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.

Other People’s Money: The Truth About The Cost Of Hiring

“What constitutes a successful hire?” is a question that interests both recruiters and managers while the question “How much does it cost?” is the one that plagues managers and their managers. I was a “special guest” at a seminar run by my former colleague Ms. Nirit Hadar who was addressing the overall hiring process and this specific aspect therein. I’m sure at least three answers spring to mind as you’re reading- hiring someone who suits the role, hiring someone who fits the company and hiring someone who stays with the company “long-term.” Some of the more sophisticated answers offered by the seminar participants were cost of hire and time to hire, both of which need to be low in order to constitute a successful hire.

The latter suppositions are indeed accurate, and should be key performance indicators on which we evaluate our recruiters, however, these answers- and those preceding them- typify individuals who are too far removed from an overview of the business entity to understand that all the above are actually subsets of the one correct answer: ROI.

Return On Investment was The buzzword in the last decade, used to excess and then discarded. However, its exactitude in answering this question is absolute. I shared with the seminar participants that, as an owner of a profit and loss, business unit and bottom line results, what determines if a hire has been successful is whether I am able to say no to the following question: Did I invest more into acquiring this resource than the output it delivered for me?

“Investment,” in this case, spans three main areas. The first is money- how much money did I spend on the hire? This is a quick and dirty, easy calculation of agency fees, job board fees, referral rewards and the like. The second is time which is actually, as the adage states, money but separated here because of the challenge in precisely quantifying it. Within “time,” various factors should be examined including: How much time did I spend on this hire? How much of other people’s time (read: money) was spent on this hire? How much time did it take to fill this position? If I’ve been looking for 6 months, that might mean the work included in the job description wasn’t get done or wasn’t getting done properly which is detrimental to the overall productivity (read: profitability) of the firm.

The aforementioned two elements- time and money- can be estimated and calculated prior to the hire but the third encompasses post-hire costs which are also integral to understanding the truth about the costs of hiring. This third component centers around the new hire’s contribution and productivity. Did s/he improve or detract from the work environment (read: productivity) and how quickly (read: time, read: money) did it take? Did s/he encourage others to work harder, better, smarter or incite dissent and discontent? Was s/he able to do the work with minimal coaching, supervision, guidance or did the firm need to invest time (read: money, again) in hand-holding and a long learning curve? Did we discover, after bringing him/her in, that we did not need this function? Did we invest more time/money only to lose this individual before their output outweighed our input?

And the ROI doesn’t end when an employee’s lifecycle does. Employees contribute to a company even after they leave. If the parting is amicable, the firm’s reputation will be enhanced; if it was acrimonious, then it’s likely to have been detrimental to the work environment and company reputation. Severance pay is also a factor and it’s the one which rankles me.

As someone who has been part of management for almost my entire career, I can empathize with the “other side” in a limited way, for the following reasons. Most employees who are leaving the firm are focused only on themselves- seeking to extort as much financial gain as possible, be it earned or not- and totally disregard the welfare of the individuals they are leaving behind as well as the health of the company which continues to provide for those individuals.

Furthermore, even in today’s difficult economic times, leavers often have another job before giving notice so they have an assured future income and are merrily on their way; given their situation, focus on draining every penny from their soon-to-be-former employer seems excessive and unnecessary. Their self-centered perspective means they take away money which is not rightfully theirs and that could/would have been invested into the remaining employees and the company, to make everyone more successful and happy. Exiting employees need to understand that they cannot be an “exception” because once an exception is made, a precedent is set and the company will struggle to justify not repeating their actions. Thankfully, my faith is restored by those employees who have earned their severance package/exit terms in full and by those who go about getting fair settlements without defamation or scapegoating.

So now that we have the three elements to ascertain ROI on a hire, who should be answerable for it?

