The CEO: Love Him, Hate Him, Does it Matter?

It's not uncommon (even in times like these) to think your boss kind and efficient. But what about the company CEO?  And what about when you never meet your CEO because the company is too big, and he/she is just too darn famous to drop by for morning bagels?  It's nice to eat bagels with the big guy/gal at the top and note he/she, too, is capable of spilling coffee and getting cream cheese on his/her collar. Better yet if he/she doesn't take your appetite away in the process by discussing consolidation, layoffs, and additional budget belt tightening.

The point is it's all too common to have an unfavorable impression of the CEO in a large organization. You never meet him/her face-to-face in a human-contact-amenable setting, so he/she is the ideal scapegoat. Easier to be mad at him/her than your boss, who's just following orders anyway. In a way maybe that's healthy. What if you had no one to blame for your problems at work but yourself and those immediately surrounding you?  How unpleasant and awkward would that be?  The CEOs of large companies get paid plenty of money (even after they're fired for questionable behavior), so the least they can do is take the heat for your daily distress. Maybe eventually there will be intra-office festivals in which the CEO, with a face and reputation and no known personality (to the majority of the company), will be burned in effigy. Would that be seriously bad, or just plain funny?  Call me a heathen, but I think that would be pretty funny, and somewhat cathartic for those lacking executive perks. Probably not the best idea, though, for cultivating a positive corporate culture.

That brings me to another point: Does it matter if you're a large company and the majority of your employees have an unfavorable impression of the man/woman supposedly guiding their work lives?  Your knee-jerk response may be to exclaim, "Of course, you have to believe in them. They're the face of the company." But I'm not so sure. So what if I love my CEO (in theory or in the abstract like I love historical figures)?  I think it all boils down to how much you like the person directly above you, and those directly side-by-side with you in the surrounding cubicles. Ideally you get both--love of CEO and love of cubicle mates--but if you don't happen to have the former, having the latter in spades certainly will get you through the work day.

In journalism, we have an expression: "All news is local," or something like that. Well, not that I don't care about the rest of the world, but when it comes to daily corporate survival, I'd say that old saying is on-target.

As an HR exec or trainer, what that means is honing communications to employees down to the departmental level. Too often those of us traveling in the lower levels (steerage anyone?) of the corporate ship receive memos about visions, global strategy, and the always-good "consolidation of synergies."  Entry and mid-level players need to understand how their work fits into the goals of the company, but many of these communications never make the connection. They go on and on about the vision, vision, vision, and say nothing about your job, job, job. Instead of starting at the top and whittling the communication of strategy down to the departmental level, try flipping it. If you can, particularize strategy and vision statements for each department, citing specific recent challenges or achievements, and from there, explain the connection to what the company as a whole is doing. It's harder than just sending out one big, overarching vision/strategy statement once a year or quarter, but it'll be worth it.

Your vision for market dominance and global leadership is fabulous. Now tell me about your vision for fixing the coffee machine on my floor?

How do your employees feel about the CEO of your organization?  And does it truly matter?  What do you do (if anything) to communicate in specific, meaningful ways with your workforce?

Mastering Misery

We have an interesting genetic talent in my family (my father is the carrier): The ability to find or make any situation--no matter how promising--miserable. I try my best to overcome this predisposition, but in the  workplace it can be hard. Now that I work with people whose company I enjoy, and feel satisfied with my position, it's hard to find the misery, but somehow I manage. My current negative obsession is unnecessary office air conditioning. My co-habitants seem to have their inner-thermostats set about 10 degrees warmer than mine. I also would enjoy Monday, Wednesday, and Friday chocolate truffle delivery at about 3 p.m.

If you're looking for unhappiness, there always are ways to find it or--particularly damaging in a corporate environment--create it. Research showing the generations in the workforce today are more miserable than their parents isn't too surprising. With outsourcing and downsizing layoffs still running rampant, I hate to say we're spoiled, but maybe we are compared to previous generations. Some say grandma and grandpa were just happy to have a job that paid the bills and involved a minimum of inappropriate harassment and cruelty. Holding the bar a little higher than that is a good thing, but maybe we've gone too far. 

