CALL US NOW AT (847) 665-9134
magnify

What kind of clubhouse are you running?

The stunning, come-from-behind victory of the Chicago Cubs in the 2016 World Series made me wonder if there might be some business lessons to be learned there.  Sure, it’s a sports franchise, but major league baseball teams are businesses too. Yet we tend to experience them as entertainment, not as business models to be studied.  So let’s take a look, not as baseball fans, but as business people trying to see what we can learn from this epic achievement.  Interested in learning what the Cubs might have to teach us?  Please continue reading below.

What kind of clubhouse are you running?

Professional baseball teams typically refer to themselves as a “ball club” and their locker room is their “clubhouse.”  However, you hear the ball players refer to their “clubhouse” in ways that defy a physical location alone.  For instance, you may hear them say their clubhouse “has a winning attitude.”  Last time I checked, bricks and mortar don’t have an attitude about anything.  Or when they say they have a “very close” clubhouse, I don’t think they mean their clubhouse is small or nearby.  I would argue that while “clubhouse” does refer to a physical place, when players assign human attributes to it, it’s also a metaphor for the team’s culture.

It has taken GM Theo Epstein (with recent help from field boss Joe Maddon) five years to convert the Cubs’ clubhouse from perennial “lovable losers” to world champions.  Changing an organization’s culture is tough, and it takes time, but ultimately, the payoff can be huge, as it has been for the Cubs.  There’s no question, the Cubs have managed to assemble some real talent, but even extraordinary talent cannot perform to its potential without the support of the team’s culture.  So let’s look at some of the cultural hallmarks of the 2016 Cubs.  Of course, I don’t have any internal documents from the Cubs that define their culture in black and white, but I think we can draw some educated conclusions just by paying attention to what they do.  As Yogi Berra once reminded us, “You can observe a lot by just watching.”

Here are the lessons I believe we can learn from the way Epstein and Maddon have shaped their clubhouse.

1)      It’s apparent that the 2016 Cubs not only trust and respect one another, they genuinely like one another.  They enjoy being together and working together.  That can be a rare thing among rich, prima donna athletes.  Epstein and Maddon have apparently done a good job at being faithful gatekeepers and keeping toxic influences out of the clubhouse.

2)      They are committed to winning.  They don’t play a cautious game aimed at not losing, and they don’t just hope to win . . . when they set foot on the field, they expect to win.  And even when they fail to win, they don’t let that shake their expectations for the next game.  Even though they were behind 3 games to 1 in the World Series, they still expected to win . . . and did.

3)      They are very unselfish players.  They put the performance of the team above their own personal performance.  If they have to take a new spot in the batting order or play a different position than the one they usually play, so be it if it gives the team a better chance to win.

4)      They spread the glory around as much as possible.  When a player is having a particularly good game, he will often point out the stellar performance of others and acknowledge that he can’t play at the top of his game unless everyone else is doing likewise.

5)      They are proud of the organization they work for and believe they are part of something bigger than themselves . . . something that can help them achieve things that would have been impossible to achieve individually . . . significant things, things that matter.

So what kind of clubhouse are you running?  Do your “players” trust and respect one another, and do they enjoy working together as a cohesive unit?  Have you done a good job of keeping talented misfits out of your clubhouse?  Do your players play to win, or do they simply play not to lose?  Are they willing to make sacrifices for the greater good of the company?  Do your star players recognize the support they get from everyone else?  As coaching great John Wooden once said, “The main ingredient of stardom is the rest of the team.”

And do your players believe what you do, how you do it, and/or who you do it for is important?  More to the point, do they believe their role is important in what you do?  Do they believe their role matters to the final outcome?

Some of you are going to say, “C’mon, the Cubs play on a big stage with a national following.  How can a small, privately held company do what they do?”  And you’re right.  For most small businesses, gaining national acclaim is probably not a realistic goal.  But that doesn’t mean you can’t build a winning team the way the Cubs have.  You just have to do it on a smaller scale.  Be the employer of choice, the best place to work in your community.  Find the niche in your industry where you can really shine.  Be the outfit in your trade association that shows everyone else how it’s done.

You may not be able to play in Wrigley Field, but if you want to run a Cubs-like clubhouse, you can build a world-class team on the field of your choosing.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn

“Much of what we call management today consists of making it difficult for people to work.”

