got trendy for a while, but research is proving it is wasting time. MIT’s Dr. Earl Miller is one of the leading researchers on multitasking, and his studies show there is no such thing. People are not really doing two things at once, they are switching rapidly between two or three things. That is causing errors, duplication of effort, and stress. We all have more than one task on our plates at the same time. Single-tasking, instead of multi-tasking, just means focusing on whatever you are working on at the moment. Work at a quick clip—avoiding distractions and interruptions—and complete the work. Bouncing all over the place wastes time.

Contribute well to meetings. If I had a dollar for every time someone complained about inefficient meetings, I’d be wealthier than last week’s Powerball winners. There is zero excuse for meetings without objectives and agendas. Even if both must be stated at the start of the meeting, state them. Identify the topics needed to discuss, plan an appropriate amount of time for each, and proceed as planned. If deviation from the agenda is needed, advise the participants. Holding people hostage is annoying and rude. Side conversations, being unprepared, and not following the agenda are too. Pay attention so topics do not have to be repeated, especially if you participate via the phone. Whether you are the host or participant, you contribute to whether the meeting is useful or a time-suck.

Be aware of how you spend time each day. They say time is a gift. Each day, we are given the gift of 1,440 minutes. Be selective about how you spend each one and don’t take any one for granted by wasting it without awareness.

What else helps you be efficient at work? Share more tips.

5 Simple ways to get a grip

Do you ever have days that you’re so harried and need to get a grip? Usually during times like that, simplicity flies right out the window. Sometimes it feels like it flies out the window right after our sanity.

Snickers had a commercial during the Super Bowl last year that captured the sentiment. The nice guy turned in to a Joe Pesci character when he was not himself. The solution was to have a Snickers candy bar and he would be back to himself in no time.

The fact is, some days are just busier, more booked, or more stress-filled than others; however, we don’t want to eat chocolate every time. (Right?!) Here are five simple actions that can help you slow down and recover during high-pressure days:

1. Breathe. Use the 10-5-10 technique: breathe in for a slow count of 10, hold it for a slow 5, then release it to a slow count of 10. Slowing blood flow and breathing puts you in control physically. If it doesn’t work once, do it again. It only takes 25 seconds, so do it as many times as needed.
2. Take a break. Rushed and rattled is no way to make an important decision or engage with others. Walk outside; get fresh air for a fresh perspective.
3. Be grateful. In the midst of a stressful time, jot down as many things you’re grateful for as possible. Set an alarm for one minute and start writing. This is a fun exercise that changes moods by changing focus and reminding of priorities.
4. Identify the good. When you need to get a grip quickly, think about something positive about the situation you’re in. It could be a learning opportunity, or a chance to interact with someone you don’t know well yet, or a chance to show your skills in a new way. There’s usually something good even in the midst of stressful situations, so look for it when you need to get a grip.
5. Recognize an accomplishment. When there’s uncertainty, think of something that began the same way and turned out well. Once you remember working through a similar circumstance, you can focus on working through the current one too.

Everyone feels rushed and ragged once in a while. Use these steps to get a grip so the heightened emotions don’t lead to poor decisions, hurt relationships, or damaged reputations. And, remember, everyone has days like that, so be patient when someone around is having one.

The slippery slope from confidence to arrogance

There is a fine line between confidence and arrogance. The topic has been on my mind, and I wasn’t sure where to draw the line, so I briefly researched and asked a dozen people for their perspectives.

According to dictionaries and different people, the difference between confidence and arrogance has to do with how one views others.

Confident people believe in themselves. They know they are competent, and their belief is not dependent on others. They may enjoy feedback and recognition, but they do not require it in order to feel good about themselves.

Arrogant people’s confidence depends on others’ weaknesses. They even point out others’ errors and faults to make themselves appear better. One colleague said, “Arrogant people only feel smart if someone else feels stupid.”

The tricky part about confidence and arrogance is that the line is so thin between them, it makes for a slippery slope. Confidence often turns in to arrogance after success.

