A friend commented yesterday that I seem to be on an employee engagement kick. Given that I've seen how damaging disengagement can be, both to the individual and to the company, reading about it done right gives me hope. Do the KIND Thing by Daniel Lubetzky is a good example of this.
Daniel is always looking to be a not-just-for-profit company, and to find a way to make a positive difference in the world. The way he treats his partners and staff, and the culture he's imbued the KIND company with, are all testaments to how this is not only the right thing to do but also good for all involved (and the bottom line). This is very aligned with Conscious Capitalism and what The Container Store and others that are part of this movement believe.
A striking example of this is how they treat staff firing and promotion.
If someone is not a good fit, there is advance notice and effort to help the person perform or to find a better fit elsewhere in the company. If this does not work out, they are given ample time to transition out, when they can actively look for another job as long as they help with the transition. The one time a senior manager did not follow this protocol, Daniel apologized to the employee who was disrespectfully escorted out, had a company-wide meeting to address the morale issues and reiterated how this was wrong, and tried to get the senior manager to understand his misstep.
For promotions, there is opportunity with transitions built in. Daniel has an "assistant ladder" where each assistant, when she outgrows the position, hires and trains her replacement. Many of his assistants have moved on to senior positions either within or outside of the company, but always ensured that there was a seamless transition.
At the core of all of this is an open dialogue about employee ambitions, development, and options. If someone decides to look elsewhere, KIND asks that the employee first have a conversation with either Daniel or their direct manager. If after this conversation the person still decides their best way forward is to move on, they can look openly as long as they keep doing their job and help recruit and train their replacement.
Is this not a breath of fresh air? We've all made mistakes and/or outgrown jobs; we've all had to figure out how to juggle current demands with looking for the next opportunity. There were times you probably wished you could ask your boss about other options in the company, but feared doing so. Imagine if you had been able to do so and then either been helped to find something else internally, or been treated as a respected professional and encouraged to look externally so that you could be professionally fulfilled?
I recently reposted a blog post titled "You Matter" about how we all need to know that we matter to someone and make a difference. That's what being treated with respect is all about. Whether you end up staying at a job for years or just months, if you have given your time and effort, you deserve that respect. And an employer saying "Hey, sorry this didn't work out. What can I do to make it better? And if that doesn't work, let's talk about how we can move on and stay friends," is the epitome of respect.
Have you been respected? Is there something you can do differently to show someone more respect?
Balance and Timing
So much of life and success come down to whether you do just the right amount of something and whether you do it just at the right time. I always knew this but reading about Daniel Lubetzky's journey and decisions in Do the KIND Thing made it even more apparent.
Daniel spent most of a chapter explaining the challenge faced when you actually succeed and get funding. Objectively you think that's when a company has it made, but as Daniel explains, if you want to stay lean and true to your purpose and culture, you have to walk a fine line. What is worth the investment and what is just a waste of hard-earned money? They decided to put the investment money into a separate account and withdrawals had to be approved by Daniel himself. The question he always asked himself and his team was whether any expenditure would help the business grow.
There were times, though, when his board argued that he wasn't spending enough and was therefore limiting growth. A great example of this is sampling. During the lean years, giving away entire KIND bars for free was more than the company could afford, so they'd cut them up and give away small pieces for potential customers to taste. After getting funding, Daniel was eventually convinced to invest in a true sampling program where complete bars (and sometimes boxes) were given away to attract customers. The ROI was larger than Daniel expected and proved that the extra money was well spent.
Similar to the balance of when to spend and on what is the question of when to do things. The easiest example of this is when to look for funding. Daniel held off until his company was fairly successful and the lack of capital was actually holding it back. Since their valuation was higher then, he was able to maintain more of an equity stake and control, but even then he waited until he found the right partner. Also, there were several large partners they did not approach until their product had traction and they had the resources to keep up with these partners' demand.
The funny thing about balance and timing is that what's right for one instance won't be right for the next and you have to constantly revisit all factors. One of the KIND methods to do this is to thing AND instead of BUT: they're always looking for innovative ways to disprove assumptions and add value.