Companies like Google that create what amounts to in-office amusement parks for workers are an inspiration (I think I remember reading the Google office in Manhattan has a sushi bar, or something like that), but they ruin it for the rest of us. If you have a boss and co-workers you enjoy, and find competent, and you're paid enough to cover your living and (some) of your leisure expenses, isn't that good enough?  I'm at the point where if my days don't involve more than a few minutes of suffering (the air conditioning), I'm satisfied. How about your workers?  Have you happened upon a lot of complaining-infused conversations lately?  In addition to the afternoon truffle delivery, I'd like a daily, complimentary pastry cart making the cubicle rounds.

Can you train workers how to have a positive attitude without teaching themselves to be push-overs?  The fear of being taken advantage of plays a role in negativity. If we seem too happy we worry our managers will begin to assume we're like Golden Retrievers--so naturally happy we'll follow a robber out the door if he clucks his tongue at us and scratches our ears. The more we snarl and give hints of misery, the more we keep our managers and company executives on their toes. If you work for a company you don't trust, this logic makes sense. So, as trainers and human resources executives, I would find ways to increase the level of trust your workers have in company management. Perks like early release on Fridays during the summer, an extra week of vacation for every five years with the company, and the ability to hold over vacation days to the next year and cash in on unused sick days are helpful to increasing morale. But what's more helpful is getting to know the people at the top who make the rules governing office misery. Meet the Misery Makers sessions is a good start, especially if these get-togethers include free breakfast, lunch, or 4 p.m. chocolate muffins on Thursdays. Maybe if entry and mid-level staffers talk "openly" several times a year with rotating executives in enjoyable settings the misery will be less apparent than the high points of their current jobs.

The other thing I would enjoy is an incorporation of animals in the workplace--as in my company adopting stray cats from the animal shelter and then letting them roam around our office building. That would definitely make up for the air conditioning. As my co-workers with feline allergies sneeze and wipe their runny eyes, I'll remember an adage about happiness that applies very well to some workplaces: One person's misery is another person's bliss.

How foaming at the mouths are your employees?  Are they so out-of-control negative you keep strait jackets in the closet, or are most of your workers extremely content and elated?  Somewhere in between?

"Big" Catch

With the dreaded mass Baby Boomer retirements here, or nearly here, you're scurrying to attract new college grads to your payroll. But why?  You need replacements for the talent that's exiting, but wouldn't that mean better cultivation of those already in mid-level positions or secondary upper-level job roles?  The young people you convince to join your company won't be ready for years to fill the shoes of the Boomers, so how's the recruitment push going to solve your current dilemma? Instead, I would focus on the often neglected mid-section of your organization's talent with ramped up leadership development, mentoring, and succession planning.

Now, this is going to sound crazy maybe--because as obvious as it is, I haven't heard anyone mention it before--you don't have to worry as much as you think you do about luring new graduates. With no job experience other than perhaps a few internships and an over-inflated sense of self, they're the ones who have to worry about ingratiating themselves to you. No matter how many new workers you need to fill the looming vacancies, nothing changes the fact that they need a job. And the fact that the Millennials are much larger in number than my generation, the X'ers, I would think works to their disadvantage. No matter how "impressive" those summers abroad and Facebook proficiency, there are thousands of others of their same age offering the exact same skills and "unique" talents. What are you worried about?  They're more full of themselves than previous generations, but you still hold the cards.

I guess what's worrying you is their sense of entitlement. That they have a reputation for being spoiled (didn't come of age during the Depression, Cold War, or even the recession of the 90's), and so don't understand the concept of coping with discomfort. And so won't hesitate to flee from your ranks if you suggest pajama pants and Birkenstocks don't qualify as corporate casual. The cost of turnover and new hire training can be significant, but don't worry so much you develop a complex (I think some of you already have a recruitment insecurity complex, by the way). There's many more where they came from. It's like fishing in a pond over-populated with a particular fish that may, in the end, not even prove to be particularly appetizing. So you catch a few, a few jump out of the boat when you're not looking, you throw more than a few back. You still eat that night anyway.