Noted business author and keynote speaker, Dan Pink, talks about motivation . . . a lot. He talks about what motivates us and what does not.  He talks about which motivators work and which do not.  One of his favorite topics is “if-then” motivators.  “If you do this, then you’ll get that.”  Those motivators grew out of the Industrial Revolution and worked very well when we were asking people to achieve tasks that were relatively simple, straight-forward,  and short-term in nature.  But as businesses have become more complex and as we have asked people to become creative problem-solvers, “if-then” motivators have become less and less effective.  In fact, Pink would argue, when the task at hand requires a thoughtful, creative approach, “if-then” motivators may actually interfere with performance rather than improving it.  So if dangling a nice, juicy carrot in front of somebody doesn’t get the performance we want, what does?  For the answer to that question, please continue reading below.

“Much of what we call management today consists of making it difficult for people to work.”                       ~ Peter Drucker

People don’t like to be managed. They really don’t.  It feels manipulative, and the more tightly people are managed (i.e., micro-managed), the more they feel demeaned by it.  The implication is, “You’re too stupid (or too lazy or too irresponsible) to figure this out on your own, so we’re going to figure it out for you and tell you exactly what to do, how to do it, and when to do it.”  The very structure of management is aimed at getting compliance, and while we still need a certain level of compliance today, we also want commitment . . . we want people to complete their assigned tasks because they want to, not because they have to.  (Our previous posting on leadership talked about this concept of “want to” vs. “have to”).

Where motivation is concerned, there is no single magic bullet that works equally with everybody and in all situations, but one powerful motivator for most people and in most situations is autonomy. Self-direction.  Give people discretion over how they allocate their time.  If they work on a team, allow them a voice as to who else is on the team.  Get their input when you are assigning tasks, and absolutely give them as much latitude as possible in determining how those tasks will be completed.

If you’re distrustful of people and their work habits, then you will have a difficult time granting them the level of autonomy we’re suggesting here. But personally, I agree with Richard Teerlink, former CEO of Harley Davidson, who said, “People don’t come to work every day to do a bad job.”  I do believe most people show up for work each day genuinely intending to do good work and to do what’s expected of them, but they want to do that work on their own terms.

The job of management is to:

  • negotiate the terms of the work to be accomplished in a way that gets commitment rather than compliance.
  • clear roadblocks that interfere with people completing their tasks.
  • make sure people have the resources they need to get the job done.
  • get out of their way and let them get on with their work with as much autonomy as possible.

Companies are finding creative ways to breathe some autonomy into their employees’ workplace experience. Consider:

  • a software company that gives its engineers one day per quarter to work on anything they want, as long as it has nothing to do with their regular job.
  • a grocer who hires people on a 30-day trial basis. At the end of the trial period, the new employee’s co-workers decide if he or she will stay on.
  • an online retailer who gives its call center employees just one simple instruction: “When a call comes in, solve the customer’s problem. Do it however you want, take as much time as you need, but solve the customer’s problem.”  NOTE: This is a tactic that will allow some autonomy in many situations, not just call centers. Tell your employees the outcome you’re looking for (in this case, satisfied customers), but let them figure out how to deliver that outcome. Tell them the “what,” but leave the “how” to them.

It’s not realistic to think we can give everyone full autonomy 100% of the time. But as the above examples show, with a little creative thought, we can give people at least some control over those things that impact their work and their workplace experience.  And when we do that, we demonstrate trust . . . trust in their skills, trust in their work ethic, and trust in their ability to figure stuff out on their own.  In return, we get their creativity and their commitment to do what’s expected of them.

It seems to me that’s a pretty good deal all around.

 
Tags:
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn

Are you a leader, or just holding down a leadership position?

In a posting earlier this year, we mentioned John Maxwell who is a prolific writer and speaker, often on subjects related to leadership.  In that posting, we talked about what Maxwell calls “positional leadership” which is the bottom level of his “5 Levels of Leadership.”  However, there’s an important leadership lesson to be learned when you understand that leadership is not an event, but an evolution.  So, if you continue reading below, we’ll walk through his “5 Levels of Leadership” and then reveal the important leadership lesson that collectively they teach.

Are you a leader, or just holding down a leadership position?

In his hierarchy of leadership levels, Maxwell calls the bottom level “positional leadership.”  At this level, you are a leader in name only.  You are a leader because you have a title on the company’s org chart, and if people want to continue working there and collecting a paycheck, they need to do as you say.  In other words, they follow you because they have to, not because they want to.  This is not the level where you want to pitch your tent, because here, your people will give you the minimum effort, energy, and commitment they can and still keep their jobs.  So clearly, you want to elevate your leadership game and move up a level.

At the second level, the “permission level,” you’re starting to build relationships.  You’re getting to know your people and they’re getting to know you.  If the relationships are nurtured well, you will begin to like, trust, and respect one another.  And when that happens, your people will turn “positional leadership” on its head and begin following you because they want to, not because they have to.  In effect, you will have earned their permission to lead them.

