More $$ = Less Innovation

Why have business practices seemingly stagnated over since, say, the invention of management? Notice I said invention of management.  I refer to management (or the act of managing) as an invention because I agree with Dan Pink, a career analyst and former speechwriter, who makes the point in a TED - managing is a creation of man. Business, as a whole, seems to be fixated on the traditional model of employees and manager and how compensation is structured. Most organizations, as well, like to think they are driving productivity and even innovation by offering incentives (bonuses, stipends, trips, special parking spots, tickets to a game, a private bathroom stall with the toilet paper roll guaranteed to be loaded where you don't have to spin the roll to find the starting point, you know - the usual).

Guess what - those incentives are not working. Incentives are extrinsic motivators - motivators that are unrelated to the task the person is performing or to the problem that needs to be solved. Want to know what works? Creating a business climate where employees feel their work is meaningful and where employees can make a connection between what they are working on and a larger purpose - intrinsic motivators. Yes, this is sounding a lot like your college psychology teacher's lecture on Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs but this is science supported by a large number of studies and real-life examples. Take a look at Pink's TED talk below and do a little research yourself - it's pretty interesting stuff that directly relates to how we manage our human resources:

How Not to Conduct Team-Building

I'm green and gold. I learned that I am green and gold through a team building exercise that was intended to bring insight to "an individual's pathway to self-confidence and esteem".  The pathway is part of the "True Colors" system of identifying character. The exercise was meant to be both fun and practical and it was, at least, interesting. The majority of the staff participated in the exercise fully, curious as to what their color/s would be. There were, however, some of the staff who sat in the room, arms crossed and head shaking in sarcastic disregard, who were less than fascinated by the whole attempt. While I wouldn't label the exercise a disaster, it was not altogether successful in building team togetherness and structure. Based on the MSN Careers article, The worst team-building experience you've ever had, others have had much more disastrous team-building experiences.

This comment,  regarding a ropes course that rubbed everyone the wrong way (yes, pun intended), from Rebecca Staton-Reinstetin, president of Advantage Leadership Inc sums up the main reason why a team should be well-developed prior to such an exercise: "It was an extreme example of how team-building events are mistaken for the long, hard work of actually building a team with shared goals and responsibilities". Put another way, any team-building exercise must start with a team - and a group of people who happen to work together does not make a team. Where to begin? Start by ensuring team members understand the "big picture" and the reason why their collective work is important to the organization and to each other. Susan M. Heathfield, human resource contributing writer for About.com puts it this way "You need to differentiate this overall sense of teamwork from the task of developing an effective intact team that is formed to accomplish a specific goal. People confuse the two team-building objectives. This is why so many team-building seminars, meetings, retreats and activities are deemed failures by their participants".

One of the best team-building experiences I have had was with a group I undoubtedly consider a team. We had been through forming, storming and norming and were comfortable and efficiently in our performing stage - the goal of any team. The goal of the exercise was to pass a ball between all the participants' hands within a few seconds time. We had sincere fun trying to come up with creative ways we could accomplish this goal. We first tried simply passing the ball to each other - not quick enough. We then tried lining up with our arms outstretched and having someone from the team run past us all while running the ball across the top of our hands - still not quick enough. We then, in a wonderfully symbolic show of a group of people working together, stood huddled in a circle while placing our hands clasped and in a circle and stacked on top of each other. All it took was one team member to drop the ball from the top and - tada - mission accomplished... 

Advice for the Fresh and the Seasoned

Recently I revisited a web site that I found some time ago while clicking through. The site is WetFeet and is designed to offer advice to recent college graduates on how to secure a job, keep said job, and develop professionally within or beyond said job. Although you may not feel you can identify with the intended audience, I think you will find some great tips on the site. All of us could use a refresher on things like "How to Write a Farewell Letter to Colleagues" (if you should be movin' on up) or "Rise and Shine: How to be Effective at Work". Take a look through the site when you have a little me time.  