Well, recruiters- on all levels- need and are able to manage the monetary and time factors correctly, meaning achieving whatever is optimal for the particular role and firm with the weight of each component varying per position and company. An additional factor for which recruiters should be held responsible is the new hire integration period which is part of the third element. The benchmark for a new hire integration period to which I’ve been held and to which I now subscribe is six months for senior-level individuals and three months for others. If the new hire leaves (voluntarily or not) within these time frames, then the recruiter has failed and worse, there is almost no possibility of having achieved ROI.

Exceptions do occur. In some countries, France, for example, the penalties of terminating an employee after their probation make cutting one’s losses early an appealing and cost-prudent option. Another exception can occur when an individual introduces the firm to valuable contacts with which the company is able to nurture relationships thereafter. However, because of the intricacies and expenses associated with hiring, only an individual with a company-wide spectrum can be held accountable for the third element in its entirety and therefore, for ensuring ROI is attained.

So “What constitutes a successful hire?” and “How much does it cost?” are actually the same question. And the answer is that a successful hire is one where the newcomer’s output exceeded the firm’s input. As is now evident, the spicy ingredients of the ROI dish make hiring one of the most costly and complex processes a firm undertakes. Managers and recruiters alike will benefit from more accurately measuring and weighing the above recipes and then, as they say, the proof is in the pudding.

Erring On The Side of Caution

I’ve often regretted being human, what with all the mistakes I’ve made and my propensity for excessive self-berating. Some have been big, some small, it all depends on the eye of the beholder (lucky for me, my boss thinks they’ve all been little). We are “reassured” by peers that we learn from our mistakes, become stronger, better, smarter…or at least we should. After all, as Alexander Pope wrote, “to err is human” so there’s no avoiding it.

Or is there?

According to the majority of available literature, interviewees are strictly prohibited from acknowledging a mistake or weakness. Ford Myers’ Get the Job You Want Even When No One’s Hiring repeatedly decrees, “Never state anything negative.” Ros Jay’s Brilliant Interview echoes this sentiment and advises replying with one (or more) of the standard four “defenses:” humor; something personal; something from a while back from which you can demonstrate a lesson-learned; something the interviewer will perceive as a strength.

Despite several good points, Ellen Reeves’ Can I Wear My Nose Ring to the Interview? also falls prey to this popular opinion and she takes it a step further saying, “Interviewers aren’t really expecting you to [reveal a real weakness]. If you do, don’t be surprised if an offer isn’t forthcoming. But you need to answer.” Indeed, denial or “sanitizing it” as Casey Hawley puts it in his Job Winning Answers to the Hardest Interview Questions (of which the illustrations are the best part) is common.

I would like to protest on behalf of hiring managers and recruiters everywhere but perhaps I am the exception in seeking a candid answer to this question.

I am consoled by the handful of writers whose approach differs from the aforementioned. Pierre Mornell’s Hiring Smart, an excellent resource for interviewers and interviewees alike, recommends interviewers derive their own conclusions about an applicant’s frailties based on their self-proclaimed strengths and other shared details. Prevailing interviewee behavior aside, Mornell’s approach is smart as is Jeffrey Fox’s book Don’t Send a Resume, an inspiring, creative and thought-provoking compilation of insights that stand the test of time (he published in 2001 prior to the onslaught of the internet). Like Mornell, Fox acknowledges that interviewers have concerns but he reminds us that the interviewee does not know what those are! A smart interviewee will look for clues to understand where the interviewer has concerns and, Fox says quite simply, “if you know how the company will benefit from hiring you, then with planning and creativity, any hiring concern can be handled.”

When I’m interviewing an applicant, I heed Fox and Mornell as well as doing my utmost to obtain a ‘confession.’ I do this because I need to know if I can compensate for and/or manage your shortcomings when I hire you. Because by definition everyone has deficiencies, it helps to remember that, like beauty, their severity is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe you’re a night person and that will work well for me since the other team member is a morning person and the combination gives me longer coverage. Maybe you’re a bit too blunt which will serve me well since the other team member is a bit too reserved and I want more feedback. Furthermore, disclosing an imperfection indicates to me that you have some modicum of self-awareness.

