Employee Loyalty, a Thing of the Past?

Jessie has had a bad year. Between health issues, family issues and work-related issues, she's feeling out of her element. The work she used to be able to do regularly now seems like a giant mountain. She gets no joy and no fulfilment from it anymore. She also feels as though she is no longer performing as well as she used to. She decides to discuss it with her boss.

 

"I saw on the job board that another department needs to fill a position that I have the skills to do, and I think that it's a job I could do well and that I would enjoy."

 

"But," says her boss, "I can't let you go to that department. You are needed here and we're already understaffed. I really need all the people I have."

 

"All right," replies Jessie. "May I have some unpaid leave, then? I need a break to get my energy back, get my head straight in order to contribute."

 

"As I said Jessie, we really need everyone on board. I can't give you any more time off, I'm sorry."

 

"So am I," concluded Jessie. "I quit."

 

This vignette is based on a true story-well, more than one true story actually. It's not an uncommon situation by any stretch of the imagination. I regularly hear from people who are ready to leave their company as soon as they find something better. In many cases, the bosses' saving grace is that the law of inertia works in their favour: employees are so entrenched in their ways that it takes more effort for them to walk away than to just stay where they are and complain.

 

However, some employees-usually the best ones-will make that effort and walk away without looking back. Once they've made up their mind, there usually isn't anything their bosses can do to make them change their minds. These bosses then face a more difficult situation than they did before. What are the chances that you, as the superior of an employee, are inadvertently pushing them to the door? Answering a few questions may give you an idea.

 

Do you know your employees' medium- and long-term goals?

 

Do your employees have a future in your company?

 

Do they know what that future can look like?

 

Do you discuss your employees' future within the company?

 

Do you discuss it with your superiors?

 

Do you discuss it with the employee?

 

Do you establish career plans with your employees?

 

Do you feel it is primarily your responsibility, rather than HR's?

 

Do you have a formal training plan to get the employee from where they are to  where they want to be?

 

Do you have measures and incentives in place to keep the best employees happy and willing to stay with the company to build their future?

 

I think many employers have given up on building long term career plans with employees, because they feel that loyalty is on the decline. That may be the case, but I think it's mainly a by-product of savage downsizing in the past. Many employees may now feel that jumping from one company to another is better for their career than staying in a single company. I think the opposite is true: when employees are happy and fulfilled in the workplace, they perform better and are unwilling to go through the travails of searching for a new position elsewhere. However, this happens only if the employer clearly demonstrates to the employees, through word and deed, that they value each employee's unique individual contribution to the company's success.

 

All good employees have a desire to feel needed and appreciated for the work they do. It's just human nature.

 

I think Jessie was a good employee, but her boss didn't seem to think so. Now he's lost her and he may be worse off than before. As for Jessie, she's getting a head start on a passion that she had planned to pursue only ten to fifteen years from now.

 

If you had been Jessie's boss, would she still be working for you?

Employees Are Our Most Important Asset?

Everyone is replaceable, but nobody is disposable. It's the difference between having employees and having resources. To be replaceable means that should an employee leave or be fired, it is possible to find a replacement. Typically, finding such a replacement requires an investment. As a leader, you've invested time, money, and emotion into building a team. When team members leave, in order to replace them you need to find the right balance of skills and attitude, so that the new hire fits.

 

When an employee is disposable, it means that they are of limited use and that once their expiry date has passed, you just discard them with no further thought. That's fine for a tin can but doesn't work for people. Employees feel it when a person in a position of authority thinks little of them. When they do, of course, they rebel. They won't go down in the streets and protest as they are currently doing in Greece or on Wall Street, but their actions will show it. They will work more slowly; they will be sick more often; they will find more problems with the work they need to do; it might even go as far as sabotaging projects, just to make the leader look bad.

 

Ask any leader in any company, and chances are, at some point you will hear that famous phrase: "Our people are our most important asset." Yet when you dig a little deeper, you find that it is just lip service. It can take on many forms:

• managers who don't speak to their subordinates face to face, but prefer to do it by email;

• there are those who don't reply to messages or to requests unless they are repeated more than once;

• some accept meetings, show up late, yet ask to be brought up to speed while everyone else waits;

• some schedule meetings and show up late to their own meetings, or are unprepared for their meetings;

• employees are forced to work with suboptimal tools, even though those tools are essential to their productivity;

• employees are not made aware of important information which may affect their work;

• changes are planned with no input, and often no backing, by the employees, which just makes it more difficult for the changes to be implemented.

These are just some situations which can adversely affect employee morale, and can  undermine a manager's leadership.

 

If people were to step walk into your office, how could they tell that employees are not disposable? How would they really see that people are your most important asset?

Employees Are People Too

As a leader, how do you see your employees? What do they represent? Are they your most important asset? Are they a never ending source of problems? Do they represent a bigger budget and more responsibilities? Or are they something else completely? It's a simple question, really, when you think about it. Fortunately, it also has a simple answer: Employees are people. That's it. They're people.