The third level is the “production level.”  Here you demonstrate your effectiveness as a leader by achieving goals and getting results.  You act as a role model to show your people what effectiveness and productivity look like.  As people begin to emulate your behavior, the whole team becomes more productive.

The fourth level is the “people development level.”  This is where the leadership rubber meets the road.  This is where you help people to reach their potential . . . hopefully to become the next generation of leaders.  According to Maxwell, there are three keys to developing people:

  1. To use Jim Collins’ terminology, you’ve got to get the right people on the bus.  If you recruit well, odds are, you’ll do well developing them.
  2. To use Collins’ terminology again, once you’ve got the right people on the bus, make sure you put them in the right seats . . . put them where their talents and interests will have the most impact.
  3. Give them the tools (skills, behaviors) they need to be successful by:
  • Demonstrating your own command of the tools
  • Allowing them to “shadow” you while you’re using the tools, letting them observe, ask questions, etc.
  • Switching roles. You “shadow” them, observing, coaching, critiquing while they attempt to master the tools.
  • Kicking them out of the nest. They do it on their own.  They’ve “graduated” and don’t need you shadowing them anymore.
  • Completing the circle. They step into the coach/mentor role and help “equip” someone else.

Not surprisingly, the fifth level is the “pinnacle level” (it is at the top, right?).  It’s the level all of us aspire to, but in most cases, it’s a work in progress . . . we’re not quite there yet.  People at this level are recognized and respected as great leaders.  Others not only willingly follow them, they seek them out.  Legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden never had to worry about recruiting . . . the best high school players in the country were beating down his door for an opportunity to play for him.  That’s a level five leader.

At the top of this post, I promised an important leadership lesson once we understand the evolutionary nature of leadership.  And you are probably trying to figure out where in Maxwell’s hierarchy you belong.  Are you at level one?  Level three?  Where are you?  And as you think about that and the people you want to lead, it’s probably dawning on you that you’re not at any one level . . . with some people you’re at one level, with others you’re at another level.

Here’s the lesson.  You can only lead at the level your people are, not at the level you would like them to be.  With some people, you may be able to move through the levels fairly quickly, but with others, you may have to move more slowly.  For instance, you may have some people who are open to forming positive relationships and are anxious to move with you from level one (positional leadership) to level two.  However, there may be others who are more cautious and circumspect and need a little more time.  So you continue working with them at level one while you’re simultaneously working with others at level two.

Or what happens when you have someone who is new to the company and new to your team?  By default, since they haven’t formed any relationships yet, they are going to be at level one and will regard you as a “positional” leader until you are able to demonstrate otherwise.

So we see that leadership is not just about you.  It’s about the relationships you are able to build with each individual you are trying to lead.  And with each individual, you will only be at the level that your relationship with that individual will support.  Therefore, at any point in time, you may be working with relative newcomers at level one, older hands at level two, and your most tenured people at levels three or four.  Your job, as leader, is to build relationships and develop strategies to move each of your people from whatever level they’re on with you, to the next level up.

If you’re interested in learning the nitty gritty details of Maxwell’s “5 Levels of Leadership,” he has published a book by that name or you can see him discuss it on a YouTube video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPwXeg8ThWI.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn

“You cannot expect to perform at a high level unless people are personally engaged.”

Doug Conant is the former CEO of Campbell’s Soup Company.  When he assumed that position in 2001, he says the environment at Campbell’s was “toxic.”  One third of his 20,000 employees were looking for jobs elsewhere.  He and his team attacked the problem with a strategy of “employee engagement.”  As a result, he was able to reduce the number of people heading for the doors from 1 in 3, to 1 in 18.  Quite an accomplishment.  To learn how he did it, please continue reading below.

“You cannot expect to perform at a high level unless people are personally engaged.”    ~ Doug Conant, former CEO of Campbell’s Soup Company

Turnover, at Campbell’s Soup Company or anywhere else, is an expensive proposition.  It takes a lot of time and money to recruit and train a new employee.  Not only that, but turnover begets a productivity problem.  In most cases, it’s going to take awhile for a new employee to get to the proficiency level of the employee he or she replaced.  So it’s not surprising that, confronted with a turnover rate of 33%, Doug Conant and his team gave a high priority to solving that problem.  However, they recognized that turnover was only a symptom, and that the real underlying problem was “employee engagement.”

There are many moving parts when you’re trying to get people from “not engaged” to “fully engaged,” but Conant focused on one area in particular.  In his view, today’s managers are trained to fix what’s broken, so they endlessly look for inconsistencies, weak links, and flaws in performance.  Not that they shouldn’t, but they need to offset that with celebrations of genuine accomplishment.  Remember the old bestseller “The 60 Minute Manager” that encouraged us to “catch someone doing something right?”  We’re too focused on catching someone doing something wrong while ignoring what they’re doing right.  We need to change that.

