Company Valuables

I was lucky enough to be at the Tower of London last week (as a travel writer for sister publication Incentive), and saw the Crown Jewels for the first time. That got me thinking about the symbolic diamonds,  rubies, and emeralds companies seek to protect. Does your company, for instance, pride itself on its integrity, corporate social responsibility, efficiency, barracuda-like market competitiveness, or all of the above?  Most of you will probably give the public relations-automaton answer of 'all of the above,' though I doubt it's true in reality. The majority of companies I've been exposed to seem to weigh one or two of the values I listed much more than the others. Similarly, your employees are smart enough to say they consider all those values of equal importance, but, in actuality, they only care about approximately one or two of them.

That leads me to ask you not only which one or two you truly care about, but also which one or two of those values you get most excited to see in employees?  Not to be too cynical and awful, but I assume you most cherish the employee value of agreeing to work like a dog for the salary of a dog without complaining if they also happen to suffer like a dog in the process. In other words, I'd say you prize efficiency most, and if that efficiency happens to cost you very little, so much the better--regardless of its impact on your employees. I hate to be insulting, but that's how it appears to me. Does your company fit this mold I'm guessing at, or are you really, truly, a lot loftier than that?  Any proof of your worthiness you'd like to share?  Bet you can't prove it.

I have little faith that "corporate values" or intentional "corporate culture" exists because I don't think enough care is taken during the hiring process to make it a reality. When a position becomes vacant, and you need to fill it fast (assuming in this down economy it's one you intend to refill, that is), you only have time to assess the "competencies" of the applicants. You read their resume (or at least skim it--so much artificial bulking you usually have skim the fat off the top), and then, if they're really fortunate (who wouldn't consider themselves fortunate to work for you?) you talk to them in person. At that point, I'm told you make a big deal (either consciously or unconsciously) about the supreme importance of eye contact (assuming a thief or a serial killer would be incapable of looking you in the eye--ha, ha, ha), and then, too (though not always when picking a president--i.e. see recent history) you want to assure yourself they know how to put words together to form coherent sentences. So, eye contact, sentence formation, and a resume and that still looks good once the fat has been scooped out--well, then, I guess they're hired! 

Horrible of me to feel so negative about it, but that's how I think the hiring process too often works. So I don't see where the value assessment you need to preserve your "corporate values" or "corporate culture" comes into play. How do you do that anyway?  Any tricks you'd like to share?

Here's a great trick I heard about from the Days of Yore: Have the work group the finalist applicant would join spend some time with him or her in a more casual setting by, say, taking him/her out for drinks (assuming alcohol consumption at a bar with job applicants (uh-oh?) doesn't violate your corporate values, or for the more conservative, coffee and hot chocolate or (if your company is a big spender) lunch. Granted, to guard against legal liability you'll have to coach work groups on not delivering any formal job offers over tequilas, and not making any other promises, or asking any questions that would get the company into trouble. It's a gamble, but well worth it. Much more chance gauging what's important to a new employee in a real world setting than seated across the table for a half-hour in a recruiter's office. Don't you think?  Potential work group mates also get the chance that way to take the potential new addition for a test drive, which means looming personality clashes may come to light before you ever let them far enough in your doors to have to fire them. Wouldn't that be great?  I bet a lot of you wish you could have test driven some of your co-workers (well, maybe at least one here and there) before co-signing the lease. Am I right?

So is my vision of Days of Yore casualness about the hiring process, in which you can experience your potential future co-worker in a relaxed, real life setting, possible, or are we now living in much too much of a litigious society for that?

Ironically, I think more than possible legal entanglements, its your, ah-hem, corporate values that would preclude it. Greater formality and process has been added to your list of tacit values whether or not you intended it to be there. Have you noticed that, too (especially you veterans who have been in the workforce for a few or several decades now)?  With so much stiff procedure involved in the hiring process, how can you ever tell what the people you're hiring care about?  If you have no true way of figuring out what they care about, and each them, added together, equal your corporate values, isn't the whole thing a sham? 

