Contented Cows » by Bill

Just Own It

Bill Catlette — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 17:43:14 +0000

We have long advocated that organizations should take great care in the selection, training, and apportioning of responsibility to customer facing employees. And, that the organization should do everything possible to prevent those staffers from being placed in the line of fire of customers who are unnecessarily angered by internal systemic defects. No rocket science there.

Two days ago I sent a problem note to Comcast via their website about our recent experience with extremely slow Internet service. And, as usual, got a note telling me that, “We have received your e mail and thank you for using Comcast’s online email support. One of our Comcast customer support representatives will get back to you, yada, yada.”

A few minutes ago, I answered a phone call from Comcast. It quickly became apparent that the caller knew nothing about my service issue, but was intent on selling me a more “valuable” service bundle. About a half minute into her spiel when she came up for air the first time, I politely cut her off and declined the offer. Then, I told the representative about my service problem and asked if perhaps she could help me with that. “Oh, no sir, you have to call 1-800-COMCAST.” You can’t help me, I asked again? “No sir, you have to call 1-800-COMCAST.” Click.

Here’s a suggestion. Maybe it’s my imagination, but it seems of late that most organizations are heavily in “dumbing down mode” and thus hell-bent on communicating and managing via an ever-increasing number of internal policies and rules. Perhaps we’re just too tired to think.

Though as recently as this morning, in a Fresh Milk article we have pleaded with leaders to avoid the perils of an over-moderated, under-led workforce, here’s a new policy that I think every (repeat, every) organization should adopt: No matter how it comes about, if you become aware of a customer problem, you own it. Translation: You are responsible for telling the customer that you will help them, finding the right person internally to deal with the matter, and then closing the loop with the customer. My guess is that customer service gets a lot better (from the customer’s vantage point) and the greater benefit just might be that everyone is reminded a little more frequently where their paycheck comes from. What do you think?

Now, as for Comcast, I’m still waiting.

*****
A thought leader in the arena of leadership and employee engagement, Bill Catlette is a seminar leader, keynote speaker, and executive coach. He helps individuals and organizations improve business outcomes by having a focused, engaged, capably led workforce. For more information about Bill, his partner Richard Hadden, and their work, please visit their website at www.contentedcows.com, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/ContentedCows

5 Tips for Conducting More Effective Reference Checks

Bill Catlette — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 17:14:54 +0000

The following is a guest post by Zuni Corkerton, Founder and President of RefCheck.

Today’s economic environment leaves no room for risk-taking in the talent-acquisition process. Employers simply cannot afford the costs of re-hiring (estimated to be 2 to 3 times the annual salary of the position). Conducting limited, perfunctory background checks (e.g., criminal records) is insufficient due diligence for employers, because even in cases of embezzlement, many cases are never pursued through the legal system. The losses that result from hiring employees without the benefit of checking their references are realized at every level of the organization—from outright employee theft to lost productivity and damaged employee morale and engagement. Checking references must no longer be limited to senior level positions.

Because employee loyalty is at an all-time low, employers must hire people who stand a greater chance of fully engaging with the organization’s values, style, and strategies. Will that frontline supervisor be able to effectively deal with the pressures of his/her job? Will s/he be able to interact with the entry-level staff as well as his/her superiors? Does s/he have the courage that your organization and the position requires? History and past performance are still considered strong indicators of future performance, and it is only through a thorough and robust reference-checking process than an employer can gain insight into the critical aspects of what a candidate will bring to their organization.

The thought that references won’t talk is a myth. When the right reference is contacted, and credibility is quickly established, references will participate in a conversation. Interviewing references effectively is an art that is supported by clear processes.

Tips to Effective Reference Checks:

Maintain control over the references that are called. YOU—the employer, not the candidate—determines who will be called. Ask each candidate to provide information for his/her last supervisor or manager at each prior position, as well as their current contact information. Today’s research tools make it possible for candidates who really want to work for you to locate these individuals.
Request email addresses for the references so the conversation can be scheduled in advance and the reference can allow ample time. (At RefCheck^® it’s not uncommon to spend 20 to 45 minutes with a reference.)
Assign the reference-checking process to professional-level staff, so the reference can be engaged in a true conversation. Particularly at the senior levels, references want to speak with their equals.
Do not adhere to a rigid Q&A format, which leads to limited responses.
Thoroughly document the conversation. Take notes as the conversation takes place and review the notes for completion at the conclusion.

Ms. Corkerton can be reached at:

P: 614-777-8844, ext. 12

E: zcorkerton@refcheck.com

Jet Blue Nation

Bill Catlette — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:20:54 +0000

For the better part of three days America has been fixated on the case of the Jet Blue flight attendant who took leave of his job (if not his senses) and delivered a profanity-laced rant at passengers before exiting the aircraft via the emergency escape slide, cold beer in hand. It seems fair to say that this guy has become something of a folk hero for executing his “KMA Moment” with style, if not a lot of class. Though this fellow remains charged with one or more criminal counts, his act is admired by legions of people whose own job frustrations make them wish they could follow suit.

Ironically, exactly 24 hours after the incident, I recounted it in a speech to a group of 150 HR professionals in Ohio. Most laughed and applauded as if they could well understand and perhaps associate with the desperate act. Hmm.

There is something else going on here, though that’s not as funny. With employment relationships devolving to the point of being totally transactional, trust and loyalty at their nadir, and a jobless economic recovery handcuffing people to jobs they stopped loving a long time ago, we can be virtually assured of decreasing worker engagement and productivity. That doesn’t bode well for an economy that’s still trying to climb out of a ditch.