 

Now, they may be people that have been hired to do a certain task; they may be people who help achieve goals; they may be people who represent assets-and expenditures-on the balance sheet, but first and foremost, they are people. Why is this important? Because sometimes leaders get so caught up in the tasks, the goals, the budgets and the other "stuff" that is important to get their job done, that they forget that the only way do succeed at these things is to deal with people first. Not numbers, not the top line and the bottom line, but individuals. These individuals are not just a means to an end: They are the only means to your end. Without them, there are no results, there is no top line, and the bottom falls out.   

 

If leaders forget that they are dealing with individuals first, it can cause all sorts of problems, sometimes in the short term, sometimes over the long term. But the results are the same: more effort is needed to get the work done, there are more problems to manage, and the atmosphere in the workplace becomes more noxious. Eventually, it catches up to the leader: missed deadlines, cost overruns, and of course, more stress which can lead to health issues.   

 

Over the next few weeks, I will be covering various aspects of this human side of leadership. As always, I welcome comments, questions, and suggestions.  

 

No matter what the title on the business card, leaders cannot exist unless people accept to follow their lead. Nobody is anointed a leader, people decide to grant them that distinction. They can be bosses or supervisors by decree, but they are leaders by consensus. By underestimating this human aspect of leadership, leaders seriously undermine their effectiveness.

Stepping up to the challenge

Steve Jobs redefined the digital landscape. Linus Torvalds galvanized a movement which enables much of the Internet to exist. Terry Fox attempted to cross Canada on one leg. How can you rise to such a challenge?

 

Have a powerful "Why." If you read about people who have accomplished great feats, when they were not forced to do it, it always boils down to the reason. Whether it be Terry Fox, Steve Jobs, Linus Torvalds, or someone trying to stop smoking or to lose weight. All have a powerful reason to accomplish what they set out to do. Without a powerful reason, the challenge will best you.

 

Plan and prepare. If you are going to run a marathon, you can't simply show up on the finish line and hope to finish. You must prepare in advance, whether it be running longer distances than usual, changing your diet or getting the proper running gear.

 

Start. It's fine to get ready and to plan, but if you don't actually start, nothing will happen. The first step is often the most difficult. You can either start slow and pick up speed as you go along or start with a bang and ride the momentum. The latter is best because once you get a good start, it becomes harder to simply give up since you've done so much in so little time.

 

Measure. How will you know close you are to your goal? If you can't measure your progress, it is difficult to know if your are moving in the right direction. Eventually this can become disheartening and can cause you to simply give up.

 

Have a support system. The harder the task, the more you need one or more people to support you along the way. Let them know how you are progressing. That person (or those people) must be people who believe in you and will encourage you when you face the inevitable roadblocks. Stay away for people who live to criticize and put people down.

 

Celebrate. The end goal shouldn't be the only thing to celebrate along the way. There should be various milestones to celebrate. Celebrations make the entire process more enjoyable and increase the chances of success. Beating yourself over the head won't have nearly the same effect. Celebrate, have fun, and enjoy the ride.

 

Back in May, I decided that I wanted to participate in this year's National Novel Writing Month. The challenge is to complete a 50,000 word novel in one month. That's an average of almost 1,700 words per day. To put it in perspective, if you type 30 words per minute, which is not that fast, you have to type without interruption for one hour every day for the entire month. My average, so far, is about 500 words per day. Completing the novel will be quite a challenge!

 

I'll let you know how it went in December.

Creating Loyal Employees

Every day, I receive offers in my mailbox from companies with which I have done business in the past. Sometimes I'm interested, but most of the time I'm not and I delete them, often without reading them first. However, I don't unsubscribe because once in a while, I need their services and I know I can get offers which will be useful to me. That makes me loyal to certain companies or brands.

 

Businesses face the same challenges every day. However, you can't make employees become loyal partners simply by offering them specials or dangling carrots for them. Eventually, employees will find this behaviour condescending and it may have the opposite effect. However, loyal, and even passionate employees are important to businesses for they are the ones that propel things forward in good times and in bad.

 

Creating loyal employees is not difficult, but it requires time and perseverance. It doesn't happen overnight and it especially doesn't happen because the leaders want it: it happens because employees want it. Otherwise, they simply go on with their work, waiting for a better offer to come along.

 

How do you create loyal employees?

• Treat them fairly.

• Give them meaningful work.

• Give them adequate resources to complete their work effectively.

• Give them latitude to make choices in the work they do.

• Take the time to explain how their work fits and benefits the overall picture.

• Take the time to thank them and acknowledge their contribution.

These are simple steps, but many companies fail to implement them all. Employees know this, so when they find a company where all of these elements are present in their everyday life, they tend to want to stick around. Not only do they become loyal employees, but eventually, they even become fans and advocates. There's no better situation for a business.

Are dynasties bad for sports?

