Why Should I Bother Staying?

[Cartoon courtesy of Grantland Cartoons]

There are some companies that were truly broke that decided they couldn’t give their workers cost-of-living adjustments; and then there were those companies that were struggling, but could have afforded (with a little executive-level sacrifice) to give their employees a financial boost, but chose not to. That choice may soon (if there’s poetic justice) come home to roost, as the cheapness they thought they could get away with (so as to not shave off a million from their already-multi-million dollar salaries) results in the loss of the talent they depend on to carry out their plans.

What’s your company doing about it?  I was just talking the other day with a friend who lamented with me the stupidity of companies that equate incentive and motivation strategies with slacking off. They seem to believe you can’t be working if you’re enjoying yourself. At one company, for instance, workers need to make up for time out of the office that they spend traveling on behalf of the company. The problem is the trips weren’t directly related to the worker’s primary job. They were great career opportunities that afforded the person a chance to explore the world, and, so, therefore, have to be paid for somehow (whether in vacation time or extra time working) lest they—gasp—be seen as incentives. Would it be the end of the world to allow a motivated, high-achieving employee to take advantage of a great work-related opportunity to travel without worrying it will be interpreted as an incentive?  You laugh at this extreme example, but it’s a true story related to me by my friend this past weekend.

The backlash against incentives, and other rewards-oriented retention strategies, was too broad and over-generalized. It isn’t that lavish incentives aren’t needed; it’s that the wrong people were getting them. The executives who already earn million dollar-plus salaries?  They’re not the ones who need the fabulous opportunities and luxury afforded by incentive travel, gifts, and end-of-the-year bonuses. Those employees who enjoyed the big rewards already were being rewarded with big-time salaries—for jobs they happened not to be doing too well given the hobbled state of their companies.

The executive retreats are great for leadership development and strategizing, as it’s good for brainstorming to get your “strategizers” (the ones you pay to think of ideas they don’t have to do the work for) out of the office, and it doesn’t hurt if the strategizing happens to take place in, say, Maui, HI, versus, Hackensack, NJ, but that’s not where retention and motivation focus should be aimed. Instead, train the retention efforts on those who do the work to carry out the plans, and occasionally come up with great ideas (when you’re open enough to hear those ideas and give them a try). Why waste time incentivizing and retaining those who do nothing but attend meetings and make speeches announcing their ideas?  With the economy not likely to soar for a while, it’s time to drop from the payroll (or at least the high-priced retention efforts) those whose only job function is “high-level strategy.”

A good experiment is to try a corporate culture makeover in which the employees most invested in are those whose primary responsibility is doing work. At the same time, stress to these workhorses that the bar will now be held higher for them, with a little “high-level” strategizing expected of them, too. In the tough new economy, it’s not enough to be just a workhorse or just a strategizer. Everyone—even those at the entry- or mid-level—have to be both. The sooner you teach that skill of strategizing and working at the same time, the sooner your payroll will be bursting with new pools of (truly) high-potential workers.

In the midst of our lamenting, my friend and I wondered what it would be like if companies with low budgets and concerned public relations departments at the very least treated high-performing workers to dinner at a gourmet restaurant once every six months. The events could be called “Hard Worker Dinners” as opposed to “High-Potential” dinners (“high-potential” has come to mean little more than a well-connected club at some companies). These events might involve, for instance, the company reserving a room at a great local restaurant to treat maybe 50 top workers from the entry and mid-level ranks (those not already rewarded with astronomical salaries). Those given this honor would be recognized in a mass e-mail to the whole company to inspire and shame lazier workers. It’s hard to believe, but even in this cutthroat economy with its dearth of jobs, there are still lazy people getting paid for full-time employment. I’ve seen it myself.

The worst part about retention and motivation/incentive strategies, in addition to their enjoyment too often reserved for those who can afford to treat themselves, is the ones the company seeks to hold onto lots of times has nothing to do with hard work. A lot of times the ones the company bends over to please are just relatives or friends of the executive board and well connected. Is that too bleak an assessment of mine, or do you think I’m on target?