Here’s a thought… Let’s enjoy the Steven Slater moment and get a few good laughs from it. We need them. Then, for the sake of the health (survival?) of our own businesses, let’s go to work seeking to identify those things in our operating environments that keep our people from doing their best work and make them just as crazy.

On Shirley Sherrod… Mr. Vilsack, What Were You Thinking? Where the Hell Was HR?

Bill Catlette — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 12:59:14 +0000

Somewhere southeast of Chattanooga my jaw undoubtedly dropped open as I listened on XM radio to the emerging details of the saga of Shirley Sherrod, who this week got the bum’s rush from her position with the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

While driving on I-75 en route to the ATL, a route that Ms. Sherrod knows well, what I heard on the radio caused me to flash back to a former life as an HR executive at FedEx. Superimposing the Sherrod affair onto my own career, I could envision myself in the office of FedEx founder and chairman, Fred Smith, along with the operational counterpart to Agriculture Secretary, Tom Vilsack. Even more vividly, I can hear Mr. Smith asking the operating exec, “What were you thinking?” and then, turning to me, “and where the hell were you?” As one who gives his executives considerable operating latitude, pays them well, and generously funds HR initiatives, he’s well within reason to ask those questions, and to expect good answers. That is no less the case with our senior public servants, and so, I hope that Secretary Vilsack and the head of his agency’s HR function have had a trip to the White House, and been given the opportunity to answer those same questions.

It’s not hard to see how the Sherrod affair came to be. The obvious political maneuverings notwithstanding, we live and work in a sound bite world where speed of thought, communication, and execution (often just execution) reign supreme. Doing it better often gets trumped by doing it faster, resulting in the occasional train wreck. It serves as a vivid reminder of the sound advice given us by our mothers in our youth, with reference to crossing the street: Stop. Look. Listen.

In recent years, most HR professionals have struggled with the objective of becoming more “strategic.” What they are really saying is that they are trying desperately to earn a seat at the table, and to remain relevant in a world where meeting this quarter’s numbers, or just surviving to tomorrow pretty well trumps any and all concern for things humanoid.

With respect to our HR friends, for whom I have profound admiration, and who do a thankless job, one of the ways that we earn (and keep) that seat at the table is by finding a way to keep our clients, folks like Secretary Vilsack, from shooting themselves in the foot. We do it by working as business partners with our management team, adding value, weighing in on difficult issues, doing our homework, and certainly by imposing a business-like process whenever someone’s livelihood is in the crosshairs. We do it each time, every time, whether we think the whole world (and Fox News) is watching, or no one is watching.

With respect to our operating exec friends, the HR profession has grown immeasurably in talent and capability (coinciding too neatly with the time I left the business). You would do well to seek their counsel and to involve them (meaningfully involve them) in all of your critical business decisions. In case of doubt, just take a few minutes and replay the video of Secretary Vilsack humbly apologizing on world-wide television to Ms. Sherrod. Play… rewind… play… rewind… play. Got it?

Freeze! Let’s Not Get Stupid About Personal Use of E-Devices

Bill Catlette — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:59:41 +0000

In what may ultimately prove a landmark decision on workplace privacy, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled this week that government workers have no right to privacy when using employer-owned communications devices. The case stemmed from a suit brought by an Ontario, CA police officer whose extremely personal text messages (not all of which were directed to his wife) were exposed during an audit of the business vs. personal usage of his city-owned device.

My first thought was, what on earth was this guy thinking when, rather than quietly reimburse the City for the personal messages, he opted to file suit on grounds of unlawful search?

My second thought was, and is, that, though the Court restricted its ruling to government employees using government-owned devices, the ruling will undoubtedly spill over and have a chilling affect on private enterprise as well, and not necessarily in the expected manner.

Employees have been extensively using employer-owned wireless devices and communications networks for better than a decade. During that time there has been something of an uneasy truce as we have each allowed the line between business and personal time/pursuits to blur. To an ever greater extent, workers (at all levels) have permitted more frequent invasion of what has traditionally been their private, off-duty, personal space. It is no longer unusual at all to have one’s off-duty time peppered with business related messages, queries, and conference calls. Once the sole realm of managers who ostensibly were being paid for such interruptions, today, workers at all levels and pay grades are involved. In turn, employers have seen, and largely acquiesced to a greater co-mingling of personal with professional activities in the workspace.

Though there has been (and always will be) some tension in this arrangement, if we (manager types) are not careful, the Court’s ruling could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, and disrupts what is otherwise a pretty good thing.

Some managers and organizations will use the Court’s ruling as an excuse to more aggressively police and restrict non-sanctioned use of company devices and networks. Doing so would be a mistake. How?

By and large, we have been the beneficiaries of this arrangement, where, within reason, we get free (yes) access to team members, regardless of whether they are technically on or off duty. In a world where speed of thought, response, and execution reigns supreme, this advantage is worth a lot to us. The very second that our workers decide to either turn the device off, or demand compensation for the time when it is turned on, thus making them accessible, we have lost a lot of ground. This is a decision that each of them can make at any time, quietly, and without notice. When you get down to it, we face a simple high school physics problem… There are more of them than us. This is no time to get stupid.