During a discussion with my colleague Richard Martin, we discussed the issue of salary caps and their effect on sports. Salary caps, to me, have a negative effect on sports. With a salary cap, all teams are equal and any given year, any team can win. That's fine for sportsmanship, but is it good for sports?

I used to watch basketball and I stopped when Michael Jordan left. Why? Because I couldn't rally for any given team. The Jordan-era Bulls had Pippen, Jordan, Rodman, and Phiil Jackson. I just loved watching the team play, I wasn't watching to see a particular player. Today, I don't watch basketball because... well, after the Bulls dynasty ended, there was little interest on my part. The league started to focus more on individuals than teams. 

Same goes for hockey and football. It isn't so much about the teams as it is about the individual players. Dynasties have disappeared. Teams can't win back-to-back championships, and I contend that it's not that good for sports. Dynasties creates legions of fans, equality doesn't.

If we look at soccer, you have dynasties which stand the test of time: Manchester United, Real Madrid, AC Milan, Brazil, Germany, etc. Those are the teams that create the quasi-religious fever surrounding the sport. Those are the teams that make the World Cup the second biggest sports even in the world.

Dynasties are like black holes: they attract people to them. Many people will be attracted by a dynasty because of the caliber of the players, the fluid play, the nonstop wins. Many others will be attracted because they want to see the dynasty brought to its knees, they want to see the minnow knock down the giant, they want to hate the team that wins all the time. That's good, it makes the weaker teams work that much harder.

However, when all teams are equal, when it's a coin toss from one year to the next, the sport loses some of its luster and some of its magic. It becomes ho-hum.

And so it is in business: businesses work because there are superstar companies and there are jobber companies. There are superstar salespeople and there are run-of-the-mill salespeople. If you try to rein in stellar companies, to try to bring them down to the level of lesser-performing ones, you destroy initiative, innovation, and ultimately, leadership. Just look at what happened to Microsoft. They were ahead of the game on many fronts, not always because of their clean business tactics. They were brought down by the DOJ and today... well, they still make decent products but where is the buzz? Where is the innovation? Where are the rabid fans?

In a company where you reduce compensation for the best performers in order to level the playing field and salaries, the best performers will either stop putting in the efforts or they will leave to go to another company which better appreciates their value. They'll take their dynasty to a better playground.

Dynasties set the standard, they pave the way. As the ad used to say: "We're #2 so we work harder." That's what dynasties do.

Until they are toppled and replaced by another.

How big a change does Haiti truly need?

Unless you've been living under a rock, or have no interest in international politics, you are probably aware that Haiti is preparing to have an election this year. There hasn't been such an international buzz around Haitian elections since the first democratic election that brought Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power in 1990. This year, the buzz is all around Wyclef Jean, the hip hop star-cum-president hopeful.

Judging by the media hype, you would think that Wyclef is the only artist looking to be elected in November. Actually,  another charismatic singer has thron his hat in the race: Michel "Sweet Micky" Martelly, also know as Prezidan (president, in Haitian creole).

Clef is getting all the press, but honestly, if both of them were to be on the ballot, I wouldn't be so quick to say that he is a shoe-in. In fact, if there were only two candidates, Clef and Sweet Micky, it would probably be a very close race. And you know that whoever wins, it's going to be some party. With the headache to go along with it...

I can't comment on either man's political acumen, nor can I say that either of them is better equipped to become president. The problem in Haiti is that anyone who touches the presidency becomes corrupt. Everyone. It happened to Aristide, many people say it happened to Préval, the current president. Let's not mention the litany of army generals in the '90s. The Duvaliers before that, Magloire, and so on. The position is poisoned. In order to fix this, I think something very different has to happen, and that may be where Clef has an advantage.

He's been around the world, has been educated in the US, and is an accomplished businessman. That should help him bring new eyes and a new vision of what Haiti can and should be as a country, the first Black-led independent country. La perle des Antilles, the Carribean Pearl.

Clef has charisma, he can make things move. He loves his country and can probably propose a vision that is much more optimistic than a politician could. Because, let's face it: in order for Haiti to get out of this mess, the people need a dream. They need hope, they need something to look up to, something drive for. Maybe it's education for all. Maybe it's rebuilding a new city, where everyone will have safe housing. Maybe it's a job for everyone who is willing and able to work. Maybe it's food on the table three times a day, every day. Maybe it's knowing that all your babies will reach adulthood, that they won't die of malnutrition or water poisoning or some other ailment brought on by poverty and famine. There has to be something more than waking up and barely being able to survive.

What Clef doesn't have, yet, is a team. If he were to be elected, I could see him as the leader. I could see him as the one pointing the way. I don't see him as the president, though. I don't see him as the one to make the difficult decisions about monetary policy, foreign affairs, and so on. He will need a solid team to whom he can say "This is what I want our country to look like. Tell me how we're going to do it." He has to be surrounded by people who will say "Let me find a way" not "We can't do that." Can he create that team? If so, does he have enough humility to stand back and say "OK, you know this better than I do. Explain to me how it works, do your thing, and I'll talk to the people."