Have you had to figure out the right balance and time for a major decision? Did it go well? Why do you think it did or did not?
Daniel spent most of a chapter explaining the challenge faced when you actually succeed and get funding. Objectively you think that's when a company has it made, but as Daniel explains, if you want to stay lean and true to your purpose and culture, you have to walk a fine line. What is worth the investment and what is just a waste of hard-earned money? They decided to put the investment money into a separate account and withdrawals had to be approved by Daniel himself. The question he always asked himself and his team was whether any expenditure would help the business grow.
There were times, though, when his board argued that he wasn't spending enough and was therefore limiting growth. A great example of this is sampling. During the lean years, giving away entire KIND bars for free was more than the company could afford, so they'd cut them up and give away small pieces for potential customers to taste. After getting funding, Daniel was eventually convinced to invest in a true sampling program where complete bars (and sometimes boxes) were given away to attract customers. The ROI was larger than Daniel expected and proved that the extra money was well spent.
Similar to the balance of when to spend and on what is the question of when to do things. The easiest example of this is when to look for funding. Daniel held off until his company was fairly successful and the lack of capital was actually holding it back. Since their valuation was higher then, he was able to maintain more of an equity stake and control, but even then he waited until he found the right partner. Also, there were several large partners they did not approach until their product had traction and they had the resources to keep up with these partners' demand.
The funny thing about balance and timing is that what's right for one instance won't be right for the next and you have to constantly revisit all factors. One of the KIND methods to do this is to thing AND instead of BUT: they're always looking for innovative ways to disprove assumptions and add value.
Have you had to figure out the right balance and time for a major decision? Did it go well? Why do you think it did or did not?
Managing Your Career
Jack Welch spends an entire section of his book Winning on the important topic of managing your career.
One chapter is on how to recognize the right job and how to avoid the wrong one. The five "signals" to look for are—
- people: whether you fit in and/or like those you'd work with;
- opportunity: whether you will have the chance to grow;
- options: whether the company or industry will open doors for you;
- ownership: whether you are taking the job for yourself or for others;
- work content: whether you love what you'll be doing or not.
Although you may have to choose three or four out of the five, only you can decide what matters most to you.
Jack recommends finding something you love to do with people you love, and doing the job well: this will make work something you look forward to and you a performer who will attract other great jobs.
Jack then spends a chapter on how to get promoted. It starts with delivering sensational performance and not making your boss use political capital to champion you.
Some other do's mentioned:
Jack recommends finding something you love to do with people you love, and doing the job well: this will make work something you look forward to and you a performer who will attract other great jobs.
Jack then spends a chapter on how to get promoted. It starts with delivering sensational performance and not making your boss use political capital to champion you.
Some other do's mentioned:
- manage your subordinates well
- be an early champion of company projects
- learn from everyone, including your mentors, peers, and the news
- have and spread around a positive attitude
His last don't: don't let setbacks break your stride.
Great overall advice in a great book and a lot of food for thought.
Which of the five "signals" could you never give up on? And if you've promoted someone, which of Jack's do's and don'ts resonate most with you?
Leadership Compacts: The Key to Managing Up
Managing up is something that many worry about and many others write about. Larry Bossidy, in his article "What Your Leader Expects of You" in the Harvard Business Review, suggests that leaders create a compact with their direct reports.
This compact spells out what the leader expects and what he will provide, so that he and his direct reports know exactly how to work well together.
Of his direct reports, he expects:
- get involved
- generate ideas
- be willing to collaborate
- be willing to lead initiatives
- develop leaders as you develop
- stay current
- anticipate
- drive your own growth
- be a player for all seasons
And his direct reports can expect:
- provide clarity of direction
- set goals and objectives
- give frequent, specific, and immediate feedback
- be decisive and timely
- be accessible
- demonstrate honesty and candor
- offer an equitable compensation plan
Keep in mind that Larry is a CEO and these expectations are for senior executives, but they can be modified to fit any manager and direct report.
