Corporate Civil War

There is a battle going on inside each company.  It is waged between cost centers and profit centers, or those units which are perceived to be…

Human resources and marketing departments, for example, are infamous for being a drain on profitability (hence a “cost center”) what with all those events and gifts and benefits while the departments which house product development, engineers and service personnel are renowned for generating revenue (which can be turned into profit (hence a “profit center”)).

But the apparent black and white difference is actually a multitude of grays.

Take the sales department. It is generally accepted that sales is vital to the existence/continuation of a firm so the sales department and its members must be a profit center, yes? Perhaps. But if the sales person is not closing deals, then it’s possible the sales department is a cost center.

The same is true for other customer-interfacing functions which are supposed to generate revenue but may not always succeed in doing so.  For example, if a lawyer is disliked by clients once, it’s coincidence; twice, it’s happenstance and thrice it usually reflects a significant amount of potential revenue that has been lost.

Nevertheless, salespeople have an advantage over those of us in finance, marketing, operations and the like because they can almost prove their contribution to the top line. We have a harder sell (pun intended) because we need to prove a negative- that things work less well if we’re not around,

The corporate civil war stems from this inherent conflict and because no function (or individual) perceives itself as being a burden (read: cost center).

My understanding of both sides results from my unplanned career trajectory which included working on both “sides.”  My first role was in an Israeli start-up firm as  a typical Assistant to the CEO position; from there I was promoted to Director of Human Resources, Global VP of HR and then to a Managing Director role.  Because I was interested and kept my mouth shut, the first role exposed me to C-level thinking from Day 1 and to how board members thought, talked and evaluated success. 

So as a “child,” so-to-speak, I learned the language of corporate viability.

I heard deliberations around giving raises (and reducing pay), around hiring (and firing), around increasing visibility in the marketplace (and correlated quantitative success parameters).  Acronyms like EBIDTA, ROI and DSO were part of my vocabulary. Words like efficiency, redundancy and strategy were part of my vernacular.  I heard viewpoints from managers and employees alike (the CEO had an open-door policy)- what they thought, why they thought it.  I heard what needed to be done and the many methods of execution (one last time… pun intended).

I learned two invaluable lessons:

First, as Bob Metcalfe reminded attendees at the 2013 Georgia Technology Summit, a company does not exist to create jobs.  It exists to make money! If it succeeds in making money, that means there is demand for the product/service which means there will be growth and as a result, jobs.  Accordingly, every function and every process exists to facilitate the creation of revenue.

Everyone- from the receptionist, who creates the first impression, to the CEO- needs to be attuned to customer needs.     Walmart founder Sam Walton brilliantly noted that “There is only one boss. The customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else.”

So, Lesson Number 1: If a person or process does not contribute to the revenue stream, they should be changed.

Lesson Number 2 is best understood by quoting actress Mae West.  She reminded us that it’s not just what we do but how we do it and it’s not just what we say but how we say it. This is important because often a company makes money through its people.

And so, my guiding philosophy throughout the years has been that happy people are productive people and productive people make the client happy. This, in turn, should make the company money. It’s then up to effective management to make it profitable.  A bit simplistic, yes, but provided the product/service is viable, it is ultimately true.  Understanding both lessons is better than declaring a truce- it’s a breakthrough which enables true partnership between cost and profit centers, and improves the top and bottom lines. 

I’m Walking On Sunshine…

Dedicated to NWA.

When you walk the corridors at work, do you look your colleagues in the eye and acknowledge their existence? 

You should.

Two of the five tiers in Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs” address our human desire to belong and feel recognized. 

A 2012 article in Scientific Mind magazine goes so far as to claim that the stress generated by unpleasant colleagues- and I believe that ignoring people can be classified as “unpleasant” -  stretches as far as the spouse’s work place.  “Being treated unkindly by a colleague can cause loss of self-esteem, anxiety and depression, which undermines your happiness outside of work.”

Year after year studies affirm that recognition in the workplace is one of the top three reasons people stay. One of the ways I cultivate an engaged workforce is by eliciting input from administrative assistants and others during the hiring process. This is doubly beneficial: it underscores their sense of belonging to and ownership of their workplace and reveals how that person behaves when they think they’re not on stage.