Which could be another issue: Clef's French and Creole are not quite there yet. I won't say his Creole is "mawon" but will the people look past the accent if, indeed, he is able to lead the country efficiently? I don't know.

Can Clef draw enough money and machinery to clean up the rubble that is Port-au-Prince in order to let it rise from its ashes?

Can he do it in five years, which is all he is allowed to have under the current constitution?

Can he clean up his image quickly enough and make people forget about all the allegations surrounding his Yele Haiti foundation?

Is he ready? Is he able? We all know he's willing and that may be half the battle. He'll have to go through a lot of muckraking and mudslinging just to reach the vote. And it won't stop there, he'll probably still be attacked after the vote, if he wins. Will he be able to withstand it?

For most of these questions, I don't know.

How about the other singer, Sweet Micky? Can he make a decent president?  I don't know. I know he's charismatic, I know he can work a crowd, I've seen him do it. Unfortunately, the only images I have of Martelly is of a man so drunk on stage that he can barely stand straight, uttering a constant stream of profanity-laced ramblings. From what I hear, he has always been rather cozy with the richer and shadier individuals in power. To me, that doesn't bode well for his presidency.

As I mentioned in an interview after the earthquake, Haiti isn't lacking a president. What it's lacking is a leader. Préval was an awful leader during the earthquake. He was largely unseen, and unheard. He should have been on the radio, on TV, every day, to let the people know what was happening, what he was doing to clear this mess, and how he was planning on pulling the country out of yet another catastrophe.

There needs to be a severe change of direction in the country. But not so abrupt that it causes it to go past the tipping point and fall.

Employee Disengagement: Why It Matters

A Case Study in Driving Employee Engagement looks at the impact of employee disengagement in the workplace. It looks at the costs, what to do with a disengaged employee, and how to keep engaged employees from losing their enthusiasm.

I wish I had thought of this...

... but Alan Weiss did it before me. Score:

Alan: lots
Me: Not so much

My Report to the President

Why people really quit

An interesting article in this morning's Globe and Mail, discussing why people quit their jobs:

The real deal on why people quit

The interesting part of this article is not really why people quit, but the marked disparity between why people quit and why leaders think people quit. This disparity is quite significant because it will always cause companies to compensate incorrectly to keep people aboard.

Hiring costs are as high or higher (200% according to the above article) than keeping an employee aboard. But if companies don't know the real reason why people are leaving, they will keep throwing money at a situation they cannot fix, because they aren't fixing the real problem.

Another item of note: 5/5 top reasons given by employees have to do with the company. 4/5 reasons given by managers have to do with the employee (I am assuming that "insufficient pay" goes both ways, that is, management sees it as an employee issue and employees see it as a management issue). The only one that is common is "lack of opportunity for training and development." So in other words, employees say "I'm leaving because of the company" while companies say "It has very little to do with us."

What to do, then? Here are a few ideas:

• Exit interviews. I've had a few jobs in my time and when I left, I was never asked why I left. So for the most part, nobody really knows why I left any company, and I suspect this is often the case. I don't think I'm an exception. Thoughts: in your company, are exit interviews mandatory when someone leaves? Are the results taken into account and brought back to the attention of the employee's supervisor? Are results analyzed to determine whether a particular supervisor or department is having trouble keeping its staff? Is the exit interview done by the employee's supervisor or by an impartial party?
  
• Leadership development: Leaders aren't born, they are made. Just as anyone learns their trade in order to do his or her job, they need to learn how to be a leader too. Are leaders in a company trained and groomed appropriately? Are they aware of what makes good leaders? Are they coached on how to become a good leader or are they fed to the wolves?
  
• Leadership willingness:  I've seen instances of people taking on leadership roles, not because they wanted to but because they felt they had to do it, or their careers would suffer as a result. You can't force someone to become a good leader if they aren't interested in becoming so in the first place. When looking at the leaders in your organization, have they been catapulted in their current position because they were good at what they did previously? Or was it part of their career plan? I've seen many IT professionals, for example, leave a company because they were moved to a management position when all they wanted to do was code.
  
• Self-assessment: Few companies will say "we are a bad place to work." Yet according to this article, it is the main reason people leave (leadership, money, bad working environment). How often do organizations assess their claims against their employees' perception? When a company says "Our people are our biggest asset" is that really what their employees believe? Or is it management's wishful thinking?

According to many reports and analysts, we are slowly but surely heading out of this recession. During the 18 months of devastating job losses and stress, have your employees felt that they were operating under stellar leadership? Or will they be heading out in droves once the job market opens up again?

It's not too late to prevent the latter.

Bridging the gap between business and IT

This post was inspired by a recent blog entry.

Many executives feel that IT has no clue about the business. Conversely, many IT professionals feel executives and management don't understand, or care about IT. Unless the systems don't perform as expected.

There is misconception on both sides, which causes frustration, delays, and eventually affects the bottom line. IT objectives and the business objectives need to be aligned in order to narrow that gap, increase productivity, satisfaction, and ultimately, the financials.