Then, of course, you have to consider those who are not relatives or friends with the “right” people. There are those who got where they are by agreeing with everything. It sounds but bad, but don’t worry, that’s your next generation of high-level strategizers.

 

What are you doing to retain your best workers?  Are your retention strategies aimed at the employees who can help your company the most?

Lowly Old Me

[Cartoon courtesy of Grantland Cartoons]

In a down economy, the wisdom of the mid- and entry-level employee is akin to that of a dog. Cute in the poor lowly thing’s attempt to communicate but not to be taken seriously. The serious decision-making must be left to the wise few who brought the company to its current financial state. The economy in tatters, and most companies still waiting to profit from the rumor of a recovery, that’s funny thinking. How brilliant could the world’s business leaders be if their decisions are what got us to the place our economy currently is?

Granted, there’s no telling whether any of us would have made better decisions in their place given the same circumstances, but shouldn’t the experience have humbled company executives enough to keep their ear open to suggestions from all ranks of the company?  The funniest thing is when a department, or the company as whole, wins an award, or is recognized in some way, and hordes of employee are squished into the celebratory photo—in deference to the “teamwork” catch phrase, but with little reality behind the “team” part of it.  The “work” part was no doubt carried out by the company’s underlings, but most had no say as to their assignments or the end-goal of their labors. If they spoke up, it was only to tell their manager what a great idea the extra work was.

Is there a way to make it better? First, I wonder why company leadership often is so hesitant to act on recommendations from any but fellow executives?  Is it a matter of arrogance, or is it the necessity to whittle down decision-making to just one a small group of people to avoid chaos?  Wisdom from the un-anointed is frightening, but what about collective wisdom from those outside the inner ring?  Sure, your executives can’t listen to every entry-level kook who comes knocking, but what about a whole band of entry-level kooks, who all noticed the same customer service problem on your front-lines? The collective wisdom of those still outside your executive igloo (an isolated-seeming place that reminds me of the mind-set of most corporate executives) is not only worth listening to—it’s a matter of listen-or-suffer-the-consequences.

Let’s say you sold Self-Actualizing Ice Cream. Machines that made ice cream that showed you your reflection as you consumed it, and then, at the bottom of every cup of Self-Actualized Ice Cream was a message about finding your inner-self. The business was such a success (who wouldn’t want to find themselves while gorging on ice cream?), you had a large store, in addition to a mail order business, in which those in search of leading a more satisfying life ambled around looking for ice cream they could see their reflection in. The problem was certain ice creams not only weren’t showing the consumer her reflection; they were showing her an unflattering distortion of her image due to a problem with the store’s lighting. Front-line workers had already spoken to their managers about the problem, and sent multiple e-mails to those at the company responsible for product development and marketing, but no response was heard, and the embarrassing problem persisted. Those at the store in search of self-actualization were leaving upset.

You could argue the front-line workers who reported the problem don’t understand that, due to budgetary constraints, and an already-rolled out marketing campaign, there is little the company can do about the gaffe, but the information they supply you will aid future product development. You could still profit from the information they give you without acknowledging their contribution (don’t want them to get too big for their britches, after all), but then you squander a great leadership development opportunity. When those on the front-line and in the company’s middle ranks take the initiative to contact company executives about a front-line problem, a ready-made pool of high-potential applicants is being delivered at your feet.  Never mind “hand-picked” recommendations from management, those bold and proactive enough to speak up about your company’s lackluster performance are the best candidates for future leadership slots.

To ensure your company creates a culture that encourages those outside executive ranks to offer commentary and problem-solving about the direction your company is taking and the products you’re delivering to customers, create an elite group of high-potentials that can only be gained access to via front-line problem-solving and improvement. This elite group would have opportunities beyond what your run-of-the-mill hi-pos are given. That means opportunities to sit in on executive strategy sessions and maybe even participate in leadership retreats usually reserved for the company’s executive board.