Success requires confidence. Success requires the confidence to take risks regarding investments, innovations, and interactions. However, success can cause insecurity: when will the next risk pay off? What if the next one does not turn out well? What if that was a one-time success? The insecurity wears a mask called arrogance, hence, the slippery slope from confidence to arrogance.

Each article I read about arrogance described it as a cover for insecurity. Isn’t that interesting? The very thing arrogant people despise, weakness or insecurity, is what they are covering by putting others down to prop themselves up.

One of the most highly regarded experts on arrogance is University of Akron Dean Stanley Silverman who spent four years working with a research team to quantify arrogance.

"Here's what happens," Silverman said. "I'm worried that other people are going to realize that I'm not very competent at my job, so I'm going to put other people down, criticize others and belittle my employees because somehow I think I'm going to look better that way. If I put down everybody around me, it makes my candle shine a little brighter." (SOURCE: www.cleveland.com)

The following eight behaviors are how arrogant people make their candle shine brighter:

1.     Drop names. 

2.     Look for criteria other than business performance to use when measuring success. Since business performance might not be so good, arrogant people focus on their degree, school, or job title.

3.     One-up others. Arrogant people have the best of the best and worst of the worst of whatever experience is being discussed. They have the best book published, the worst cold the doctor has ever seen, the best behaved child, the worst boss. They did the biggest project with the most difficult client for the most money ever. Confident people don’t need to brag. They let their work speak for itself.

4.     Have an answer for everything. Arrogant people will rarely say, “I don’t know but will find out.”

5.     Interrupt frequently because they are not really listening.

6.     Avoid eye contact because they don’t care about others unless they need something from the person.

7.     Arrive late to meetings because their time is more valuable than everyone else’s.

8.     Blame others for errors or low performance. It’s never their fault the team is struggling.

 

What other behaviors do you attribute to arrogance? The more we know, the better able we will be to ensure we are not sliding down that slope. 

1.     Recognizing our own arrogant behavior can help improve our relationships with our colleagues. The following eight suggestions also can help if you have to work with arrogant people:

2.     Point at them and declare, “I know why you’re so arrogant: because you are weak!” in your best eight-year-old nah-nah-nah voice. Just kidding—don’t confront them. They will see it as a compliment and it will just waste your time.

3.     Build your own confidence so you do not have time to give attention to negative people.

4.     Spend free time with positive people who do not diminish your accomplishments or try to impress you. Minimize the time you spend with the arrogant person.

5.     Admire and recognize the accomplishments of others. When the arrogant person sees you acknowledge someone else, he might alter his behavior in his quest for approval.

6.     Keep secrets to yourself. Anything you tell an arrogant person could end up as fodder for her own esteem-boosting if she resorts to putting you down to pull herself up.

7.     Do not badmouth the arrogant colleague. Some people actually believe any press is good press. Also, gossiping can lead to wasting too much time on a topic not worth it.

8.     Include others in your conversations with the arrogant person. “Russell, we have heard your view. Now it is time to hear from Sally.”

9.     Most importantly, realize their arrogance is not about you.

What else have you done to work successfully with arrogant people?

Since this topic has been on my mind, I asked a group of business professionals recently how many of them have ever worked with an arrogant colleague. Every hand raised high. When I asked if they were the arrogant person, all hands went down.

"If you're being arrogant, you're going to derail your own career," said Stanley Silverman, an organizational and industrial psychologist. "It's just a matter of when. Nobody is irreplaceable."  Even when an arrogant person is more skilled, the confident person will win out because they can work better with others internally and externally.

When it comes down to it, performance matters. No one will work their hardest for someone who puts them down or tries to make them feel inferior. The good news is that if you’ve begun the slippery slope from confidence to arrogance, you can get back on track and salvage your reputation.

