Job Satisfaction and GDP

I recently traveled to the Middle East. As it is my custom, I always buy the latest issue of the "Economist". In the November 27, 2010 I read an intersting article in the finance and economics section entitled "The Joyless or the Jobless".

The article introduces the topic by discussing briefly the 2006 notion by professor Richard Layard from the London School of Economics arguing that unhappiness was a bigger social problem in Britain than unemployment. The professor went on to point out that more people were claiming incapacity benefits because of depression and other mental disorders than were on the dole (welfare).

With the advent of the economic crisis, it seems that this issue has fixed the problem. The jobless now outnumber the joyless -- there is nothing like a decline in GDP to make everyone aware how much this peculiar metric matters.

Professor Layard has long argued that GDP is overrated as a gauge of a country's well being. Once an economy reaches an income level of $ 15,000 per person, he goes on to point out, economic growth ceases to contribute to happiness. He cites, as an example, that although the average US income is more than Denmark's, there is no evidence that Americans are happier than the Danes. Professor Justin Wolfers and Betsey Stevenson from the Whaton School at the University of Pennsylvania question their colleague's conclusion since they were unable to find a significant statistical proof in the satisfaction test of the proposition.

Academics differ on the value of happiness in policy making. Their disagreement is rooted in the political orientation of those making it -- for or against.

The Declaration of Independence in America mentions happiness as the uneniable right of every person to pursue it, and not by the government to make it its policy. If people know what makes them happy, but do little to pursue it as a goal, there is nothing that the government can do about it.

Studies at Cornell University by professors Daniel Benjamin, Ori Heffetz and Alex Rees-Jones, and Miles Kimbal from the University of Michigan show that, in their study, 70% of respondents would be happier to earn less money and sleeping more. Likewise, almost 2/3 would be happier earning less money and living close to their friends, rather than more money in a city of strangers.

These findings suggest that money is not everything.

But ask people what they would choose as opposed to what would make them happy, and their answers may surprise us: 17% of those who would be happier sleeping more and earning less would still choose the higher paying job. 26% of those prizing short commutes over low rents would still opt for the cheaper home; and 22% of those who value closeness to friends more than higher pay would still move to where they can make more money.

Money may not buy happiness. But why take the chance?

Sobering thoughts about a subject of regular discourse amongst HR professionals. Don't you think?

Enjoy your journey along the learning curve.

Reflections on the Role Of HR

HR as a function has been searching for an identity for more than 50 years.

When it was called Personnel, senior management's expectations were more modest. The expectations were often expressed in functional terms: staffing, compensation, training and development, safety, employee relations, employee services, in some cases labor relations, and personnel research.

HR's effectiveness was assessed with cost measures e.g., cost per hire, cost per placement, cost per training hour, benefit costs per employee, revenue per emplyee, number of grievances, turnover rates, compa-ratios, accident frequency and severity, etc. It was a simpler world.

Once the name was changed, senior management's expectations became more demanding. Organization development, team building, flat structures, job design, coaching, and other soft topics emerged. New measures (additional) emerged: retention rates, engagement indices, climate surveys, culture surveys, team effectiveness, 360 assessment, etc. Not all HR practioners were prepared for the change.

Talk began about partnering with rather serving management. Lofty notions, but many wondered how, some still do.

But changing the name does not mean that we are changing anything. Senior management continues to be critical of the HR function and its contribution to the effective operation of the enterprise. A survey conducted by my consulting firm showed that 90% of the CEOs we contacted were dissatisfied with the quality of their HR function. In the same study, 90% of the CHROs were satisfied with the role they played in their organization.

Change comes from a new set of skills and preparation coupled with meaningful changes in policies and practices. It does not come by changing our job titles or what we call our department. Being a partner is not what you call yourself, rather it is how your partner interacts with you.

In my view, CEOs are responsible for the culture of the organization. HR can surely help, but ultimately, the tone and leadership come from the top. HR, on the other hand, is responsible for the organization's climate, and here there is much HR can do to influence the organization's climate through appropriate policies and practices that are consequential to the desired climate.

As a practitioner and head of HR, I saw my role as the champion of a climate that fostered engagement, that motivated staff to go the extra mile, and that made work a satisfying and rewarding experience.

I suggest the review of HR policies and practices with an eye for any perceived or actual barriers to the desired goal. Many of the barriers, I have found, are built by the administrative processes. Policies intended to reward people could become colossal dissatisfiers because of the many loops people have to go through to implement them. Streamlining these policies by taking out non-value added steps could smooth the decision making process.

There is a tendency in HR to do the same thing over and over expecting better results. Einstein suggested that this is insanity. I am sure you will agree.

There are practices in HR that do not add value and should be eliminated. There are policies intended to control when no control is really needed. There are policies that keep things moving and policies that slow or stop progress. I suggest that the latter be removed. There are policies that might be important for regulatory purposes but are quite useless from an operating point of view. These should be kept to the minimum required for compliance. There are policies that set limits on creativity and decision making. They should be liberalized, in my view.

HR is not a police department; in today's world, it might be better to encourage a culture of self-analysis, of periodic lessons learned critique, and a culture that encourage conversation rather than stifling openness and candor.

Realistic? I believe so! What is your take?

Building Positive Relationships in Business

Research has shown that communicating with clients, internal or external, accounts for 85 percent of the relationship. Yet most professionals spend only about 15 percent of their time developing the vital skills and abilities necessary to do so.

I was given a complimentary copy of a book by Lou Cassara entitled FROM SELLING TO SERVING -- THE ESSENCE OF CLIENT CREATION. Although I am no longer looking for clients, I found the book refreshing and thought provoking.

I have been told that relationship building is one of my strengths, but I am not satisfied with my own performance. I have much to learn and improve, but I do attribute any success I might have had over the years to skills with which I was blessed.

In the rest of this blog, I am both reflecting on my own experience as well as underlining key insights from the book.

Individuals and organizations spend enormous amount of money and time trying to find new clients and customers. However, when they are fortunate to do so, they tend to take the newly developed client/customer for granted.

I learned during my active career as an internal and external consultant that the best clients/customers I had were those I already had, not necessarily those who I might acquire. Why? They knew who I was, the work I had done, and the results I was able to contribute. They were not strangers to me, and I was no stranger to them.

So I devoted a good portion of my time and resources communicating with them ... finding out how they were doing, asking if there was anything they needed from me, probing for issues and problems for which I might be able to be a resource, and so on.

Looking back and reflecting on both the successes and failures in my relationship building efforts, I have concluded that relationships are vital to both our lives and careers.

Relationships, it has been said, are a reflection of the one we have with ourselves. If we are willing to look into ourselves and experience who we really are, we will be more effective in our relationships. If we do not think that we are good enough, competent enough, committed enough, and so on, our customers and clients will pick that up quickly.

I have been told, and I have come to believe, that people are a mirror of themselves and as such they will reflect back to us what they need to learn and change about themselves.

Now, not all relationships are created equal. Here are the three common types:

1. Relationships that require addressing the benefits and features of what we offer to one another -- on the superficial side, you might say.

2. Relationships that require more sustaining action and they call on us to understand the clients' motives and values that drive their behavior.

3. Relationships that are significant where we must understand others' emotional blue-print and core personality driving their behavior.

The type of relationship dictates the amount of time, energy, and commitment required to maintain a relationship that is reciprocally satisfying. However, in all cases, people look and expect to work with someone for whom they have a good feeling.

The more authentic we are, the better are our chances that people will have a good feeling about us. The more caring we are the better the chances are that people will care about us. The more you "get your stuff together", the higher the likelyhood that people will trust you.

When you have a few minutes alone, list the ten relationships that are important to you. Then using the descriptors above, rate each relationship by giving it a 1, 2 or 3. Examine the list again, change your ratings if you want, and look at the final ratings. Do you have work to do? Would you like to see a different rating?