It isn’t enough to tell your lowest-level employees their suggestions are welcome; you have to demonstrate the importance of their input via promotions and formal recognition. At too many companies it’s just the reverse—the ones who are rewarded with promotions, recognition, and advancement are those who “don’t rock the boat”— those at the low-level who go along silently with executive strategy, even when they know it’s not going to work.  Unless there’s an issue of immorality at play, everyone interested in preserving their job has to go along with executive strategy, but it’s worth noting which, if any, of your employees are engaged enough to make alternate suggestions for consideration, and do so in a way that doesn’t anger managers. Those bold, diplomatic few are the ones worth keeping.

“Yes” men and women on your front-lines stroke the egos of executives. But to your customers, they—and the “brilliant” strategy your company leadership has asked them to follow—are all the more reason for your best customers to say “no” next time.

 

What does your company do to ensure the suggestions of entry- and mid-level employees are heard and, when worthwhile, acted on?

Diversity Dunce

[Cartoon courtesy of Grantland Cartoons]

If you don’t know the definition of something, does that mean you can’t do it? At first, I guess, you’d have to say it would be impossible to do anything you aren’t sure how to define, but on second thought, maybe it’s not so unreasonable your employees could pull off something whose definition they don’t know. That’s the dilemma of implementing a diversity initiative. How much of the meaning of “diversity” is intuitive, and how much of it has to be concretely defined for your organization?

My definition of corporate diversity is an organization with employees and management that don’t look like they all come from the same intra-married backwoods village. Hopefully they don’t look like any kind of backwoods village, but at least they shouldn’t look like one with so much intra-marriage they can’t think straight. It means there are people of different races and ethnic groups, but also of different socio-economic backgrounds. It’s no feat to have a “diverse” company if they’re all from Ivy League schools, or all from “nice” neighborhoods. That kind of homogeneity of backgrounds would result in stale and exclusionary ideas, right? 

Sometimes I think the “corporate culture” movement of establishing Such-and-Such Company Standards has a detrimental effect on diversity because it encourages a culture in which people may be of different races and ethnic groups, but they all have the same ideas and approach to life. Let’s say one employee would like to decorate her cubicle with inflatable green turtles, some of which pop up over the cubicle wall, and another employee enjoys a spare and clean cubicle with nothing but an unflattering picture of his wife and embarrassing baby picture of himself?  Is such variance OK?  Or is it detrimental to establishing a consistent corporate culture?  It’s detrimental to creating a consistency of culture, yet it’s diverse. Those two employees most likely won’t have the same ideas or approach to getting your company’s business done, and that probably would be to the benefit of your company. After all, if you want the greatest chance for success, it’s best to spread out your approaches and resources, like those people who buy 500 lottery tickets instead of just one to increase their chances of winning. Hopefully your company’s chances of success aren’t as much of a shot in the dark as attaining a winning lottery ticket, but it’s a statistical truth that the more of a thing you put into whatever you’re trying to win, the greater your chances. So, what does it say about your company’s chances for success if your employees all promote the same culture, and by extension, the same ideas?

The worker of the green turtles and the worker of the ugly pictures would still have different ideas regardless of whether they were allowed to decorate their cubicles as they wished, but I think the green turtles lady would be hesitant to bring her ideas forth if the corporate culture made a point of celebrating work approaches epitomized by the ugly pictures man. Is the “consistency” of your corporate culture, and the homogeneity it’s promoting in spite of your touted “diversity” initiative, silencing those with new ideas that could help propel your next blockbuster innovation?

How many of your workers have the same definition of diversity as me?  I guess most just think of “diversity” means hiring and promoting people of different races and cultures. If your company does happen to have a truly diverse mindset, however, no definition is necessary because it’s been internalized by your employees and managers to the point that it’s an instinct or reflex to be open-minded. Individuals in that kind of enlightened company don’t need to be reminded to value people of other races or ethnic groups because they’re always looking for and excited by new ideas—and the place you get new ideas, they would have learned from being open-minded, is by interacting with people who have different life experiences from their own.

If you define diversity, do you risk limiting it? Once you define it, after all, it doesn’t mean anything beyond whatever you’ve said it means, and that, ironically enough, is just the opposite of true diversity. True diversity has an infinitely wide scope of people, ideas, and work approaches. Do you agree with that, or do you think the definition of diversity has to be limited or have parameters set around it?