I love the idea since it takes the guesswork and tension out of a critical new business relationship. Everyone goes into a new job wanting to impress and succeed, and worrying how to work best with their new boss. Wouldn't it be great to start that relationship off with a compact? You as the report would know exactly what your boss wants and will offer in return.
And if you as the boss do the same for your reports, imagine how productive everyone can be not worrying and instead just working? Talk about a simple way to improve both morale and bottom line.
Do you want a compact with your boss? And if you have reports, will you offer them one?
Lateral Leadership
One of my previous employers sent me to a class titled "Influencing Without Authority." Apparently the official term for this is lateral leadership.
When you have to manage across functions or teams and have no direct authority over the people you are trying to influence, this is lateral leadership. And with more companies having flatter structures and distributed workforces, this skill will become more vital. It's already used by all project and product managers.
As per Lauren Keller Johnson, in her article "Exerting Influence Without Authority" for the Harvard Management Update, there are four practices that will help:
When you have to manage across functions or teams and have no direct authority over the people you are trying to influence, this is lateral leadership. And with more companies having flatter structures and distributed workforces, this skill will become more vital. It's already used by all project and product managers.
As per Lauren Keller Johnson, in her article "Exerting Influence Without Authority" for the Harvard Management Update, there are four practices that will help:
- networking
- constructive persuasion and negotiations
- consultation
- coalition building
So if you build relationship with others, meet with them to get feedback and buy-in, and then have their support behind you, you will have an easier time managing laterally.
And Jay A. Conger, in his article "The Necessary Art of Persuasion" for the Harvard Business Review suggests four ways to more effectively persuade:
- establish credibility
- frame for common ground
- provide evidence
- connect emotionally
If you establish your consistent and reliable expertise and integrity, show how it's a win-win, use vivid examples or stories, and match your message to your audience's emotion and tone, you will be able to win them over.
Some of the above is intuitive and the rest structures what we may already do but need to improve. And since everyone needs to persuade someone and probably laterally manage someone else, this is useful information to have.
Which of the above have you had to use most? Which do you need to work on most?
Hiring and Servant Leadership
Hiring well is difficult to do. Jack Welch admits this in his book Winning, and spends a chapter giving us tips on how to do it better.
For all staff, he recommends first screening for integrity, intelligence, and maturity. They need those to even make it to round one. Then you look for the 4 E's and 1 P:
For all staff, he recommends first screening for integrity, intelligence, and maturity. They need those to even make it to round one. Then you look for the 4 E's and 1 P:
- Do they have positive energy?
- Can they energize others?
- Do they have the edge to make tough calls when needed?
- Can they execute well?
- And do they have passion for the work?
For leaders, you need to screen further:
- Are they authentic?
- Do they have foresight in business?
- Do they surround themselves with smart people?
- And do they have resilience?
Jack has more to say on each of the above but I want to focus on the third of the leadership screens.
Leaders need to surround themselves with smart people. Jack shared examples of when he felt like the stupidest person in the room but by having these smart people push him and each other, the best answers came out. This is why it's so important for leaders to not fear looking stupid.
Have you ever worried that you're hiring your replacement or even your upgrade? I admit there was a time or two when I did but was glad to have overcome it and made the hire. It's natural to have the fear but leaders need to do what's best for the team, even if it makes them feel stupid.
And this is the true meaning of servant leadership. The true leader's purpose is to serve, so it should not matter how he looks to others as long as he is serving the greater purpose. The secret is that if done authentically, it actually raises the leader in the eyes of those he serves, not diminishes.
Have you seen this in practice? How did it make you feel?
New Posting Schedule
Can you believe that I've been posting three times a week for eight months now? It's hard to believe and for those who read my posts regularly, thank you.
Due to several outside factors, blogging at that frequency has become more challenging so I'm going to post twice a week for now. I'm hoping this slower pace will make blogging easier...and then we'll see what the future brings.
And comments and feedback are always appreciated.
Due to several outside factors, blogging at that frequency has become more challenging so I'm going to post twice a week for now. I'm hoping this slower pace will make blogging easier...and then we'll see what the future brings.
And comments and feedback are always appreciated.