If you’re not buying into the above argument, here’s another, more compelling reason to acknowledge the individuals around us.  Every person with whom we interact in a workplace defines our image of that company. This, in turn, drives business and revenue.

During a recent office visit, I came across a woman with a beautiful fifth floor office overlooking midtown Manhattan who has positioned her desk so that it faces the wall (!). I feel sorry for her and those who need to work with her as this arrangement has clearly illustrated her preference to be left alone. More significant, it has me concerned about how good the company who employs her can be, if this is the sort of person they put in a position of power.

For all the "Horrible Bosses" out there, there are wonderful ones too, ones who walk the halls and greet everyone warmly, even on days of frantic activity and tremendous pressure.  We all have choices- the manager chooses to keep us, the employee chooses to stay. There must be some redeeming quality that can bring a smile to our face in the workplace, even if it’s just a paycheck.  This doesn’t mean there aren’t bad days or annoying colleagues out there but we can choose to be- and to surround ourselves with- the persons who engender a work place of joy. Yes, it is possible to have fun while working hard, and our work space factors into this.

Ah, cubicles! Their gray and gloom is usually compounded being situated in rooms where there is no sunlight; how de-motivating. Open space on the other hand, the common set-up for advertising agencies and Google-esque offices, is usually freer and brighter although for those of us who are easily distracted, it is also not ideal.  But with handheld devices, who is truly without distraction today?  But I digress.

No matter what the set-up, “employees perform best when they are encouraged to decorate their surroundings as they see fit… it [ownership of their work space] influences how much they accomplish, how much initiative they take and their overall professional satisfaction” says another Scientific Mind magazine article.

Ownership of our workspace spills over into our corridor interaction.  Nowadays, “corridors” frequently virtual and paths are crossed via email.  In these virtual corridors, acknowledgement often comes in the form of replying.  It should be simple: someone took the time to compose, let’s have the courtesy to respond. Failure to do so indicates a lack of caring and/or interest in the topic which may, at some point, indicate to the writer that what they do is unimportant and that they are, by association, similarly perceived. [Email etiquette is worthy of its own posting so stay tuned…]

We also “decorate our surroundings” through non-verbal cues, like our aura, facial expressions, body language and yes, even the placement of our furnishings (or feng shui as some like to call it). We also adorn our area with what we say and how we say it.  A delightful friend introduced me to a revolutionary maxim. Instead of the trite, complacent “have a nice day,” she proposes “make it a great day!” What power, what decisiveness, what joy to determine the tone of our days.

When I was a tween, my best friend and I used to walk on a bike path in Bergen County, New Jersey.  I remember looking at the adults who were walking and thinking how solemn they were. I determinedly told her that I was going to say hello and smile at those whose path we crossed; she thought I was weird but was willing to try.  I wish I could say I changed lives by doing this, and maybe I did.  We never know how much a smile and acknowledgement can brighten a day.

 

So come, join me in decreeing a new world order. Let's make our days great and... in the corridors of life, walk on sunshine.

Liar, Liar, When To Fire?

Written by Mika Liss on February 10, 2013

"There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens,” even for involuntary termination of employment more commonly referred to as being fired or, depending on your viewpoint, freed.

One of my golden rules echoes the Biblical sentiment.  Do not fire on or around birthdays or major holidays. This seemingly simple guideline of compassion is mutually beneficial.  Aside from saving the employee from indelible, horrible associations with what should otherwise be a happy day, this prevents a significant disservice to the company.  Persons who are fired proximate to a day which is supposed to be celebratory are likely to forever hold the “terminator” and company in ill-will and share it very loudly with family and friends as they gather on those holidays. 

Timing is also factor even with employees who are suspected of or known to be lying, cheating and/or stealing because the company needs to prepare appropriately, i.e. have security notified, minimize disruption to the work day, make sure all relevant systems are backed up and the like.  Every employer should have an “exit checklist” to prepare, at least logistically, for the execution (pun intended). [ I know too many firms which still do not know that they’ve lost equipment to former employees.]