Luckily, corporate values doesn't have to be a phony mantra. You're only a few Margaritas or lattes away from getting a better handle on new additions to your payroll. Even better?  You can argue the getting-to-know-you refreshments or lunch supports your corporate social responsibility drive. What better way to support the local economy than a visit or two to the nearest locally-owned bar or coffee house? Who knew alcohol and caffeine could be so philanthropic (in a corporate values-acceptable way, of course)?

How do you assess the work values of job applicants? Do you even bother trying?  If you do, and you think you do it successfully, could you share your tricks with the rest of us?

Designs on You

More companies seem to be investing in their own 'cafes,' where workers can...do what?  Are they supposed to just get their coffee or hot chocolate and then flee back to the fortifications of their cubicles?  Is the whole cafe thing just for show so  your company looks good when business partners and customers visit, or do you really want your workers lounging in there watching TV (a lot of these 'cafes' have TVs now, I believe) and chit chatting?  I bet you'd get nervous if you strolled to your 'cafe' at 4 and noticed cliques of diligent workers avidly watching and dissecting an episode of "Oprah."  Call me crazy, but I just have a feeling about that.

Really, though, you shouldn't worry so much about eliminating time "wasters" and "distractions" from your workers' lives. I'm of the school of thought that even the most seemingly dumb time waster can result in great conversation, bonding, and the generation of new ideas. Say your workers are horrified by the plight of a family discussing their credit crisis on "Oprah."  Sure, their interest is partially schadenfreude and salacious, but what if in chatting about it with peers they came up with a way to reach customers better during this time of economic uncertainty?  Or what if the episode dealt with a movie star discussing her new film?  A complete "waste" of time on the surface, but how about if in batting back and forth the merits of the movie, your workers suddenly came upon a marketing idea generated by thinking about the movie's themes and target audience?

You never know when brilliant ideas will hit your employees--that's where the image of the crazy professor or genius comes from, after all. The epiphany sometimes arises from the "distraction."  Ever notice how creative people are often characterized as "scatterbrained" or "in their own world?"  They are, but not unproductively. They let their whimsy dictate where their attention travels, regardless of whether it matches the "task" at hand, and while that sometimes results in counterproductivity, it also can spur innovation that a person who thinks strictly in straight lines would never discover. There's such a thing, in other words, as focusing too intently and narrowly on one's work.

So in terms of workplace design, what are those cafes, or other communal places like the kitchen or break room, for anyway?  Is it your sincere wish that your employees just use it for defined, utilitarian purposes like coffee and microwave popcorn, or do you hope they're also cooking up some good ideas in there?  If you don't have a kitchen or break room large enough for informal congregations, where can your employees meet to chat and maybe bounce a few ideas off each other?  Don't tell me you're one of those short-sighted companies that says that kind of "undisciplined" behavior is not part of your culture?  Come on, you can't be serious!  Or can you?

At the same time, you need a balance. A well-designed office should have the communal meeting spots such as a lounge or break room, but also supply enough privacy so each worker can retreat when necessary into his or her task. How large are your cubicles?  Can workers avoid feeling watched while they do their work?  Do they have to watch (and listen) to their co-workers eating their 2 p.m. peanut butter and jelly fix every day?  In addition to allowing employees to concentrate when they need to, providing cubicles with ample coverage, and, if possible, noise reduction, increases the chances they'll feel like reaching out to colleagues for advice and support. Think about it: If your whole day revolves around trying to ignore your cubicle neighbors long enough to get your work done, how likely are you to voluntarily seek their counsel?  "What, you want me to spend voluntary time with peanut butter and jelly man?  I don't think so," may be how their thinking goes on that one.  Comfortable, reasonably private work stations give employees the security to explore their greater workplace surroundings because you've given when an anchor space they can retreat to should things get a little too wacky out there--lest the "Oprah" conversation take a creepy turn.

The main thing is to think about how your office is designed and whether it suits most of your workers' needs.  Maybe it doesn't suit anybody's needs. Have you thought about that?  We're in hard times, but I think you could manage shuffling some cubicles around and putting up a partition or two, couldn't you?