Some things to consider:

• IT does not function in a vacuum: A clear understanding of IT's impact on the client and on the company's bottom line is key. It is management's job to clearly articulate and deliver this message to IT.
• Clear up communication issues: it takes time and requires openness on the side of IT and management. In particular, being able to formulate dissent or incomprehension (sometimes more than once) without being castigated is key.
• Eliminate personal agendas: Managers can build such a culture by effectively and regularly conveying the vision of the business to the employees, and showing them how they contribute to that vision.
• Focus on client satisfaction: the systems, the network, and the processes are not the clients. Is everyone clear on who the clients are, and what it takes to satisfy them?
• From CYA to teamwork: is the corporate culture one that encourages each person to cover his/her behind, for fear of reprisals? Or is it one which accepts that errors occur, and focuses on providing solutions that prevent such errors from repeating?

Bridging the gap has to focus on individuals as much as procedures and processes. You can put as many processes in place as you want, but if the people who are supposed to use them decide not to, you've invested your time and energy in the wrong place.

Finding fault or getting the best out?

The school system is based on a fault-finding approach, and that typically finds its way in our dealings with other people in business situations. The problem with fault-finding is that it is inherently disheartening.

Nobody's perfect and most people seek to improve their results by improving what they currently do. Fault-finding is focused on the past, and rarely looks to the future. But you can't fix the past, so sticking to fault-finding does not help anything.

Many managers, unfortunately, know how to criticize but aren't necessarily sure how to follow that criticism with steps toward an improved situation. To reach that improved situation, well, you need to know what that situation is!

I remember hearing a speaker ask a crowd of sales people: "Are you ready to bring your business to the next level?" and the crowd roared its approval. He followed that question with this one: "How many of you know what the next level looks like?" Not many hands went up. This is typical of fault-finding; we know what we don't want, but not necessarily what we DO want.

Instead of finding fault and criticizing, it's better to provide feedback. How is feedback different? Feedback is a loop. It's not a monologue but a dialogue. It gives the other person a chance to reply, to push back, to provide his or her opinion when needed. Doing so brings up another issue: ego.

People in leadership positions, but with fragile egos, will not accept pushback. They have difficulty accepting another person's opinion or objections. They won't accept that they could be wrong, so instead of giving someone else the opportunity to debate, they simply close the door to that option. This is the typical attitude of "I'm the boss, just do as I say."

Changing one's away of dealing with subordinates and moving from a coercive model to a cooperative model requires much work on oneself. In order to succeed, you need to have healthy self-esteem, you need to learn not to take things personally, and you need to learn to listen.

Furthermore, you need to focus more on the employee's needs and wants, and finding a way of aligning them with your objectives, instead of forcing the employee to adopt your point of view. You need to demonstrate more empathy. In short, you need to care more about the employee as a person, and not just as another body helping you to attain your goals.

That change is much more difficult to achieve than it seems. So rather than going through the challenges required to change ourselves, we prefer to try and change others... using the same old, ineffective methods.

Wisdom

I just finished watching an interesting TED 2009 talk by Dr. Barry Schwarz:

Barry Schwartz on our loss of wisdom

He makes an interesting point that the more regulations and incentives are put in place, the less wise we become. Why? Because these rules encourage us to act without thinking, and to put the onus on the aforementioned rules.

I have seen this often in companies:

• An IT project that should take about one month, can take two or three because there are so many procedures to follow before doing the actual implementation. The procedures take precedence over the results.
• Because of rigid communication protocols, employees have no access to their boss's superior unless the boss "introduces them".
  
• Customer service is anything but, because management will not let their staff make decisions on their own. Should the client require anything special, employees must refuse ("It's our policy") or have to wait until their supervisor is available so he/she can make any decision.

Alan Weiss says that an effective consultant focuses on outputs rather than inputs. In other words, you must focus on the expected results rather than methodology. If your methodolody or procedures don't help get to the result faster, then you should replace it by something else. That's the right thing to do.

However, too often there may be an excessive amount of time, effort, and resources invested in the wrong things. Cutting funding, changing focus, or eliminating cherished procedures is tantamount to admitting that it was a mistake; this is not something that is palatable, for many reasons.

Wisdom is the ability to make these choices and decisions, not because they are easy or scripted, but rather because they are the right thing to do, at this time. Sometimes, one decision can be wise in one situation and foolish in the next.

• A sports team fires a coach because the team is not producing results as expected. It's a wise decision if the departure of the coach boosts morale and productivity. It is a foolish decision if the decision was made because "that's what we do when the team isn't working out" or if no noticeable changes occur after the firing.
• A company lays off employees to save money. It's a wise decision if indeed, it is the best option to assure long-term survival instead of short term profit. It is an unwise decision if it only helps the bottom line for one or two quarters, but doesn't help the company thrive or survive the tough times.
• Airlines typically will not reimburse or change ticket reservations once they have been made, unless clients pay a premium or a service charge. This can be seen as a wise decision since it helps manage cashflow and helps with staff planning. In an unusual move, JetBlue Airways has decided to reimburse passengers who bought tickets early but have lost their jobs in the interim.