Conant’s rules for “celebration” include:

  • Be specific. You want people to know you’re paying attention, so tell them exactly what they (or their team) did to earn your applause.
  • Make it personal. In Conant’s case, he sent handwritten notes to his star performers.  If you (like me) are challenged when it come to legible penmanship, you will have to find your own way to “make it personal.”  But however you do it, it’s important that the target of your celebration sees that you didn’t just have your secretary email a “Congratulations” form letter . . . he or she needs to see that you personally invested some time and energy in this activity.
  • Walk the four corners. Get out of your office at least once a day and take a stroll around the place.  Catch people doing something right.  Celebrate on the spot, in person.

Bestselling author, Dan Pink, talks about Purpose (with a capital P) and purpose (with a small p).  In his terminology, Purpose is corporate mission statement stuff . . . “save the whales” or some equally noble goal.  But purpose (with a small p) is about the individual and it’s personal.  Therefore, when we celebrate the accomplishments of an individual, we answer his or her always present questions:

  • Do I have a purpose within this organization?
  • Does my work have value? Does it matter?
  • If I didn’t come into work tomorrow, would anyone notice or care?

As noted earlier, there are many aspects to “employee engagement,” and celebrating genuine accomplishment is only one of them, but a powerful one.  Just look what it did for Campbell’s.

In your own organization, do you have problems with:

  • Turnover (Retention)?
  • Profitability?
  • Productivity?
  • Absenteeism?
  • Quality?
  • Safety?
  • Customer service?
  • Shrinkage/theft?

If so, these are all symptoms of an unengaged work force.  While employee engagement may not be the entire answer, it’s certainly front and center.  If you believe you have an employee engagement problem, but don’t know how to begin solving it, call me.  I’d be glad to discuss it with you.  It doesn’t cost you anything beyond the cost of the call, and I can promise that before you hang up, you’ll have some thoughts on how to begin assessing the size and source of your employee engagement problem.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn

How to Make Money and Do Good

According to Adam Smith, credited with being the Father of Modern Economics, “If you continue to operate in your own self-interest, you will do the best good for society.”  That sentiment was echoed by American economist and free market champion, Milton Friedman, who said, “There is only one social responsibility of business – to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.”  So for business, in the view of those two gentlemen, profit isn’t the main thing, it’s the only thing . . . a singular focus on profits is the best way for business to benefit society.  But is that still true today?  Maybe not.  For more on this, please continue reading below.

How to Make Money and Do Good

There’s a growing body of thought, in businesses large and small, that creating financial value and creating social value are not mutually exclusive activities . . . that they can, in fact, complement one another.  While Smith and Friedman seemed to say that building a strong, profitable business alone creates a social benefit, many of today’s business leaders are saying that we have to do more . . . that we have to attack some of today’s social problems more directly.  Consider:

  • A soap manufacturer that donates product and conducts hygiene programs in third world countries where unsanitary conditions cost millions of lives every year.
  • Companies that have pledged to buy raw materials only from renewable, sustainable sources.
  • Companies that are committed to reducing their “carbon footprint” by using clean energy sources like wind or solar.
  • Companies that manufacture and package their products in ways designed to make them recyclable.

To be sure, there’s no shortage of corporate greed or of companies that behave in ways that are socially irresponsible (think Volkswagen).  But as more companies embrace their social responsibilities, the companies that do not will stand out in a way that will not be helpful.  If you want to differentiate yourself from your competition, being socially irresponsible would not be a very good way to do it.

While we’d like to think that there’s an altruistic motive for companies to be socially responsible . . . and there’s certainly some of that . . . there’s more.  There are also some smart business motives at work here too.

  1. It’s good for employee relations. Survey after survey shows that employees want to be involved with something that’s bigger than themselves . . . something, beyond a simple profit motive, that excites them and makes them feel good about themselves.
  2. It’s good for community relations. Whether your community is global or very local, you need the good will and support of that community.  Being seen as a good corporate citizen earns you that support.
  3. It’s good for customer relations. Your customers, at least those who see themselves as socially responsible, want to do business with others who are socially responsible.  Plus, by doing business with you, they hope the good will you are generating for yourself will also rub off on them.  It’s good will by association.

