Pin the Tail on the Strategy

Remember that game children used to play in the '70s and '80s, and before, called Pin the Tail on the Donkey?  First you got blind-folded, then turned in a circle a few times, then pushed forward in a blinded, dizzied state to "pin the tail on the donkey" tacked to a tree. Well, that's my picture of many CEOs. They often don't have much of a coherent, cohesive strategy, and if they do, nobody but them, and/or their small circle, understands it. A small percentage probably do have what the elder Bush referred to as "that vision thing," but how you know is what I want to know.

Are there any signs your CEO knows the way to the donkey?  Memos keeping employees updated on everything from restroom repairs to new parking space rules and vacation day allowances are popular, and they can, when done sneakily enough, convey a sense that the executive suite is tuned into employee cares, and eager to lead the way, but there usually isn't enough substance to these messages to qualify as conveying vision. Part of the problem is confidentiality concerns, or just plain paranoia. Share too much of your vision, and you'll get blindsided by the competition. And part of the problem is employees and middle managers are too timid to ask the kind of probing questions that would force the company to see whether their leader can, in fact, "see."  It's scary to ask, but it would be good to know why a particular business expense has been slashed from the budget for the next fiscal year, or why a particular kind of training is necessary now versus in the past. Maybe the fear is if you ask too much about vision, you're the one who will get blindfolded. After all, knowing where the corporate donkey is can be a dangerous thing.

On the other hand, maybe having a dizzy, blindfolded CEO isn't such a bad thing--a blank slate the workforce can project whatever they need to "see" in order to be inspired to get their jobs done. In other words, sometimes the less you know about the strategy, the better. Who wants to know, for instance, that the company's main strategy this year is divesting of your business unit to the highest bidder, who then will most likely rip apart the business piece-by-piece to sell off for still more money to other investors?  I'd rather just imagine an executive suite in pursuit of magical donkeys.

One trick is to require all employees--or at least one employee per department--once a quarter to submit one question to the CEO. The big man/woman at the top would then be expected to pick at least five to answer via mass e-mail. It's a way to force out the vision, if there's any to be forced, and it's a way to make it less scary. Rather than asking questions as a sign of dissatisfaction or confusion, this question asking would just be par-for-the-course, a part of routine business that doesn't necessarily signal any problem at all.

The last thing an individual employee or middle manager wants, after all, is to send a message to the CEO that he/she is worried there's no donkey to pin the tail to. But acknowledging the fear in a joint way that all the employees--in addition to the leader--are roaming aimlessly with donkey tails and no donkey in sight is liberating. It's good to know there's a donkey.

How do you elicit the vision of your CEO? Maybe you don't have to because his/her vision cascades out of the executive suite crystal-clear for all to "see."  Or not. How is your company's leader doing these days on the "vision thing?"

Raising the Corporate Dead

In today's economy it's easy to feel like a day-old, empty milk carton. Fortunately we're living in the age of recycling, so there's a good chance you might get picked right out of the corporate trashcan to be reused and disposed of all over again--by the very same company. A couple times now I've witnessed the phenomenon of mass layoffs followed by at least a handful of workers rehired by the same people who got rid of them 10, five, or maybe even just a year ago. Is this a good idea?  Times are tough, and companies sometimes have to cut workers they would otherwise keep, but if these individuals weren't deemed essential enough to avoid throwing overboard when the ship was sinking, do you want them onboard at all?

I'm overly sympathetic, so I'd usually say "yes," but re-hiring an employee who didn't make the cut in the  corporate version of "Survivor" means not giving the employees strong enough to withstand the recession as large raises or bonuses. On the other hand, it's good for morale for employees to see their company doing its best to give workers it was "forced" to let go another chance, and it helps work life culture to lighten the load of the survivors by brining back to employment life those who originally didn't make it. How does your company come down on this question of whether to bring back the corporate-deceased?  Dead forever, or ripe for resurrection?