Life Planning, Not Just Career Planning

Career planning is a recommended activity for all of us. It helps us focus on our aspirations and goals, and it provides us with the opportunity to plan our personal development.

The "sweet spot" we all aspire to is to reach a position that gives us a tremendous amount of satisfaction, intrinsically as well as extrincically. I have been both a student and practitioner of career planning during my entire professional life, and I can testify to its rewards.

But we do not live just to work, we also work to live. Careers, although important, are not our entire lives. We are involved in families, communities, churches/temples/mosques, hobbies, etc.

Focusing on life planning is focusing on the "whole person". Aligning career aspirations with our other personal goals, in my view, is crucial. In systems terms, the different parts of our lives can help us optimize its "whole". Focusing on just any one part, and ignoring any other part, is akin to sub-optimization.

Having a successful career and a miserable personal life is NOT success -- it is an empty success, a hollow success. Career success at the expense of family or community or our spiritual well being is indeed an empty and possibly painful victory.

There are those who claim that to have a successful career, we must make personal sacrifices. I am one to say "yes, but". It is not one versus the other. It is all of the above. That is not to say that there are no sacrifices involved; what I am suggesting is that any sacrifices must me justified by the overall gameplan.

Loneliness, emptiness, and guilt are sure signs that something went wrong. I have seen many folks during my own career that suffer from either one or the other. All three maladies eat away at our very soul. They leave us unfullfilled, incomplete. I must admit that at one time or another, I too got sidetracked, for which I paid a lot of emotional capital to right things up.

I advocate, in the strongest possible way, the escalation of the planning process to include our whole life, to involve our significant others in the process (spouses, children, partners). By involving significant others, we bring more balance to the planning process. Through participation, we also build ownership and support for any career decisions we are expected to make.

Life is worthwhile living when we make it so. Enjoy the trip along the learning curve.

Reflection On OD

A few months back I attended a conference on the New OD at the Labor College sponsored by NTL Institute. NTL is the birthplace of OD and is one of the most reputable venues for learning about OD. As a graduate intern, I had the privilege of attending a two-year program at NTL in the mid 1970's.

I have been interested for the past three years about a new approach to OD that I find refreshing and illuminating. My own practice was based on the diagnostic approach -- the original paradigm that saw the organization as a set of problems to be solved. Problem solving tends to focus on what is not working, and not what is already working. It is painfully slow and always asks people to look backward to yesterday's causes.

The new paradigm (Appreciative Inquiry) sees the organization more as a mystery to be embraced and appreciated. As such, the new approach uses a dialogic approach to development.

Human systems, I am taught, grow in the direction of what they presently ask questions about. Therefore, conversations about positive core strengths bring to life, give meaning and enable organization members and stakeholders to share best practices. The focus of the conversations can run the gamut from achievements to strategic opportunities, from organizational learning to core competencies, from leadership capabilities to social capital, from vision of positive futures to strategic advantage.

The essence of Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is a narrative process of positive change. It follows a 4-D cycle: Discovery (what gives life), Dream (what might be), Design (what should be the ideal), Desitiny (how to empower, lean, and adjsut/improvise). These phases lead to appreciating -- envisioning -- co-constructing -- sustaining.

The reasons why this approach to OD has not be adopted more widely, in my view, are many. One might be that its practitioners see it as the one and only approach to change, when we all know that it all depends. Another might be that the diagnostic approach could be better suited to some situations.

I learned early in my career that one sure way to fail as a practitioner is to be seduced by a methodology or to become its devote'. OD is not a religion, in my view. It is a body of knowledge that if effectively harnessed can bring about positive change in today's organizations.

As Steven Covey has taught us, let's start with the end in mind. And then, we need to ask ourselves what is the best way (more efficient, more effective or both) to develop a specific organization by considering its unique culture, its strategy, and its overall capabilities.

Wise OD practitioners ( and there are many)use more than one approach and they select the most appropriate one based on the circumstances on the ground, and not in the textbook.

I encourage you to read more about Appreciative Inquiry. It has a lot to offer.

Life is not just breathing, it is acting

I did not say that; the famous Rousseau said it many, many years ago. He said: "la vie c'est nest pas respirer, c'est agir." The title is my translation.

Recently I saw this message on an office wall. It reminded me of the great wisdom and legacy of this great Frenchman. As a high school student (classical track) in Italy, we were required to read the works of all the major European writers, and Rousseau certainly fit that category. We read him in his native language -- French -- not through a translation. I was fluent in French as a teenager but unfortunately over the years I have lost my fluency, although I can read French comfortably. As a youngman, I admired Rousseau in particular. He lived during a critical period of French history. We owe much to the French revolution and the great writers of that period. They had a profound influence on the US declaration of independence.

The message from Rousseau resonates well in the management arena. Here in Silicon Valley, where I have lived for the past 50 years, I have seen variations of Rousseau's admonition, perhaps, not as elegantly as his. The one that I am fond of is "keep moving! To stand still is to fall behind!" In other words, do not stand there, do something (positively).

During our career journey we will encounter many decision forks. Taking a decision has a great deal of risk; too many unknowns, not enough information, or not enough experience. But choosing we must. The cost of not acting is often greater than the cost of acting. I have seen folks freeze as the proverbial deer caught in the head-lights of an oncoming car. I have also seen people choose without thinking through the risks. In the former case, people get run over by the oncoming traffic; and in the latter case, they wind up in places they do not want to go. There are consequences in both cases; but they are not the same. We gain wisdom through lessons learned. With wisdom, we improve our periphery vision, we learn about hidden pot holes along the way.

I am biased toward action. This bias comes from my up-bringing. I was told that "without pain, there is no gain." It has been drummed into my head to "take the bull by the horns." I have been chastised when I stood there, and I did not do something. I heard many times that "the best defense is a good offence." I was told that it is OK to make mistakes, as long as they not of the fatal kind.

I am aware that others with a different up-bringing were exposed to a different regimen of advice and counsel. They might have been reared to not make any mistakes, and to avoid failure. As a result, I see many suffer from "analysis paralysis," trying in vain to avoid risks. It is not easy to let go of a regimen inculcated in us from our formative years, but trying we must.

If others can succeed, so can you. So, don't just breathe, act. Enjoy the journey along the learning curve. You have company; you are not alone.

Business Partnering

This subject is a well known pet-peeve of mine. During my years as chief human resources officer, I did not let a single opportunity go by without my pilloring the misuse of the terminology.

HR, as a function, started a sobering revival in the early '90's. Academics and consultants provided intriguing tools for diagnosing the current state of the function relative to the expectations of senior management. The tools built on the seminal work identifying the four levels of HR work: administration, advocacy, development, and partnering. Together these four levels represent the four floors of the HR pyramid from the basics to the more esoteric.

The administrative functions of staffing, compensation, payroll, HR policy and work place services constitute the foundation -- or first floor of the four-floor HR building. The second floor is occupied by advocacy on behalf of the employee, on one hand, and advocacy on behalf of management on the other. The third floor houses development, both at the individual and organizational level. The fourth floor is the business partner floor where the HR function sits at the executive table, so to speak.

Needless to say, the fourth floor is where the honey is -- inclusion, power, recognition, whole picture view. That is why I call it the "wannabe place". In my view, you get there by doing a good job at the lower floors, and you cannot leapfrog to the top, but you can earn your place there. Business partner is not a job title but the payoff for outstanding professional work. It is not what you call yourself, but how internal clients view you as an HR professional. It is in the eye of the beholder -- the internal client ---that one finds the answer.