A Better Way to Handle a Mistake

Bill Catlette — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 13:09:40 +0000

In an age when the slightest whiff of a miscue brings incessant howls of vitriol from anyone with access to a phone, microphone or keyboard, the handling of the Jim Joyce, Armando Galarraga fiasco in last night’s Indians v Tigers game stands as a refreshing reminder of how mistakes can be handled when adults are on their game.

For anyone not tuned in, MLB umpire, Jim Joyce mistakenly called a 1^st base runner safe in the 9^th inning of the game, costing Detroit pitcher, Galarraga a perfect game. For the benefit of non-fans of the game, a perfect game is a really big deal. There have been only twenty such games recorded in the entire history of major league baseball, and by all rights, Mr. Galarraga earned, but didn’t get credit for the 21^st.

Granted, Galarraga’s coach and several teammates expressed their displeasure in no uncertain terms, but from all appearances, Galarraga remained calm and professional. Apart from the error, Joyce demonstrated why he has long been considered one of baseball’s finest umpires. Immediately after the game he reviewed the video, publicly admitted his error, and sought out Galarraga to apologize. My guess is that he didn’t wait to consult his lawyer, league officials, announcers, or game sponsors. Nor did he wait to be prodded. He didn’t have to be waterboarded to cough up the truth.

My hope is that this can serve as a lesson for the rest of us. We live and work in a world where everything and everyone is moving at a high rate of speed. Occasionally we drop balls that should have been caught, or like Joyce, make a bad call. One thing (no, the only thing) that will keep people from slowing down is the belief that, when an error is made, rather than immediately bayonetting the wounded, cooler heads will prevail, and some adult behavior will emerge.

Should You Just Turn the Damned Thing Off?

Bill Catlette — Tue, 20 Apr 2010 23:13:34 +0000

As a sign of just how co-mingled our private and business lives have become, the U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear a case regarding the privacy (or lack thereof) of personal text messages transmitted by a California police officer over a device owned by his employer, the City of Ontario. According to an article in USA Today, “Ontario city officials are appealing a lower court’s decision that a police department violated a sergeant’s constitutional protection against unreasonable searches when it reviewed his texts, some of them sexually explicit.”

For decades, everyone pretty well understood the de facto standard to be that “work time was for work.” Translation – whatever took place during working hours on the employer’s premises/property, or when conducting business for the employer was expected to be work related, and that there were very few, if any, rights to privacy, or even ownership of one’s thoughts and ideas, if conceived at work. At the same time, one’s off duty hours were their own, and but for an infrequent, quick phone call, if you wanted to interrupt someone’s time off, you were expected to pay for it.

And then along came Jones, ‘er the cellphone, the laptop, globalization, always-on connectivity, and the expectation that workers of every stripe could be reached out to any time, anywhere. And reach out we did (and still do). Though unspoken, until now, the operating premise has been that is generally okay for workers to carry on personal business at work in an amount roughly equivalent to the degree that they are called upon to involve themselves in work activities during their “off hours.” It’s an uneasy truce, but a truce nevertheless.

To date, there have been only two lines in the sandbox: 1) That there should be no appreciable extra cost associated with the cross-over activities, and 2) That the law is still the law, and normal standards of decency still apply. In other words, whereas it’s probably alright to take a few minutes to order a new pair of shoes online at Zappos.com from your employer’s computer, it’s not okay to engage in online gambling or look at salacious images.

So where do we go?

As for the court case, my bet is that, despite a right-leaning bench, the Court will side with the cop, if only for the reason that employees were required to reimburse the city if they exceeded allowable text character limits.

More broadly speaking, I see organizations going in a couple of different directions. Some will undoubtedly take steps to further delineate via policy, what the rights and expectations are. Given the untrusting, transactional nature of the relationship in many workplaces, the new deal could bring about further unbundling of the relationship. In an increasing number of cases, the devices (phones, pagers, pda’s) will be owned by the worker while the voice/data plan will be reimbursed by the employer. With regard to the broader co-mingling of personal and business activities, some of these organizations will prescribe varying time limits that they and their employees can “bother one another” during the course of the day.

Realizing that it’s good for people to regularly unplug from their jobs, some organizations will take a step back and actually encourage workers to just turn the damned thing off when they’re at home and don’t want to be bothered, and instruct their bosses to leave them alone.

Harvey MacKay’s Got a New Book

admin — Thu, 25 Mar 2010 13:12:37 +0000

We all know someone who’s looking for work or has stayed in a career that doesn’t fuel his or her work life. Harvey Mackay, the #1 New York Times Best Selling Author has just come out with a new book titled Use Your Head To Get Your Foot In The Door: Job Search Secrets No One Else Will Tell You. He thinks it’s his best work in two decades since Swim With The Sharks Without Being Eaten Alive, a lifetime business classic…and we agree!

In fact, Harvey’s so confident in this book he personally guarantees that if you buy this book, and do what it says, if you don’t have a job in six months he’ll give you your money back!

The book captures Harvey’s pragmatic, yet humorous style and shares easy to apply methods to:

· Rebuild personal confidence in the face of rejection

· Create a daily “recovery” program and job search plan

· Take advantage of the way firms and recruiters make hiring decisions

· Use state-of-the art networking strategies

· Learn the best questions to ask in interviews

A recent review by the prestigious Library Journal Review says:

“….this is a very useful book. The short chapters with descriptive titles make it easy to navigate, and Mackay offers tips—from changing your attitude to getting hired—both for those currently employed but wishing to position themselves better in their current companies and for those who are out of work. Highly recommended for job seekers and career changers at all experience levels.”