And timing is again a factor because it helps us solidify why we’re taking this step and what we want its aftermath to be.  Here’s my checklist:

·         Look inwards. Look in the mirror. Understand the real reasons behind the decision and understand the emotional implications, on ourselves and the person we’re putting out of work.  Have all viable courses of action been explored? For example, in the case of an underperformer or disgruntled employee, has a meeting which opens with a genuine inquiry into the employee’s happiness occurred? I like to inquire “Do you like what you’re doing? How can I help you do your job better?”  Is it possible the employee is not productive because, for example, they don’t know what’s expected of them? Perhaps someone or something is inhibiting their progress and they can’t get past it on their own. Perhaps they are passionate about something else and would prefer to be doing that (and likely be fantastically more productive at it).

I promise these conversations are worthwhile.  Some of the sincere, gentle-yet-probing discussions I’ve had have yielded insights that utterly changed my perception and enabled me to improve entire units and ways of working.  It’s also been a pleasant surprise to see how working to resolve initial personality clashes at work has sometimes led to stronger, superior working relationships; in fact, these are the relationships that usually continue even when the individuals are at separate places of work .

 

Always, always, always remember to summarize in writing these conversations which ensures the re-alignment of expectations and, if relevant, offers an opportunity for repentance. This ties into another of my golden rules: The End should not come as a surprise.  As good managers, our practice should be to share our feelings about our subordinates’ success (or lack thereof) on a regular basis such that if/when The Break Up occurs, it is not a surprise. [If it is, we need to work on our management skills.]

·         Look outwards. What do our trusted advisors recommend? What are the mumblings from the field? In “How To Become A Great Boss,” a must-read book for all managers and aspiring managers, Jeffrey Fox insists that “everyone that works with the underperformer [or insert the appropriate descriptive here] knows it. The longer the boss delays in taking action, the more the other employees question the boss’s competency.” Accordingly, a good manager understands that this course of action is best for all involved- the employee in question who will hopefully move onto better pastures, the other employees, the company, the client and, of course, the manager, who will then have a more cohesive, happy and productive team.

·         Look onwards. Negative people are like cancer.  They insidiously overtake and destroy their surroundings.  A manager has a duty to keep his/her employees happy (read: motivated and therefore productive) and the reverse is equally applicable! A good employee should delight in pleasing the boss.  A timely termination can facilitate a return to a positive, productive work environment.

And a positive, productive work environment is what we all want, yes? So whether it be “a time to keep” or “a time to throw away,” check your list twice and if an execution is in order, plan accordingly.

“To Be or Not To Be…” The Quintessential Challenge of Management

Written by Mika Liss, August 5, 2012. A tribute to OA.

In addition to the existential question he poses, Hamlet’s deliberation, “To be or not to be,” marks, for me, one of the most profound challenges of management.   My manager and mentor “raised” me to believe that one of the responsibilities a manager has is to facilitate his/her subordinates’ reaching of their potential.

This is easier said than done.

Potential is one of life’s least black and white areas (I am avoiding the word “gray” because potential, like hope, is made of brighter colors, like yellow, blue, pink and green).  Everything in life has potential- the bud can blossom into glorious flower in the right surroundings.  Similarly people and relationships can bloom but while a flower has a pre-determined ceiling and lifespan, people and relationships do not. 

People, like relationships, can be cultivated, nurtured and grow to great heights, provided they are willing, and the manager is also so inclined.  One of the most known passages in the Twelfth Night is “Some are born great… Some achieve greatness… And some have greatness thrust upon them.”  As a manager, I subscribe to this approach; part of my purpose is to identify individuals who have potential and then to determine if s/he is interested in achieving it.  There are many managers who believe otherwise; some view their subordinates as threats, some view employees as existing primarily to make their manager look good and some simply not know how to mentor others.  Ideally, both manager and employee are fully engaged towards enabling career progression. 

In the pursuit of greatness, there are several factors to be considered.

It hurts! By definition, growing means we are trying new things and inevitably, making mistakes.  Growing means we are exposing ourselves to unknowns, forced to trust someone else to guide and support us. How we choose to handle our mistakes and our openness to this type of relationship is key to our success and the rewards we reap.  There are many individuals who are not interested in exploring their own potential- for them, a job is just a way to put bread on the table and others for whom complacency (read: mediocrity) with their output at the workplace is the chosen path. For still others, it Is not necessarily a choice but rather an understanding of one’s limitations.