 

The beginning of the end of employee coddling

You’ve heard the news by now that Yahoo’s new CEO, Marissa Mayer, declared the end to working from home for Yahoo employees. They have been given three months to get their homes in order and get back to the office.  Yahoo says the return to work is to build collaboration and form a unified Yahoo. Is Mayer risking too much with this change or is the change a slick move?

Keep in mind that Mayer was hired to “right the ship”. Yahoo has been going downhill fast (one recent CEO there was fired for lying on his resume and others failed), and she’s there to turn it around. Clearly, what they are doing now is not working, so changes are necessary.

Wouldn’t it be silly to keep doing what they’ve been doing when what they’ve been doing is not working? Wouldn’t it be silly to retain the flexible work location just because Google and Facebook offer it to their people? Yahoo is not their peer and its people are not holding up their end of the bargain by actually working while at home.

I’d bet Mayer didn’t issue the change without identifying the most important contributors and how they work. Unfortunately, she found out that most of the people working from home were complacent. Complacency ruins companies. She’s not going to let Yahoo go down without a fight.

On the other hand, research shows that flexibility is important to workers today. Companies that offer flexibility enjoy lower turnover, higher employee satisfaction and engagement. Mayer might be jeopardizing the highly productive, engaged, and motivated employees in an attempt to boost collaboration or rid the company of underperformers.

Some people have noted that top talent won’t join Yahoo now because they will not have the flexibility to work from home. That’s a risk Mayer is willing to take. Frankly, I doubt top talent would be focused only on this one issue. They will come for other perks, if the company turns itself around.

Much of the world is up-in-arms about this edict, proclaiming it takes working women back fifty years, but let’s recognize the positives of the strategy too:

·         The change is not odd. It makes sense that an industry that relies on innovation, which is built on collaboration, would want people to be together.

·         It sends the positive message that people are so valuable, they need to collaborate more. If you don’t want to, feel free to exit may be the underlying message, but the outward message is positive.

·         It’s a great way to get rid of the complacent people taking advantage of the flexible option without having the cost of layoffs.

·         It shows analysts and customers that Yahoo is not afraid to make bold moves.

·         The change is temporary. They’ve said it is necessary “right now”, which leaves it open to change in the future or on an as-needed basis.

This might be the tipping point for coddling. In some places, employee engagement has run amok and people have taken advantage. Companies are waking up to the fact that they pay good money and it is reasonable to expect something in return. When people don’t hold up their end of the bargain, companies are going to coddle less and open the exit doors more.

As companies wake up to their power, complacent employees will be the most vocal protesters. Mark my words: the coddling days are coming to an end. The days of genuine caring will continue, just the coddling will stop.

Team commitment requires more than Kumbaya

Think of all the teams, formal and informal, you are on at work: project teams, client teams, strategic teams. You also are on teams at home as the leader of a family, or sibling, or son or daughter. You are on teams in your church, neighborhood, kids's school, nonprofits you support, and with friends. Some of you are on athletic teams--professional or not.

Sometimes you are a teammate and other times you are the team leader. Are you always a team player?

How committed are you to your teams and their goals? How committed are you to your teammates? Does your commitment waiver when the teams are winning v. losing? Or, does it waiver depending on how the teams are led? Or, is your commitment dependent upon commitment demonstrated by other teammates and leaders?

Our commitment to the teams we are on is not a one-time promise. It is impacted all the time and must be renewed frequently. Team leaders in any field who expect a version of Kumbaya at the start of a project or season will form and keep player commitment will cause their teams to lose.

Work teams lose when projects take too long or cost too much. They might get finished, but the lack of commitment is costly and lack of trust will impact future projects too. I was on a project for a nonprofit training event several years ago. The leadership of the team was so bad (wasteful of our time by lack of preparation), the team has never heard from him again. Another team I was on was run by a leader whose ego was bigger than everyone else, and the only things that were completed were what she micromanaged and instructed. She personally caused the finances and membership of the group to decrease, plus, she missed out on so many great ideas. You have been on similar teams, right?