For the Non-Entrepreneurial
Linda Rottenberg wrote the last chapter of Crazy Is a Compliment: The Power of Zigging When Everyone Zags to her two twin daughters. She wanted to give the two budding entrepreneurs some advise on what they will face.
As a mother, worried about the world of work my son will enter in a few years, I can understand why she did this. As someone traversing the transitioning world of work herself, it made me very sad.
There are so many books out there encouraging you to either find your passion or your entrepreneurial spirit. To be remarkable or to turn an industry upside down. As Linda tells her daughters, the world rewards those who can see the gaps between the writing and can figure out how to fill it.
But where does this leave those that are not good at that? The ones who can't see how to disrupt an industry or reinvent a product? The ones not good at generating buzz and hustling?
Instead of encouraging all our children to become corporate drones, have we just switched to encouraging them all to be daring entrepreneurs? Is there no third alternative?
Fortunately superstars need to hire people good at getting things done and fortunately many of the successful ones are creating great work cultures for the non-entrepreneurial among us. So hopefully the next generation will have more balance and true options, whether they work for themselves or not.
What do you think? Should we train all to be more "entrepreneurial"?
As a mother, worried about the world of work my son will enter in a few years, I can understand why she did this. As someone traversing the transitioning world of work herself, it made me very sad.
There are so many books out there encouraging you to either find your passion or your entrepreneurial spirit. To be remarkable or to turn an industry upside down. As Linda tells her daughters, the world rewards those who can see the gaps between the writing and can figure out how to fill it.
But where does this leave those that are not good at that? The ones who can't see how to disrupt an industry or reinvent a product? The ones not good at generating buzz and hustling?
Instead of encouraging all our children to become corporate drones, have we just switched to encouraging them all to be daring entrepreneurs? Is there no third alternative?
Fortunately superstars need to hire people good at getting things done and fortunately many of the successful ones are creating great work cultures for the non-entrepreneurial among us. So hopefully the next generation will have more balance and true options, whether they work for themselves or not.
What do you think? Should we train all to be more "entrepreneurial"?
The Changing Demands of Today's Workforce
Linda Rottenberg, in her book Crazy Is a Compliment: The Power of Zigging When Everyone Zags, has a chapter called "The Purpose-Driven Workforce." Not only does she touch on two of my favorite topics—employee engagement and culture—but she also discusses what this means for today's workforce.
Millennials, as per Linda, are 36% of today's workforce and growing. Unlike the Boomers, they want meaning and flexibility at work and are not afraid to walk if you won't give it to them.
Linda shares how the FAA had to highlight how they helped people to get millennials to even apply for their jobs. Endeavor, Linda's company, instituted job rotations since millennials get bored and also want to be involved in everything. Thomson Reuters did something similar.
This is the generation always on and always connected. They also want authenticity and transparency in their leaders, which Linda mentions in her chapter titled "Leadership 3.0."
But I'm a Gen X'er, have become a lot less tolerant to widget-like treatment, and want meaning in my work too. I may be used to less flexibility and startup-like perks (and not sure what I'd do with some of them even if I had them), but otherwise I want what the millennials want.
And I know I'm not the only non-millennial who feels this way.
So with a growing workforce demanding meaning, voice, and flexibility—regardless of their generation—companies have to adapt or be left with the disengaged and unproductive.
The first step isn't so hard: talk to your employees. Find out what motivates them. Show them you care. They may surprise you and not ask for much but you have to ask and mean it.
Go ahead; I'll wait. Let me know what they say.
Millennials, as per Linda, are 36% of today's workforce and growing. Unlike the Boomers, they want meaning and flexibility at work and are not afraid to walk if you won't give it to them.
Linda shares how the FAA had to highlight how they helped people to get millennials to even apply for their jobs. Endeavor, Linda's company, instituted job rotations since millennials get bored and also want to be involved in everything. Thomson Reuters did something similar.
This is the generation always on and always connected. They also want authenticity and transparency in their leaders, which Linda mentions in her chapter titled "Leadership 3.0."