Companies seem afraid of free-for-alls, and I’m not sure why. What if employees came in at all different times of the day, wearing all different types of outfits, and doing their work in all different types of ways? Assuming ethics or laws aren’t breached, shouldn’t you judge them according to outcomes rather than methodologies?  You could always give up your stifling “corporate culture” rules for six months, as an innovation test, and see what happens. If it’s a disaster, you could just go back to the old corporate culture ways, right?  Or would it be too late because Corporate Pandora’s Box will have been opened?

So much to consider when it comes to diversity. But that’s the way it should be. If there weren’t so much to think about (and define?), it would just be your most uninspiring employee’s most uninspired idea repeated like a programmed robot.

 

Does your company define diversity for employees, or do you think they intuitively know what it means?  What role, if any, does your “corporate culture” play in promoting diversity?

Merger Malaise

[Cartoon courtesy of Grantland Cartoons]

Sometimes when you hear about an impending merger, and you're one of the workers who will be affected by it, rather than one of the decision-makers who arranged it, you feel a malaise coming over you.

You wonder, if you're in a close-knit industry, whether you'll end up working again with a manager or colleague you fled from at a previous job. It's not a charitable feeling (I heard it's best to be forgiving), but it makes perfect sense from a survivalist point of view. You survived them once, but could you do it twice?  If you're lucky enough to avoid working with the dreaded ones again, there may be new dreaded ones brought into your path. You may end up with new colleagues that ruin your formerly happy work environment. What if your work group inherits a less talented, less hard working employee from the company you merged with who also happens to have a higher title and salary than you, and will get to keep the title and salary after joining your group?  In other words, automatically a higher title and salary than you, though you've been there longer, and work harder?  What if, as I've ranted about before on this blog, he's one of those "nice guys" no one wants to get rid of?  A lot of irritation will befall you in that case post-merger.

 

Even more dangerous is ending up with a malicious (not just a slacker but a malicious and manipulative slacker) in your merged work group who is happy to bolster herself by undercutting your efforts. Then, of course, on top of that, the analytical (slightly neurotic) merged worker will wonder about whether she will inherit a new boss who will make her work life not as much fun (trying to find a diplomatic way of saying "miserable").

 

With so much unknown, including whether the newly merged company will continue to have need of you at all as an employee, it's no wonder your employees' productivity probably will slip during the merger or consolidation process. Is there any way around it?

 

What if your company came up with incentives or work goals specifically for the period of time it is transitioning as a merged unit with the newly acquired/parent company?  You could acknowledge to workers the anxiety of the situation, and the potential for work productivity to drop off, and offer them incentives such as added merit increases if they meet newly established work goals. The goals should relate to the company's new position as a merged entity. Workers could be challenged, for instance, with coming up with new marketing or product ideas for their new company, or maybe they could be tasked with learning about the company they're merging with, and coming up with ways to keep work processes flowing smoothly (their ideas, in other words, for how their work group could be changed or enhanced following the merger to increase, or at least not interrupt, productivity). Let them know the more entrepreneurial of their ideas will be rewarded monetarily. It's awful and frightening to have to promise cash, but it would be worth it if it keeps employees engaged and hard working during the merger, and taps their brains for ways to make the merger work better, right?

 

Also find a way to assuage fears about meeting a horrible manager or co-worker again at the newly formed company. You need to find a way to address employee fears of their work life getting adversely affected by the merger. Let workers know as soon as possible about new additions to their work group, and find out if any of them have dealt with these people before. If they have, encourage the employees to be honest in their feelings about them. If they have negative feedback about an employee your company will inherit through the merger, try your best to find a way to keep the individual away from the employee who is complaining about him. If you can't do that, then think of a way to monitor the situation so there's no chance for abusive behavior by the person your current employee so dreads. If it looks like the potential problem person will be a manager to the concerned employee, be sure to make that person's boss (the one who makes decisions about whether he gets fired or receives a raise) someone else.

 

To keep things simple, why merge and change work groups at all?  If a work group is functioning at an optimal level, why fix what isn't broken?  Instead of adding unnecessary baggage to the group, you could create an auxiliary or additional, separate group for the merged employees. These two work groups would then divide up projects that fall within the same area of your operations, so you get the extra manpower without creating potential interpersonal problems.