As a team player, it is important to assess your commitment to your teams. When you are not All-In, assess your behavior and reasons. It is okay if the team changes its Mission for you to change your commitment; however, it is not acceptable to sabotage the team overtly or with poor performance.

Players often make self-centered decisions when they have not bought in to the culture, leadership, or goals. If you are a teammate over the age of twelve, it is unacceptable to behave in a selfish manner. You are taught by that age to put the team first.

When players put themselves first, they reflect their own character and how they feel about their teammates and leaders. Good leaders know team commitment can be fleeting and must be renewed frequently. Slogans like "There is no "I" in TEAM!" don't work when hollered once. There may be no "I" in team, but there is "ME". Experienced, talented leaders pay attention to player commitment and build it often, even when a player makes a mistake and puts himself first. It takes more than punishment or discipline to earn a player's commitment.

As a player and leader, pay attention to commitment all the time. Paying attention to it once is not going to lead to success in any field.

Thoughts on the first day of school

My best friend from college spent last weekend taking her eldest daughter across the country to college for her Freshman year. My dear friend's experience and feelings about the transition for her and her daughter prompted me to ponder how my students feel this week.

As an  adjunct professor of Management at the University of Missouri-KC School of Management, I begin teaching an undergrad management course today. The MBA course I will teach this semester begins in October.

What are my students feeling this first week of class? Former students told me how they felt the first week of class: nervous about unknown teachers, mad about the cost of books, tired from busy summers, anxious about the workload, excited about the clean slate a new term brings, excited to meet new people, nervous about meeting new people, worried none of it will matter anyway because there are no jobs.

In thinking about the students and their futures, I will honor the following priorities and promises:

• Course resources: Your book and course pack will be used. You will get your money's worth. They are valuable resources worth keeping, if you can.
• Your time: You are choosing to spend about three hours with me each week, and I promise to work hard to make the time worth it. If you do the work each week, your time in the course will be worth it because you will be better managers for having the experience. The best managers can become the best leaders--and they can change entire companies!
• My time: I will honor my time also. We all have a finite number of minutes here on this earth, and I don't waste many of them. I'm All-In! Come to class prepared and our time will be spent well.
• Energy: I will come to class prepared and excited to be there. Our energy feeds off each other's, but it starts with the leader. I don't expect you to pump me up every class. I expect you to respond to the energy I bring--heck, let's face it, that's what happens anyway. 
• Honor: I consider it a great honor to be part of your education, and I take the small role I play in the course of your education and life seriously. You make personal and financial sacrifices to pursue your education, and I respect you for it and will honor it.
• Integrity: I will serve you with integrity, and I expect you to pursue your grade with the highest standard of integrity, honesty, and ethics. There will be no exceptions tolerated.
• Excitement: The courses I get to teach are full of useful information that matters in the real world. We will talk about people, events, and companies that matter. I love this stuff and can't wait to share and discuss it with you!
• Guarantee: While I cannot guarantee you will get an A or a big job upon graduation, I can guarantee that if you do great work, respect me, your classmates, and the material, I will be in your corner. I will share resources with you, coach you, open my network to you, and cheer for you. Once you are in my class, you become part of a network of people I care about. You will always matter to me because I will have been honored to be your professor. If you are All-In, I will be too.

That's all I can think of without getting too sappy about life. I know this semester is an important foundation for my students' careers, and I will serve them well.

Let's go Roos!

Chick-fil-A fails to live its corporate purpose

I like companies who stand by their values. I seek them out to learn about them, meet their leaders, understand their cultures, and identify how other companies could emulate them. Chick-fil-A has been a company I've admired because it openly expresses and endorses Christian values. In a time when most companies turn themselves inside-out to be politically correct, Chick-fil-A does not. They proclaim their Christian values loudly and proudly. I've referred to them as being All-In many times in presentations. 

But, has their outward Christian appearance been a ruse? Do the Christian values genuinely matter, or is the chain really just focused on the chicken change? The chain's response to the current controversy will shed light on the answers to those questions.