In the mid 1990's the consulting firm I was associated with conducted a study of some 60 organizations, of varying size, most if not all in the State of California. We asked the CEOs of these companies to complete a questionnaire containing 48 items surveying elements of the four-story HR model discussed above. We also sampled the chief human resources persons in these organizations as well as their direct reports. We found that 85% of the CEOs did not regard their HR function as a business partner at all; most viewed it as an administrative and employee relations function. A few recognized HR contribution to development and business problem solving. Most chief human resources persons, on the contrary, saw themselves, by and large as full-fledged business partners to senior management. Their staff saw reality more as a mixed bag. Big gap between the "what is" versus the "want to be"!

Some interesting field-based observations about the business partner model:

1. Under tough economic conditions, the HR function, unless perceived to be a real business partner, is downsized to the basics, the first floor. When this happens, one realizes that in the eyes of senior management the upper floors are seen as luxury and the lower floors as necessity.

2. When the model collapses, it collapses in a pancake fashion, by getting back to the basic minimum of staffing, compensation, payroll, employee services, and regulatory reporting.

3. Each floor has two components. The first floor has hygiene and regulatory. The second floor has concern for employees as well as concern for the organization. The third floor has concern for individual development as well as the development of the organization. The top floor includes being a resource to management on matters of HR expertise as well as a partner in the strategic management of the organization.

Experience teaches us that it is difficult for most HR professionals to be excellent in all four floors, let alone in both elements within each floor. For example, some HR folks are very good at articulating the employees' concerns to management, but they are incapable of articulating management's concerns to the employees. Some HR folks are great at making rules, but they are incapable of creating a productive and attractive workplace. Some HR folks are great at building teams, but they are incapable of building communities.

HR has a reputation problem. It is often not seen as adding value, to be a drag on the decision making wheel. This criticism is well founded. HR has deep and well known roots. It has an administrative and legal pedigree -- bureaucratic and legalistic genes, so to speak. It has a history for foot-dragging, slow to change, concerned with rules and regulations, and as a gate keeper. Although not all HR departments fall into this dismal category, there is enough history that helps perpetuate the perception.

The advent of the organization development field pumped life in HR's clogged arteries by shifting our direction to a client-centered reality. The rise of the customer satisfaction movement increased the awareness of HR's responsibility towards its clients and users.

But the job is not yet done. Much more remains to be done. Governments certainly do not make things easier by introducing complex legislation for HR departments with which to contend.

If you are calling yourself a "business partner", I suggest you get business cards that are more representative of how senior management assesses your performance. Meanwhile, continue to refine your approach, try to be the best you can be, meet your clients needs. They are the ultimate arbiters for your performance.

Ten Prayers God Always Says Yes To

That is the title of a paperback I bought at the San Francisco International Airport before catching a flight. The title caught my eye and I could not resist getting a copy to read during my flight.

The author is Anthony DeStefano. He is well known for having written the best seller "A Travel Guide to Heaven". You can purchase a copy of the book at Doubleday (www.doubleday.com). The book has received excellent reviews by a number of leading religious authorities. In my view, it applies to all denominations, Christian, Jewish and Muslim.

You may wonder why this blog, and what it might have to do with either HR or OD. In our jaded society, it is easy to roll our eyes cynically. Trust me, it is no joke or a gimmick to think about our profession in a more elevated notion!

I do not know about you, but I have often shaken my head in frustration, asking myself the question: "Why does not God answer me when I cry out to him?". Why does not God solve my pressing problems? If God is supposedly all-powerful, all-loving God -- who made the sun, the moon, and the stars and He has the power to do absolutely anything He wants -- yet so many times He seems to ignore our prayers, or worse yet, flat out turn us down.

The truth of the matter is that God does say yes to a lot. But often He seems to reject our simplest requests. Why? God is not a supermarket clerk. The truth is that God follows some strict guidelines when considering our requests, and they are often difficult for us to understand. He surely does not say yes to requests that are not good for our spiritual welfare. Although He never stops us from making bad choices, He surely does not want to help us making them. God gives us what we need, not necessarily what we want. He is concerned about the ultimate good, not the intermediary want.

The book goes on to list the ten prayers that God always says yes to. They are:

1. God, show me that you exist. If we pay real attention to this, we surely see that God shows us that He exists every day, every hour, in many subtle and not so subtle ways.

2. Why should I get involved? God wants us to be an instrument for His work, to do what is right for us to do. He wants us to feed His sheep.

3. What's in it for me? God will always outdo us in generosity. He will always bless us with His many gifts. Serving others is the greatest call of all.

4. I can't take it anymore? God will always get us through our suffering. He will always comfort us in our sorrow. He is with us. He does not abandon us.

5. Am I a terrible person? God forgives us for our trangressions, for our sins, for our foibles. His love is infinite and His love comes with no conditions attached.

6. This stress is killing me! God gives us peace. He relieves us of our burdens. He makes our journey bearable. He takes away our worries.

7. Okay, I admit it: I am afraid. God gives us courage. He sheds light to darkness. He removes our fears and consoles our souls. We are not alone.

8. Sometimes being smart just is not enough. God gives us wisdom. He helps us harvest from our experiences the lessons learned. He gives us insights, He makes us perceptive. He gives us a second, third, fourth chance.

9. Will I ever be happy again? God brings out the good in all situations. He helps us rise from the valley to the mountain top. He showers us with joy.

10. Why am I here, anyway? God leads us to our destiny. He helps us fullfill our mission. He makes our journey meaningful and our labors worthwhile.

HR and OD work are about serving others, about doing the right things the right way, maybe not the first time, but in time. To do a good job, we need God's help and His guidance. He cares that we serve others properly, genuinely, caringly. He has high standards and He wants us to apply them.

I might not have done justice to the book, but I can assure you that it uplifted my spirit and gave me courage to continue my journey. I pray that He guides you and bless you too.

Independence Day

July 4th America celebrates its independence from Britain. Fireworks, parades, barbeques, festivities. Americans celebrate their freedoms -- and there are many. It is a day when their love of country is in public display. Veterans are honored for their service to the defence of the country. Few other countries go to these lengths. There is pride and thanksgiving for living in a great society.

America is not perfect but it is still the symbol of freedom, opportunity, and the future. The country was found by Pilgrims from Europe, who came in search of religious freedom, and who wanted to escape unbearable conditions in their home continent. They came to build a country, not to exploit it. Over the years, immigrants from other parts of the globe have come to America. I am told that there are more than 175 nationalities in the USA. Talk about melting pot! So many wonderful flavors! They all have contributed uniquely to its progress and growth.

I have traveled to 70 countries, at last count. I have visited most for just a few hours or days; I have lived in a few for years. I have not found a better place to live, albeit as I have already said America is not perfect.

I am indeed a lucky person. I am citizen of two countries -- one by choice (America) and one by birth (Italy). I hold dual citizenship and I travel with two different passports. I learned some years ago that the Italian passport comes handy while traveling through the European Union, and that I save several hundreds of dollars when I visit Brazil and Argentina. The visa for US citizens costs several hundred dollars and it takes several days to get. Italians do not need a visa to enter these two South American countries.

I came at age 18 for a one year visit and decided to stay, to my parents chagrin. My father had waited 5 years to get a visa for us to emigrate to the USA and be reunited with his younger brother. My paternal grandfather Antonio emigrated to the US in 1912, returned to Italy to fight in the First World War in 1915, and came back to the US in 1918 for good. He died in 1943 and he is buried in New London, Connecticut. My maternal grandfather also spend 3 years in America around 1905-07 but he decided not to stay, preferring to return home.

My mother in particular wanted that the family stay close together but she did not get her wish. To overcome my father's opposition, I joined the US military so that I could stay. My middle brother Carmelo also decided to stay. My parents and my youngest brother Angelo returned to Italy after a couple years in America. Sadly, the 4th of July is also my late mother's birthday. She often reminded others that she was born on America's Independence Day!

