VP of Derailment

[Courtesy of Grantland Cartoons]

Do you ever get the suspicion your division president, or maybe even your chief executive and executive board, are into Tarot cards?  If I were a lot of you--especially those of you at large financial institutions and other large companies currently ailing--I certainly would. The "strategic" maneuvers of those at the top of these companies often seem so reckless and antithetical to common sense, the only thing you could say in their defense is they were blindly following their intuition. I'm in favor of following my intuition whenever possible, and believe our gut reactions to business proposals are a worthwhile addition to "strategic" thinking, but I  feel like I would dig deeper than my intuition if millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs were at stake.

With so many businesses on the rocks, I wonder how you've been preparing your executives for the task of high-level decision making, whether it's a skill that can be taught, and whether many of the decisions that are made at the executive level in closed door sessions should be aired more widely before action is taken? 

First, is there any way to meaningfully practice decision making?  I've heard much about online and offline simulations in which budding leaders are presented with business challenges (sometimes real problems facing their companies) and asked to come up with viable solutions either on their own or in teams. The best of these exercises asks learners to arrive at these solutions while working within real world constraints like tight budgets and limited manpower. These simulations seem like fun, especially getting the chance to edge out the nasty co-worker who cuts in line for the coffee machine every morning. But I've never heard any evidence that the exercises lead to better executive decisions when learners move into positions of power. Has any vice president of operations ever said, "Wow, thank god I took part in that simulation five years ago during my leadership development training. I don't think I ever would have been able to streamline our manufacturing processes without it."?  Granted, it would be unnatural for any but an executive seeking a date with a trainer to say something like that, but do you think any of your leaders have cause to say such things to themselves after making a difficult decision?

My Tarot reader intuition tells me most business decision making simulations are great at breaking the ice with peers and fostering camaraderie and teamwork, but not so good at preparing a future leader for nail biting decision making time.

I wouldn't do away with business simulations because they serve their purpose (or a purpose anyway) and, if real company challenges are at play, can be genuinely helpful, but for added help when horror-inducing challenges strike leaders, a second or third pair of experienced ears is needed. Instead of just providing executives with one mentor (assuming many of you at least do that much), what about a decision making mentoring network of about five other executives from other parts of the company who can talk out possible solutions, serving as an informal sounding board, for the pressured leader?  It would be understood that these conversations are strictly confidential among members of each network, and participation in one network would be mandatory for all managers with more than a certain number of direct and indirect reports. 

Along with helping leaders make better make-or-break decisions, these networks also would further develop high-level managers and executives by exposing them to other facets of the business, and to people they may never have spoken to otherwise.

At the same time they're getting feedback and help before the decisions are put into action, ensure they know about the unpleasant after-effects of what they decided by creating incentives for those working under them to critique the rolled-out plan. What if you required each manager charged with implementing a high-stakes (defining high-stakes however you like) plan to ask direct and indirect reports for their biggest complaint about how the plan is working out? The employee who submits the most enlightening, productive complaint will be rewarded with as much as an extra week of vacation time. To balance it out, you also could have subordinates, in a separate contest, be required to submit praise for the program regarding what should be continued or done more of, including ideas for making the most of what's going well.

Be wary of leaders who are hostile to the idea of being forced to get feedback about their plans before putting them into action, and show disdain for hearing feedback from subordinates on how it's going. If it's such a great plan, why don't they want to talk about it?  My guess (or intuition?) is many of your leaders would be unable to explain the logic underpinning why they did what they did, and why they plan to do what's secretly in the works. Are they discreetly moonlighting as roadside palm readers, or are they just incompetent?

Do you count a vice president of derailment among your company's top leaders?  How did he or she earn this unspoken title?  Was there anything you as a trainer could have done to prevent it?

Corporate Cupid's Prickly Arrow

[Courtesy of Grantland Cartoons]

If corporations were suitors, they would be the kind who would call at the last minute for dates, and show up  with tofu and tomato juice instead of chocolates and champagne. They'd give you just enough to sustain you for the night, but not enough to leave a pleasant impression, let alone one worth repeating. And that's a shame because in the corporate world, where even in a recession, workforce managers have to be mindful of employee engagement and retention, spreading good feelings is essential.