The controversy began last Monday, July 16, 2012, when the Baptist Press posted an article about Chick-fil-A's culture. Dan Cathy, president and chief operating officer of the $4 billion fast food chicken chain, emphasized the company's fervent dedication to its Bible-based values. In the article, Cathy answered questions about being closed on Sundays, if success is tied to the biblical foundation, and its support of the traditional family. His flippant comments about the last topic caused the stir among supporters of gay marriage.

The article was picked up by bigger media outlets across the country, and word spread within a week about how outspoken the COO was regarding traditional family. The Jim Hensen Company responded by immediately removing the muppets as a partner of the chain. (Edit--There has been much publicized support for the COO's comments too--it's not all negative.)

At first, I thought what he said was not surprising considering the history of the company and how open it is about its Bible-basis. A southern company based on the Bible favors traditional marriage over gay marriage--not surprising, not noteworthy. 

What is a disappointing surprise is how opposite the company's actions are with regard to its corporate purpose. Cathy said the corporate purpose is to "glorify God and be a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us and have a positive influence on all that come in contact with Chick-fil-A."

It turns out, Chick-fil-A does not care to have a positive influence on all that come in contact with it. The company does not simply support traditional family values, it reportedly actively campaigns against nontraditional families and gay people. There are reports of millions of dollars in donations from the company toward anti-gay groups. 

Cathy's comments and Chick-fil-A's dedication toward the anti-gay movement are not aligned with the stated corporate purpose. Clearly, they are not concerned with "all that come in contact with Chick-fil-A." He and the company are concerned with all non-gay people who come in contact with Chick-fil-A.

Cathy said, "...thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles." Someone check the good book, but I'm pretty sure the most important Bible principle is about loving God. Isn't the second one about loving your neighbor? I'm starting to wonder if the chicken chief's company is just pandering to the Bible-loving south by openly proclaiming it is based on Christian values but only living by the ones it finds convenient.

Please note, I don't care whether the company is in favor of traditional marriage. I care that they proclaim to be one thing but are showing they are something else. That's it. My issue has nothing to do with sexuality, marriage, or religion. My issue is with honesty, with Chick-fil-A's behavior (including the COO's flippant attitude) and purpose being out of alignment, and with the company invoking Christian values while supporting groups opposed to them.

I like companies who stand by their values. I just won't be using Chick-fil-A as an example of one any more.

I wonder how KFC and the other chicken chains will respond to the Chick-fil-A controversy? I'd advise them to beef up their customer service training, keep their restaurants clean, and not say a word about the gays. After all, actions speak louder than words. I think that's in the Bible somewhere too.

Killing your customers is bad for business

Aftermath of the rental car crash in which two sisters died

More than two years ago, a story about two sisters killed because their Enterprise rental car had been recalled but had not been repaired was in the news. A jury awarded the girls' family $15 million. Enterprise, the nation's largest rental car company, suffered a brief blow to their public relations when the award was publicized but the death of the two girls did not prompt changes to rental car company practices.

They still rent and sell cars without fixing safety recalls. 

What kind of corporate culture exists within the rental companies that continue to rent unsafe cars? 

When companies are willing to risk the lives of their customers, the message is clear: your money is more valuable than your life. How long can companies who risk their customers' lives stay in business? How long will people continue doing business with companies that show such disrespect and lack of trustworthiness?

If they are willing to risk the lives of their customers, what do you think their internal corporate culture is like? It would be reasonable to infer lack of respect for employees is inherent in those cultures too.

This is an example of companies putting one stakeholder--investors--above the rest. Customers have died, yet significant changes have not taken place in the industry. 

There is something wrong with an industry that refuses to keep its customers safe. There is something wrong with companies who refuse to honor safety recalls until their customers find out about it. At some point, customer trust will be eroded beyond repair. Where will the industry be then? Which companies will remain?