One of my cardinal rules is to not hire anyone who does not admit to making a mistake. To be clear, by ‘admitting’ I mean I need to hear the words ‘I was wrong’ or ‘It was my mistake.’ Saying ‘I should have’ or ‘I could have’ fails to demonstrate an acceptance of one’s wrongdoing. As a hiring manager, I need to know that you take responsibility for your mistakes and do not blame your boss, subordinates, colleagues, neighbor’s pet. Since rectification is preceded by acknowledgement, your admission assures me that I will be able to trust you when you’re on my team. Additionally, if you have no mishaps with notable consequences, I will surmise that it is likely you have not held significant responsibility in your previous roles.

Truly, it’s to the benefit of all parties to know the truth. When one enters a job for which s/he is ill-suited, it is an ill-fated relationship that will cause frustration and unpleasantness on both sides before the short-lived affair comes to a bad ending.

Even bearing all this in mind, in my experience, chemistry, cultural fit and personal compatibility are the ultimate deciding factors. Employers will often take individuals who are less than 100% qualified vis-a-vis the specifications when there is a ‘click.’ Forgive the analogy but it seems to be like dating. You might have a checklist but if there’s chemistry, the so-called requirements are often cast aside (hence, perhaps, the current divorce rate?).

There is no such thing as the perfect person- each of us brings flaws, faults and foibles to our work place. I’d like to forcefully protest erring on the side of caution when disclosing our frailties but I’m not convinced our ‘reality’ obsessed marketplace is ready for real reality. So instead I invite you to take the concept with you for when we get there and…someone at home will undoubtedly thank me.

International Intrigue

Embarking on international business pursuits? Already enthralled or embroiled therein? Insights from ten years of working in Paris, Tel Aviv, London and New York will ease, enlighten and amuse you on your way to better business behaviors.



Ah, the glamour of jet-setting across the globe! It’s probably more fun from afar although after almost a year without the stress, discomfort and inconvenience of international travel I am missing it.

If you’re embarking on international business pursuits or already enthralled or embroiled therein, perhaps a few insights garnered from ten years of international business-related travel and activity will be of use to you. Paris, Tel Aviv, London and New York have been my frequent pleasures and I believe understanding the different cultures is easiest when viewed through one concept: personal space.

Well, since the Israelis and French may be asking themselves at this point, “what is that?” let’s make it two concepts; the second being driving. While I exaggerate somewhat with the former to make a point, allow me to substantiate.

To the Americans and British, personal space is a practice held near (pun intended) and dear to our hearts. It is the space afforded between bodies when walking down the street, traveling on the subway/underground/metro and during face-to-face conversation. Even in bars, the Americans and British maintain that sliver of space which constitutes a comfort zone. In Israel, the opposite extreme dominates. Generally, the physical space between persons is absolutely minimal, if at all. Walking on the street means bumping into people, public transportation means being in physical contact with your neighbor- the expression “getting close and personal” takes on real significance here.

France is similar; the French are passionate people and like proximity although they tend to crowd less than Israelis. No doubt in Israel it stems from the close confines of the country whereas the US is quite expansive in size and subsequently mentality. That being said, how amazing is it that the city of Manhattan there are the same number of people as there are in the entire country of Israel and yet no one bumps into you at Grand Central Station during rush hour? I even had someone once apologize to me for walking too close to me- and he hadn’t even brushed up against me. And people say New Yorkers are rude?!

If the personal space analogy doesn’t speak to you, let’s talk driving. Americans tend to be polite in their driving, especially when driving anywhere but New York City. (Remember, most of the cabbies are foreigners). By polite I mean, signaling, maintaining a decent distance from the cars in front and to the side of them, usually not moving faster than a speeding bullet. The British too drive in a guarded and cautious manner, even more so than the Americans, although it could be that the “other side of the street” driving is disorienting me.