As misguided as it might be, that's how I think of the "push" to recruit new graduates. Despite the Millennial hype, it's nothing new. The press and chatter onslaught about it is what's new. They're tech savvy, confident, and maybe more demanding than previous generations, but no more talented, and certainly no less in need of that first illusive job. Of course just being an X'er, I don't know what's it like to be fiercely pursued by prospective employers. What I noticed in those first months after undergraduate (and even graduate) graduation was a deafening silence. Sure, nobody loves journalists, but still...

Trust me, they need you, too, so don't go overboard offering them on-the-job mid-afternoon lattes. My father, a member of the Traditionalist generation, used to tell me "suffering builds character." Over-indulgent in reality, he said it mainly in jest, but when it comes to your hotly pursued new graduates, there might be something to that. Be respectful and offer them ways to contribute, but don't do it because you think that's what their generation demands; do it because that's what you should of been doing all along, for all the other generations that came before them.

These Millennials have to learn how to muddle through discomfort sooner or later. That even hot catches sometimes get thrown back into the pond isn't a bad lesson to learn.

So are you, too, swept up in the Millennial recruitment madness?  Is it really that important, and different from recruiting previous generations?

Out of America

Sometimes I feel out of place at the grocery store, and I've been known to get lost less than a mile from my home (I got turned in the wrong direction, though not lost, on a nearby street just this afternoon), so I can't imagine the challenge of taking a job in a foreign country--and working there in person. Come to think of it, even if you worked remotely from Kansas it would still be hard working for a company based in China. Chances are some of what's charming in Kansas isn't nearly so endearing in Beijing. Are they put off by my feedback?  Is it perceived as a little too forward to be respectful?  As an American worker, cultivated to accept (if not always truly welcome) feedback, the thought that some cultures find it abrasive is startling. And yet that's what I'm told.

So, if your company fancies itself global, and really wants to make the leap into the business world and marketplace beyond U.S. borders, how do you prepare employees?  First, how do you recruit to relocate, or go on extended stays, overseas?  I imagine if you're based in an urban environment with a multitude of young, single workers eager for a new development opportunity, that's not so hard. But what if your workforce skews older, more suburban, and family-based? I imagine many employees with families and a large, comfortable house in safe, predictable Main Street USA might not be so open to the idea. In addition to a salary raise to ease the discomfort of the move, I suggest extras like a service to help them find a new house and schools for the children, and a benefits package that includes ample vacation time and financial assistance for at least one trip home a year.

On top of those niceties, there are the necessities. One of those musts is providing a cross-cultural education. If you're already a global company, that isn't as difficult because you have employees native to the country you're sending your worker to who can act as special helpers, giving them inside cultural tips before they arrive, and acting as their work "buddy" after they start their new position. But If you're not yet globally-extended, what do you do?  I know so little about how to prepare a worker for an overseas job I might simply call the country's embassy in Washington and ask for some cultural workplace tips. In the age of the global consultant, is that very naive and old school of me?  What would/do you do?

I lack knowledge of where to find the information you need to prepare your workforce for cross-cultural adventures, but what I can tell you is what I'd like to know:

First off, I need to know whether this is one of those countries where nodding means "no," and head shaking means "yes" because heaven knows I don't want to accidentally sign myself up for any projects involving an undue amount of work.

Second, I want to know about greetings. Is this a country where even in the business world you're expected to kiss the cheek of people after seeing them just a few times in your life?  That tradition, unfortunately, as crept into "urbane" U.S. circles, so I thought I better ask.

Third, how much chit-chat is okay in the professional world? Here in the U.S, after you've been with a company for as little as a few weeks, you may find yourself comfortably explaining your father's obsessive compulsive/kleptomaniac problem to your manager, while he regales you with tales of his failed face lift. Is that not the culture of the place I'm going?  I can be offhand and aloof if I really try so just let me know how unfriendly I'm expected to be.

Fourth, how honest can I be with co-workers?  Do they really want to hear my opinion about their input on projects? In America, the culture is to at least pretend you want to hear the input, smile, scowl inwardly, and then die early of a heart attack. I need to know if the whole I-love-feedback-mantra isn't necessary in this new, exotic place.