 

A merger can be positive if you end up with additional resources, but as one who is by nature wary of mankind, it seems as though the best of those additional resources probably aren't human. The additional sources of funding for projects, and the existing business partnerships at your new sister company that you may be able to tap into, is exciting. What's not exciting?  Sharing a cubicle wall with Crazy Sally again.

 

What workforce management tips can you offer companies planning a merger or acquisition?  Does productivity have to suffer?

Do you collaborate?

We are assembling a group of companies with existing active Second Life programs interested in collaborative training / collaborative applications of SL.
If you have an interesting project in one of the following areas:

    * company's knowledge base
    * development of e-learning modules
    * personnel reviews and testing
    * new hire orientation program (organization's structure and possible career paths)
    * brainstorming meetings (collaborative thinking and mind mapping)
    * project management
    * and, perhaps, other interesting applications

that will benefit from collaborative work and availability of graphical interactive representations of a concept, procedure, process, or structure you may qualify for
evaluation program of the new Collaborative Knowledge Management tool.
Please, see details at http://tinyurl.com/collaborate-in-SL and contact me via LinkedIn or SL (AHG Hallard)
(if tinyURL does not work, here it is in the full form: http://second-life-training.ahg.com/knowledge_management/Enterprise_Knowledge_Management_and_Collaboration_Solution_evaluation.htm

Here is also a full description of the Collaborative Knowledge Management:  http://second-life-training.ahg.com/knowledge_management/Enterprise_Knowledge_Management_and_Collaboration_Solution.htm The best thing about cKM in my not-so-humble opinion :-) is that it is accessible both from Second Life and the regular web interface)

Social Media in Corporate Settings

Several consumer-based technologies can be leveraged for using social media in a corporate setting.

• One idea is to use a wiki as a replacement for the cumbersome and out-of-date course manuals. The information can be easily updated, available to anyone who has permission to view and is time and date stamped.
• Another ideas is to use Twitter (I know, I know, you don't care what I am having for lunch). Don't use twitter in the traditional way where someone answers the question, "What are you doing?" Instead use it to have a conversation with co-workers and ask the question "What are you thinking about?" or "What problem are you trying to solve?" 
•  Use a virtual world to conduct a role-play over distance. These worlds allow you create characters, dress those characters and place them into realistic situations. Authentic learning in authentic situations.  
• Use a blog to have experts give briefings on how they problem solve or how they approach customer interactions. 

 Here are some other valuable links

• Understanding New Learning Technologies
• Leveraging Web Technologies for Learning
• Some Posts about Web 2.0 and Social Learning

Karl Kapp is the Assistant Director of Bloomsburg University’s Institute for Interactive Technologies

 and a professor of instructional technology. See his own blog, Kapp Notes for information on the convergence of learning and technology. He is the author of the book Gadgets, Games and Gizmos for Learning.   

Why Aren't You Seasonal?

[Cartoon courtesy of Grantland Cartoons]

When it comes to seasonal workforces, I'm envious. It would be a relief to work for a company that mostly employs seasonal workers. The best arrangement would be one with different workers for each of the four seasons. One of the hardest parts of work life is monotony, and is there anything more monotonous and grueling than seeing the same people every day. Talk about a drain on creativity!  Innovative minds need to be nurtured with dynamic environments, and seeing the same people every day (often eating the same unpleasant-smelling health food—not a steady diet of chocolate chip cookies, unfortunately) is not dynamic.

If only the people you didn't get along with, or whose presence you didn't savor, were limited to the holiday season (maybe just a one-day holiday like Fourth of July when you won't be in the office anyway). Even if they were around for a full month (Thanksgiving to Christmas), it would be a relief to say to yourself, "Well, awful, unproductive Hal is here again, and boy, I sure hate listening to him chomping on imitation potato chips all day, but luckily he'll be gone after Christmas."

Of course the joy of keeping the non-enjoyment inducing (a politically correct way to say "really disliked") isn't as important as the quest for a dynamic, innovation-inspiring work place. So, since that's the more mature part of my vision, that's what I'll focus on.