Although I visit Italy frequently, I consider myself more of an American than an Italian. I have spent 75% of my life in the USA. I am married to an American citizen and so is my daughter. America is my home. It is where I want to be. It is where one day I will die.

I owe a great deal to this country. It gave me the opportunity to work my way through the university. This would have been impossible in Italy. I was also offered many opportunities as a professional and as an entrepreneur. I have made many lasting friends. I have become an American. I am reminded of this whenever I return to my home town, a fishing village on the Northern Sicilian coast. My relatives and their kids refer to me as the American. Here in the US my friends refer to me as the Italian or the Sicilian. I guess Americans love to hyphonate the origins ... Italo-American, Spanish-American, Irish-American, African-American, etc.

There is a song that Americans sing on the 4th of July. It always brings tears to my eyes. I would like to include a couple lines here:

Oh beautiful for spacious skies. For amber waves of grain, for purple mountain majesties, Above the fruited plain! America, America,! God shed His grace on thee, and crown thy good with brotherhood, From sea to shining sea.

God bless America!

Interesting Reading about Change

On my way to Paris I stopped at the bookstore inside the San Francisco International Airport and bought several magazines including the June 2010 issue of the Harvard Business Review.

What caught my eye was the cover page lead MANAGING CHANGE - How to Do It, When to Do It. Ther authors Marcia Blenko, Michael Mankins, and Paul Rogers are members of the Global Organization Practice at the Bain & Company, a well known and reputable consultancy.

I approached the article with much skepticism. After all, what else can be said about change? What captured my interest is the conclusion of the article: "Ultimately, a company's value is just the sum of the decisions it makes and executes." Hmm! Never thought about it that way.

The article goes on to review important lessons learned from reorganizations in 57 companies between 2000 and 2006. After much fanfare, most, if not all, such changes fall flat. The authors believe that these failure are rooted in a profound misunderstanding about the link between structure and performance. They conclude that performance is not determined solely by the nature, scale, and disposition of resources, however important that may be. A company's structure will produce better results if and only if it improves the organization's ability to make and execute key decisions better and faster than competitors.

The article advances a six-step approach to creating a decision-driven reorganization:

1. Identify your organization's key decisions.

2. Determine where in the organization those decisions should be made.

3. Organize the macrostructure around sources of value.

4. Figure out what level of authority decison makers need.

5. Align other elements of the organizational system, such as incentives, information flow, and processes, with those related to decision making.

6. Help managers develop the skills to make and execute decisions quickly and well.

Decision effectiveness and financial results correletated at the 95% confidence level or higher for every country, industry, and company size. The study pointed out that it is the quality of decision-making rather than the structure that should be the primary focus of the reorganization. No strong correlation was found between structure and performance.

To really appreciate the lessons learned from this article, it is important to read it in its entirety.

As I was reading the article my mind began to remind me of a classical failure that I recently observed in a multi-national company. The decision making process was totally misaligned with the intent of the structural transformation the organization embarked on.

For example, a senior officer at the corporate level was given the authority to approve major decisions regarding strategies and direction while the operating executives were made responsible for the success of the strategies they did not create, did not own, or fully understood.

The incentive system was not fully aligned with the change goals. As implementers realized that the likelihood to achieve their targets were beyond their reach, motivation began to decline and job pressure skyrocket.

The notion that the strategy had worked elsewhere (although many disagreed with this claim) and therefore should work everywhere was not only false but foolhardy. It ignored the important notion that no two organizations are alike and that there is no one best way. Size, history, national culture, market dynamics, and skill set matter a lot.

A proper decision audit would have revealed that the course of action was not just what important activities needed centralization to achieve economies of scale, but how these decisions were reached and by whom. Sad, but the entire intervention was a monumental fiasco, albeit well intentioned. The intervention was successful but the patient died.

How about you? Have you seen successful reorganizations? How would you say they might have differed from the unsuccessful ones? Lessons learned? For me, beware of of the one best way... it worked elsewhere so it should work here ... trust me, it will work.

Mentoring -- No Greater Calling

As a young professional I benefitted from the unsolicited mentoring from several people. Without their help and support, surely my career would have been less successful.

I remember with fondness two such mentors. They both had a tremendous impact on my career choices and advancement.

1. Buck Wong -- He was production manager in a high tech start-up where I worked part-time while attending San Jose State University. Buck called me in his office one day and asked me what I was studying and interested in majoring. I told him that I was unsure as to my major, unsure of my capabilities and emerging opportunities. The next day he called me back in and gave me an introductory texbook to industrial relations. He asked me to read it. I perused the book in my spare time but I was not really excited about the subject. Perhaps, I saw it outside my reach. When Buck queried me about the book, I showed lukewarm interest. He immediately pounced on it. He said to me: "Let me introduce you to professor Pascucci at your university. I know him well. We both attended Stanford's MBA program." He proceeded to tell me that I would be good in this field -- an action-oriented person in a field populated by beaurocrats, he said. Thereafter, I changed my major to Industrial Relations and Personnel Management (precursor to Human Resouces Management). This is how I prepared myself for this part of my professional career. The first meeting took place in 1961.

2. Bob Morris -- He was the General Manager of the Software Test Division of a large computer company. I was by then the HR & Administration Manager serving three divisions, including Bob's. One day he popped into my office and said to me that he had hired professor Patrick Williams to do a team building session for his team and that he wanted me to be part of the session. I had no idea what this session was all about and I questioned the need to spend the money to do it. Bob insisted that we could benefit a lot by examining the way we worked and improve our problem solving skills. The session was an eye opener to me. I was not knowledgeable about how to handle process issues having been reared on the task side primarily. I immediately saw the value of paying attention to both the task and the process used to achieve results. The session was motivating and illuminating at the same time. The following Monday Bob left a package on my desk. When I opened I saw six booklets -- the original Addison Wesley series on Organization Development. Bob also attached a note. In it, he asked me to read the books. He also indicated that I would be good in this emerging field. The seminal meeting took place in 1970.

Buck got me going in the HR field. I joined General Telephone (now Verizon) as an HR representative a couple years after graduation. In 1972 the large computer company where I was working now as Group HR Consultant promoted me to Manager of Corporate Organization Development -- a brand-new function and a pioneer initiative. During my active years, I found myself alternating between the two functions. OD made me more effective as an HR professional, and HR knowledge gave me the context to be more effective as an OD specialist.

I am grateful to Buck and Bob for steering me in this direction. Indeed, both areas fit my interest and abilities. I had a marvelous career as a result -- full of challenges, accomplishments and lessons learned. Many others along the way mentored me. I would be remiss not to mention their names ... Ted Lusk, Tom Linklater, Bill Rowe, Pat Williams, Bob Bartizal ... Their unselfish gift made the difference.

From my own side, I have tried to give back by mentoring others. I get a lot of vicarious satisfaction when I see people whom I have mentored blossom and become successful in their chosen field. How gratifying to see people whose life you have touched succeed!

How about you? Do you go out of your way to mentor others? Have you benefitted from mentoring? How?

Management Derailment

My good friend and colleague Joe Black sent me a copy of a revised chapter on Management Derailment soon to be published in the American Psychological Association Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Sheldon Zedeck (Editor). The chapter is authored by Joyce and Robert Hogan, experienced personality assessment specialists.

When managers fail, the cost to the organization has been estimated between $ 500,000 and $ 1,000,000. Beside the dollar cost, managerial incompetence has a major impact on people because of the misery that it dispenses.

What is competency?