As Dr. Schwarz explains, you aren't born wise, you become wise. And you can only become wise by making decisions that are not taken from a cookie-cutter approach.

I come from an IT background, and I remember the problems I had in certain small firms when we were bidding against larger firms. We often lost the bids, simply because we were the "little guy" and our approach was different. As they said, "You can't be fired for picking IBM or Microsoft."

Sure you can't be fired. But is it the wise thing to do?

RCMP leadership

An interesting article this morning about the leadership at the RCMP in Quebec. While I have yet to see the full report, some interesting information emanates from this article:

• All of the information emanates from the employees. It seems like the researchers did a form of 360-degree evaluation, where they asked all sorts of questions to the employees, in order to get a real portrait of their life at work.
• Competition for promotion gets in the way of real work. I was asked recently if competition in the workplace was a good idea or not. I think most of the time it is, but there are instances where it is not. For example, if it gets in the way of corporate objectives. Another is if there are limited resources available and too many people are competing for the same resource. With the RCMP, it seems to be the case on both these counts.

  Without knowing how things work internally, it looks like the criteria for success are incorrect. They seem to be pointing to personal victories instead of victories that benefit the whole of the organization. Hence the complaints that "careerism" is favoured.

• Lack of training for senior officials. This one, unfortunately, is rampant. It isn't something that is specific to the RCMP. Too many senior executives do not have, nor take, the time to properly develop and update their people skills. They often lift their nose at the concept, thinking that the bottom line is the most important part of the business, and that people should just understand this and follow along. Men, especially, are guilty of this.

  What they often fail to realize is that the human aspect of a business is often its most important and costly. Just take a look at what is happening at the Detroit Big Three. Our skills with people are constantly put to the test and what used to work, may not work as well today. In the case of the RCMP, it seems that conflict management does not work properly at all, since there is no crackdown on dubious behaviours.
  

• Image polishing at all costs. According to its employees, the RCMP seems more interested in the image it projects than what is really affecting its operations. Managing one's image is fine, but at some point in time, you can no longer tame such a beast. Madoff tried it and failed. Satyam tried and failed. Now the RCMP seems to be failing also. At some point, to re-establish an image, you have to eliminate the previous one. Trying to hide issues at all costs, especially in a government agency, can only bring about charges of lack of transparency.

  I don't advocate full disclosure at all levels. However, given the choice between addressing a serious issue that can portray an unflattering image in the media, and sweeping an issue under the rug in the hope that it will disappear, I recommend the former.

• Management doesn't listen and doesn't have a clue. Once again, that is not limited to the RCMP. It is amazing how often I will speak to the employees of a client who tell me of all sorts of issues that they see in the company, yet when I speak to the senior executives, they tend to dismiss it as "employees who are never happy." While there is some of that, when the same issues get reported over and over again, by multiple employees of varying responsibility levels, it's time to listen and act.

In another article, the RCMP made a list of resolutions for 2009. Many of them had to do with operations and infrastructure. But if they want to keep on "getting their man", let's they don't forget the human side.

Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark?

In December I participated in a fun interview:

Entrepreneur.com: Who Is The Better Entrepreneur: Bruce Wayne or Tony Stark?

Not all of my answers appeared so here are the other answers I provided, but that were not published:

Who would you rather work for?

WayneCorp. I'm not big on munitions. Wayne Enterprises has a social focus which I prefer. I'd rather find different, useful ways to help my fellow man/woman rather than focus on more innovative ways of destroying him/her.

Who had a better strategy for building up his company?

You got me. I need to study their histories better.

However, it's important to know that Wayne Enterprises was already a gigantic operation when Bruce Wayne inherited it. I think that Stark Enterprises was still iin growth mode, though I'm not sure.

The skills needed to manage a mature, centuries-old company are somewhat different than a constantly growing, relatively young company.

And some other comments:

• Bruce Wayne has one trusted advisor (Alfred) who he listens to periodically. He is willing to admit that he may be wrong and will try to correct the course before disaster strikes. He does more planning than reacting. Tony Stark, on the other hand, trusts himself to make all the right decisions all the time. He will head right into disaster and figure out a way to get out of his mess. Somehow, he always does, but it would be much less of a hassle for him and for his entourage if he took more time to plan ahead. Executives need trusted advisors, and need to listen to them even if they don't agree.
• Both are highly innovative and resourceful which is essential in a world of rapid change. They both have the ability to act under constant pressure (usually) without a complete breakdown.
• Both have demons they are constantly battling with (depression, substance abuse, womanizing, etc.) Fortunately for them, the wear and tear on their psyches and bodies are strictly limited to the written page. For any executive, any form of abuse needs to be dealt with and eliminated as much as possible. Executives have a responsibility toward their company, employees and other stakeholders. Substance abuse affects mood and judgment which are critical to effectiveness. Therapy, for both of them, is essential. Many high-powered individuals may not seek help because they feel they are constantly in control and therapy is a sign of weakness. It is actually the opposite: it takes a strong person to admit they need help and cannot do it alone.