To vary work routine and personality interplay, think about creating a post-Space Age office in which  workers are given the option of signing up for varying schedules. One work group will sign up to keep the standard 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. routine; another will offer to come in from 7 a.m. to 3 p.m.; another will agree to come in from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m.; and a last group will come in from 1 p.m. to 10 p.m.

Sure, you'll have to work out the schedule with your office's janitorial and security departments, but other than that, isn't it a great idea?  Where do I begin with the myriad benefits to be offered by asking workers to sign up for the work schedule that would most appeal to them?

First off, you probably would end up avoiding the colleagues you're not crazy about. That's my hypothesis because I think most of the time there's a personality/cultural difference issue at play when people significantly dis-enjoy (another new euphemism) one another. "Oh, thank the cubicle gods," you would say to yourself, "irritating Irma is one of those odd people who seeks to be awake in the morning, so now, as a more-evolved night person, I don't have to see her anymore as she signed up for the 7 to 3 group and I'm safely ensconced in the 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. group."

On a more serious level, if you're working with people with inner-clocks and scheduling preferences you're in sync with, don't you think you'll be more productive?  No more annoyance with those who expect the working mother to stay late at the office and give her child up for adoption; and no more horror-stricken looks from the men and women-about-town at the idea of having an 8 a.m. meeting every morning to accommodate people like the working mother.

On top of that, you've got a hook with this pick-a-schedule regimen to snag talented Generation X and Y recruits looking for an alternative to the "Oh, yes, we're all expected to be here by 8:30 a.m., at the latest" crowd.  I'll bet a lot of super-high-potential 20 and 30-somethings loathe those kinds of cultures. And, of course, who could forget the advantages for Boomers seeking a more accommodating schedule as they near their creaky (oh, whoops, I mean "golden") years?  "Oh, now I have time in the afternoon to go to the doctor, visit the grandchildren, and go fly fishing/play my Woodstock CDs again,"  Getting-Old-Lou will say to himself.

On a less fun note, your office will have an easier time spreading out ever-thinning resources with employees spacing apart their in-office time. Your IT servers won't have as much stress placed on them at the same time, and, therefore, may operate faster, and with fewer glitches. You also won't need as much physical office space if workers aren't all coming in at the same time. From a societal perspective, if cities encouraged businesses to pursue these types of innovative arrangements, traffic on the streets during morning and evening rush hour would improve immeasurably. Don't you think?

Now, nay-sayers will say the varying work times schedule won't work because as much as you don't like Snorty Sally (so called because she reminds a lot of people of a snorting dragon in her meanness), doesn't mean you don't need to see her face-to-snorty-face. And just because Pigeony Peter (spends too much time outside feeding the birds instead of doing his marketing reports) is really frustrating (especially because your boss likes him for no apparent reason), doesn't mean you don't need to ask him questions in a face-to-face meeting that allows for the reading of non-verbal language (his twittering eyelid when you ask him where the marketing report is).

Well, I'm going to be way-ahead-of-my-time, and say "not so!"  You have no need to see these people who wear on your nerves and drain mental energy you could better direct towards the kinds of ideas that will win your company new, long-lasting customers. Am I right or am I right?

Thanks to the wonderful introverts who invented the Internet, nearly all work discourse can be accomplished via e-mail and instant messaging. If necessary, you can even watch Pigeony Peter's twitchy face via Web-cam.

What do you say workforce managers?  Do we all have to see each other every day?  Can you arrange the closest thing to making the work peers we don't-like-so-much into seasonal phenomena like, say, golden leaves, new-fallen snow—or horrible hay fever you're so glad isn't an every day/all-the-time thing?

Are you thinking about more innovative ways to manage your employees that mirror the flexible schedules offered to seasonal workers?  Do you have any great ideas in this area to share?

Corporate Training and Collaboration

I just completed a video trailer for a mine and Gary Woodill's book. We, at AHG, do a lot of simulations and general Second Life projects (including shooting video in Second Life!), but when it comes to editing video I will not pretend to be a pro. Hope, you still enjoy the show! More info on www.TheVirtualWorldsBook.com  

 

 

 

Alice in Corporate-Land

[Cartoon courtesy of Grantland Cartoons]

Do you know of the phenomenon no one is supposed to talk about in which a company or manager sets an employee up for failure?