P.S. Go directly to www.harveymackay.com/jobsecrets or buy the book from a bookseller and visit the www.harveymackay.com/job secrets site with the book in hand.

Here’s where you can buy the book online (click on the link to go directly to Harvey’s book at the bookseller’s site):

Barnes and Noble

Borders

Amazon

800-CEO-READ

Indie booksellers

We think you’ll personally enjoy it and hope you’ll pass this offer along to a friend who needs a dose of Harvey Mackay’s clever wisdom and secrets to jumpstart their career and the economy.

Part 2 of 2: Unhappy Workers: Why it matters, and how to fix it

admin — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 17:55:54 +0000

In a post on January 13, we wrote about the epidemic of worker dissatisfaction in the US, as reported in a Conference Board study. In that post, we offered some initial thoughts on why workers are so unhappy these days, why it matters, and what to do about it. The first two reasons we gave were:

1. Workers have a diminished sense of meaningfulness in their jobs.
2. One word: micromanagement.

Here are 4 more reasons (with some suggested solutions), and a concluding thought:

Undifferentiated rewards: As companies have shrunk their merit budgets and bonuses, AND as the stock market is down for an entire DECADE (thus reducing the value of option grants), we have experienced tremendous reward destruction and compression in which the distinction between “stars” and “slugs” (Bill’s terms) has become negligible. Thus, we’ve experienced a drop in satisfaction that touches all, including our best performing people.

What to do: When you see good performance, reward it. Then and there. Start with “Thank You.” Then, find a way, and a big enough way to get the person’s attention. Rather than adding to fixed payroll expense, consider gifting an award trip, extra time off, or some other gift that really means something to the individual. Worry less about being consistent than sending a message that excellence is meaningfully rewarded.

Pocket pain: Specifically, health care. Concurrent with less-than-exciting (or nonexistent) pay increases, U.S. workers are paying more for health care, owing to a non-system that has seen costs more than double over the last decade. Employers who offer health care benefits have no choice but share the increasing cost. While currently proposed legislation solves some of the problems, it does little for the biggest problem – controlling costs. Take that, plus the increasing number of workers who have no health care benefits at work, and you’ve got a workforce paying higher premiums, higher out of pocket costs, no realistic solutions on the horizon, AND the increased worry that accompanies having no safety net. Yikes.

What to do: Turn off the TV! Get the facts. Read, starting with Regina Herzlinger’s Who Killed Healthcare?. Discuss the matter with your own physician. Consider establishing, along with like-minded neighboring employers, a private or co-op clinic, as organizations like SAS and the Pebble Beach Company have done. Heavily incent workers, using both positive and negative consequences, to better manage their health. Advocate forcefully for better public policy.

Diminished employment options: The recession, paired with the continued unbundling (and offshoring) of work have drastically reduced the number and scope of available jobs. Moreover, any stigmas or pangs of guilt on the part of management associated with reducing “heads” in the workplace have disappeared. Witness simultaneous announcements by United Parcel Service last month that the company was, 1) increasing earnings guidance due to favorable business conditions, and 2) Doing a restructuring that would eliminate nearly 2,000 jobs. People who once were assured that, even if they didn’t like their current job, could quickly find another now aren’t as comforted by their options.

What to do: Tune in. Let your people know where they stand and how the business is doing – truthfully and regularly. If you’re through making cuts, say so. Monitor and nurture your employment brand as carefully as you do your cash. That may also mean managing people out of the organization (with consideration and decency) who have unplugged and are merely hanging on because they don’t see any options.

The dumbing down of the workplace: The first shoe to drop whenever earnings take a hit, or the economy contracts, falls on the organization’s training budget. We are now in the 3rd year of greatly diminished funding, to include training for managers. To wit, people now find themselves in the unenviable position of working for (and with) less skilled managers. Not a happy thought.

What to do: Take this opportunity to get the jump on your competition. Begin selectively restarting your development activities, with a careful eye for the real priorities. If you can’t yet afford systemic efforts, fund development initiatives (i.e., executive coaching) for worthy staff. Incent workers (using time off or a skill acquisition bonus) to invest in their own development plans, rather than just “taking whatever comes from corporate”.

One last thought – and pardon what sounds like a negative tone here: Dissatisfaction isn’t confined to the workplace. The decade of the 00’s is one that most people in the U.S., if not elsewhere, were glad to put in the rear view mirror. We think it’s safe to say that many (if not most) of us feel less well off, less secure, and yes, less satisfied than at any time in our lives. To think that these feelings don’t make their way into the workplace is delusional.

That said, maybe it’s time to “reboot” this whole idea of leadership and motivation in the workplace. Not to throw it out, but to “reload the program”, under a new set of conditions, a new reality, for a new and better future. It is for that reason that together with our friend and colleague, Meredith Kimbell, we have been working for the better part of a year on a new book, Rebooting Leadership, due for publication in May of this year. Watch this space for more.

Meanwhile, buck up, and Godspeed!

Helping America’s Next Gen Workers Establish Job Cred

Bill Catlette — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 03:20:35 +0000

Recently, I’ve heard a fair amount of carping about the job skills and work ethic (or lack thereof) of America’s next working generation. Despite what appears to be better than average collaboration skills, complaints center on their outsized expectations, easily bruised feelings, and a complete lack of work experience.