Small companies may see “saving the planet” as the job of big, multi-national companies.  Not true.  Small companies may have to participate on a smaller scale, but they can still participate in ways that will have a big impact on their respective communities.  You can “adopt” a small, local charity.  You can set aside a day to staff a food pantry or a soup kitchen or to work on a “Habitat for Humanity” project.  Some companies give every employee one day off per year to pursue a charitable activity of their own choosing.  So regardless of your size, there are ways to create social value within your community.  All you need is the will to do it.

But if by doing good we improve employee relations, community relations, and customer relations, will we necessarily improve our profitability?  Almost certainly you will although computing a precise ROI or proving a direct cause/effect relationship would be tough.   In this case, you may have to be satisfied that by doing the right things, you’ll be doing things right.

 
Tags: ,
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn

When was the last time you fired someone too soon?

Most managers will tell you that the toughest part of their job is firing someone.  It’s an inevitable part of the job, but that doesn’t make it any easier.  Of course, we’re not talking about firing someone due to unethical behavior, unlawful acts, or willful acts of disobedience.  Those situations are relatively easy to handle with little or no stress.  No, here we’re talking about having to fire someone who’s probably a decent person, who tries hard, but has somehow gotten into a job that is a poor fit with the person’s skills and talents.  Maybe it’s a classic case of the person having been promoted beyond the level of his or her competence.  Or maybe, the job was a good fit at the beginning, but as the demands of the job evolved and changed over time, it eventually became something that was no longer a good fit.  Whatever the case, we’ve got someone in a job where they cannot be successful, and we’ve got to deal with that.  This is the stuff that keeps managers up at night . . . in some cases, makes them physically sick . . . worrying about the termination conversation that has to come.  If you’re such a manager, or work with someone who is, please read on.  Maybe there’s a humane, less stress-inducing approach to this that will be helpful.

When was the last time you fired someone too soon?

If you’re being honest with yourself, there probably was no “last time” because you probably never have jumped the gun and fired someone too soon.  It’s much more likely that you’ve put off firing someone longer than you should have.  In fact, you may always procrastinate when faced with this unpleasant chore.  If so . . . if you are a serial procrastinator . . . you’ve got plenty of company.

When we are forced to consider firing someone, we are often filled with self-doubt.  We may ask ourselves, am I being too demanding?  Have I given him or her enough time to raise their performance?  Have I given this person as much training and support as I should have?  On and on.

Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman are co-authors of a 1999 book titled, “First, Break All the Rules,” and sub-titled “What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently.  In it, they talk about “tough love” as a tool great managers use to avoid all the self-doubt and hand-wringing.  Here’s how it works.

First, take a look at the “tough” part of “tough love.”  Great managers are crystal clear about the level of performance they expect, and they are uncompromising on that expectation.  In other words, they hang “tough” on their performance standards.  When someone is underperforming, they expect to see steady improvement, and they expect to see it sooner rather than later.  The point is, if you’re convinced that your performance standards are fair and achievable, you should have the strength of your convictions and be unyielding in your demand that those standards be met.

The “love” part of “tough love” recognizes that the employee wants to perform well and is trying to perform well.  As Richard Teerlink, former CEO of Harley Davidson observed, “People don’t come to work every day to do a bad job.”  So when someone is underperforming, it’s probably not because they are being passive-aggressive or lazy or stupid, it’s more likely because their skills and talents are not a good fit with the job.  Once a manager recognizes that, it starts to look like removing a good person from a situation where they cannot be successful is not an act of cruelty, but one of kindness.  And it’s also an act of kindness to move swiftly rather than let a good person continue to live with failure day in and day out.  In the best of all worlds, there would be another job within the company that would be a good fit for this employee, but whether there is or not, the current situation is intolerable and must end.  Allowing it to continue or drag out . . . now that would be an act of cruelty.

The “tough love” approach doesn’t make it easy to fire someone, but it does create a mindset that allows you to move decisively, quickly, and humanely when it becomes necessary to do so..

Co-authors Buckingham and Coffman illustrate “tough love” with a story that I don’t know is real or made up, but I like it.

            “Gary, an enormously successful entrepreneur, brought in one of his factory managers one evening and told him,’Come in, sit down, I love you; you’re fired; I still love you.  Now get a drink and let’s talk this through.’ ”

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn

A few questions every entrepreneur ought to ask.

In 2014, Inc. magazine published an article titled, “100 great questions every entrepreneur should ask.”  Some of the questions were submitted by best-selling business writers such as Jim Collins, Patrick Lencioni, and Peter Drucker, while others were submitted by a variety of business educators, business leaders, and business owners.  But all were thought-provoking and insightful.  I picked out several to share with you . . . several that were particularly meaningful to me, and hopefully, to you too.  Please continue reading below.

A few questions every entrepreneur ought to ask.