Meanwhile, I can't make up my mind about the usefulness of personal cell phones at the office. How do you think that impacts the workplace environment?  If your cubicles are private enough, I suppose a worker speaking in a discreet tone could discuss his torn ligaments without causing his cubicle neighborhood pain, and I guess they'd just talk about it on their business line if you took away the cellie, so it seems we're stuck with the unappealing in-office personal phone call. You can, however, request that your workers turn their cells onto vibrate, or change all musical ring tones to a generic ringing sound. You could also ask that after answering personal calls they expect to take longer than a few minutes, they move into a communal or down-time area away from their work stations to finish the conversation. Would that be so horrible of you to ask?

Profitable innovation aside, one of the best things about providing at least one area of the office for leisurely activity (or sitting around) is that its taken out from under your nose and that of your workers. Whimsical distraction is one thing; listening once again to your cubicle comrade's dry cleaning needs is another.

What's your company's workplace design like?  Any ideas on ideal office spaces, and how to know if yours is a disaster?

Up for Debate

The world's most visible job interview, or, if you're me, one of the year's best TV comedy hours. Since, like many of you, I already know who I'm voting for, the presidential debates are mostly about entertainment. But you workforce managers should take notes in between your laughter and outrage. Apparently the songs and dances of these candidates mirror on a bigger level what you experience with your own job applicants: artificial bulking up of resumes, lack of evidence of good leadership judgment, and holes in experience that will need to be filled in fast if you decide to hire them.

One advantage the public has during election season that you don't have at your company is the ability to pit the two final applicants against each other face-to-face in a forum open to all "stake holders."  Another is the benefit of more than just one person making the final call on whom to take on as a new leader. As crazy as it seems at first thought, is there any way to take these two election advantages and apply them to your own company, entirely changing the way you make hiring decisions?  And would it be legal?  What if you wanted to take the two finalists for a top-level executive job, and have them answer questions in front of the board of directors, or even a larger audience from the company? I think it would be a useful exercise, but I wonder whether you legally are able to do that, and whether the job applicants will stand for it. Then what if, instead of leaving the final hiring decision up to one person, you had all the employees who would directly work under the person, or maybe even the whole company, vote to decide who gets the job? Would it work?  On the one hand, you'd have the benefit of more than one management genious getting to decide. On the other hand, a high volume of decision-makers sometimes doesn't lead to better outcomes. After all, look at some of the presidents we've ended up with!

How about what's forgivable for presidential contenders and what's okay for corporate job applicants? How much false resume boosting is acceptable? Is the old joke about everyone lying about their experience true, and if it is, should hiring managers accept it, or use evidence of it as basis for taking the applicant out of the running?  As a direct, self-deprecating person, I would vote in favor of throwing out the applicants who are caught lying to make themselves look better than they are. Not so much because of the offensiveness of the lie but because it's evidence of a man or woman who's not secure enough to be open about possible weaknesses. Many of you will say it's just good sense to keep weaknesses to yourself during a job interview, and that applicants who fail to do so demonstrate a lack of savvy, but I disagree. A person who admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions or that he lacks familiarity with a skill-set, but then explains how he would acquire the knowledge, and compensate for his ignorance until he learns, shows strength. It's a fool who pretends to know what he doesn't only to louse up his new job and company once he gets in.

And what about this business of making spouses part of the decision-making process?  I've read that, though illegal to make an official part of the hiring decision, corporate boards have clever ways of finding out about the husbands and wives of CEO contenders. Like a first lady or first husband, does it have any bearing on how the individual performs his job?  Sure, the CEO has to schmooze at cocktail and dinner parties to get her way, but if her husband is unintelligent and has bad table manners, will that schmooze acumen be compromised?  It may be overly idealistic of me, but I think potential business partners are too self-interested to let an unappealing spouse get in the way of a beneficial business decision. So a new vendor partnership or corporate acquisition will earn both parties millions of dollars, and all because the wife slurps her soup and likes to talk about her cat's OBGYN problems, the deal is dead?