For some perspective on the issue, I turned to someone who is not only knowledgeable on the subject, but is putting his time and money where his mouth is and trying to improve the situation. Matt Smith is President of The A Game, a school-to-work transition education firm. Their raison d’etre is to prepare (and certify) young people for what in many cases is their first real job. I invited Matt to comment on the subject, and his new business…

by Matt Smith

“Work saves us from three great evils: boredom, vice, and need.”
-Voltaire

Today, reading Voltaire is viewed as a bit old-fashioned. But then again, his view of work is getting to be old-fashioned, too. Where we once embraced work as the way people earned their place in society and admired those who climbed to the top, we’ve lately come to accept a world view in which those who manage to avoid work are the ones deserving of our admiration. Whether it’s reality TV, get-rich-quick schemes, or the lottery, we see more evidence of this shift of attitudes every day.

And nowhere has this been more obvious than in our young employees – those aged between 15 and 24. Their age group has come to be known for inconsistent performance, bad attitudes, and spotty attendance. And while there are exceptions to the rule, the simple truth is that most young people lack the work ethic that built the infrastructure they now reject.

And that begs the question, where do young people learn work ethic? From parents, at school, in the backroom of your business? Until now, the answer has been a resounding no.

There are literally thousands of skills needed to succeed in any given workplace, but only a few fundamental values that underlie those. And they are the same in any workplace – from that first paper route to working in the C-Suite. Values like attitude, attendance, appearance, ambition, acceptance, accountability, and appreciation. These are the foundation of The A Game, and they are what we teach young employees.

We’ve developed a number of different solutions to instill these values in young employees – because you don’t tell someone how to have values – you grow them through experience. By reaching out to classroom educators and top corporate trainers we have built systems to train in any environment, with the ultimate goal for young employees being that they earn their A Game Certification – proof that they possess the values needed to thrive in the workplace.

When young people thrive in the workplace, they are much more likely to grow into contented cows. But to get there, it’s incumbent upon us to start teaching Voltaire’s lesson about work again – even if we don’t plan on ever reading Candide.

Matt Smith (matt@theagame.com) is the President of The A Game, the national workplace initiative aimed at rebuilding the work ethic of America, one teen at a time. To learn more about the A Game, visit http://www.theagame.com or follow @TheAGame on Twitter.

On Respect, Discretionary Effort, and Public Floggings

Bill Catlette — Thu, 11 Feb 2010 20:09:43 +0000

Recently, as we’ve been about the process of completing our upcoming book, Rebooting Leadership, several leaders have mentioned to me various things they are doing within their organizations to update their leadership habits in response to new “conditions on the ground” as politicians like to say. Some of them make perfect sense, like amping up recognition efforts and giving front line leaders more discretionary authority to solve employee and customer problems.

That said, as we go about the process of adjusting to the new normal, we would do well to remember that there are some “iron laws” relating to the human psyche, and in turn, a person’s willingness to trust, engage, and commit precious discretionary effort. One of those laws has to do with climbing on someone’s bumper (calling them out or reprimanding them) in public. You just don’t do that if you want to retain a person’s respect or commitment… ever.

I was reminded of that this morning after reading an analysis of the 2010 Super Bowl by Indianapolis Colts President, Bill Polian on the team’s website. Speaking of his team’s loss, Mr. Polian said, “Our offensive line, by our standards, did not have a good game. They were outplayed by the Saints’ defensive line. Our special teams, in terms of handing the ball – both in the return game and on the onside kick – were outplayed by the Saints. Therein lies the result. It had nothing to do with strategy or preparedness or toughness or effort.”

In fairness, Mr. Polian did single out a few players for praise, his diagnosis of the cause of their loss seems correct, and his remarks weren’t especially harsh. Yet, it’s one thing to do a no holds barred after-action review in the team’s locker room, but something entirely different to do it in public. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by inviting an audience for that type of discussion.

So, as we go about the process of adjusting to an uptight, always-on world where everything seems destined for public consumption in one venue or another, let’s take care to respect the precept that what happens in the locker room stays in the locker room.

Dealing with our Crisis of Trust

admin — Sun, 31 Jan 2010 22:36:07 +0000

Something interesting happened in Massachusetts recently, something that points to a larger tectonic shift in our society. In a state where the majority of voters affiliate with neither major political party, a Republican who was noticeably reticent to be labeled as such, won an election that no one expected him to win.

Don’t worry. This is not (repeat, NOT) a post about politics. Nor is it a post about religion. But, have you noticed the degree to which people are disassociating from the major organizations in their lives – political parties, and yes, traditional churches? At the same time that fewer and fewer of us choose to associate with either donkeys or elephants, the same is happening with traditional, dogma-dominated churches, much to the delight of the Rick Warrens and Joel Osteens of the world.

But it doesn’t stop there. The third leg of the institutional stool in our lives, our employers, is likewise being swept into the corner of disregard. Not long ago, when you asked someone what they did for a living, they proudly replied that they were a nurse at Baptist Hospital, a welder at GM, or a pilot at American Airlines. Today, not so much. With almost no tip of the cap to the organization, we hear that they are a systems engineer, physical therapist, bartender, or SEO consultant, whatever that is. In a growing number of cases, the disengagement is more active and out in the open. Think late night comedy.

More so than any other factor, this institutional disengagement owes to a crisis of trust. Simply put, whether a government, political party, church, or corporation, we no longer trust the entity to behave in a manner consistent with its espoused purpose and principles.