Multiple leadership competency studies have identified four broad categories of competency:

1. Intrapersonal skills: self-awareness and self-control, emotional maturity, integrity

2. Interpersonal skills: social skill, empathy, and relationship development

3. Business skills: ability to plan, organize, monitor, and use resources

4. Leadership skills: ability to build and maintain a team, lead through others

More folks derail because they lack emotional and/or social intelligence than business or leadership skills. This is a personal statement based on many years of observation.

A recent example: A reorganization of a multinational company following a restructuring of operations. The executives who were not retained fell into two categories: (1) their jobs were combined with others or (2) their job was taken over by someone else.

In the latter case, it was obvious that the principal reason was their poor or lack of effective intrapersonal or interpersonal behavior. These people had low respect from their staff and colleagues. They were seen as incapable of working effectively with others or their personal integrity was questionable. This pattern often repeats itself in reorganizations where familiar relationships are disrupted and "chickens come home to roost", so to speak.

Back to the chapter ...

The authors go on to explore in some detail the dark side of personality. These are the factors that define the personality profile:

1. Excitable. When feeling mistreated, these people erupt in emotional displays that might involve yelling, throwing things, and slamming doors. They can be quite volatile and unpredictable. They have difficulty building and maintaining a team. At their best, they have a great capacity for empathy. At their worst, they require a lot of personal attention and reassurance,and they can be very hard to please.

2. Skeptical. These people expect to be betrayed, cheated, or deceived in some way. When detected, they might respond with physical violence, accusations, or litigation, actions announcing that they are ready to defend themselves. They can be insightful about organizational politics and the motives of counter players. They can also be unable to compromise or trust others.

3. Cautious. Highly cautious people fear being criticized, blamed, or possibly disgraced. As a result, they avoid making mistakes that might cause public embarassment. To avoid criticism, they follow the rules and precedents, resist innovation, and cling to past successes. They are prudent and careful about evaluating risk; they rarely make rash or ill-advised moves. They can also resist change, stall, drag their feet, and become undecisive.

4. Reserved. Highly reserved people are seen as indifferent to the expectations of others, especially their staff. As a results, they seem formal, aloof, introverted, and lacking in social insight. They seem more interested in data and things that people. They communicate poorly. They are tough in the face of adversity. They can also be tactless, imperceptive, and gauche.

5. Leisurely. These people seem overly pleasant and cooperative, but in private they expect to be mistreated and unappreciated. They are stubborn and independent, cynical about the talents and intentions of others -- especially superiors -- and insist on maintaining their own pace. They can be very good interpersonally, on one hand, and on the other, they are peevish and stubborn, prefering to stick to their own agenda and to not support others'.

6. Arrogant. These folks expect to be admired, praised, indulged, and obeyed. They expect to be successful at everything they do, they believe their own propaganda, and when frustrated they can explode in narcissitic rage. At their best, they are energetic, charismatic, leader-like, and willing to take the initiative. They are fearless and entrepreneurial. On the negative side, they can be arrogant, demanding, self-deceived, and pompous. Because of their aspirational character, they attract followers. But they also can take credit for more success than warranted. They are slow in admitting their errors and slow to learn from experience. Ultimately, they can alienate their subordinates and colleagues.

7. Mischievous. These types expect others to find them charming, clever, even irresitable. As a result, they are willing to ask for help from others without incurring obligations. They see themselves as bullet-proof. They like to live on the edge. They are seen as being bright, witty, and engaging. They see others as utilities to be exploited. At their best, they are confident and daring that others find attractive and intriguing. At their worst, they are impulsive, reckless, faithless, exploitative, and manipulative.

8. Colorful. Colorful people expect others to find them attractive and entertaining, and the natural focus of attention. They are good at being the center of attention by making dramatic entrances and exits. They perform well in interviews. But they are impulsive and unpredictable. While they might be good in sales, they can be poor managers because they are unfocused, distractible, over-committed, and always in search of the spotlight. At their best, they are bright, entertaining, flirtatious, and the life of the party. At their worst, they will not listen or plan.

9. Imaginative. These people see the world in different and often interesting ways, and they thrive on entertaining others with their unusual perceptions and insights. They are alert to new ways of seeing, thinking, and expressing themselves, and they enjoy the reactions they elicit in others. They seem bright, insightful, playful, and innovative, but also as eccentric, odd, and flighty. At their best, they can be visionary, creative, and insightful. At their worst, they can be self-absorbed, insensitive to feedback, and indifferent to the social and political consequences of their egocentric focus. They are poor communicators, and they can leave people confused regarding their directions or intentions.

10. Diligent. These folks expect their performance to be rigorously evaluated. They have high standards of performance for themselves and others. They are hard working, careful, and planful. They live by the rules and expect others to do the same. They can be irritated when others do not follow the same rules. At their best, these people are good role models who uphold the highest standards of professionalism. They are popular with their bosses because they are so reliable. On the other side, they can be fuzzy, particular, nit-picking micro-managers who alienate their staff.

11. Dutiful. These people think that others expect them to behave well. They are concerned with being accepted, being liked, and getting along, especially with authority figures. They are alert to signs of disappoval and look for ways to ingratiate themselves, to be of service, to demonstrate fealty and loyalty to the organization. At their best, they are polite, and eager to please. They seldom criticise others and they do not make enemies. But at their worst, they have problems making decisions, taking the initiative, or taking stands. Therefore, they can drift to the detriment of their staff.

These 11 items can be broken down into two categories. The first five identify characteristics of people who move away from people, and the last six as characteristics of people who move toward people. There is no one best category. They all have strengths and weaknesses. Some perhaps are more appropriate than others in special circumstances.

None of us are either one or the other, I believe. We are rather a combination of these characteristics. Surely some of the characteristics are stronger and more dominant while others are weaker and less discernable.

So where do you fit in? What is your exposure to derailment? What can you do to mitigate your risks?

Tsunami Change

We all know that change is a fact of life. Nothing seems to remain constant. Yet the Scriptures remind us that "... there is nothing new under the sun" in the first chapter of Ecclesiastes. What seems to change is the packaging and the intensity.

In my understanding of organization behavior, there are three kinds of change: (1) Evolutionary, (2) Revolutionary, and (3) Planned Change. The first is associated with continuous improvement and the third with transformational initiatives. The second is associated with structural change (albeit it might very well be planned).

Why? Structural changes more often than not can have an immediate impact on the status quo. By structural change I do not mean "bird-cage" reorganizations where all the "birds" fly up and settle in different perches. They change who is on top and who is not, but often do not change performance. They change who is on the giving and who is on the receiving side.

The tactics we use for each type of change are varied. Some are power-coersive while others rational-empirical. This subject is for another blog.

A professional friend, Victor Pineiro, wrote a book several years ago on the tsunami type of change he experienced as a consultant-participant in his native Caribean country Curacao. Victor revised his book a few years ago after the tsunami triggered tragedy in South East Asia. A worthwhile reading! I learned much from his book and from his insights.

Recently, I have been tracking and observing a tsunami-type of change in a multi-national organization. A tsunami has a way of surprising you. There is little or no advance warning when it might strike.

In this case study, the tsunami was triggered by the lack of alignment between the CEO and two major shareholders. The CEO was keen on growing the company aggressively to global status while the major shareholders were more keen on squeezing shareholders' value. So when an opportunity surfaced to sell some of the company operations at a very handsome profit, the difference could not be resolved. Shoving became pushing, and soon the CEO was out.

This started a major tsunami.

Several executives were summarily dismissed. New executives were brought in with ideas more closely aligned with the major shareholders' vision. The short-term profit motive trumped the long-term growth potential. The squabble also surfaced many issues with the aggressive growth strategy of the previous regime. Many executives had reached their Peters' Principle (their position exceeded their level of competence). Under the guise of a family culture, many interpersonal scores were unsettled. People were selected for promotion based on nationality, friendships, culture alignment, seniority, etc. rather than competence or results. Growth had generated excess by some of the top folks too. Profitability, it seems, often hides many managerial weaknesses. The Emperor has no clothes!