Many smaller company CEOs spend their days putting out fires . . . dealing with day-to-day operating problems and responding to customer issues.  Most of the Inc. “100 questions” are strategic in nature and are an attempt change the entrepreneur’s focus, if only briefly, from the here and now realities of today to the possibilities of tomorrow.  Here’s a sampling of those questions.

  • How can we become the company that would put us out of business? -Danny Meyer, CEO of Union Square Hospitality Group

 

This is the stuff that comes out of a SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) analysis.  It makes us think about what might be sneaking up on us . . . market trends, the competitive landscape, or new technologies . . .  that we better pay attention to.

  • If we weren’t already in this business, would we enter it today? And if not, what are we going to do about it? -Peter Drucker, management expert and author

More or less the flip side of the previous question.  Another way to ask it might be, “If we were to start this business all over again today, would we build it the same way or would we put it together differently?”

  • Is this an issue for analysis or intuition? -Tom Davenport, author and professor at Babson College

We like to think we can reach a great decision through careful analysis of the situation, but that’s not always true.  Sometimes there is simply not enough relevant, reliable data to make thorough analysis possible.  In those instances, our only alternative is to base our decision on our experience and intuition.

  • What would have to be true for the option on the table to be the best possible choice? -Roger Martin, professor, Rotman Business School

That’s a great clarifying question to ask when you’re trying to choose between several equally appealing options.

  • Why don’t our customers like us? -James Champy, author and management expert

Or we might ask, “What is it that people dislike about doing business with our industry, and how can we be the guys who do it differently?”

  • If our customer were my grandmother, would I tell her to buy what we’re selling? -Dan Pink, author

OK, so maybe that’s a little corny, but it speaks to our culture and our values and asks us to reaffirm both.

  • What happens at this company when people fail? -Bob Sutton and Jeff Pfeffer, Stanford professors

Failure goes hand-in-hand with innovation and creativity.  After all, innovation and creativity are all about doing something new, doing stuff that hasn’t been done before.  So even though we believe we’ve thought it through thoroughly, sometimes a seemingly good idea just don’t turn out the way we’d hoped.  You must accept failure as part of an innovative, creative process, and celebrate it as a learning experience.

  • Do I know what I’m doing? And who do I call if I don’t? -Erin Pooley, business journalist

Smart CEOs surround themselves with seasoned advisors who are strong in areas where the CEO is not.  Some of those advisory roles are probably filled by the CEOs management team, but if there are still gaps in knowledge and experience that the CEO and his or her team cannot fill, then the CEO must find outside advisors to fill those gaps.

And finally, one more.  This one is from me, not culled from the Inc. 100.

  • How can we become the employer of choice for our area . . . the challenging, rewarding, fun place where people go to work because they want to, not because they have – Andy Rockwood, Rock Solid Business Development

If you would like to see the entire Inc. article with all 100 questions, the link below will take you there.

http://www.inc.com/magazine/201404/leigh-buchanan/100-questions-business-leaders-should-ask.html

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn

Unlimited paid vacation? Are you kiddin’ me?

Some companies, both here and abroad, are experimenting with unlimited vacation, or “discretionary time off” as it is known in HR circles.  And we’re talking about paid time off, not unpaid leaves of absence. Sounds crazy, doesn’t it?  What’s to prevent someone from heading for the beach and never coming back?  How are we supposed to get anything done if our people are coming and going whenever they feel like it?  Clearly, these are legitimate concerns.  To learn how the early adapters of this unusual perk are trying to address those concerns, please continue reading below.

Unlimited paid vacation?  Are you kiddin’ me?

First, “unlimited paid vacation” is really a misnomer . . . there are limits, but those limits are not expressed in days or hours.  That is, you are still expected to carry out your job responsibilities, on time, and within acceptable levels of performance.  So the limiting factors are really defined, not by the calendar, but by the demands of your job.  You can take as much time off as you want, whenever you want to, provided your job responsibilities do not suffer.  For that reason, “discretionary time off” is really the more accurate, descriptive term for what we’re talking about here.

Second, unlimited paid vacation isn’t a perk that works for all individuals in all companies in all industries or in all cultures.  It works best for individuals who, thanks to cell phones, laptops, and the internet, can work from just about anywhere . . . from home, from a coffee shop, or even from the stands of their kid’s soccer game.  Conversely, it’s tough to make sense out of a “discretionary time off” policy if your work force must conduct its work exclusively within the confines of your facility, as in manufacturing, for instance.

Americans take less time off than most other industrialized countries.  In fact, many of us fail to take the time off each year that we’re entitled to take.  Why?  In part, it’s due to job security . . . people are afraid to take the time off out of fear that their job won’t be there when they come back.  It’s also due to a notion (usually misplaced) that nobody can do my job like I can, and I don’t want somebody else getting it all screwed up.