Fifth, is this a collaborative or a competitive culture?  I can't make up my mind which would define U.S. workplaces. We're not traditionally a collective, communal society (given all that talk about American self-reliance), so I've never been convinced we're naturally all that collaborative here, but maybe wherever I'm going is worse. If I'm heading to an impoverished region that's lived and worked under the regimes of controlling dictators, maybe my co-workers will be much more predisposed to seeing me as foe rather than friend. If a battle for scarce resources is a part of everyday life, it probably spills over into the workplace.

Sixth, how much workplace self-promotion is okay?  In our entrepreneurial U.S. culture, it's seen as a great thing to have the courage to push yourself forward and ask for promotions and raises, pointing out all of one's stellar qualities. Is that tactic going to work against me with my foreign-based supervisor?  Let me know if I have to pretend to hate myself.

Anyway, as you can see, a bevy of questions. With no answers prior to your workers' foreign deployment, your U.S. home office or headquarters might experience a few embarrassments, and your traumatized overseas employees won't perform their jobs as well as they might have if only they knew how off-putting it is to say "hello" if they haven't been introduced to co-workers yet, or how awful it is to ask how the family is doing. Is it okay to talk about pets?  I have a feeling your relocated workers might need an icebreaker or two.

What do you do to prepare employees for long term overseas assignments?  Is it sink or swim, or do you provide enough preparatory cultural education to keep them from drowning in inter-cultural stress?

Do They Really Care?

If you're not a nonprofit, how many of your employees would come to work if you weren't paying them?  I say nonprofit because it's relatively easy to see how a person might want to come to work to save starving children, feed homeless people, or raise money to cure a frightening disease. But if you're just selling plastic cups, software for insurance companies, or industrial lighting, it doesn't seem like it would be as easy to get workers excited about their jobs. How do you know if your workforce is there because they have to be, and would/will leave the first chance they get, and does it matter?

Training, sometimes viewed by employees as part of the reason they dread work (more boredom sitting in class, after all), offers some hope. One of the reasons work gets depressing is there doesn't seem to be any point to it. The employee feels like a cog in a piece of machinery, but doesn't know what the machinery does. Is it a robot, a cotton gin, a fancy lawn mower, who knows?  They know what they, as the cog, are responsible for, but have no idea what the end goal is. Most of your workers--you have to hope--understand what your company does (what you manufacture, sell, offer to clients), but how many understand your current business strategy, and the role they play in achieving it?  Letting them in on more of your big picture plan than they've ever been privy to in the past is risky, some argue. What about strategic confidentiality?  One of them could blab, or accidentally let slip, a key piece of your plan to a friend who happens to have a brother who works as an executive for a top competitor. That could happen, but maybe your trainers and instructional designers can work with management to figure out how to share just enough information to create an engaging curriculum.

In leadership development seminars, for instance, try to incorporate as much real world relevancy to business case studies as possible. If you have a class in which teams compete to win market share in simulated companies, see how much of your own company's goals you can use to make the "game" more relevant. For those working on the front lines, would it be possible to explain why you're suddenly discontinuing a piece of merchandise, expanding another, or branching out to reach a new demographic of customers?  Despite the popular desire to appear evolved, I wonder how many companies still just give marching orders to entry-level, customer-facing workers as if they were a little army of wind-up dolls? 

It's easy to give yourself over to a daily winding-up, and then relax while your handlers gently push you in the right direction, but it's kind of boring. I'm a big lover of the ways of the lazy (I happen to belong to that noble tribe, The Lazy People), but even a devotee to the couch has to step back (or stand up) and ask to be challenged a little more. Your employees may be busy--running this way and that for nine hours a day; or rarely able to turn their head away from their computer screen, but that doesn't mean they're engaged in their work. It just means they know they have a pile of tasks to get through in the next several hours before they begin to sputter and wind down.

If you give them more details on where you're headed maybe they'll be more energetic about following you, more productive along the way, and more empowered. You may find, shockingly, the morning wind-up sessions aren't necessary. They're self-propelled, no batteries or assembly required.

How self-empowered is your workforce?  Do you let them in on enough business strategy to inspire them to greatness, or at least long-lasting productivity?