I can’t speak for the politicians or preachers, but for those of us in the business world, the path is pretty clear. In the post-AIG world, it is pointless for us to ask or expect people to regain trust any time soon in our institutions. If and when it comes, it will be on the back of individual leaders who, one at a time, are doing the things necessary to regain the benefit of the doubt of their followers. More than just waiting and wishing them (us) luck, there are things we can do to support this effort:

For going on three years, our training budgets have been slashed to the bone as we’ve operated on the premise that we can work our way out of a bad economy by dumbing down the organization. It’s high time we resume funding development activity, most particularly for our young leaders who need it the most. If you can’t yet fund system wide training, invest in some coaching for your more promising folks.
On the premise that people would rather watch than hear a sermon, each of us must redouble our commitment to keeping our promises. If we would spend half as much time making our word our bond as we do wordsmithing and putting the right spin on our words, we would be miles ahead.
We need to do a much better job of recognizing and rewarding those leaders who consistently earn the benefit of the doubt, and, dealing with those who don’t.

The path is long and mostly uphill, but it’s not going to get any easier over time. Let’s get going.

Godspeed!

*****

A thought leader in the arena of leadership and employee engagement, Bill Catlette is a seminar leader, keynote speaker, and executive coach. He helps individuals and organizations improve business outcomes by having a focused, engaged, capably led workforce. For more information about Bill, his partner Richard Hadden, and their work, please visit their website at www.contentedcows.com, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/ContentedCows

We All Like to be Made to Feel Special

admin — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 22:24:31 +0000

Tuesday evening, I hosted an executive coaching client for dinner and a Memphis Grizzlies game at FedEx Forum. Our dinner server was a fellow by the name of Ben, who has waited on me at most, twice before. As we were being seated, Ben approached and said to my guest, “My guess is that Mr. Catlette is going to have a glass of Merlot, what can I get you to drink?” I whirled and looked at him in amazement, wondering what other information might be stamped on my forehead. Ben smiled and volunteered that he tries to pay attention to his guests, and make them feel special. Mission accomplished.

Not unlike my son, Will, who tends bar at the Savannah airport and has a following of regular customers (at an airport bar!), Ben has learned that it’s the little things, like remembering a guest’s name and their preferences that lead to good outcomes. The very same thing holds true for those of us whose job is to lead others. Before we can expect people to follow us with any degree of fervor, we must first take an interest in them… their likes, dislikes, ambitions, apprehensions, etc.

In the age of the disposable worker, this type of care and attention seems counter-intuitive. Speaking of his new sales reps, one office products sales manager admitted to me that, “we don’t really even get to know their names, as most of them won’t be here very long.” I’m willing to bet that a lot of the good performers leave for precisely that reason. Not bothering to know someone’s name, or things that are important to them doesn’t make them feel very special.

Thankfully, this is something that is not constrained by economic forces. We don’t need a positive GDP growth rate to make people feel special. Nor does it require any particular talent. Every one of us can do it. We’ve just got to care enough to take an interest, listen, observe, and then act on what we’ve learned.

I think you’ll find that if you take that extra step, you’ll soon notice that you’ve got more people around you who are willing to go the extra mile.

Godspeed!

*****

Unhappy Workers. Why it matters, and How to fix it (Part 1 of 2)

Bill Catlette — Wed, 13 Jan 2010 23:22:03 +0000

Job satisfaction is on a steady decline in the U.S., according to a report released last week by the Conference Board, a non-profit global business research organization.

If these numbers don’t grab business leaders by the throat and compel them to take action, we don’t know what will. On top of a still-anemic economy and a near universal crisis of trust, the very last thing employers need today is a bunch of disgruntled workers operating at well less than full power. But that’s exactly what most organizations are faced with.

Only 45% of workers in the CB survey say they’re satisfied in their jobs, down from 61% in 1987, the first year the study was conducted. Unlike the economy, this downward trend has been constant, not cyclical. Just like gravity, job satisfaction has gone one way in both good times and bad… down.

So, what’s worker satisfaction at your outfit? And what difference does it make?

Second question first. If you’ve been following us for any part of the last 12 years, you know our research shows that it makes a HUGE difference – to the bottom line. Contented Cows Give Better Milk. Period.

First question: What’s worker satisfaction like where you work? How do you know? Have you done a survey lately to find out where your company stands with respect to employee satisfaction? If not, why not? If so, what did you do with what you learned from the survey? If you want some help with this, click here.

So, if workers are less satisfied at work now than they once were, what are the reasons? What’s the remedy?

In keeping with the last-in-first-out nature of this article, we’ll start with a remedy:

Manage Yourself First: People aren’t going to follow, let alone be energized and engaged by a leader who is confused, conflicted, or depressed. If you can manage yourself on your own, go to it. If not, find a coach or counselor to help.

Now to the reasons. We’ll offer two in this article, and what to do about them; then a few more next month.

Reason #1:

Author Daniel Pink probably hit on the kernel of rising dissatisfaction when he tweeted last week, “Meager money + Zero meaning = Record low job satisfaction.” Increase the value of either of the two variables on the left side of Pink’s equation, and satisfaction is likely to rebound.

What to do about it

If you put any more money into the equation, do it in a way that serves to better differentiate (and reward) better performers. If more money’s not in the cards, or even if it is, leaders could substantially improve employee satisfaction and engagement, and thereby organizational results, by investing more meaning in people’s work. That takes two forms:

Make less meaningful work more meaningful.