Needless to say, the toll was high. Many individuals in lower level positions lost their job as fat was eliminated and/or as a more decentralized style of management began to emerge.

Organizational tsunamis can be deadly.

If you are in a corporate job, you are the most vulnerable. High ground (operations) is a safer place. Like animals in the wild, some individuals can sense it coming before it strikes, and they immediately proceed to higher ground (operations) or leave the company altogether (resign).

It takes years for the employee relations climate to recover. The very fiber of the organization is shaken to its roots. Established relationships collapse. A sense of vulnerability permeates the corporate community. The focus is survival -- the ability to survive another day, the hope for a good "package", the longing for the good old days. The organization goes into shock. Depending on its size, it might take years to recover. Some never do. A few use the experience to their advantage, and do not repeat their mistakes.

How about you? Have you have seen or experienced such a change? What did you do? What did you learn?

I am one of those animals that, more often than not, can smell it coming and I have always left the island before the tsunami strikes. How do I smell it? Hard to say. But I start to pick up changes in the language and behavior of the CEO, and his/her shift from the long to the short term. I start to listen to the major constituencies as they start to murmur.

Murmuring is an early warning system, I have learned. Murmuring is a special way of communicating disagreement, admiration, contempt, or other feeling we are afraid to verbalize. Often, it is not a postive sign.

Tsunami often seems to be triggered by internal forces -- infighting, politics, lack of a common vision, arrogance, intrigue. It can also be triggered by market forces.

I would love to hear your reactions to this subject.

Worst HR Practices

My last blog inspired me to address some of the worst HR practices I have seen during my career. I hope that some have been done away with by now. I do know that in some cases people still cling on to them.

The practices are not in any given order. They are all equally destructive, in my view.

1. Force-ranking. Evaluating employees against one another might be an interesting exercise by the compensation folks, but it is demeaning to a person to be told that he/she is at the bottom of the totem pole. If you are selective in your hiring, you should not have bottom-feeders. If you are good at performance management, you might have already addressed performance issues. Bell curves, again an interesting comp exercise, have a tendency of encouraging mediocrity.

2. Complicated Staffing. Putting people through unnecessary hurdles to demonstrate your selectivity slows down progress, creates unnecessary bureaucracy, and rewards patience over speed of action. Experience has shown that multiple interviews often result in a composite rating that is inaccurate of the individual's potential. Line managers need to play a more active role in recruiting.

3. Cumbersome Policies & Procedures. In today's fast-paced world, minimum specification empowers managers and accelerates decision making. Minimum does not mean no specification, only necessary or value-added specification. Managers need to exercise their own judgment, not just follow the rule book. You want managers to make good decisions, not decisions by the book. I realize how important it is to provide proper guidelines for the inexperienced manager.

4. Culture Police. Culture does have an impact on behavior, and behavior has an impact on culture. But, you want to avoid "vigilante" groups. They morph eventually into something akin to the secret police of totalitarian systems. They become informers on their colleagues, thus reducing trust. I have seen many career derailments based on the action of the culture police's determinnation that someone does not fit the culture. This is a pet peeve of mine. I do not see how an outside consultant with casual interaction with an individual can decide whether an employee fits or does not fit the organization's culture.

5. Storm Trooper Layoffs. We all know that business conditions require, on occasion, the rationalization of work force levels. But how you go about implementing reductions in force, for whatever reason, is key. You do it professionally, and with care and respect. You do not use heavy handed methods; methods that embarass the individual; methods that might chip away at his/her own sense of self worth. Terminating employees are not enemies, they are potential customers. You might need them back too. It is not a sign of strength to use Gestapo-like tactics when discharging an employee.

6. Mandatory Performance Reviews. Reviews are an excellent opportunity for a manager and a subordinate to have a periodic dialogue about objectives, career aspirations, development planning, and accomplishments. As a paper exercise per se they have little value, in my view. The value is in the conversation that should be encouraged. Too often, reviews are used for documentation purposes, to protect the organization later on, and to comply with policy. I have always had a problem with this myopic use of performance reviews.

The above list is not complete. I am sure that there many other practices that should be added to the list.

It is the job of HR professionals to identify and eliminate practices that do not contribute to the advancement/usefulness of the HR process.

Whenever someone bashes the HR department, I have found that they bring one or more bad practices up for ridicule.

Have fun ... hopefully, things are not as bad as I might have made them to be.

Worst Employee Relations Practices

I read this interesting article by Liz Ryan in the Business Week magazine.

It is an apropos article. It reminds the reader that although the US employee still leads the world in productivity, US employee relations practices might still lag behind. The US is not alone in engaging in these practices. I have seen them alive and well elsewhere.

Often, under the guise of competitiveness, sound employee relations practices are set aside to justify lower salary increases, dumbed-down performance ratings, and a less respectful work environment for the individual.

As long as we continue to view human resources in elastic terms, we will continue to treat them as an expense rather than an asset. It has been said that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but ...

So, here we go with the worst practices discussed in the article:

1. Make sure you let your employees know that you do not trust them.

2. Do not let them know when they do something great.

3. Keep employees in the dark.

4. Make sure employees know that docility is more important than ingenuity.

5. Squash any signs of individualism.

This list reminds me of a sign I saw in an employee's cubicle some years ago. It said: "Management treats us like mushrooms. First, they keep us in the dark. Then, they feed us shit. And lastly, they 'can' us".

I have never forgotten this. There is much wisdom in popular humor.

Is your organization guilty of any of these five worst practices? If so, what are you planning to do to get rid of them?

We live in the 21st century. These practices have no place in a modern society.

Enjoy your journey ... continue to learn.

Understanding Perceptions

I just returned from a visit to Kuwait and Bahrain. I had the opportunity to visit with colleagues and friends from my previous alma mater. I must admit that it was a bitter-sweet visit. Sweet it was because I had the opportunity to see my colleagues and friends after I retired nine months ago.

Bitter it was to see, at the Group level, the organizational paralysis generated by the uncertainty about the future of the corporate group once the African assets are transfered to their acquirer. It is quite clear that the Group needs to shrink down and possibly relocate. But who will be retained? Who will be offered a position in the acquirer's organization? Folks seemed rightfully uncertain about their retention, afraid of perceived or real purges that usually follow when there are major changes at the top. In essence, who are the winners and who are the losers in the rearrangement of the boxes?

The visit reminded me of an important lesson I had learned a few years back, earlier in my career. The importance of perceptions in people's decision making. Perceptions are real and they are facts that people use to make decisions. Never mind that they might be inaccurate, they are still facts, albeit erroneous, that people rely on to render their judgments. So, even though perceptions are not always reality, we must beware of their impact. So what you might say?

We are responsible for the perceptions we create and as such we must be alert to what they are and play a responsible role in their shaping. After all, perceptions affect our jobs, our relationships, our future, to a certain extent. Lack of awareness is akin to flying blind. We all know what the risks are of just that.

I recall fondly the advice I received from a dear colleague way back. He said to me that in order to better manage the perceptions I created in others, I needed to know what those perceptions were and take action if they were out-of-alignment with those I expected. How do you do that? You seek feedback first. You let people tell you how you come across, positively and negatively. You accept the feedback that you get as the reality out there, whether supported or not by objective facts. You do not argue with it, you do not discount it, you do not rationalize it. You accept it and take responsibility for having contributed to its reality. Those who choose to do the opposite are vulnerable because they choose to continue flying blind.

There is more to it that soliciting feedback. There is disclosure on our part. That is we need to balance the communication flow with our own perspective, with our heartfelt motives, and with our own sense of humility. If people do not know enough about you, they will fill out the blanks on their own. The better people know you, the more accurate can their perceptions of you can be.