Raises are currently out of the question for most companies, and I've already discussed on this blog other perks to try such as flex-time and relatively inexpensive incentives like contests to win extra vacation days or gift certificates. One thing I haven't discussed is sensitivity training for managers. I don't mean sensitivity about gender and ethnic issues. That's obviously important for legal and ethical reasons, but what I'm referring to is training managers and executives to be more compassionate, and therefore, more enjoyable as bosses. I've heard of role-play exercises focused on "difficult conversations," and others on "making the sale," but none on "employee misery."  You teach up-and-coming managers negotiation and communication skills in leadership development seminars, but what about using emotional IQ to assess and address worker hardship (hardship that it turns out is their fault)?

With staffs downsized and workloads super-sized, you may as a manager have no alternative but to assign tasks that spill over into evenings and weekends--or do you?  Could employees groomed for leadership be taught ways to organize their department's responsibilities so those times work spills onto employees' free time, soiling their comfort, could be limited?  And, just as important, can these new managers be taught how to better handle the environment that's created when they make the decision to overload?  Doubtless, some are born with a greater sensitivity than others to the feelings of people other than themselves, but there may be hope for those whose definition of sensitivity is monitoring their own feelings. In leadership practice sessions, ask them to try out requesting that an employee take on what's bound to be a burdensome load of assignments. To start off, don't give them any hints on what would be the best approach. See what their natural inclination is to get a sense of why employees in his/her department are fleeing as fast as a hotel guests vacating  bed bug-infested guest rooms. "Hi there, Louise, I have a little project for you," leadership development student A says to his employee at 3 p.m. on a Friday, as her eyes widen. "In our regional meeting last night, the other managers and I decided we need to sharpen our direct mail campaign. So, I need you to review these 5,000 names and accompanying demographics, and highlight about 500 to 1,000 you think we should zero in on. Sorry for the short notice, but I'll need that by the middle of next week."  He said he was "sorry," so why isn't that overbearing workload request perfect?

Could this self-described sensitive manager be taught to make his work style less miserable and employee-flight-inducing?  What if he were taught to find a way to make this task into a group, rather than solitary, challenge that would include himself pitching in?  Instead of cornering an employee (even one not on his favorites list) and overwhelming her so she leaves their conversation looking like soon-to-be-roadkill, student A could be taught to call an emergency staff meeting at 3, present his challenge, and ask for suggestions on meeting the goal by his deadline. This approach reinforces team cohesion and reduces stress and the isolated misery feeling by allowing--even requiring--employees to lean on each other. In addition to figuring out together the best and most efficient way to finish the task on time, asking for suggestions from his work group on how to approach the task may make them less resentful of the extra effort required, and gives them a chance to express what they are and are not willing to do to get the job done. Student A's team might decide, for instance, that they would overwhelmingly prefer putting in late nights Monday through Wednesday rather than sacrificing any portion of their Friday night or weekend.

Along with workload apportionment, beware of where the new, rabid cost-saving culture takes managers. When assigning a worker to reach out to a client hundreds of miles away, how smart is it to forbid the employee from checking into a hotel room the night before rather than waking up at 4 a.m. to be at a 9 a.m. meeting?  If there's a hotel room available for $200, or even $300, is it possible making that "steep" investment (quotation marks because not so steep compared to what some of your CEOs are making) is well worth it?  Similarly, do you think the leadership student should be taught that it isn't a waste of money to spend the extra $100 so his employee doesn't have to spend the night in a hotel that even flees in search of dogs wouldn't check into?

Many of you are cultivating charmless leaders, who were never taught why they should continuously court their employees, and how to go about it. Your employees may not comprise your dream workforce, and given most of your "courtship" practices, you're no bargain either. But in this economy, all you've got is each other. Go ahead, give up the corporate tofu. A few recession/depression consolation bonbons are in order.

What do you teach developing leaders about how to court employees to enhance engagement and retention?  Is this soft-heart approach nonsense, or is there something to be said for treating your workforce with sensitivity?

In the Loop, or Just Loopy?