Take all the senseless BS out of people’s jobs – unnecessary tasks, paperwork, and CYA-related nonsense.
When you ask someone to do something, use what they’ve done, or quit asking them to do it.
Ask people to develop their own best ways to accomplish results, hold them accountable, and reward them for hitting targets.
On the premise that we all need to see the needle move once in a while, give them some opportunities for quick wins.

Shine a light on the meaning that’s already there. This is the more likely problem, and it’s easier to fix.

Create a clear line of sight between their work and real paying customers. Bank tellers need to know how processing transactions makes money for the bank. Most don’t have a clue. Dishwashers and prep cooks – how does their work make diners want to come back and spend more money? And every assistant administrator in a state community college needs a firm grasp of how the decisions they make impact the quality of education in their state.
Here’s an assignment for today. Yes, today. Ask each team member to describe how their work is felt, ultimately, by the people who pay for what you do – customers, clients, patients, taxpayers, students, whatever you call them – the people without whom the organization would not exist. If they can’t do it, see the above bullet point.

Reason #2:

While some leaders run around telling people they’re “empowered” (gag), sadly, most of us are actually micromanaging people into less and less satisfaction.

One way to start doing something about that:

Build in flexibility. If at all possible, let go of your concern with when people show up to do their work, and what they’re doing every minute they’re on the premises. Trust us. No one ever said “I hate my job. It gives me too much control over my life.” This one will get you MAJOR satisfaction points, if you manage it well.

If work times must, by the nature of your business, coincide with customers’ and/or co-workers’ patterns, then ask your workforce to figure out a way to meet the needs of the business while providing people with maximum flexibility.

In fields where customer coverage and colleague coordination matters less, incent people to accomplish results, not punch a clock, real or imaginary. If you employ adults, treat them as such. Hold them accountable – really accountable – for excellent results, and let them figure out the best way to manage their schedules while meeting business needs. If you’ve hired the right people, they’ll LOVE their jobs.

Next month, we’ll look at a few more reasons people aren’t feeling the job love as much these days, and some remedies for each.

Til then, Godspeed.

*****

Cleaning Up Other People’s Messes is a Morale Buster

Bill Catlette — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:11:18 +0000

On the first passing play of the game against the Miami Dolphins, Tennessee Titans quarterback, Vince Evans’ under-thrown pass was intercepted. Frequently in such cases, the quarterback, in an effort to avoid injury, will lamely try to get in the way of the run-back by the opposing player, if not avoid contact altogether. To his credit, Evans, whose game status was uncertain due to an injury, drew a bead on the interceptor and leveled him with a hard tackle. In other words, he cleaned up his mistake.

Too often, I see people being expected to clean up the messes made by others. Granted, sometimes it’s necessary, but on way too regular a basis, it happens as the rule rather than the exception. When that occurs, two things happen:

The behavior by the “mess-maker” is effectively rewarded by the lack of accountability.
The individual and collective spirit of those who clean up the mess suffers a punch in the gut.

It has happened to us all, and every time it is dispiriting, especially when the mess maker scampers away unscathed.

It is especially irksome when the mess-maker is a team leader, as Young is. Though his action may have risked his longevity as a player, it did his stature as a team leader a world of good. The next time he asks a teammate (or the entire team) to suck it up and go the extra mile, he’ll be operating with the benefit of the doubt.

What about you? Are you having the difficult conversations and requiring mess-makers to participate in the cleanup, or are you taking the chicken way out? Worse yet, are you expecting people on your team to pay for your mistakes? And, when it just can’t be helped and you must ask a person to clean up someone else’s problem, are you at least showing appreciation? I hope so.

*****

Rent-a-Dummies vs. Fully Engaged, Responsible Team Players

Bill Catlette — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:10:54 +0000

In a prior life as a corporate HR executive, I was known on occasion to use the term “rent-a-dummies” in reference to temporary agency help. My use of the term had a lot more to do with the no strings, obligations, or loyalties nature of the relationship than any IQ disparagement. Still, it was cold and unkind, even though in so many cases it just seemed to fit.

I was reminded of the term, and the extent to which any semblance of loyalty between employees and the organization has faded when reading yesterday that University of Cincinnati football coach, Brian Kelly had accepted the Notre Dame job.

Ironically, it wasn’t six months ago that Kelly signed a contract extension through 2013, saying at the time that, “this agreement allows me and my family to call Cincinnati our home, not just a place where we live,” Oh, I know, this situation is different, because it’s not just any university. It’s Notre Dame for gosh sakes. Kelly probably had to undergo an extra interview with a ah-hem Higher Authority to get the job.

Despite apparent statements to his Cincinnati players that he was staying, and that they would be the first to know if he decided otherwise (they weren’t), Kelly opted not to coach those same players in what, for many, will be the biggest, if not the last football game of their lives, the 2010 Sugar Bowl. As Notre Dame had already announced that it would not accept a bowl game invitation this year, it’s not like he had a competing professional interest. No, Kelly had gotten all he was going to get out of the University of Cincinnati and he was leaving, now! Never mind the interests of the young men who have played their hearts out for him and enabled him to get this job!

A few thoughts for the senior leaders and recruiters in our readership:

If you truly want to get beyond the “grab mine and go” mentality in your organization, and you’ve really got to want to do it because it is an uphill slog, the effort must start with you. Are you setting the example by demonstrably placing the organization’s good at least on a par, if not a step ahead of your own? Are you earning the loyalty of the folks on your team day in and day out, or merely demanding and hoping for it?
We suggest you revisit your use of employment contracts and seriously consider whether they are adding beneficial clarity to the terms of the arrangement, or simply tightening the screws of self-interest and creating more rent-a-dummies.
In your recruiting and selection process, place as great an emphasis on how people finish their obligations and projects as how they start them. If a new recruit is willing to void an employment agreement and dump their current gig like a hot potato, why would you want them on your team?