Let's say you're not comfortable raising the corporate dead, how about bringing seemingly-lost-forever workers back for limited engagements such as for special projects and consulting opportunities?  Seems benign enough, but I know at least one company that frowns on this practice. Maybe it worries about the potential legal entanglements of giving work to an employee it laid off. If you need someone to do the same work they were doing before, and you're happy enough with the way they do that work that you're continuing to give them assignments (albeit on a temporary, benefits-free basis), did you have any legal grounds for terminating them?  Chances are, the company wouldn't get into trouble because they probably have the right--if they're careful enough about how they handle it--to get rid of anyone they choose, but who knows?  Maybe a clever employment lawyer could wreak havoc in this case.

Sometimes seeing a former co-worker or boss you were glad to see leave roaming your company's halls again is downright disheartening--like a horrible performer who insists on returning to the stage for multiple encores, no matter that few people were clapping. From a selfish perspective, it's often nice to say goodbye with no hope of resurrection. Instead of a corporate miracle, these returned-from-the-corporate-dead remind me of vampires the company can't manage to finish off for good. Dark, but I bet some of you have had the same thought.

In addition to re-hiring/re-using/unwrapping corporate mummies, I wonder if more of you are increasing your cross-training of workers so in case layoffs are necessary, you can expand the usage of your current workforce so you don't have to look for new people, or re-use the ones you just sent away?  It's not a terrible idea, though I worry about the risk of over-burdening already-burdened cubicle laborers. It might create another resources issue, as over-used employees burn-out so bad nobody--including your own organization--will be able to use them at all for a while, never mind re-use potential.

It might be funny this Halloween to invite back all formerly ousted employees and managers you'd like to use again for special projects back to the office for a Night of the Living Corporate Dead party. Patently offensive, but sometimes (or always in my book) honesty is the best policy, so maybe they'd see the humor of what you're asking them, laugh, and eagerly (though benefit-lessly) pick up the work you forced them to leave behind.

Perhaps the best idea is to never get rid of them in the first place. What these raising-the-corporate-dead efforts should teach us is mass layoffs in lean economic times often are short-sighted. It may enable you to survive your short-term crisis, but, ultimately, you're going to need that disposed-of manpower to get the job done for your customers and investors.

Before you start wrapping up employees for corporate mummydom, think about appreciating them in their current incarnation. Propping open the company tomb isn't always the most pleasant experience.

Are you "re-using" your corporate deceased? Or have you given up on breathing new employment life into these departed individuals?

Second Life Corporate Training Roundtable Audio Record

Late June, Linden Lab celebrated the fifth anniversary of
Second Life.  The whole week, starting  June 30 was devoted
exclusively to business uses of Second Life.  AHG, Inc. was
asked to run a round-table discussion "Starting Corporate
Training Program in Second Life: Best Practices, Security
Concerns and Future Developments".

An hour and fifteen minutes - long roundtable discussion
was full of insightful information from people who have
implemented Second Life projects on an enterprise level
and now have unique prospective on both advantages and
deficiencies of Second Life and virtual worlds in general.

Panelists included Chief IT Architect of Michelin and
Business Director of Linden Lab,  Senior Analysts from
ThinkBalm and O'Reilly, Accenture Internet Channel Lead
and Business Director of Royal Philips Electronics, computer
and behavioral scientists.  We discussed security issues,
corporate use and growth patterns,  world-wide recruiting
project,  ways Second Life helps in enterprise mission,
and other issues of importance.

The audio record of the event  is now available for
download. If you are interested, you can request audio at
the following page:

http://www.ahg.com/Second_Life/roundtable_reg.htm

Grateful Separation

It's nice not having to move as many sandwiches in the refrigerator to fit your lunch in, and it's equally nice not having to make small talk with as many people at the coffee machine, or fight with quite as many people for a parking spot. So, telecommuting is pretty good. Beyond the creature comforts of more space, less people (I'm an introvert. Can you tell?), some say it's a good way to retain up-and-coming executives and Boomers ready to retire. I think there could be some truth to that.