[Cartoon courtesy of Grantland Cartoons]

Corporate Facebooks or Myspaces aren't for everyone--at least not for those of us who don't want status updates from our colleagues on whether they should have a sandwich, burger, or Thai food for lunch. But even if the thought of corporate social networking sites gives you a headache, there's no denying there's talent management gains to be had by tapping into the social networks housed within your company--even if it's just through simple collaborative platforms. The question is whether it's better to have large, wide-tent networks (maybe even one large, umbrella collaborative space for everyone), or whether small, highly-segmented networks are more helpful? Two major goals of corporate social networking are, first, to foster information sharing for greater productivity and innovation, and second, to aid your talent management efforts, making it easier to spot high-potentials and conduct succession planning.

On the collaborative front, the case for small, specialized groups is relevance. Why would a group of IT employees working on a piece of internal infrastructure that will be helpful to the whole company when complete, but a bore to everyone in the meantime, want to share their platform with those uninvolved in the design process?  Sure, they could get some interesting suggestions from colleagues who can never remember where the on/off button to their computer is located, but they also could be inundated with well-intentioned, though ignorant, queries questioning the expense of the project (not understanding just how expensive such projects can be) and offering ideas that a non-IT expert wouldn't realize are impossible to implement. At the same time, opening the collaborative networking platform to a larger pool of employees may yield brilliance from seeming stupidity. The worker who persists in using the collaborative platform to chat about his angst regarding use of the expense reporting system may have a good point. Is there a way to make the new IT infrastructure benefit the online system for submitting expenses?  It might be nothing more than complaints from a colleague who's slow-on-the-electronic-uptake, but it also might be the inspiration needed to create a better IT system.

Similarly, on a career development level, these highly-niched employees could benefit from interacting with colleagues from other business functions. If they want to move up to management some day, they'll need those contacts--even if those contacts bore them with elementary questions and suggestions. As a talent manager, trainers and human resources can benefit by the greater exposure given to the IT designers. That will presumably make identifying high potentials a little easier, with more suggestions, maybe even from across the company, trickling in about star performers observed through open, collaborative work processes.

But the case for limiting social network platforms to specialized groups is boosted by the presence of corporate affinity groups, such as those dedicated to the advancement of African-American, Hispanic, and female employees. Keeping social networks devoted exclusively to exchanges and collaboration between people within these groups provides a safe haven for informal mentoring to occur, and gives talent managers organized pools of these employees to draw from for selection into development programs. Instead of opening an electronic social networking platform to a larger swath of workers (including those not members of the affinity group), it might be better to host Second Life meet-and-greet "cocktail" events between each affinity group and the executive board, or maybe even do a physical world networking breakfast between affinity group and executives. When it comes to a potentially vulnerable subset of employees, in other words, a more tightly controlled environment for collaboration and information sharing could be the best option.

Last, I wonder whether it's useful to give employees, or maybe just their managers, the tools to create corporate social networks themselves without having to first seek approval from the company?  Is that what you do at your company?  I tend to think it would be best to give them this freedom so the information sharing potential of the technology can be used on-demand. Allowing work groups to set up their own networks independently and with ease, for instance, would make it possible for a manager to ask her employees to brainstorm electronically for a week before a meeting. They could get initial thoughts out of the way, and maybe refined, so the physical meeting could be devoted to narrowing down suggestions for business process improvement (or business process glitch salvage operations) to the best two or three. When time is of the essence, the employee who thinks the annual conference could be improved by giving attendees the freedom to bring along pets and children, and providing them with dog runs on the tradeshow floor, probably needs to be reined in ahead of time.

What's your thought on the creation, organization, monitoring, and talent management uses of corporate social networks?  What's working and not working about your company's networks?

Special on Productivity in Cubicle Aisle 7

[Cartoon courtesy of Grantland Cartoons]

With the florescent lighting, and frequent references to "cutting the fat" from corporate operations, work at many companies these days is more reminiscent of a supermarket than an office. It sometimes feels as if company owners and investors are shopping at a large discount grocery store. They're looking for special deals on commodities that are--perhaps surprising to them--difficult to consistently produce. A value supermarket shopper might ask what the specials are this week on Brie cheese or out-of-season fruits or vegetables. Executive boards and investors seem to be asking the same of productivity, efficiency, and quality work output.