Similarly, much has been said about people voting for the presidential candidate with whom they'd most like to have a beer rather than the one they deem most intelligent and capable. Are your hiring managers just as susceptible to this unproductive thinking, or have you trained them so well that this faulty judgment never happens at your company?  Sure, if all things are equal, a job candidate's likability is perfectly reasonable to consider. But when one job candidate is more qualified than the other, but a little less easy to relate to or charming, what do you do?  Some say social and emotional intelligence is at least as important as various skill-sets and "book learning," so is it really so dumb to choose the more likable over the more conventionally intelligent?  Again, based on past presidential election outcomes during my lifetime, I would say it is kind of dumb. "But what do I know?"  I'm secure enough to ask.

Employee resentment toward CEOs might lessen if they voted, or at least it would take the burden of their unhappiness off of you. When they complain about their fates at the hands of a blubbering, incompetent, mean-streaked top executive, you could ask them to recall how the bozo got here in the first place. "Well," you'd have to remind them, "it was your idea."

What's CEO selection like at your company?  Any parallels to the pitfalls of the American presidential election process?

Commuter Can't-Do

As a well-documented, openly, unapologetically lazy person, I'm not a good judge of what can and can't be tolerated commuter-wise. I tried it (under duress) for a month while living in a suburb of NYC, and I can tell you the experience wasn't up to my standards. What?  You expect me to get up uncomfortably early and sit on a train for an hour just to get to work?  Come on!  You must be joking!

So, it's no surprise to me that companies are worried about, and maybe already experiencing, worker loss due to commuter blues. Not only is commuting offensive to lazy people who like to sleep in; it's now unmanageably expensive, too, thanks to still-high gas prices. And, then, too, for those who are environmentally-conscious (in addition to lazy/selfish about comfort), it's bad for the environment.

The dilemma facing companies is what to do about it?  If you want to offer commuter benefit packages that reimburse the tired commuter for her labors and gas expenses, how do you afford it?  It seems counterproductive to add commuter benefits and then keep salaries stagnant and carry out layoffs, but it's a well off company these days that can both increase employee benefits and increase salaries while having no need for layoffs.

If your company can't offer commuter benefits, and you're asking workers to reconcile themselves to expensive, uncomfortable commutes (can't trust workers to be productive telecommuting, of course), then I guess you'll have to make the commute worthwhile. One way (for ambitious workers looking for added channels of development) is to create podcasts or CDs with learning programs on them that can be listened to with a test taken later at the office or online for special certifications or other resume-boosting opportunities. Or, the programs they listen to in the car and are tested on later could be used as qualifiers to an elite leadership development program. They've proven they're motivated enough to haul themselves long distances to sit inside a cubicle, all the while incurring horrible personal expenses and listening to a training program, so there's a good chance they're leadership material. Don't you think?  The commute in this approach is considered a test of strength, which is fair. Employees deserve credit for working hard, and commuting sure is hard work.

At the same time you need something for the commuters who have no desire to listen to training programs on the way to work (that would be me), but whom you also wish to retain because, though they're not open to inconveniencing themselves too much for their company, they're still highly competent at what they do. For them, offer special in-office commuter surprises once a quarter, such as a visiting masseuse, portrait artist, nutritionist, or psychic (or whatever your workers would consider a treat). These special visitors would perform services paid for entirely by the company, and just for employees who commute at least an hour in each direction. It'll cost you, but probably not as much as offering another formal benefits package to a wide swath of workers. Depending on what your company does, you might be able to get these services at a reduced rate, or maybe even free if you can work out a bartering arrangement. Don't tell your commuters when these visits will occur. Keeping the dates secret will encourage commuters to get themselves to work everyday with the idea that something other than a long, uncomfortable car or train ride might be right around the corner.

Trainers eager to diminish the impact on commuting also can try teaching workers about local carpool programs, and can even organize a company carpool that doubles as formal collaboration sessions for workers (yet another carrot for the ambitious among your workforce). These collaboration groups would be responsible for coming up with whatever ideas and plans your company happens to need such as new product or marketing concepts. In exchange for participating in these carpool/collaboration sessions, workers would receive corporate university credits, or simply have their participation added to their performance record. For a more a structured, accountable approach, give credit or recognition only to those groups who submit actionable ideas every four months.