So if our employees aren’t using the time off they’ve already got, what’s the point in making it possible for them to take more?

Discretionary time off . . .

  • makes us focus on what’s important . . . what people accomplish, not just how many hours they were “on the clock.” If somebody is getting the results you want, why worry about how many hours they take to do it?
  • recognizes that people have interests outside of work and that they want flexibility to pursue those interests.
  • is a highly visible demonstration of trust. It’s saying to your employees, “We trust you to manage your time responsibly . . . to make smart decisions about when you need to be working and when you don’t.”  Even if your employees don’t take more time off than they did before (and some preliminary analysis says they won’t), the demonstration of trust alone strengthens the bond between a company and its workforce.
  • gives each employee the ability to manage his or her own “work-life balance.” Company owners have long cherished their ability to come and go as they please, to take an afternoon off here and there to play a round of golf, or to participate in their kids’ after school activities.  In fact, many owners will cite “personal freedom” as the driving force that made them start their own business in the first place.  But now, Millenials are teaching us that everybody, not just bosses, want that level of freedom too.
  • can be a powerful retention and recruiting tool. Because it’s a relatively new idea and not many companies offer it, it would differentiate you in a crowded hunt for the best talent.

As noted earlier, “discretionary time off” is a concept that may be very difficult (if not impossible) to implement in some situations, and it could be fraught with all sorts of unintended consequences.  So if you’re interested in exploring it, you should study it carefully, get all the help you can from others who already have experience with it, and try to learn where the potholes are before you hit them.

If you want to learn a bit more of the basics, use the link below to take you to a Money magazine article on the subject.

http://time.com/money/4070275/unlimited-vacation-policy

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn

“Why Do Smart People Fail?”

Decision-making and leadership are two CEO skills inextricably entwined.  It’s true that you can be a world class decision-maker and still be a lousy leader . . . that is, you can be a great decision-maker but still have other behavioral characteristics that disqualify you as a great leader.  However, the  reverse is not true.  You can’t be a great leader and a lousy decision-maker.  The two characteristics are mutually exclusive.  After all, who’s going to follow someone whose decisions are consistently flawed and who frequently sends us down the wrong path.  That’s not to say that great leaders can’t make decisions that turn out badly.  Nobody bats a thousand.  But it does say that great leaders need to follow a decision-making process that is consistent, understood, and trusted by those he or she is trying to lead.  When you make a decision that results in an unwanted outcome, you want your people to say, “Hey, based on the information we had at the time, it was a reasonable decision.  It didn’t turn out the way we wanted it to, but given the same circumstances, we’d probably make the same decision again.”  If that’s the case, your standing as a leader is relatively unscathed.  On the other hand, if your people feel that the decision was made in haste, that the boss shot from the hip without proper forethought, your standing is going to take a hit.

For more on avoiding bad decisions, please continue reading below.

“Why Do Smart People Fail?”

That’s the title of a book written by management consultant, keynote speaker, and author Norris Beren.  In it, he uses the acronym CHOICES to describe seven decision-making rules that, when followed, will improve your decision-making process and reduce your risk of failure.  Those rules are:

C – Challenge Your Assumptions

Throughout your decision-making process, look for information and/or opinions that would undermine your assumptions.  Some businesses use this technique when considering a new product or service offering.  They will write a business case for the new offering, and then do everything they can to tear holes in it.  If they can tear legitimate holes in it, they kill the idea.  If they can’t, it goes forward.

H – Honor Your Gut Instincts

While it’s generally not a good idea to make important decisions on gut instinct alone, sometimes your instincts are guiding you to pay attention to something that has not yet entered your conscious thought process.  Pay attention to those instincts and probe them to see if there might be something substantive behind them.

O – Overcome and Avoid Your Obsessions

Don’t become so obsessed with the outcome you envision from a decision you’ve made that you blind yourself to danger signs.  We’ve often heard CEOs say, “We’ve invested too much time, effort, and money in this to stop now.”  That’s a recipe for throwing good resources after bad.

I – Ignore Your Ego

We’ve all got one, right?  We couldn’t survive without one.  Yet uncontrolled, our ego can get us into a lot of trouble.  It will whisper to us that we are both brilliant and infallible, and that our decisions are beyond reproach.  Where decision-making is concerned, as author Beren points out, humility trumps hubris.  Invite others into your decision-making process and keep an open mind about their thoughts and suggestions.