In desperate times, you expect the same goods at lower prices, and the same leap is made in thinking about the contribution employees make to the company. The purse string holders assume that because times are hard, and these workers are less in demand, they'll do what's necessary to make themselves more of a special deal. And many of them are, in fact, doing this lowering of personal needs and comfort to make themselves into a real steal. The problem is it may work for the short-term, but once the financial crisis has passed, will your treatment of them have done irreparable damage to the culture of the company, the development of these employees as future leaders, and the long-term quality of the products or services they provide?

The popular wisdom states that learning to adapt to survive a recession will only strengthen employees. They'll get used to working harder for less money and appreciation (they're supposed to be the special deal on sale at new door-busting prices, right?). It's hard to think beyond the current crisis, but have you thought yet about how you'll transition from this survivalist, hyper-competitive culture you've created back to the culture the company thrived under during healthy economic times? Though forced to turn themselves into the corporate equivalent of Kmart Blue Light Specials, this is definitely a time-limited offer, and unlike your favorite household items, they may hold it against your company when the economy rebounds that you forced them to assume the role of devalued merchandise. It also may affect their development into leaders by changing their perception of themselves in the workplace. Do you ever fully recover your self-worth and confidence enough to lead other people after lowering yourself into a do-anything-at-any-price worker?  It creates a mentality focused much more on immediate survival than long-range strategic planning. If you ask employees to turn their mindsets onto emergency mode, what bad habits are you creating?  You want deliberative, wide-perspective thinkers to lead your company in the future. Where will you find them if you've taught your employees to transition into a sky-is-falling work style?

Job cuts and salary freezes may be unavoidable, but be sure to avoid the cultivation of a culture in which workers are treated like cereal or value packages of toilet paper on sale. You can do that through corporate messaging that emphasizes this is an emergency state, and that you acknowledge what you're asking of employees is a difficult sacrifice. Explain that you still value them, and that as soon as you're able to, you'll reward them richly for the special deals on productivity you've been getting out of them. The worst would be for them to assume you'll continue this treatment even after the economy recovers because you think you can get away with it. In other words, you don't want to give them the idea that now that you've lowered their standards, and they're accepting more hardship for less compensation, you'll try to just keep it that way permanently. They're used to the cheap stuff (or they, themselves, are the cheap stuff) now, so why get them used to the good stuff again?

To keep your workforce from losing the ability for "big picture" thinking during this crisis, keep up the collaborative innovation-generating forums you launched in happier days. You may not be able to fund the innovation this year, but it's an important exercise for workers, and it doesn't hurt to have the ideas ready to go once your finances recover. Continuing to ask for innovative concepts for products, services, marketing, and company operations also is essential because it reminds employees this Human Blue Light Special World isn't going to last forever. Let them know that you're preparing for the return of flush times even as you buckle down to survive the current morass.

Similarly, don't stop looking for high-potential workers. You might not be able to afford fancy programming for them created by over-paid (and talk about over-valued) outside consultants, but you can still recognize outstanding up-and-coming performers, and gather these workers some place under your own roof, and under the guidance of your trainers or subject matter experts, for development exercises that won't cost you a penny. You could, for instance, have a trainer or senior executive oversee a "game" in which teams of these high-achievers are asked to compete for the best ideas to survive the crisis. Each team would put together business plans for the recession that would then be presented to the executive board. Open this program up to high-potentials at all levels of the company to ensure the most interesting collaboration.

The thing about specials is they're usually not so special--that's why they're called specials--to convince you to invest in something that's actually not such a great deal. What if your company's workforce management style turns your employees into such a thing--so they're no longer making valuable contributions to the company at bargain prices, but have simply morphed into the workforce parallel of cheap merchandise?  You mark something or someone down long enough, and quality suffers. Your workers might just begin taking your word for it that they're not worth it.

What are you doing to encourage a long-term, rather than crisis approach, to how you treat and develop workers? Is it clear to employees that the sacrifices you've asked them to make aren't forever, and that you're planning for the return of sunny days even as you take measures to weather the present storm?