Telecommuting equates in my mind with a chance to be more lazy, and where there's a chance to be more lazy, I'd say there's a chance for motivation. Who doesn't (truly) want to be more lazy?  Sure, you say, look at all the productivity being accomplished in the quiet isolation of my dining room table with no one around but Captain Jack the tabby cat?  And, I'd say that can be true, and I wouldn't argue as long as your work output illustrated your argument. And, more importantly, I wouldn't care how little or how much you worked during the day as long as your assignments got finished in a timely, high-quality manner. Unfortunately, though, not everyone is as erudite as I.

There's a lot of interpersonal pettiness in offices, as shocking as that may be. So with the increase in telecommuting, I'll bet there's an increase in snide comments about the telecommuter. A woman I used to work with loved to telecommute, and one of my co-workers would often greet her over the phone by asking  for an update on that day's Oprah Winfrey Show. It turned out she wasn't the world's best workplace performer, so she was eventually pressured to leave anyway, but I think the attitude of my co-worker was typical of what even diligent telecommuters will experience. My old boss, for instance, was a nearly full-time telecommuter who happened also to be a bona fide workaholic. Despite the fact that we'd often receive e-mails from her sent at two or three in the morning, there was resentment about her "luxurious" online lifestyle. Never mind that when she came into the office for her one-or two-days-a-week appearance she looked anything but relaxed. There was still that old, nagging suspicion that she was pulling something very sneaky off.

So as you launch your clever telecommuting plan (cost savings in office space, more flexibility for employees, more room in the refrigerator...etc...), consider the morale issues of those left behind in florescent-lit cubicles and an hour commute two times a day. One solution that might pop into your head is offering the mobility plan to everyone so there's no resentment, but is that really going to work?  I think it could for some businesses, but for many others I imagine it really wouldn't. We're all perfectly connected in Cyberspace, but a physical office where people can collaborate face-to-face is handy, as is having a place to greet visitors to your company. How professional is it to greet new business partners in the local Starbucks or, better yet, on your living room sofa next to Captain Jack?  I trust you'll get out of your bathrobe for the occasion, but still.

Therefore, the biggest hurdle is deciding who gets to telecommute, and making it clear you'll rescind telecommuting privileges if they're not doing their job well, or you'll just get rid of them the same as you would if they were office-based and not  adequately performing. Next, you have to decide what to tell the workers left behind. As they tough it out in all their cubicle glory, with their boss home most days in seeming domestic splendor, how do you soothe them?  It's easier than usual in that case to imagine the boss as the one who gives the orders, focusing much more on "delegation" than that strange thing they call "work."

Along with creating a structured telecommuting program with checks in place for the telecommuter, offering a collaborative meeting space online is handy. It might be that all the collaboration can be done within your e-mail system; for others of you a semi-sophisticated collaboration tool that accommodates live meetings, ongoing strategizing, and peer-to-peer feedback is a good idea.

Of course there may be some hesitancy on the part of telecommuters to incorporate live, online meetings if a Webcam is involved, so maybe you'll choose to forego the visuals. After all who really wants to see the backstage persona of your top performers?  I think I'll gladly leave their time on the couch with Captain Jack to my imagination.

What's your telecommuting strategy?  Do you have one, or have you decided mobility just isn't the right solution for your company?

Do You Think They Suspect Anything?

Corporate downsizing, lack of funds for employee development, and a dwindling budget for leadership and succession planning is only the tip of the iceberg. Sure, all that's bad, but not as bad as the secrets you've been keeping from your workforce. "Secrets," of course, is a juvenile term for adult business, and probably too melodramatic for our purposes, but it's the first word that comes to mind for the times you suddenly unload plans to your employees (plans that will affect their lives) that have been in the works for months.