I know that the subject of perceptions is a tough one to digest for those of us who are accustomed to dealing with scientific data. We see perceptions as unfair judgments based on flimsy data, not necessarily backed by facts on the ground. So what? People still have them and use them to make decisions, and to reach conclusions.

Have fun on the learning curve! Nitzche said it well. What does not kill you, makes you stronger. Hemingway said the same thing but in a different context. Life breaks you and makes you stronger in the broken parts. I have found both to be useful pieces of wisdom.

Why Companies Fail?

On my last trip to Madrid, Spain last week I bought Jim Collins latest book, HOW THE MIGHTY FALL. He is the best selling author of GOOD TO GREAT, and co-author of BUILT TO LAST.

The book was an easy-read during the long flight. It is a little over 200 pages, including charts and appendices. It is well written and easy to absorb.

While writing his book, Collins was overwhelmed by his research stats. Unlike the research for his previous books, he was confounded by the number of variables. He soon realized that, while companies can succeed by focusing on a handful of effective practices, failure can come from a multitude of sins.

To more effectively communicate his findings Collins arranged the results into five step-wise and coherent stages of decline:

1. Hubris Born of Success.
2. Undisciplied Pursuit of More.
3. Denial of Risk and Peril.
4. Grasping for Salvation.
5. Capitulation to Irrelevance and Death.

The five stages seem to track an organization's lifecycle.

Collins' findings suggest that every institution, no matter how great, is vulnerable to decline and eventual death. Contrary to Darwin's premise that only the strong survive, he points out that the mighty can also falter and die. Decline is more often than not self-inflicted, and recovery is within management's reach. He goes on to show cases where mighty companies faltered, but never gave in.

As I was reading the book, my brain was searching its recesses to find examples from my personal experience that validated Collins' findings. I found two groups: one large group of mighty companies that never recovered, and another populated by a few that did. As I mulled over the difference between the two groups, a light bulb started to blink.

BLINK ... Institutional success is dependent on superior leadership, but institutional failure or decline often comes from mediocre or poor management.

For some time I have toyed with the idea that leadership and management are two sides of the same coin: leadership being the maker, and management being the breaker... BLINK. That is, superior leadership gives you a competitive advantage while lack of management skill makes you vulnerable. I might have read in Collins book more than he intended...BLINK. But since I had written about this notion earlier in one of my blogs, my brain could not resist making the connection...BLINK.

BLINK ... I have been watching long-distance the turmoil in my alma mater. "Making money" trumped "making history." The latter being the goal of the CEO, and the former the objective of the major shareholder. Inability to manage different expectations might have contributed to the early sell-off of its African assets and a resizing of the institutional dream. Hindsight? Perhaps!

How about you! Have you seen any mighty fall? Did they recover? Think about what made them fail and what made them succeed.

Career Management

How things have changed during the past quarter century!

It used to be common practice for people to join an organization fresh out of school and spend their entire worklife with one or two companies. You started at the bottom and worked your way up by performing well in your current job and by gaining the experience needed to move up a notch at the time.

You had to wait your turn, but your turn would come if you were a superior performer once your boss moved up or retired or if you had a sponsor.

In these earlier times, we saw our career progress hierarchically: non-management, supervisor, manager, director, general manager, vice president, and president. We grew with our companies; we put our time "in grade". This is the way the military did it and still does. Few would be on the fast track, most would be on the slower track. You wait your turn in line.

Times have changed. People no longer stay with one or two companies their entire career; they move more frequently, often to new locations. We are more mobile and more impatient. We are more loyal to our profession than our employers. Why? Because our employers have become less loyal to us, and because they have become more unstable in a more complex global economy.

So how do you manage your career in such a setting? The more unpredictable the environment around us, the more difficult it is. But people still succeed, they still progress up the line or across the line.

Our focus has shifted, by necessity, from the hierarchical view of career progress to a more circular one. You must work on growing your knowledge, enlarging your skill set, and expanding your capabilities. You must try to open up more choices, up and sideways. You have to find mentors and coaches who can guide you in your development, and maybe, even open up a door or two. You will need to gain traction in a rather slippery environment. You must differentiate yourself, and you have to invest in your brand.

You now need to focus less on job titles and more on job content. You find your sweet spot where your capabilities match your organization's requirements, and capitalize on your passion. You strive to do what you love, and love what you do.
You harness your motivation, your ambition toward being the best you can be in whatever field you choose to work.

It used to be that status and perks came with the job title. Now they can also come to those who are in high demand. Pay is not a significant differentiator anymore. Highly skilled professionals earn more than most vice presidents in banks, for example. Scientists often earn much more than managers.

It has been said that we spend more time at work than we do at home (awake)or in any other activity. My suggestion is simple. I have said it already. But, let me repeat it if you missed it: DO WHAT YOU LOVE, AND LOVE WHAT YOU DO.

Commit yourself to lifelong learning! In a fast changing world you cannot afford to stay still because you will soon fall behind, and you become obsolete. What worked yesterday might not work tomorrow.

The landscape is full of successful companies' carcasses who failed to adapt and change with the times.

Enjoy the journey along the learning curve; it will help your career.

Productivity & Job Satisfaction

Productivity and job satisfaction have been debated over and over. But, we seem to forget the lessons the debate has taught us. We seem to be too busy chasing "new" stuff, to strut our bonhommie, to "polish the brass while the ship is sinking."

My recollection of the debate is as follows. Organizations can choose one of the four outcomes, each with distinct consequences. We have four general options to choose from:

1. An environment where productivity and job satisfaction are high.
2. An environment where productivity is high but job satisfaction is low.
3. An environment where productivity is low but job satisfaction is high.
4. An environment where both productivity and job satisfaction are low.

We will all agree that the fourth option is a non-starter since it is apparent that it is a lose-lose proposition. But, there are advocates for option 2. They are motivated by the short term gain. Often that is the goal of many turn-around initiatives: To prove the initiative has achieved its intended results. Option 3 is often pursued to stem morale problems that make the organization vulnerable to unionization or in response to confrontation from disaffected unions.

Intuitively managers know that job satisfaction per se does not increase productivity. All the research studies I have seen validate this point. But there are studies that point out a correletion between dissatisfaction and long term productivity. Dissatisfied employees have a way to vote with their feet, to do enough to get by, to clog the grievance process, to offer passive resistance. These behaviors do impact productivity.

While there might not be any evidence that happy cows give better milk, there is ample evidence that unhappy cows will gore you. This is how I have explained the negative correlation between productivity and job satisfaction over the years. And, yes, people get it when explained in this way.

During the past 10 years we have learned that job satisfaction is pointless unless it yields higher degrees of engagement. Engaged employees are those who are willing to go the extra mile to help the organization achieve its objectives. There is mounting evidence that organizations with high level of engagement enjoy higher productivity, increased retention, customer satisfaction, and loyalty.

The same can be said about customer satisfaction. What good is it to have satisfied customers if they are not loyal to your brand? We spend large sums of money chasing satisfaction rather than building customer loyalty. Example: I change cars every 3 years or so. I have bought in the past a Mercedes, an Infinity, a Jaguar, a Ford, etc., and I have been satisfied with each, but every 3 years or so I change brand because I am not loyal to any, just interested in trying different brands.

What distracts us from pursuing the longer term objective of creating organizations with a balanced purpose: higher productivity and higher job satisfaction? One of the distractions comes every time we fall in love with "what's new" and forget "what really works." Let me elaborate a bit more.