Pinch a Penny Now, Lose a Dollar Later

What was your last shopping experience like when you ventured into a discount retailer (and, yes you have been in one admit it)? If your experience was like many other individuals' you were greeted by a retail store with merchandise strewn about, items in the wrong locations, advertised items missing from store shelves, not many employees around to ask questions of, and (if you found an employee) were met with a gaze from a tired, distracted, and overextended (or worse - a disinterested) employee. Conversely, what was your last experience when shopping at a "full price" retailer? For the most part, polls have shown that shoppers are willing to pay a small premium for better service and a better selection. People like to feel their shopping list is as important to the retailer as it is to them (after all, you earned your money, they should earn the right to take it as well). Don't worry there is a human resource connection coming.....

Let's go back to the discount store with the unhappy employees. What we know, as human resource professionals, is that unhappy employees = lower productivity, increased use of sick time, and lower ratings on customer service. So why are discount retailers (and many other areas of industry) lowering wages and shedding experienced employees? Yeah, yeah - we know - it's to be able to make those shrinking budgets. What if, though, we were actually accomplishing the reverse with our actions? Instead of steering our organization through an economic downturn we were further jeopardizing its health by driving customers away?

Professor Zeynep Ton, of MIT's Sloan School of Management, has ten years of research to back up why it might not be such a good idea to put the squeeze on your employees. In the Future of Retail: Companies That Profit By Investing in Employees at Time.com, Ton's research finds "companies that buck the status quo and invest heavily in their workforce actually are able to not only compete with their competitors on service but on price too". This upends the notion that to compete in the market as a low-cost leader, a company must have a low-cost workforce. In fact, Ton states that retail chains that experience high levels of success "invest heavily in store employees, but also have the lowest prices in their industries, solid financial performance, and better customer service than their competitors".  

What, exactly, makes successful companies successful anyway? It's in their "business card".  Remember the old standby in business - it holds true today: your employees are the face, the "business card" of your company. The experience customers have with your company is heavily influenced by their interactions with your employees. Ton's research found "all sorts of efficiencies that become unlocked once you have a highly trained, highly motivated workforce". 

So take a cue from those that are successful now, and are set to continue their success and growth once the economy turns in their favor: invest in your employees. Yes, pay them a decent wage, provide a content rich and inclusive training program, offer great benefits, and promote a culture of innovation - then, maintain as you enjoy success...   

"Looking for a Unicorn"

Staying with the theme of "unicorns", the title of this post is taken from a Wall Street Journal article by David Wessel entitled Software Raises Bar for Hiring. In the article the president of Mindbank Counseling Group, Neal Grunstra, relates the stringent and highly specific requirements that many companies have for job vacancies as akin to "looking for a unicorn". Peter Cappelli, a human resources and management professor at Wharton School, cites an email he received from "a company that drew 25,000 applicants for a standard engineering position only to have the HR department say not one was qualified". 

Okay, so it makes sense that the current plethora of candidates for the dearth of job vacancies means that hiring managers can afford to be picky; after all the current state of the economy is a result of not enough jobs to go around.  Is that what is really happening, though? Or is this issue more about a lack of candidates with the right skills? "For every story about an employer who can't find qualified applicants, there's a counterbalancing tale about an employer with ridiculous hiring requirements", Capelli states. 

What about the issue of selection software? Software used in the process of recruitment and hiring was initially intended as an aid rather than a substitution. Now, many applicants submit their resumes in the hopes that they have included enough key words to get their resume through. Most applicants never get the opportunity to speak to someone.  Does this mean that an applicant who cleverly included a sufficient number of key words in their resume is better qualified for a position? Inherently no. 

This problem has spurred new developments in selection software. In Seeking Software Fix for Job-Search Game, Lauren Webb writes that the ideal software would "read resumes intelligently, flagging a handful of truly promising candidates to recruiters and alerting job seekers to openings that are laser-targeted to their skills and background". So, if companies are really intent on finding that unicorn they need to consider more than whether the candidate is great at manipulating their software selection criteria and focus on widening the scope. "Cultural and behavioral fit is a stronger indicator of success and business performance" states Elaine Orler of Talent Function Group. Capelli puts it this way: "[employers could] back off the strict requirement that applicants need to have previously done precisely the tasks needed for the vacant job" and "see if they could do the same with some training...".