Ultimately, understanding limitation is what makes this topic the quintessential managerial challenge: how much potential do we each have?

One of the things that makes being human both enjoyable and frustrating is that once we’ve achieved a particular goal, we seek to go beyond.  For example, once a certain level of closeness is attained, we push our relationships to increased intimacy often without intention.  

Accordingly we must ask if we are able to understand and accept when potential has been fulfilled.  The fatal flaw of the mentor to whom I have dedicated this article is that he believed everyone’s potential was never-ending so no matter how much was achieved, he thought more could be done and never stopped pushing. Rarely is this true.  As humans, we have limits.  Good managers should see when the shoe fits, i.e. when an individual is in the right role and contently revel in their productivity. For the sake of our mental health, it is imperative that we realize our successes and are able to be content with them. 

For those on the path of career progression, timing is also a factor that the manager must include in the plan. For example, an employee can be ripe with potential but then have a personal circumstance which prohibits pursuing it at certain times i.e. birth of a new baby, moving houses et al.   Accordingly, a manager must be patient and thoughtfully consider ongoing events when pushing. Good managers need to find the balance between pushing and pausing.

I’d like to believe as my mentor did- that we all have infinite potential and are capable of great things. There’s something to his philosophy and so, while I continue to seek out the right balance, I will also continue encouraging everyone to reach for the moon because, as saying goes, “even if you miss, you’ll land among the stars.”

Mirror, Mirror, On The Wall

In my experience, there are two main reasons managers fail: hubris and working harder instead of smarter.

The paradox of becoming a manager is that we work very hard to get the promotion and once we are there, in order to succeed, we have to start working differently. Psychologically, it’s seems baffling. After the reward and positive reinforcement of a certain type of behavior, there is an unspoken request to adapt our behavior to the different requirements of the new role.

It helps to understand that the reward was not just for working hard but also for our work ethic. Service-orientation, a proactive approach and responsiveness are just a few of the qualities that, when combined with hard work, sometimes lead to managerial positions.

As managers, however, while we may work as many hours, or more, additional time and effort is required to accomplish our goals. As managers, we need to look at the bigger picture, understand how our efforts fit it and prioritize accordingly. We need to allocate time for thinking, for planning, and for motivating and supporting our peers and subordinates. We need to consult with and get input from our “superiors” (I refer to the Emersonian definition). We need to work smarter, not harder.

But here’s the catch. While we are working smarter, we might start to think we are smarter…

Just as hubris was the hallmark of Greek tragedy so too is it a primary cause of careers cut short in the corporate world. For some inexplicable reason, at a certain point in the managerial career path, individuals lose touch with their humble beginnings. Instead of continuing to relate to and take an interest in their fellow foot solders- the individuals who really know what’s happening- they begin to think they know enough on their own.

Jim Collins discussed this behavior in Good to Great. He refers to the “mirror vs. window” concept. His “Level 5 Leaders,” who are the elite of the elite, “look out the window” and credit external factors when things go well and “look in the mirror” to assume responsibility when things did not.

While I concur with Collins’s point, I’ve always frowned upon looking in the mirror.

Maybe because people who spend time adoring themselves in the mirror (yes, we’ve all seen these individuals at the gym and in elevators) are usually somewhat self-centered. David Lieberman’s book Instant Analysis says “it’s often not a case of simple vanity. You seek your own reflection because that is your only source of psychological nourishment… A low self-image often translates into a sense of diminished physical presence.”

Lieberman’s analysis fits well with Collins’s in that Collins’s reflection assigns accountability where Lieberman’s- and that of most self-gazers- reflects deflection. Those of us who are confident enjoy more time peering into the world and people around us than time gazing in the looking glass.

In today’s world, where the omnipresent handheld device is an extension of ourselves, we are prone to self-absorption. Our digital lives, devoid of nuances and human interaction, impair our ability to hear and see what is happening around us.

My motto and practice is to do as Darwin Smith, who headed Kimberly-Clark, is quoted as saying: “I never stopped trying to be qualified for the job.”

To All who aspire to inspire, and to All who wish to succeed in management- Follow Smith’s example because ultimately, inquiring “Mirror, Mirror on the Wall” will lead us to the same end as Snow White’s evil stepmother- demotion, disrepute and loss of our kingdom.