Senator Boxer is asking the rental car companies to pledge "a permanent commitment to not rent out or sell any vehicles under safety recall until the defect has been remedied." Hertz agreed to sign the Senator's pledge but other companies have not. Enterprise has not, saying they already have such a practice in place (but it allows for the sale of unrepaired cars to be sold wholesale). No word yet on whether Avis or Dollar Thrifty will join the pledge.  (SOURCE: USAToday article)

Senator Boxer is drafting legislation to force the rental car companies to repair cars recalled for safety. That such legislation is needed is pitiful.

Customer lives don't matter to some of the companies, but their wallets do. 

What can you do?

1. Find out your rental car company's policy on safety recalls. If they do not honor the recalls, switch.
2. If your employer rents from one that does not honor recalls, switch. 
3. If you are responsible for your employer's selection of a rental car company, investigate this immediately. You may be inadvertently putting your coworkers at risk, and the company along with it. 
4. Spread the word about this issue to frequent traveling friends and colleagues. They might assume rental cars are repaired and would appreciate learning the truth.
5. If you work in one of the companies, address this internally. Assess the culture of distrust created and work to rebuild trust with your customers and employees. Realign the focus on all stakeholders, not just investors. Investors won't be happy when customers refuse to trust you, so realigning focus will benefit all stakeholders.

As an employee and customer, put your money where your trust is by showing the rental car companies that killing customers is bad for business.

If your company needs help with stakeholder alignment, please call Kelly Tyler. She will share a diagnostic tool to aid your effort and could save the company from losing customers, employees, and investors.

Wall Street's gibberish no longer tolerated

Wall Street companies who rely on public trust (and money!) better realize their acronyms, fancy words, and gibberish are no longer being tolerated. Their corporate cultures need to change.

The latest evidence that Wall Street corporate cultures are no longer being tolerated is the investigations and lawsuits launched after last week's Facebook IPO fiasco.

The public is interested to learn how Morgan Stanley made money off the deal by "short trades". The public is interested to learn how the banks involved kept lowered growth expectations from some investors, while at the same time promoting the stock to those same people. The public is interested to learn whether legal and ethical lines were crossed.

Facebook and Morgan Stanley are the latest companies facing scrutiny. Others include Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase, which have been in the news for less than stellar reasons this year.

Gone are the days when high-powered men in suits could seemingly pat the public on the head and tell it to run along like a little child. The public wants answers and is not going to tolerate the patronizing arrogance of Wall Street any longer.

With so much money rolling in, why should Wall Street firms care what the public wants?

Because the public includes investors and customers.

The public includes the Baby Boom generation who wants to invest in companies they believe in and Gen Y who wants to work for companies they believe in. Also, the public is slowly starting to recognize the importance of long-term sustainability over a short-term snapshot. We're not impressed with one good quarter now and then. 

Narrowly skipping along the thin line of ethical behavior is not going to cut it for the public any longer.

The firms that align their behavior with all of their stakeholders, not just their stockholders, will not need to worry about the pressures from the public. They will speak in plain terms people understand because they don't need to hide behind gibberish.

A CEO's minor lie is major to employees

Four days ago it became public and blogged about here that Yahoo's new CEO, Scott Thompson, had lied on his resume. He lists an accounting and computer science degree, when he has only an accounting degree.

I blogged about it Friday because of the impact on corporate culture, and several people protested because the lie was so minor and didn't matter. So minor, they insisted, it shouldn't even be called a lie but an oversight.

Late yesterday, the CEO apologized for the distraction the lie had caused. He did not apologize for the lie itself or explain how it had been perpetuated throughout his hiring or previous employers. In the memo obtained by CNN, Thompson says, "I want you to know how deeply I regret how this issue has affected the company and all of you." (Source: cnn.com)

Whether you call it a lie or an inadvertent oversight, or any other name, the issue, its cause, and its management have become major to the employees. 