Well, layoffs,  you say, can't be announced ahead of time. I see your point, but you don't have to wait until the last minute to tell affected workers. I'm familiar with the idea of springing it on them a day or two before their forced last day to avoid having a disgruntled employee on staff any longer than necessary. But that fear is outweighed by the need to be humane. How about taking a chance, and letting them know as soon as you know so they have ample time to look for something new while still on your payroll?  I see how you worry their productivity and trustworthiness will drop off as soon as they get their walking papers, but you forget about the impact of engendering good will. While it won't be true for everyone you lay off, the impact of engendering good will shouldn't be underestimated. They'll be grateful for the heads-up, and will want to fulfill their end of the deal by competently finishing all their remaining assignments. Not doing so would amount to double-crossing a person (or group of people in this case) who are trying to be as fair as possible. Hard to believe, but I think most of your workers are honorable enough to see it that way--provided you actually are fair and give them time to find something new before the paychecks stop coming. Better yet, after they leave, you can count on them to spread the good word about your company. And, you have to admit, that's fabulous PR when a laid-off worker only has nice things to say about you.

Then, if you're not laying off employees, and deliberately giving them no advance warning, the next thing to avoid is springing assignments tied to a business shift on them a month, a few weeks, or even a few days, before they're due. They're your workforce, so trust them. If you can't tell them the whole story, at least tell them what they need to do, and when they ask why, just respond, "Well, I can't tell you that right now because it's a big secret."  Whatever sophisticated machinations your bosses are up to, don't let it ruin your workers' Friday night plans. Work around your strategy confidentiality paranoia to give employees the time they need to get their assignments done without suffering.

And, whatever you do, don't make them look dumb because you're not telling them things your customers or clients might already suspect, or maybe even know. If you're testing a new product by launching it first in select markets, but don't want to generate publicity about it before you know it's a success and will launch more broadly, tell your employees what's going on. And not just your customer-facing workforce. Telling everyone in the company is a good idea because how dumb does a worker look at a dinner party if an out-of-town guest compliments the company's new sugar-free/live forever/ herbal supplement hard candies, and your employee has no idea what her fellow dinner companion is talking about?

Even for the times a "secret" won't (and really doesn't) affect an employee's life, how respected do you think he feels when his boss suddenly mentions, after months of planning, "Oh yeah, we're launching a new TV channel?"  "Why don't you trust me?" is a question that will enter that worker's head if he's a thinking person.

Anyway, I realize there's a lot of high-level, Bond-like intrigue going on behind the closed doors of your executive suite, but try not to think of your own employee as a potential nemesis. If you do, she might just start acting that way.

With all the business and training challenges weighing on your brain, have you considered that your biggest problem might be not trusting your own workforce?  Or, is that not a problem with you because you're a veritable fount of sunshine when it comes to the strategy that will affect their lives? How much do you tell them, and why?

Communication Improvements?

By Avi Nimmer (Online Intern)

Are workers becoming better communicators? A new survey on workforce preparedness implies that they are, claiming that communication skills have increased by 20% over the past three years. Could this be so? Can our communication skills be so significantly improved over such a short period of time? I believe it can be true—not because of improvements in communication skills, though, but because of improvements in communication capabilities.

It was not long ago that if you wanted to get something across the globe, you’d have to physically place it in a mailbox and wait for snail mail to deliver it to its’ final destination (I have a feeling our grand children are going to get a big kick out of that crazy notion). What was once a truly revolutionary means of global connection is now an archaic system predominately used to send birthday invitations or thank you cards—not for business communication.

In today’s wireless world, even the most remote corners of the earth are typically only one click away. Cell phones, the internet, social networking websites, text messages, instant messaging…the possibilities for instant communication, regardless of geographical location, are endless!