New is not necessarily better. Modern is not superior to classic; contemporary does not trump traditional. This observation is demonstrated vividly in the field of cooking. As an avid foodie myself, I observe that although we have many innovations in cooking, we still long for the way our grandmothers or mothers did it. Fast food, a rather modern way, is responsible for clogged arteries, obese children, and unheathy diet. But it has its vertues: it is fast and it is cheaper. The slow food movement is trying to go back to the traditional -- the way our ancestors did it, not the way McDonald, Burger King, KFC and othet popular fast food chains do it.

Americans have discovered that the traditional Mediteranean diet is superior to the fast food craze. Folks who live around the Mediteranean Sea have known that for more than 3,000 years. Indeed, new is not always better, just some time.

Enough about cooking. Let's reflect on ways we can humanize the workplace. Everyone has the right to enjoy their job, it does not matter how humble it might be. After all, we spend a good portion of our lives working.

Enjoy the journey along the learning curve. I welcome your comments and ideas.

Reflections on Change Strategies

As an elder, I enjoy the luxury of looking back without worrying about my future job. You might say that my career is, by and large, behind me. I have been quoted to say that "there is no future on getting old." I have been quoted accurately! Some say pessimistic, others say realistic.

I have been taught that there are different ways to learn ... by doing, by experimentation, by abstract conceptualization, and by reflective observation. They all give us slightly different takes on the target situation.

Several years ago, through an paper published by University Associates, I was exposed to a powerful piece on eight pure strategies of change. Pure, in the analytical sense, rather than in implementation. Let me summarize them here:

1. Power-Coersive. This bundle includes the following approaches to change: political, economic, military, and confrontational. Each has its strengths and limitations, each meets a specific need in time, each has its archtypes. These approaches do not describe the position or academic training of the change agent, just his/her approach.

For example, the military strategy is also used by non-military folks, the economic strategy by non-economists, the political strategy by non-politicians. Archtypes associated with this bundle are: brown-noser (political), dictator (military), colonialist (economic), rabble-rouser (confrontation).

2. Rational-Empirical. This bundle includes the following approaches: engineering, academic, fellowship, and behavioral sciences. Again, each has its strengths and limitations, each meets a specific need in time, each has its archtype. These approaches do not describe the position or acedemic training of the change agent.

For example, the engineering strategy is used by non-engineers, the academic strategy by non-academics, fellowship by non-religious persons, and the behavioral sciences by non-behavioral scientists. Archtypes associated with this bundle are: mechanic (engineering), pedantic (academic), missionary (fellowship), and shrink (behavioral sciences).

On a personal level, these strategies manifest themselves in rather comical-tragic ways:

1. The slash-and-burn style. The notion behind this approach is that the best way to go forward is to level everything in sight. Rebuilding is seen as much easier than rennovating. This Ghensis Khan approach to change has some short term benefits. It gets people's attention, but it also generates fear and lack of candor. People are criticized in public, reprimanded for small infractions, ridiculed for their foibles. The dictator is exploitative. He/she leaves behind a lot of wounded folks whose time is spent dressing their wounds and plotting revenge. Many resources are wasted by fixing what might not be broken. The legacy is one of plunder and opportunism. Change agents with this style have a short lifecycle. Few, if any, dictators die in their bed.

2. The love-in style. The notion behind this approach is that the best way to go forward is to love one another to death. Much energy is spent on being liked and included. God forbid that somesone's feelings should be hurt. The calm that this style generates is seen as progress, that things are better, that the dictator is benevolent, like a loving father/mother. Unfortunately, this style lulls people to sleep, to accept mediocrity, to promore incompetent folks, and to lower standards of performance. Change agents with this style have a medium lifecycle. Most, if not all, die in their bed.

3. The respect-me style. The notion behind this approach is that the best way forward is to earn the respect and trust from others. The energy here is on best practices, on renewal, on continuous improvement. Professionalism rules and competence is a requirement for advancement and job security. You do not have to love this person, just respect his/her intellect and ability to bring about the right change. This style does not have a need to flex its muscles, is not narcissistic, and is not full of him/herself. Change agents with this style tend to live to fight another day. They teach by examples and produce many disciples. Yes, all of them die in their bed serenely.

What's you style? What are you most comfortable with? How are others describe you?

Enjoy the journey along the learning curve!

Management & Leadership -- An Old Discussion

I recall with fondness my good friend and colleague Ray Burch's lecture on "Stop Bashing Management and Prasining Leadership". Ray, in his wisdom, attempted to bring into light the necessity of both for the long term success of our organizations.

In the past 25 years, people have fallen in love with the word "leadership." They have found it sexier that the word "management."

Many attractive adjectives have been used to describe its role and functions. Here are some adjectives usually associated with leadership: inspirational, transformative, participative, visionary, engaging, effective, contemporary, fun. Terrific words! What is there not to like?

When describing management the choice of the adjectives has been less enticing, and to a certain extent, deprecating. Here are some of the words associated with management: efficient, commanding, controlling, mechanistic, old fashioned, boring. God forbid! Who wants to be labeled "command and control?" The use of this term has been used in some organizations to derail competent people's careers.

In my professional practice, I have tried to discuss the topic in a more inclusive way, not necessarily with a lot of success. I have not given up. I continue to reflect on the subject of leadership and management,and I continue to explore its implications for contemporary organizations.

When the iconic Frank Sinatra was asked to comment on rising fame of singer Elvis Presley during the mid 1960's, he wisely said: "You cannot knock success." The word leadership has indeed captured our imagination, so it is unpopular to knock its vertues. Too many books have been written expousing its vertues, none exposing its weaknesses.

It is my view that, that in the contemporary organization, management's purpose blends sound leadership principles with the art and science of getting things done. the prrof of the pudding, I am told, is in its eating -- execution.

Leadership and management are two sides of the same coin. They are both needed for long term success. Short term success is often clouded by intervening variables such as a friendly market, superior technology, and lucky timing, to name a few. Long term success depends on navigating through a myriad of tough conditions and problematic situations.

Peter Drucker, the recognized authority on professional management, had this to say about leadership: "Leadership has little to do with leadership qualities and even less to do with charisma. It is mundane, unromantic and boring. Its essence is performance... Leadership is a means... to what end is thus the crucial question."

John Zenger and Joseph Folkman in their widely acclaimed book, The Extraordinary Leader, studied the 360 assessments of of 25,000 leaders. They isolated five important pillars to what they called "the leadership tent." The pillars are character, personal capability, interpersonal skills, focus on results and leading organizational change. Supporting the tent, they found 16 specific behavioral competencies. It is interesting to point out that, although they never used the term management, three of the five pillars included established management functions (planning, organizing, and controlling.) A fourth pillar overlaped with another activity of management, motivating others.

In another study, Joyce, Nohria and Robertson, in their book, What Really Works, identified six specific management practices for sustained business success. The primary four were: Strategy, execution, culture, and structure. The secondary two or electives were: Talent, leadership, innovation, and growth. Their five-year project analyzed more than 200 management practices, fads, silver-bullet cures and management buzz-words used by 160 companies. How stunning are their findings?

The old Bible, in Ecclesiastes, teaches us that "there is a time for everything unber the sun." It is a wise admonition. It teaches us that organizations, like humans, go through specific phases, and that each phase has unique challenges and dilemmas. What might work in a particular phase might not be sufficient for the other!

So, what have I concluded after all? I see leadership as the "maker." It will make us successful when effectively exercised. I see management as the "breaker", meaning lack of fundamental management will surely derail us.

Witness how many organizations have imploded over time. The landscape is full of carcasses of yesteryear's most admired companies. The laws of gravity, I am reminded, have not been repealed. What goes up with good leadership, will eventually come down with poor management!

Ponder this topic! Reflect on your own experience! Don't be seduced by the sexy terms -- they are ephemeral.

Enjoy your journey along the learning curve! We all have much to learn.