From cnn.com: A senior Yahoo executive, who spoke to CNN on the condition that his name not be used, said: "Thompson has quickly lost the confidence of many employees, who think he has to go."

Managers and executives often underestimate the impact their actions have on the people around them. When you need your people to unite as a team to move a company forward, they need you to be truthful. They will notice if you're not, and the corporate culture will be impacted.

(Article at cnn.com)

What do you think? 

Would you care if your company leaders lied in a similar way?

UPDATE 
May 13, 2012:
Yahoo confirmed late today that it's CEO, Scott Thompson, left the company as a result of the padded resume.
Article on cnn.com

Best Buy: Time for a gut check

As if struggling to adapt to consumers' changing needs wasn't enough, today Best Buy's CEO resigned for "personal conduct" reasons. CEO Brian Dunn resigned today, according to The Wall Street Journal, citing "personal conduct" but no details of the conduct were provided.

During the recession, Best Buy won a highly public battle with Circuit City who filed bankruptcy and closed, but now it's losing an even bigger war with Apple. Best Buy is set to close 50 stores, grow its Geek Squad computer support business, and needs to revamp the consumer experience. Best Buy used to be the cool place  to buy electronics, but now it's a "showroom" and Apple wins the battle for cool.

To put it in perspective, Best Buy stores had operating income per square foot of $50.61 in 2006 and just five years later the income per square foot was $18.52 according to estimates by the retail consultancy Customer Growth Partners. By contrast, Apple's retail stores reaped an astronomical $4,700 per square foot last year, (From The Wall Street Journal)

Best Buy is hanging on for dear life, and now its CEO's resignation is likely to humiliate it further. This is a time of great opportunity for Best Buy, if it conducts an honest gut check. What are you made of, Best Buy? Great leaders, which Best Buy was once, are self-aware and adaptable. If it digs deep and finds out what's inside, Best Buy could overcome the embarrassing resignation, create a new customer experience, and position itself for a strong future.

After all, not everyone wants an Apple everything. There is room for competition, but Best Buy has to dig deep to remain part of the conversation. It's time for a gut check.

____________________________
What do you think:  Can Best Buy make it?

Starbucks CEO takes the lead in stakeholder alignment

Howard Schultz, CEO of Starbucks, made news late last year when he instigated a ban of campaign donations in this $6 billion campaign year. More than 150 CEOs joined Schultz in declining to donate to incumbents during the current campaign year.

Now, Schultz is working to put Americans back to work. He was on the CBS morning show to give a glimpse of the new program and Starbucks's actions to create more jobs.

Schultz describes the Create Jobs for USA Fund, Starbucks internal job creation actions, and the impact of aligned stakeholder focus on investors. (Hint: it's good!)

Later today, Google Offers and Banana Republic revealed their efforts in the Create Jobs for USA Fund. Schultz may be one of the leaders on the forefront of the stakeholder alignment movement. Where are you and your company leaders on that front? 

CEO salaries should be related to performance, not Wall Street

It makes sense that the biggest paychecks would go to those who make the biggest decisions which impact the most people, especially when the decisions impact the long-term competitive position and viability of the company.

It does not make sense that those same decision-makers are rewarded gigantic raises ten times the regular employees' raises when the decisions result in 25% greater loss from one year to the next.

If an employee's performance yielded similar results, she would be fired. It does not make sense that CEOs with poor results get rewarded outlandish pay increases instead.

The latest was published in the Kansas City Star today with this headline: Sprint’s Hesse gets 31 percent pay boost as Overland Park carrier’s losses continue (article)

The article says Hesse's decisions led to a 25% bigger loss this year than last, and his decisions are not helping turn the company around. However, the stock price has gained 22% this year. It trades below $3. It shouldn't take much for it to get a 22% increase.

Is Hesse's raise tied to the stock price or to the company's overall performance?

It appears this is another example in which the CEO's performance is not measured or rewarded in the same manner as others'.