Over the last 10 years I've come to realize I'm like Alice in Corporate-Land in my wide-eyed surprise at what people do to each other in the workplace. Who knew so much ill-will-filled manipulation could be contained in office buildings?  A salesperson I knew told me her company fired her by interesting means. It didn't just fire her. She says it purposely gave her unrealistic sales targets to achieve. She said she was suspicious they wanted her gone because the goals were obviously unattainable. There wasn't a reason I can think of that her bosses wouldn't want her around based on professional performance and likability. But then I thought twice, and realized I needed to take my Alice in Corporate-Land blinders off and see office politics probably were in play. In that case, the reason for her "failure" could have been anything from offending the bosses' golden girl to being too honest at meetings about what she thought of the bosses' plans.

When it comes to who fails and who succeeds, financial targets and other formal goals mean little, unfortunately. Granted, usually the employee can't be entirely incompetent and stay on the payroll (at least not to the point the company faces consequences with customers), but if the right office politics are in place, an inept worker can remain on the job for a long time, while, due to those same dynamics, a talented and hard working peer can be booted out before progressing. Have you noticed the same thing?

Not to be too Alicey, but why do you think this phenomenon occurs at companies that promote their formalized performance evaluation systems, and make such a big to-do about productivity and smart management?  Do you think it's because of middle school?  I wonder whether the politics in offices is an extension of the social politics that are played in the pre-adolescent and adolescent years?  It's really the same thing, isn't it?  The salesperson who told me her story (we'll call her "Sally"), lost her job because she wasn't in the right office clique. She wasn't friends with the "right" people (i.e. the cool kids didn't want her sitting at their lunch table), so they gave her goals they knew she couldn't reach (i.e. they teased her, or created such an uncomfortable environment for her, she was forced to leave).

Your employees, even those pushing retirement, aren't getting wiser, unfortunately. So you need to somehow (any ideas how?) figure out a way to make performance the main criteria for success or failure, and in setting those standards, you have to watch for loopholes like the unattainable goals trick. Come to think of it, most of you have this criteria about performance in place, but your more crafty and childish managers have found ways around it. When getting performance reviews back, how many of you have the resources to evaluate the goals set for the coming year, and decide whether anything looks suspicious about them?  At the same time, when an employee is fired for "performance issues," do you take the time to see if the goals they "failed" to meet were knowingly unrealistic? 

Some companies think they're safeguarded against the set-up-for-failure hazard because they have employees set their own goals. But that's hardly a safeguard because the employee may feel pushed by her boss to over-promise, or the worker may not realize what he's promising is impossible. The boss supervising (and encouraging) the goal setting, may have her reasons for not guiding the employee towards a recipe for success. I guess this is the point where you may want to say to me sarcastically: "Gee, Alice in Corporate-Land, do you think so?" 

Laugh if you will, but I'm really shocked!  I still can't believe there are (many) managers who don't want their employees to succeed. As a workforce manager, think about adding a segment to your performance review training that addresses bosses' responsibility to help workers set realistic goals, and let them know managers will be held accountable if human resources discovers during the exit review process that an out-going employee was led astray by a boss who obviously didn't have her best intentions in mind. I (now) realize there are tricks around every management "rule," but it's worth a try, isn't it?  I think if you pay more attention, you'll find at least a few managerial villains (mean cool kids) residing in your best cubicles and offices.

I guess the mean ones are little Red Queens, always eager to shout "Off with her head!"  Like Alice in Wonderland's Red Queen, the grievances of your office's intolerant (and silly) despots often lack in substance. Sometimes the grievances are more the result of a manipulative mind than a poor workplace performer. 

Looking at the world through the corporate looking glass, so much looks distorted and strange. Many employees who loom large according to their fast rise up your ranks, aren't like that at all. Many fallen at the "sword" of their own Red Queen had a work performance far greater than you realize.