If you’re visiting France or Israel, make sure your seat belt is fastened! One might think reaching the destination is a matter of life or death. I called a dear business colleague who was, at the time, a passenger in a car driven by an Israeli. “Where are you?” I asked. “On the way to the hospital,” he replied. (He was, actually, on his way to a business meeting but the driving had him terrified.)

These concepts and associated behavioral patterns echo the different patterns of life and confrontation which exist in these regions. The French live as they drive- they savor and enjoy their experiences. Lunch is a two-hour delight starting no earlier than 1:00 pm; dinner after 8:00 pm and long into the night, with wine and crème brulee for dessert. As they drive, the French dive into business topics, attempting to understand the reasoning and motivation behind the proposed course of action. Israelis also dive into business topics but from another angle. They are doers and problem solvers, usually spontaneous and almost unthinking in their responses. With highly tuned instincts and an inbred survival mentality, Israelis are ready to jump without a parachute. The French like their parachutes and want to know how many might be needed. So expect discussions and meetings in France to last long enough to address and resolve these questions while in Israel you’re likely to find people going off “half-cocked.”

In America and in England, there is more of a “yes-man” mentality. Because politeness and civility are sacred, it is rare to for individuals to share their true thoughts and even more rare for a confrontation to occur. As a result, meetings usually lead to participants saying yes, even if they don’t mean it and have no intention of doing it. While this is a generality, it is something to bear in mind so as to encourage all participants to voice their true opinions.

Among the four, Israelis are- by far- the most comfortable with confrontation. Israelis generally speak their mind and almost no topic is off limits. You can expect someone to ask you how much you paid for your house or car and how much you get paid as early as the first time you meet. In business, there are advantages to this straightforwardness. I always know where I stand and what the speaker is truly thinking. It is common to hear other ideas and suggestions. The disadvantage is that this aggressive, almost threatening proximity is so unfamiliar and therefore uncomfortable to American and British societies that it often backfires into a distancing between the parties and cessation of progress.

And it is progress we are all invariably seeking. We live and work in a global world. We need to be educated in international cultures in order to bring about productive interaction more rapidly. Perhaps the most important thing to bear in mind when you do business abroad- there is no right or wrong; there is only what we’re used to. Opening ourselves up to experience the business practices of others is enriching and rewarding, both personally and professionally. Enjoy the ride.

Separation Anxiety in the Corporate World

Comings and goings are a normal part of every company. Both involve varying levels of trepidation, anxiety, excitement and, almost always, consulting with persons we trust before deciding. Even in today’s market, there are people who choose to leave their jobs for another.

True story: Rebecca (not her real name) recently left her firm after four months of deliberation. Less than a year prior, she had been headhunted and joined this 50-person firm with a sign-on bonus binding her from voluntarily leaving for two years. After the initial few months, her workload slowed dramatically and what little work there was failed to meet her expectations in terms of career progression and challenge. She expressed her discontent to members of the management a few times. The months passed and Rebecca began arriving at 10:00 or 11:00, sitting idly at her desk, heading out by 4:00 or 5:00, taking long weekends and finally, interviewing elsewhere. But her plan was to wait for the yearly review before letting them know she had accepted an offer elsewhere, knowing the firm would award both raises and bonuses. As she sees it, the firm failed her and she worked, so why shouldn’t she get paid? Things got messy because the firm decided to take action only a few days before the bonus was due despite months of clear warning signs. I have to ask- How did the firm not recognize the pattern of behavior and take the right steps to handle the situation? (PS- The firm is, of course, in the financial services sector where such nonsensical common practices as sign-on bonuses and almost guaranteed promotions exist).