Our interest is not in resurrecting the workplace of a bygone era. Anything but. Rather, it is in recognizing the fact that speed, the competitive advantage of choice, is compromised when people, either by choice or necessity, go through the day always keeping one eye focused on their own welfare rather than the job they are getting paid to do. We’ve made our choice. What’s yours?

*****

Skin In the Game

admin — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:08:26 +0000

Whether in business, sports, or communities at large, people, all of us, perform better, a lot better, when we have skin in the game. Contrary to what we’ve seen of late with bogus bonus schemes that provide executives with nothing but upside potential (AIG rings a bell), I’m talking about the type of arrangement where people are truly invested in an organization and its outcomes, with both upside and downside potential – real skin in the game.

Members of the U.S. Congress are beginning to bandy about the notion of imposing a “war tax” to pay for the war in Afghanistan. Though drilling yet another hole below the water line is about the last thing our economy needs at the moment, I’m not sure it’s such a bad idea. If every (repeat, every) taxpayer was invested in this gambit, either by virtue of military service or a surtax on their paycheck, I feel certain that our opinions would quickly become more reasoned (less partisan), and the prospect of holding politicians and military officers accountable would improve immensely. Moreover, there would be at least one thing that binds us together. Or, as former New York mayor, David Dinkins remarked upon Barack Obama’s election, we would all “be drinking out of the same water fountain.” And, our children and grandchildren might breathe a little easier knowing that there was at least one tab their parents were actually paying themselves.

Regardless of the outcome of any proposed war tax, skin in the game is something that each of us as leaders should strive for on our own teams. We can do so by:

Lobbying for contracts and other arrangements that truly put pay at risk
Using spot cash awards (and fines) as a way of recognizing performance in real time
Being more thoughtful and broadminded in assigning responsibilities and tasks
Refusing to saddle your stars with the task of cleaning up messes made by others, and
Being quicker to remove people from the team when they have lost too much skin.

Your thoughts, as always, are welcome.

*****

Bill Catlette — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:51:32 +0000

Since the murderous outrage at Fort Hood, TX last week, the mumbling has reached a crescendo about, “In view of this guy’s checkered work performance, if not confused loyalties, how could the Army have allowed him to A. Get promoted, B. Reassigned to another unit, C. Continue practicing as a psychiatrist with emotionally fragile troops, and D. Deployed to a combat role?” While the truth will eventually be known, in the meantime, we manager types would do well to lighten up on the finger pointing.

The reason is that we do a fair amount of the same stuff ourselves. In a 17 year career as an HR manager/executive, I seldom saw a terminated employee with sub-par performance reviews, but I’ve seen lots of problem employees transferred over and over, rather than having someone man-up and deal with the issue. Likewise, I’ve seen hundreds of people sent to training or executive coaching by a gutless manager who silently hopes that they will somehow come back fixed.

My hope is that, if anything good can come from the Ft. Hood episode, it might serve as a reminder of the bad things that can happen inside any organization when problems are allowed to fester, or are swept under the rug.

*****

Work Opportunity Tax Credits

Bill Catlette — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:11:39 +0000

As a rule we don’t use this forum to promote the services of a particular individual or organization, and I wouldn’t be making the exception this time but for the very real potential benefit to our readers. Before reading further, understand that we get no compensation whatsoever from this mention.

I heard from an old friend Thursday. He was a tennis partner and co-worker from my ADP days, and one of the few people to stand up with me when I married Mrs. Starbucks, which qualifies him on both counts (being old AND a friend). After catching up, he told me about his company, CFO Resources and what they do. Their primary service is to help employers improve cash flow and shareholder returns by reducing federal/state income tax liability.

They do this via a user-friendly process to help employers capture Work Opportunity Tax Credits (“WOTC”) associated with their normal hiring activity. Employers are entitled to federal income tax credits if they hire and retain individuals from targeted groups as defined by DOL and the IRS. In a nutshell, his firm processes the paperwork, files it on the employer’s behalf, monitors the process, and only gets paid as a function of the employer getting a credit.

I’m told that the credits can range from $300 to $9000 per individual. Unless you’ve got money to throw away, it would be a good idea to investigate Work Opportunity Tax Credits, and unless you just happen to enjoy dealing directly with government bureaucracies, you may want to contact Ken Brice at CFOResources. (KenBrice@CFOResources.com)

*****

Leadership Quiz

Bill Catlette — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 16:29:13 +0000

For the moment, pretend that you are Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, with leadership responsibility for all U.S. military personnel, and directing U.S. engagement in two wars, with Muslims on both sides of each war. You’ve just encountered a highly visible incident of extreme fratricide reportedly carried out by a U.S. Army medical officer, a Muslim, no less, against large numbers of U.S. troops preparing to deploy to a war zone.

In 800 words or less:

What is your 1st move?
How do you restore the involved unit to peak operating condition? Do you continue with their planned deployment to a war zone?
What systemic (service-wide) moves do you make, if any?
How do you deter this from happening again?

Difficult, isn’t it? Send your answers to Bill@ContentedCows.com. The author of the most thoughtful answer will win a copy of our next book, Rebooting Leadership (due out, Spring ’10).

*****