So what does all of this mean for the survey’s claim? It means that it may be true, but it is misleading. I don’t believe that we as a human race are increasing our communication skills at such an alarmingly fast rate. I question whether Webster’s dictionary adding words such as supersize (to increase considerably the size, amount, or extent of) and mouse potato (a person who spends a great deal of time using a computer) to the dictionary in 2006 increased our communication skills by 20%.

What I am willing to believe is that the constantly improving technological capabilities are resulting in better communication.  After all, it’s a lot easier to send out an e-mail giving someone instructions than it is to sit in front of a crowd of people and persuade them with what you’re saying.

So, in essence, I am not waving the challenge-flag with full force at the survey.  It is very possible that given our technological capabilities, communication effectiveness has increased. Take away those electronic aides, though, and I would not be surprised to hear that communication skills decreased by 20%!

Unless, of course, we have all just vastly improved our orthoepy (the art of just pronunciation).

Environmental Ennui

I generally like trees--as long as they're not flowering trees in April with the season's first bumblebees buzzing around (bumblebee phobia), and I adore animals (especially house cats, though polar bears also are good), but I'm not an environmental activist, and most of your employees aren't either. The ice caps may be melting, but I suspect many of your employees care much more about their after-work beer growing tepid. So when your company launches an environmental awareness campaign as part of an overall corporate social responsibility push, I'd say to expect a substantial amount of laziness.

Now, I may be suffering from the psychological phenomenon of projecting--projecting my own bad habits and inglorious feelings onto others--but I think it's more than that. I think at the end of the day it's all a weary employee can do to remember that his empty Diet Coke can belongs in the blue bin rather than the overflowing regular garbage. On top of that, is there anything else that can be expected of them?  What kind of success are you seeing mobilizing your in-house environmental missionaries?  As a person who likes the solitude of nature and the non-verbal rapport with animals infinitely more than cocktail parties, I hope I'm just being pessimistic about the environmental inertia I sense among fellow run-of-the-mill employees. Am I?

If you want to round up the corporate troops, I wouldn't start by telling them what I'm sure they're already aware of--the planet's dying, polar bears are losing their homes, the oceans will overflow some day, yada, yada, yada. It's frightening and upsetting, but, yeah, we know all that. Instead, I'd bypass that step (and please no more recycling mantras) and organize interesting, and maybe even some fun, activities to get employees excited about the environment. What about organizing team building activities around environmental charities, like beach cleanup or volunteering at a sanctuary for injured wildlife? On the fun side, what about a leadership development retreat with a dinner held at an environmentally-relevant place--like a nature preserve or (my favorite) at place with animals, such as an aquarium? Many zoos or wildlife refuges also have places where events can be held. If your leadership retreat is in, Orlando, for instance, you might even be able to host an event at Disney's Animal Kingdom. An educational tour by a knowledgeable guide might be all it takes to inspire conservation among employees whose auto-responses until now have been stuck in mode wasteful.

One idea I especially like, that none of the people I've spoken to at my company think is viable (actually they think it's just really funny) is  the possibility of the corporation adopting animals, which would live inside the office building. What with all the layoffs and stress, who's going to notice if the next cubicle over has a Basset Hound instead of a person sitting in the chair?  If that's truly not feasible (allergies, fear of beings with canine teeth), how about the company sponsoring a local animal rescue operation?  A few thousand dollars a year would easily keep a dozen dogs or cats (or many more than that) alive for a long time until they can be adopted. Saving the polar bears is laudable and inspiring, but you'd be surprised how touched your employees and the local business community would be by your saving Lassie. To tell you the truth, I think it might, by far, be the simplest and most effective environmental option.

So, tie leadership development and team building activities to environmental charities, think up fun times to have in natural, animal-laden settings, and help the stray animals in your own communities. The one thing not to do is send off more e-memos about how much we're wasting everyday. I'd much rather host a stray cat in my cubicle.

Any luck mobilizing your employees to contribute to your company's environmental charity (if you even have one)?  Any ideas/success stories of how you made inert employees enthusiastic about the environment?