But I'm a Gen X'er, have become a lot less tolerant to widget-like treatment, and want meaning in my work too. I may be used to less flexibility and startup-like perks (and not sure what I'd do with some of them even if I had them), but otherwise I want what the millennials want.
And I know I'm not the only non-millennial who feels this way.
So with a growing workforce demanding meaning, voice, and flexibility—regardless of their generation—companies have to adapt or be left with the disengaged and unproductive.
The first step isn't so hard: talk to your employees. Find out what motivates them. Show them you care. They may surprise you and not ask for much but you have to ask and mean it.
Go ahead; I'll wait. Let me know what they say.
Setting Your Own Expectations
You've probably read or been told how important it is to set clear expectations up front. Whether it's with a new employee, new vendor, or new partner, if you clearly spell-out who does what and by when, there should be less problems going forward.
Well, it's equally important to set your own expectations. Whether you're starting a new job, business, relationship...or educational program.
I recently started the Jack Welch EMBA program. It's all online and very affordable and flexible, which is great, but it still requires lots of reading and writing, as it should given that it's an accredited graduate degree program. Their grading system includes unsatisfactory, low pass, pass, high pass, and honors. The standard is high pass but obviously honors is better.
And here's where the setting expectations for myself is so important.
As a recovering perfectionist (and it's like alcoholism, you're always recovering), I of course want to get all honors. So getting a high pass on my first paper was obviously somewhat disappointing.
But I have another 2 and 3/4 years left of this program and I have to truly come to terms with the fact that I will not get all honors, nor is it really worth the time and effort it would take. Given that I'm not a full-time student and this is graduate school (and my second Master's), how important is the grade really?
Even the people behind the EMBA program recognize this, as shown with the below inspirational quote included on one of the course planning guides:
"When it comes to determining my success, the onlySo I really should be more realistic about my own expectations...and kinder to myself.
letters that matter are ‘EMBA’...not the individual grade I
earn in each course."
Have you had to set expectations for yourself? If so, in what context and how did you make them stick?
Entrepreneurism Can Be Found Anywhere
I just started reading Linda Rottenberg's book Crazy Is a Compliment: The Power of Zigging When Everyone Zags at a recommendation from a friend. I haven't gotten too far yet but am enjoying it.
Linda begins by explaining how the book is different than others on entrepreneurship and then defines the four types of entrepreneurs. One of them, the "skunks," actually are not what most people would consider true entrepreneurs.
Skunks work for large corporations, yet because they have entrepreneurial mindsets and see the world differently, they end up innovating within the confines of corporate America.
Linda shares some interesting stories of how several really successful ideas were started covertly (aka, "skunk" projects) and only presented to senior management once proven successful. A great example is Clorox's ecologically friendly line which went on to be a huge success.
Being a skunk not only takes creativity and courage, but the drive to see an idea through, despite difficulty and lack of support. This is what all entrepreneurs need and why skunks are entrepreneurs despite also being corporate workers.
Reading this made me realize the power of individual drive. Yes, culture is important, as is having a supportive boss, but people that are skunks figure out how to work around whatever constraints stand in their way. Very impressive and not very typical.
Have you known a "skunk"? What other characteristics allowed them to innovate and succeed?
Linda begins by explaining how the book is different than others on entrepreneurship and then defines the four types of entrepreneurs. One of them, the "skunks," actually are not what most people would consider true entrepreneurs.
Skunks work for large corporations, yet because they have entrepreneurial mindsets and see the world differently, they end up innovating within the confines of corporate America.
Linda shares some interesting stories of how several really successful ideas were started covertly (aka, "skunk" projects) and only presented to senior management once proven successful. A great example is Clorox's ecologically friendly line which went on to be a huge success.
Being a skunk not only takes creativity and courage, but the drive to see an idea through, despite difficulty and lack of support. This is what all entrepreneurs need and why skunks are entrepreneurs despite also being corporate workers.
Reading this made me realize the power of individual drive. Yes, culture is important, as is having a supportive boss, but people that are skunks figure out how to work around whatever constraints stand in their way. Very impressive and not very typical.
Have you known a "skunk"? What other characteristics allowed them to innovate and succeed?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)