A place where kids can be kids?

I've never been to Chuck E. Cheese but I've been to a number of McDonald's Playhouses. With three kids, my wife and I sometimes cave in to all the whining around when we pass in front of a restaurant around mealtime. I've never thought twice of it, except for the bad habits associated with fast food. But that's a whole 'nother discussion!

What prompted this post, however, is the following article from the Wall Street Journal:

Calling All Cars: Trouble at Chuck E. Cheese's, Again - WSJ.com

The article mentions a number of altercations at Chuck E. Cheese locations, where police needed to get involved in order to break things up. What really got me was this quote: "... in some cities, law-enforcement officials say the number of disruptions at their local outlet is far higher than at nearby restaurants, and even many bars." Holy kiddie brawls, Batman! In a restaurant for kids?

At first, I was surprised. But when you think about it, it fits neatly in our current society. Anyone heard of soccer fights? Or hockey brawls?

A few days ago, Sean Avery was handed a six game suspension for an off-colour comment about his ex-girlfriends. This from the same league that handed Tom Kostopoulos a scant three-day suspension for a hit that cost Mike Van Ryn "a broken nose, a broken finger, a gash on his forward, some lost teeth, and a concussion." The same can be seen in little league where some parents encourage their progeny to duke it out with the other children, in a bid to establish their "superiority."

A few years ago, I coached my son's soccer team. He was only 7, but before the season started, league officials had all coaches attend a meeting where they clearly laid out the disciplinary rules for the season. It seemed that the previous year, there had been some nasty altercations between parents, as well as some parents taking it out on young children on the field. Last year, I saw some inklings of this behaviour from the parents of our nine-year old kids.

So is it any wonder that in a place designed for kids, but where they serve alcohol (duh!), adults would be so badly behaved?

In business, similar behaviour can be seen, but in more subtle ways. I will pass on the many instances of disgruntled employees who have gone over the edge, and focus on more subtle behaviours. These behaviours include intimidation, sabotage, and gossipping.

All of these behaviours can be devastating to the victims, to the teams, and to the companies involved. And whether you like it or not, it's not a problem with the employees. It's a problem with their manages.

Intimidation, sabotage, and gossipping cannot continue unless it is implicitly endorsed by management. How do you implicitly endorse such bad behaviour? Easy: don't do anything about it, lay blame on the person who complains, and don't give them an opportunity to seek help.

Not every one is well-equipped to deal with these types of work-related problems. Yet, when a manager tells an employee to "figure it out himself and not act like a baby," the results may not be what is expected.

An employee may choose to stop talking and not do anything, instead of confronting someone that he/she perceives as stronger and more powerful than he/she. This will affect his/her productivity. If the problem affects more than one person, then an entire team can be demoralized because of one individual. Tempers can flare, and people can easily fly off the handle.

I've seen teams go bad when one person caused problems for other team members, but management did nothing to intervene and stop bad behaviour. Eventually, overall productivity declined until the offending individual was let go.

What would I recommend to Chuck E. Cheese?  I would start by removing alcohol in all locations. Then, I would publicize that event because the fact that I am blogging about it (and I've never been there) is an indication that Chuck E. Cheese is probably getting a lot of negative publicity.

After removing the alcohol, I would take a look at the numbers to determine whether the incident rate goes down. With every incident, I would look for a common pattern and address the root cause, until Chuck E. Cheese, indeed, becomes a place where "a kid can be a kid."

Is this all the leadership we have to offer?

The recent melodrama of Canadian politics has made one thing clear: we have a dearth of effective leaders in our government.

An effective leader knows what to do and gets it done. His or her prime directive should be to put the enterprise first, and him/her after. Evidently, none of our current leaders seem to realize this.

Let's see, now:

• Michael Ignatieff: he was pegged as the next Liberal leader. In that capacity, now more than ever, he should step up to the plate and take a stance. Instead, he chooses to sit back, be non-committal, waiting to step forward when conditions are favourable. Not the sign of a great leader: I will jump in when things favour me.
• Stéphane Dion: I admire the guy's tenacity, but enough is enough. Wednesday's blunder makes Inspector Clouseau look like Stephen Hawking. Few people want him as the head of the Liberal party, yet he clings on like a desperate cat hanging from a tree limb. An effective leader recognizes when he/she is no longer helpful. Mr. Dion is no longer helping the Liberal party: he is severely hindering it. If there was an election today, Mr. Dion's mistake would probably hand a majority government to the Tories.
• Stephen Harper: in a scant few days, Stephen Harper has tarnished his image as a strategic, competent leader and now appears as a self-absorbed, power-hungry man. He showed that he is willing to go to almost any length in order to hold on to power. In the last two months, he has twice shown that he is completely out of touch with his surroundings. Once, after proposing a measure that infuriated Quebecers and most likely cost him his majority. And now, the current political upheaval. His address on national television was one filled with fear-mongering, blaming, and finger-pointing. He has become the most polarizing figure in Canadian politics and for the first time in years, "sovereignty" has once again become the centre of political discourse.
• Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe: both acknowledge that they need to rely on each other to get through the current mess. However, how long could such a coalition last? Mr. Duceppe has stated that he is willing to vote in favour of any measure that is favourable to Quebec. He has also pledged not to undermine the coalition for the next 18 months. But how will he vote if a measure is proposed, that does not favour Quebec?
• Bob Rae: after dilly dallying, Mr. Rae seems to have donned his suit of armor and is ready to do battle. He stepped to the forefront of the coalition, ready to lead them to battle. Too bad the governor-general has scuttled his plans, for now. Nevertheless, he is the one that currently projects the best leadership qualities. He is calling for calm, and working to reassure business leaders that there is no 'crisis' in Ottawa, while simultaneously working with the other party leaders. In the past few days, he has decided to enter the leadership race and has stepped up to role of coalition advocate. If he does it well, keeps on message and maintains his enthusiasm until the Liberal leadership race in May, he may well become Mr. Dion's successor.

We're in the middle of an unprecedented economic crisis, with daily announcements of massive layoffs, dire warnings of tough times, and meanwhile, our government is putting more effort on saving its hide than it is on creating a better future for all Canadians.

When I look at our neighbours to the South, who just elected a unifying figure to counter eight years of disastrous PR, all I can think about is this: Is this really all we have to offer ourselves?

Voluntary layoffs? Think real hard first

To piggy back on my earlier post on the subject, asking people to voluntarily leave their current job, in order to cut costs, can backfire:

The Globe and Mail: Voluntary layoffs seen backfiring

The problem with such an approach is that employers see employees as only a number on the balance sheet. And if they can set that number low enough to have a high number on the bottom line, they think they have won. Wrong on so many counts!

When laying off employees, you do much more than reduce your expenses:

• You affect morale, especially if you do it over and over again. Cut once, cut deep.

• You affect productivity, especially if you announce layoffs weeks ahead of the actual cut. By the time you actually make the cut, you may have more than expected because people will tend to focus on the expected bad news, prepare their resumes, and so on. When your focus is not on your job (for whatever reason), performance will almost always suffer;

• With voluntary layoffs, you run the risk of losing even more if your best people decide that they want to leave. Your performance will automatically be reduced, because that star performer leaves not only with his her salary (a win on your balance sheet) but also with the accompanying results (a loss that will outweigh the win on the balance sheet).

Voluntary layoffs may seem like a good plan, that humanizes the layoff process, but you need to think of the company in the long term. Sometimes, saving money can cost much more than you expect.

Layoffs, hospitals and budgets

With rounds after rounds of layoffs expected in the coming months, this is a timely piece:

The Art of Laying People Off

I especially like Guy's #10: don't let people self-select themselves, because you will lose your best people.

In Quebec, the government did that a few years ago in the health sector. Nurses and doctors were offered early retirement and many of them jumped at the chance. On top of that, they limited the number of admissions in medical faculties. Net result? Today there is a severe shortage of medical staff, at a time where needs are constantly increasing. It will take another 7 years before things get back to normal.

The reasons for doing so were for budget-balancing purposes, which is highly laudable, but I think the government officials failed to look at the big picture. They failed to take into account that many in the health-care sector were fed up with the system and were only looking for a way out. They failed to see that needs for medical personnel would increase, not decrease over time. They failed to adequately project the effects of limiting the number of health-care professionals trained by the system.

How bad is it? There is a large shortfall of family doctors in Quebec, partly because of the decisions made in the '90s and partly because of the bad rap general practitioners (GPs) receive in medical schools. I was recently discussing this with a specialist, and as he explained it to me, most professors in medical universities are specialists. Hence, they will vow for their profession and will encourage students to follow in their footsteps. Few GPs teach in university, so there is no emotional appeal to incite students to become family doctors. In fact, according to an article in today's Journal de Montréal, in 2008 300 new GPs were added to the workforce, while there was a need for 346. The race is not lost, but it's going to be difficult to win.

The lesson, for any business, is that you should not let your best people go, just to save money. In the long run, the costs can greatly outweigh any savings you make on the balance sheet.

Confronting issues

A quote from Alan Weiss:

Confront EVERY issue. Life is too short to be worried about what people think of you.

Too many communication issues are a result of our fear of confrontation, simply because we are afraid of what others will say about us. I count myself within that group, at times and with certain people. Identifying the times and the people who cause that reaction, is a good step toward overcoming that fear.

You gain respect when you confront people who are more successful, more powerful, or more confident than you are. Doing so, and doing it well, raises your profile in everyone's eyes, including your own. But that only happens when you are willing to step forward, and take a risk.