C – Confirm: Trust but Verify

When you’re dealing with reliable sources of information and opinion, don’t be lulled into a false sense of security.  Maintain a healthy level of skepticism.  Whenever possible, seek to validate the information you’re getting through secondary sources.  When your mother says she loves you, check it out.

E – Eliminate Your Emotions

Tough to do.  We are, after all, emotional creatures, so eliminating emotions may not be entirely possible.  But we’re also intelligent creatures, so we can be aware of our emotional baggage and consciously avoid allowing it to guide our decision-making process.  Or, to say it another way, don’t become so invested in a particular decision that you allow your emotions to overcome your good judgement.

S – Select Your Exit Strategy

The ultimate decision for every business owner is deciding how and when to exit the business.  Do you pass it on to your kids?  Sell it to your employees?  Sell it to a competitor?  Keep it as a “cash cow” while you play golf and sit on the beach?  These are just a few viable options among many others.  The point is, your ultimate decision for leaving the business should be the filter that guides the decisions you make up until that point.  In other words, while you’re still active in the business and making an important strategic decision, you should ask yourself, “Will the expected outcome of this decision support my exit strategy or undermine it?”

There you have them . . . the seven CHOICES you can make to insure your decision-making process is both sound and effective.  If you would like more of the detail behind these seven rules, get “Why Do Smart People Fail?” by Norris Beren.  It’s available on Amazon and includes a self-assessment tool aimed at helping you identify the rule(s) that you need to work on.

Decide well.

 
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn

“Change with the world – or it will change without you.”

Kristin van Ogtrop is the editor of Real Simple, a monthly lifestyle magazine for women.  In a recent edition of Time magazine, she wrote an opinion piece entitled, “There’s a difference between a boss and a friend, and that’s as it should be.”  In it, she bemoans a lot of research done by the Gallup organization that indicates today’s workers (millennials) want a more personal relationship with their managers than she is comfortable with.  Apparently she is “old school.”  That is, she seems to long for the good old days when bosses were bosses and employees were employees, and everybody understood why we call it “work.”  And she’s hardly alone.  Many of today’s managers cut their teeth in business during times when workplace relationships were more constrained and less personal.  If you’re with Ms. Van Ogtrap on this but are willing to consider an alternative point of view, please continue reading below.

“Change with the world – or it will change without you.”            ~ Paul Shay

Change is all around us.  There are changes in technology, changes in our markets, changes in government regulations, changes in our competitive positions, and yes, changes in the character and complexion of our workplaces.  And as managers, it’s our responsibility to deal with these changes.  In fact, in one way of thinking, dealing with change is a manager’s only job.  As noted keynote speaker Peter Schutz has frequently said, “If there is no change, there is no need to manage.”

Ms. Van Ogtrop describes how Gallup’s research shows that millennials want a “holistic relationship” with their managers whereby the boss takes an interest in them, not just as workers, but as complete human beings.  Then she says, “Please Gallup, make it stop.  I am trying so hard to evolve, but every time I hear something like this I want to get in a time machine and go back to the days when making millennials feel fulfilled was not my responsibility.  Call me old-fashioned, but . . . . I thought we all went to work to . . . work.”

We are all in competition for the best available talent.  Once upon a time, that competition was largely about money . . . people would tend to go wherever they were offered the highest pay and best benefits package.  Not that pay and benefits (what’s left of them) aren’t still important.  They are.  But now there are other dimensions to our competition for talent.  Job seekers today want to know that the work they are considering is relevant . . . that it matters.  They want to know that they’ll be treated like a person, not a number.  They want to know that their opinions will be heard and that they’ll have a voice in matters that impact their work.  And this is good news for small business.  When the competition for talent is mostly about money, it’s hard for small businesses to compete with Corporate America, but when the conversation turns to who provides the most satisfying, inclusive workplace environment, we’re on a level playing field . . . in fact, on that playing field, small businesses might even have the advantage.

Think of this as a marketing problem, because that’s what it really is.  In traditional marketing, we’re trying to figure out how to meet customer needs better than the other guy.  It’s the same deal here except we’re trying to figure out how to meet employee needs better than the other guy.  So we can cry, “Please Gallup, make it stop,” but it won’t stop.  Millennials are making demands on the workplaces that are competing for their services, and they will go where those demands are being met.

I can hear the “old school” bosses now.  They’ll say, “Hey, we’ve got jobs for people who want to work, but if they don’t like the way we do things around here, let ‘em go someplace else.”

Unfortunately, they will, and those bosses will be left with the people nobody else wants.

 
Tags:
 Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn
© Copyright 2023-2024, Rock Solid Business Development, Inc. • 601 Estes Ave, Suite 200, Schaumburg, IL 60193 • (847) 665-9134