To be clear, I do not advocate Rebecca’s behavior (in fact, I am strongly opposed to her lack of work ethic) however she conveyed her feelings to her employer thereby inviting them to address the issue. One of the battles I, as a manager, waged was that my staff grant me similar opportunity to be part of their decision making process. We all consider new and different paths during our lives. And while today’s balance of power lies with the employer, it will shift back. So while this article may seem a bit anachronistic now, when the tide turns, firms that have cared will succeed in retaining their talent which will result in higher profitability in part because employee churn is one of the greatest unquantified and underestimated detractions from the bottom line.

A brilliant counselor advised me to remind myself every day while walking into the office or starting the day that my staff have a choice - they don’t have to work for me! I should make sure that while we’re all working hard- and be assured we did- we were feeling good about ourselves and our place of work. Part of making this happen is cultivating a work environment which is conducive to communication, one in which employees share their career aspirations. When an employee would share with me their deliberations, I committed first, to no repercussions and second, to responding truthfully. If we, the company, could help you achieve your goals, we would and when we couldn’t, we would let you know, so you could then find the best way forward for you.

Employees benefit because this conversation opens the door to possibilities, both those they have considered and ones that their managers may be contemplating. In this regard, employer-employee relations are similar to that of parent-child. Parents, like managers, tend to know what’s happening in other departments and have plans for the future, information to which the employee may not be privy and which may be influential in the decision making process.

As managers, we benefit from this practice because it facilitates smarter, more accurate planning. (In the case of Rebecca’s firm, they should have understood her leaving was inevitable, planned appropriately and saved themselves a decent amount of money to put towards employees who were vested in the company’s future). Furthermore, for decades now, research and studies in the western world have decreed that one of the top three factors in an employee staying with their firm is the relationship they have with their direct manager.

For me the equation is simple: happy people are productive people and happy, productive people make for happy clients.

It therefore follows that every firm benefits from supporting its employees in achieving their career goals (provided they are viable), just as every employee benefits from fulfilling their commitments to the best of their ability. In this regard, employee-employer relations are similar to that of husband-wife or whatever partnership exists. Each and every one of us contributes to our success as an individual and the success, or failure, of the unified entity.

Like a marriage, acknowledging that the possibility of separation exists is a constructive part of this relationship. It can be incorporated into the employee evaluation process to ensure it’s regularly but not excessively addressed. I’m an advocate for making it a part of our mentality. A workplace which fosters open and constructive interaction is one where separations, when they do, are better managed it is an amicable parting with pleasant memories.

Nevertheless, despite all good intentions, acrimonious exits occur. When they do, we need to remember that wherever we are, our behavior, both in and out of the workplace, builds our image, as individuals and as employees. In her book entitled Women Make the Best Salesmen, author Marion Luna Brem refers to Carl Sewell, a large luxury car dealer in the US, who includes the following in the code of ethics he has for his employees: “If you wouldn’t want your actions printed in your hometown newspaper, or shown on the local news, don’t do them.”

If you think about it, it’s understandable why this applies both during and after employment. If we speak poorly of our previous place(s) of employment, it reflects poorly upon us- as we were part of that organization for a recognized period of time. (The reverse is equally applicable). Shakespeare said, “All the world’s a stage.” In our world, where so much of it is virtual yet ironically indelible, this is especially true.

Recruiters, Headhunters and Employed Elitists- Shame On You!

Daringly disgraceful behavior characterizes our hiring world today. Join me for a brief trip down the rabbit hole to UnemploymentLand.


After 13 wonderful years with my employer, I recently resigned (gasp!). It was a difficult decision but one I felt necessary. I was looking forward to exploring unemployment, the lazy morning cups of coffee and eyeing the job boards. So, down the rabbit hole I went…

Linked In is a reputed good place to start and there I came across an interesting discussion called “Good Manners Matter, Don’t They?” The numerous tales of how people are quick to request work be done for them but slow to respond (if at all) are disturbing. Work hard on preparing a proposal or material for a prospect and apparently, unless the answer is yes, most opt to say no to saying no.