Love Makes the World Go ‘Round: Successful Employee Engagement

There is only one way to attain engaged employees: make them feel important.

That should be easy because they are important! After all, if an employee is not important, it means they are not contributing to the success of the company and then, by definition, they should not be an employee. It therefore makes sense that we demonstrate this to them, per the fundamental psychological need for recognition. Yet, somehow, this relatively easy act often gets lost or pushed down on our “to do” list.

So how do we make it happen?

Let’s start by differentiating between engaged and retained. The former does not guarantee the latter; the former is about productivity and the latter about longevity. While engagement is a factor in retention, there are various other components which influence likelihood of retention including work atmosphere, location/commute, compensation and stability. Engagement is primarily measured through productivity and the quality of that productivity. Do you know what your employees are doing with their time? Do you know what they should be doing? If you asked them to talk with you about their days and where their time goes, would they respond with panic or pride? (Let’s keep in mind that the former may come from a desperate need for help).

As managers, we must be equipped with the right questions and communication skills to accurately assess the situation. As managers, we need to be involved in their lives, care and have a genuine interest in their (work) lives. (I’ve found that acknowledging birthdays and saying ‘good morning’ are fantastically appreciated by all). As managers, we should understand that the art of acknowledgement is that it varies per person and personality, as it does (or should) per child.

In this vein, a manager is comparable to a parent and I believe the bulk of the responsibility for garnering engaged employees lies with him or her. Their job is to instill values, to guide and to provide feedback throughout. One tool utilized to achieve this is performance reviews. A Wall Street Journal article headlined “Get Rid of the Performance Reviews” claims they “destroy morale, kill teamwork, and hurt the bottom line.” Samuel A. Culbert, whose credentials include being a professor of management at the UCLA Anderson School of Management in Los Angeles, comments on the faulty promise of the traditional performance review which is intended to produce an objective evaluation to help determine compensation and let employees know where they can do better. However, since compensation is more determined by economic conditions than any other factor, keeping the two together ultimately makes it difficult to achieve the objectivity which should exist during the review process. Culbert’s article emphasizes the need for this meeting to be an exchange of perspectives and an alignment of expectations in order to help the line manager and the employee work together more effectively.

I am an avid believer in and practitioner of this approach in a more expansive manner. Adopting this mode of interaction as the norm and constantly re-aligning expectations ensures we fulfill some of our responsibilities vis-à-vis our employees like enabling their progress. Both components are vital to the success of all relationships and inculcate frequent opportunity for expressing appreciation. ..and feedback.

So while it can’t all be love, it can all be loving.

Mistakes are made and growth can (should) result therefrom. In 1967, Herbert Otto published “A Guide to Developing Your Potential.” In it he notes that “only by risking ourselves throughout the range of our interpersonal encounters and by taking this calculated risk…can we grow significantly and increasingly realize our potential.” While I wish it wasn’t so, mistakes are inherent to growth because growth means doing something other than the usual which, in turn, means risk. It’s like stock market principles- we invest (read: risk) in the hopes of profiting (read: growth).

Unfortunately, it seems these positive behavioral fundamentals of cultivating interpersonal relations are countered by almost everything around us. TV shows thrive on conflict and characters who do not smile. Ever. The ‘news’ is not really the ‘news’ but the bad news. The bullying that goes on in schools, society and our surroundings has found its way to the workplace. A wave of articles about the pre-dominant trend of companies to hire only those currently employed has me doubtful their in-house policy can be nurturing. After all, if you know you can ‘steal’ this person, then odds are they can be ‘stolen’ again so why invest (read: take the risk)?

Nevertheless, I encourage you to do so keeping in mind that, as is the case with parenting, we can only do so much. One of my favorite business writers, Jeffrey Fox, has a chapter entitled “Don’t Expect The Personnel Department to Plan Your Career.” And none of us should! Culbert concurs and concludes his article by reminding us that “Improvement is each individual’s own responsibility.” Only we can make ourselves better.

It’s also true that not everyone can be made or kept happy but I believe employees will be as engaged as we encourage them to be. Ultimately, all relationships are give and take, and sometimes, all it takes is a smile and a little love to make the world go ‘round.