What are you doing to ensure employees succeed and fail for the right reasons, and "performance" isn't a game rigged in favor of golden boys and girls?

Employee Nip

[Cartoon courtesy of Grantland Cartoons]

I've talked a lot about my cat Miss Minnie on this blog because her life reminds me of corporate employees. While it's true she's furrier than most corporate workers, and has better night vision than most of them, she, too, needs stimulation to remain engaged as a pet. And, before you get insulted, I do think the word "pet" also applies to corporate employees.

These workers' companies are not their "master," technically speaking, and most don't labor under lock and key (at least as far as the authorities know), but since most need to make a living in order to eat, pay their rent or mortgage, and find enjoyment in life, they may as well be on a leash and chain for all the control they have over their day-to-day environment. With that in mind, you can't blame your employees if they, like a pent-up house cat, get a little antsy and irritable at times.

My solution for Miss Minnie is cat nip, and lots of it (along with Gerber's chicken baby food—her favorite), so maybe what your employees need (what some entrepreneurial company will soon begin selling) is employee nip. The formula of the nip will vary depending on what you've noticed about each of your workers, but just as all cat nip is derived from the same plant, so, too, do the fundamental ingredients of employee engagement remain the same.

First, what's in it for your workers?  Do they believe they have opportunities for advancement?  Most significantly, do they feel they are being rewarded right now for their hard work?  Times are shaky and uncertain, if not downright financially bad, but as I like to continuously point out, there are non-monetary ways to reward workers. Would having a stellar, high-performing employee work from home every Friday be the end of the world?  Or would it be so bad to note to that person his incredible efforts, and let him know that as soon as/or if-ever his division is able to, he will be recognized with a promotion for his hard work and ingenuity? It's such a cliche it's become old-wives-tale-wisdom, but just hearing the recognition, and that the promotion wheels will be in motion as soon as possible, is a great help. "It's nice to hear," as Grandma would say.

It may be time for a Recessionary Recognition class to appear on your curriculum as a requirement for managers. Since the lessons it should encompass involve acquiring and exercising emotional intelligence, be sure to do this one in person. Some managers (shocking) are not the most sensitive people in the universe. So you need to give them clues about what to say and do to make high-performing employees feel appreciated enough to stay engaged. What would those conversations sound like to you?  What would be safe to say without getting your company into legal trouble, or falsely raising the hopes of workers?  There must be something you can say. At the very least, would it be advisable to have closed door sessions with top (albeit unrecognized) performers to tell them what a great job they're doing, and that the manager is well aware of the unfairness of the situation—that the company is in a place where it is unable to provide a promotion or monetary reward for the hard work?  From there, your managers could ask these employees other ways they would like to be recognized, whether it be through a more flexible schedule, or a few extra vacation days tacked on around the holidays (the office is so slow then, why not?).

If awarding additional schedule flexibility or time off makes you uncomfortable, the "nip" can come in the form of exciting new projects—the kind that earn rather than cost the company money. Just as cats enjoy chasing rats, your employees will enjoy chasing business-oriented rats (not to disparage your business associates). What I mean by that is the challenge of chasing a project that excites employees, including the challenge of doing it on a significantly, or altogether restrictive, budget will distract them enough to keep them motivated and interested in you.

Keeping them interested in you is the biggest problem. When top-notch workers put themselves out continuously, and are not recognized—or worse—treated the same as less top-notch workers, they eventually give up, and start ignoring you, or only paying attention to you enough to get their paycheck. In the world of felines, they make all sorts of lures to dangle overhead so the bored cats can bat at them until sufficiently amused. The best of these lures incorporate cat nip. First, you have to make sure, whether it's through work challenges, or opportunities to become stimulated by helping another employee through mentorship, that your employees have something to reach for, and second, it's best to ensure that all assignments—including those that are day-to-day rather than aspirational—incorporate some "nip," something that peaks their interest, or an opportunity to make it their own.

Now that you know about employee nip, all you need are those convenient little cardboard boxes with the holes to cart them around in.

What are you doing to keep your employees engaged?  Is there anything companies can do to hold workers' attention and stimulate their capacity to do a great job?