And we, of the Unemployed, are no more worthy of attention. We work hard when applying- researching the designated place of future joy, customizing our resume, following up with emails/calls/letters. Yet, publications abound with iterations that the Unemployed should or do feel ashamed of their situation.

Well I say - Shame On You, IABC magazine Communication World which compared and contrasted the aftermath of a natural disaster to the wake of a layoff. According to the article, the former elicits sympathy and support. As for the latter, “Those employees who have been let go may be ridden with guilt, embarrassment, shame and a lack of self-confidence. They are often politely shunned by former co-workers, neighbors, and even family and friends”

On Alice’s trip down the rabbit hole, her drink from the vial literally shrinks her to ten inches tall. My trip- our trips – down the rabbit hole to UnemploymentLand should not do the same. After all, who among us has never been fired, dumped, betrayed, used or abandoned?

While most of the aforementioned article addresses the physical and mental state of employees who have survived layoffs, at no point does the author point out how invalid and unacceptable it is (and it is!, in many cases) that this state of mind is the Unemployed’s onus. Be it self-inflicted or, in the reverse of the Shakespearean greatness, thrust upon us by publications like this one or one appearing in Fortune Magazine’s April edition. “How Do I Get a Headhunter Interested in Me” interviews a headhunter who is portrayed as saying, “Don’t Call Us: It doesn’t help.” Shame on You! The Bible says “Ask and ye shall receive.” Even disregarding it, how will we- the qualified, competent individuals with strong work ethics- get noticed if we don’t ask, call or write?

Shame On You, hiring managers for allowing this behavior to proliferate. Your in-house recruiters are a direct reflection on you. The people who answer your phone (and don’t return calls), whose names are connected to yours (and ignore personally addressed emails) and those from whom you request follow up be done (and it’s simply not) are how we perceive you. Maybe you practice “do unto others,” but if those around you do not, you are guilty by association. In my eight years as a hiring manager, I made sure that my team and I treated all applicants as does Nabisco (see below).

Yes yes I know- you’re swamped, overwhelmed; you get so many calls, applications, inquiries and emails. Poor you of the Employed! Because I have yet to meet a working person who cannot easily improve their daily productivity by 10% (let’s just start by you shutting Facebook or whatever social media/internet site is your weakness and yes, I mean keeping it closed for the entire workday), I cannot empathize with you. It’s always a question of priorities.

Some people do understand this and therefore practice it in their organizations. Thank You to those headhunters, almost always of small firms, who are graciously responsive. Thank You to those of you who are Employed and care- You know who you are and you are the true elite, far superior to your colleagues,

Thank You to the New York Times which published an article expounding on the discourtesy and disregard characterizing the hiring world today and the few, unique companies who refuse to cow to this trend. It was titled “Be Nice to Job Seekers. (They’re Shoppers, Too.).” How right the writer is! I, for example, will no longer shop at Ann Taylor given their treatment of me as an applicant. The write-up included the following:

“I recently heard a story about a manager from Nabisco...When he declared that his company responded to every resume it received — solicited and unsolicited — he was met with incredulous stares from his peers.
“Why respond to every resume when that’s clearly not necessary?” someone asked.
The Nabisco manager smiled and replied, “ Because — everyone eats cookies."

How delightful- and insightful- a response. So why are such wonderful individuals and companies like Nabisco and Southwest Airlines apparently in the minority? Perhaps this wake-up call is all that’s needed! Then again, it could be that the failure to reply and say ‘no, thank you’ is an unfortunate side effect of the manners we hold so dear. The word “no” is one which invokes a multitude of unpleasant associations and many of us seek to avoid it at all costs- including not saying it to others. Maybe it’s time for our optimistic society to embrace the usually-chastised naysayers for the level of comfort they have developed with uttering the N-word. Chances are that receiving an appropriately customized “no thank you but we appreciate your time” would leave us all much more satisfied and inclined to continue purchasing...be it cookies or clothing.