In any case, don't ignore the discomfort of your commuters. Times are tough, but they can still go elsewhere. Actually, with our temperamental (mostly gloomy) current economy, many of them, like your other workers, already are suffering from the loss of retirement savings.  A boring, frustrating car ride, or stuffy, crowded, smelly  train  commute, isn't what they need to get into a good  mood. 

What are you offering commuters to make the trip to your office worthwhile?  Anything good?  Or just hoping they'll stay out of desperation?

If You Don't Laugh You'll Cry

Do you ever get paranoid about the way certain workers on your payroll don't smile pleasantly--ever?  I hate to point this out (preferring to spread cheer and optimism) but since entering the workforce I've experienced employees who not only won't smile and say "hello" to co-workers; they also will even give off hostile vibes, such as suspiciously looking a colleague up and down, raising their eyebrows in lieu of a friendly facial expression; and sometimes looking in any direction rather than the one of the oncoming person in the hallway, the idea of having to smile and say "hello" seeming odious to them. I'm not an extrovert, or even a great lover of people (as mentioned in previous blogs, I hope someday for a world dominated by house cats), but I try to at least be pleasant and genial if not bubbling with outward-facing excitement.

Times are rough and stress is prevalent, so I certainly can't blame my workforce comrades if they don't feel like smiling, but if your company is suffering from this dour affliction, it might be more than unpleasant; it might mean you have an employee retention problem on your hands. Who wants to work in a sad scene, no matter how high the compensation, and whatever the perks?  Maybe trainers should team up with human resource peers to come up with a strategy to lighten the mood. Of course, heaven forbid, you don't want to cut into productivity, but what about contests for joke of the month or a bulletin board on every floor where workers are encouraged to post amusing blurbs from magazines and newspapers? In addition to laughter, the shared material also might stimulate new ideas and creativity. An innovation firm I visited here in New York City last year did that very thing to an extreme--everywhere you looked in the office were places for shared anecdotes and inspiration, much of it entertaining.

Feeling entertained more than cultivates a happy work environment; it keeps the minds of workers engaged enough to be alert to their tasks. When you're sad, the brain seems to tune out unconsciously in an effort to escape, and a kind of walking depression sets in. The unhappy worker is functioning, but just barely. Inside, he/she actually never got out of bed that morning.

While print and electronic media make great shared fodder for entertainment, don't overlook the contents of your employees' work day. How about once a month asking for submissions for the funniest customer service story, the most humorous company operations slip-up, or the funniest on-the-job gaffe? Besides encouraging laughter, asking workers to share those stories in a comfortable environment makes it easier to address the problems that led to the "funny" moments. Teaching employees to laugh at their workplace frustrations, and then learn from them, will enable them to more constructively handle stress, and the process of sharing on-the-job anecdotes with peers will foster camaraderie.

The worst is an office where employees are given the message they'll be frowned on for laughing, that their laughter is a sign they're not taking their jobs seriously. I hate to be the bearer of bad news to executives who deem their sales of widgets and widgette deluxes a matter of life and death, but even physicians are known to laugh quite a bit (coming from a medical family I've heard the stories, and I know)--even, gasp, at work! 

What's the big deal?  So you lost a million dollars. Did anyone die?  If they did die, is scowling and acting unpleasant going to raise the dead?  Since I trust most of your workforces don't have to worry about raising the deceased, encourage executives in leadership development programs to be a model of lightheartedness along with efficiency, and teach them tactics for cultivating a more easygoing, open-to-giggle-rather-than-cry team of employees.

I hope Wall Streeters have learned to laugh. I guess now would be the time for that..ha, ha, ha. They might not be able to "laugh all the way to the bank," but maybe it'll make the trip to the poor house easier.

Are you teaching work teams to laugh together in stressful times rather than tear each other's hair out?  What's your strategy for encouraging a pleasant work environment?