Caveat Emptor: The Big Bad World of Job Hunting

Dedicated to A who celebrates her birthday today.

I don’t like networking. Yes, I know it’s sacrilege but it’s true. Conceptually, it’s brilliant- we go to a party and get to meet lots of new and exciting people, some of whom will enrich our lives. Networking is much the same (minus the alcohol and music, well, usually). It’s all about exposure and it’s what we do when expanding our social circles; we seek out interaction with individuals with whom we have something in common, as the likelihood of compatibility increases with similarity of interests/background.

Yet, searching for suitable suitors, for work or for play, isn’t easy. How many of us have a genuine interest in the people around us? How many of us have a genuine interest in helping those people? Were we to heed Dale Carnegie, I believe unemployment would already have dropped considerably, or at the least we could hold everyone’s attention during introductions, and there might even be world peace. But I digress.

More to the point, a true story. A good friend of mine, a smart, savvy individual we’ll call Ariella, mentioned to me several times that she thought a friend of hers, ‘Max,’ had a lot in common with me. So she set us up, so to speak, by sending a virtual introduction. When she did, I responded promptly, as is, I believe customary and especially important to do when one is introduced through a close friend. Max’s response lagged and she subsequently admitted that she had forestalled in meeting me because I had responded so quickly. I guess she subscribes to the asinine “I'd never join a club that would allow a person like me to become a member” philosophy. I don’t like dogs (yes, another sacrilege!) but I give them credit for their authentic and enthusiastic response to others of their own kind. Ironic, isn’t it, that in this time when response time can be lightning quick, it’s all too often decried as overeager, and backfires. So, buyer beware! The intricacies of appropriate response time may be elusive, as elusive as learning how to be interviewed has been for me.

An interview, like networking and dating, is supposed to assess mutual compatibility. Interviewers claim to want to please us too but is it true? Like everything else in life, it all depends on the human being with whom we’re interacting. I’ve been blessed to encounter several sincere, impressive and somewhat intimidating individuals thus far. An indication of their sincerity is the level of interaction. Listening practices vary with different scenarios however, earnest interviewers, like true friends, listen intently and seek to engage in a discussion. In both instances, finding the right balance between talking and listening is vital to a successful engagement (no pun intended).

But that’s easier said than done and it’s understandable. The constant distraction of hand-held devices and television are formidable opponents to concentration. TV, like everything else, can be fabulous in limited quantities but overall, I think the invention of the television is worse than that of the H-bomb. The former is killing us, at least those of us in the tri-state area, slowly, with every possible entertainment venue and home overcrowded with TV screens. Forgive me as I cite one of my favorite TV shows to demonstrate. In a Remington Steele episode, the eponymous character drily says, “Television, Mildred, deadens the mind, corrupts the soul.” As strange as it may sound, given the current climate, the intensity of an interviewer’s focus on me and what I am saying is somewhat disconcerting and therefore leads to mistakes.

Sometimes my mistakes are obvious, in irreversible retrospect, and sometimes they’re not. And who do we have to guide us along this path? How do we know what and how to improve? Unlike with our jobs, in which our managers are paid to make sure we learn from our mistakes, help us acquire new skills and ultimately succeed, the process of networking and interviewing is one we handle mostly on our own. Occasionally interviewers and headhunters will proffer some insights but such guidance doesn’t exist with networking unless we are accompanied by someone we know and they feel secure enough in the relationship to offer constructive input (read: criticism). I rely on input from people I trust and frankly, talking about failures is not fun so I do it sparingly and instead, employ the tried and true method of trial and error. It’s proving to be a lengthy process for a novice like me and unfortunately, unlike networking, interviewing is a one-shot deal.

The big, bad world of job hunting is an uncomfortable place to be, with all its encouraged networking and mandatory interviews. Lots of people will try to sell you panaceas along the way but there are numerous ways to find a job and countless ways to meet people. It’s best to utilize as many as possible; you never know what will work until you try. If you decide to pay for a coach, please make sure you see them face-to-face; too many of us try to multi-task while on the phone. And as for networking, it isn’t all bad. Remember my amazing friend Ariella? I met her at a networking event and she has truly enriched my life. But ultimately, my recommendation is- caveat emptor! Find your way to make it happen.