Why not? Furthermore, why would CEOs whose performance at one company fails be highly sought after at other companies? That makes no sense but it a topic for a different day.

Sprint is the largest private employer in Kansas City, so its CEO getting a significant raise makes news around town. So many people in the area have worked for Sprint, it almost always comes up in conversation. Sprint has laid off so many people over the years, they're one of the biggest causes of the regions growing entrepreneurs. They also are well known for their culture of mediocrity. In fact, the culture of mediocrity is so commonly known, some employers will not hire former Sprint employees because of it.

When the CEO's decisions have led to greater losses year after year, and no end is in sight, it is unreasonable to reward him. It is certainly unreasonable to reward him with millions of dollars while his fellow employees get no raises, layoffs, and bad reputations. Sure, Hesse won't have to work again, but if he wants to, he will land another highly lucrative gig. His Sprint coworkers, however, have difficulty landing great jobs in Kansas City because of the culture he fosters.

That is wrong and Hesse and his peers should have the integrity to hold themselves accountable for it.

Apparently, the only people who will hire employees with reputations of mediocrity and poor performance are Boards of Directors. If the CEOs and Boards won't hold themselves to a high standard of excellent performance, the employees and customers need to.

If Sprint were to cultivate a culture of integrity and excellence, Hesse could actually earn the salary and bonuses with integrity.

It is time for CEO pay to be aligned with company performance as it relates to all of its stakeholders, not just its stockholders. It is time for CEO pay to be based on results instead of short-term stock price fluctuations. It is time for CEO pay to be earned with integrity.

On a personal note...
I began my career with a division of Sprint, the publishing division. We published the phone directories, and, we loved it! The company made money, hired great people, grew at a reasonable pace, and fostered a culture of excellence. Many of us remain connected today, with annual reunions in the summer and around the holidays. I share that in the interest of full disclosure and also to show that not all Sprint is bad. Well, Sprint sold that division a while ago when it needed cash. But, it was great until then. I am a former employee who loved working for the division I was with, current customer who has had superb service, and stockholder who is unimpressed with a 22% increase.

_______________________
What do you think?
Are you ready for CEOs' pay to be tied to performance?

When employers cross the line with Facebook

A colleague's son recently interviewed for his first professional position in anticipation of his May 2012 graduation. The interviewer asked general questions about Facebook, then turned to her computer, went to Facebook, and asked the son for his login ID and password. Since his profile and wall were private to the prospective employer, she wanted to log in to see his activity.

Does that cross the line? What would you have done if you were being interviewed and your login information was requested?

Does requesting login information for current employees cross the line too, or is that different?

I realize employees spending company time on social sites could be problematic on several levels--poor work performance, lack of teamwork, low productivity. But, is it the company's business how employees spend their non-company time?

If you don't want your coworkers or employer to know about your kids, hobbies, vacation, friends, friends' kids, family, family issues, is it their business to force you to reveal such things?


My perspective is that the issue really is about the company and its culture.

First, if company were utilizing the employees' skills well, there would be no time for Facebook during the work day. Also, the employees would not be interested in wasting time if their time were being used well.

Second, if the managers knew their people better, demanding logins would be unnecessary. Managers who show interest in their people can learn about kids, family, friends, hobbies, interests, etc. If employees feel the need to keep their lives secret, that says something about the lack of trust for their managers and the organization. Or, perhaps the employee's hobbies are illegal or immoral?

Third, as a manager or employer, once you learn private information, you may be responsible for it. You might shoulder the burden of an employee's sick grandparent now that you know there is a big fundraiser. Or, you might become witness to legal battles between exes. Or, you might learn about lifestyles that are not common in your organization. Learning more than people want to reveal is not always advantageous for the company.

If an interviewer asked me for my Facebook login, I would request theirs first. After all, I would want to see just who I would be working with and how they spend their time. Do you think the interviewer would provide it? Me either.

______________________________________
What do you think?
Is requiring Facebook login information from job candidates and current employees over the line?