Politics, schmolitics. It's the culture, stupid.

When I read this quote from Tom Davis, former Republican member of congress, I was certain I’d write about this week’s election:

"It is time to sit down practically and say where are we going to add pieces to our coalition. There just are not enough middle-aged white guys that we can scrape together to win. There's just not enough of them."

There is so much work to do for both sides – repairing the rift, averting the now infamous “fiscal cliff,” – that it seemed like a no-brainer. Add to that Washington and Colorado passing recreational marijuana laws, and so many states passing same-sex marriage laws.

So much fodder for a good post, but it was not to be.

Alas, I got settled into my seat on a Southwest flight to Chicago and my post about the election got hijacked (bad flying humor there). It’s the beginning of the month so there’s a new Spirit magazine, and if you read my posts with any regularity you know of my affinity for Southwest in general, and Spirit in particular.

Every issue is structured the same way:

1. The first feature is a letter from CEO Gary Kelly in which he inevitably talks about how great his Employees and Customers are (their idea to capitalize those two words – nicely done), and how well their Employee-first attitude has served them over the years – 39 consecutive years of profitability!
2. Next, it’s an article highlighting an outstanding Employee that oftentimes features that person’s involvement in some philanthropic endeavor. Nothing like a pat on the back in front of millions of people, huh?
3. Then there’s an article featuring one of their great Customers. These usually feature enough information about the person that if you were inclined to contact them, you probably wouldn’t have much trouble. (These are not your boilerplate testimonials signed by “Rebecca H., Tucson, AZ.” How would you ever find that person to see if their passion was true?)
4. Blah, blah, blah. The rest of the magazine – which I really do like, but isn’t anywhere near as compelling for me as numbers 1-3.

So here’s my thing about Southwest’s approach. It’s deliberate to the point of being relentless, and that’s what it takes to be successful with anything. You can’t just expect good accounting, marketing, customer service or sales practices to evolve, you have to be deliberate and relentless in your implementation and follow up.

None of these disciplines has a “check the box and it’s done” approach to success. Each of them requires daily attention to the details.

It’s the same with culture (and internal communications); you can’t just say, “This is what I want” and expect it to happen. Developing the type of corporate culture you want requires a deliberate, concerted and relentless effort daily. Otherwise, what will develop is a kind of ad hoc, whomever-speaks-the-loudest-or-longest kind of culture – it won’t be carried through the organization with any degree of success because you’ll always be starting over.

You have to live it all day, every day. Lather, rinse, repeat.

I like Southwest founder Herb Kelleher’s quote (that’s why I use it every third sentence!) about culture:

“Culture is one of the most precious things a company has, so you must work harder on it than anything else.”

It’s important to remember that it does require effort; it doesn’t just happen.

There’s an old axiom in sales – besides Blake’s ABCs from Glengarry Glen Ross – that in order to get the sale, you must ask for the sale. The same thing holds true in other facets of business: If there’s a specific outcome desired, you must ask for it.

What kind of culture do you want? Be deliberate. Be relentless.

By the way, did you see what voters in New Hampshire did? They elected a female governor, two female congresswomen and two female senators (the first all-female congressional delegation from any state). That’s cool.

Talk about a deliberate culture change!

You don't have to swing for the fences, just keep swinging

Most of my posts have to do with corporate culture, communications, employee engagement and their relationship to workplace enjoyment and success. Go figure; I guess that’s what you’d expect from a corporate communicator. Sometimes, though, it feels like Groundhog Day.

In that movie, Bill Murray is weatherman Phil Connors. He’s sent to Punxsutawney to cover the Groundhog Day festivities, but wakes up day after day at the same time doing the same things over and over – covering the festivities, interacting with the same people and so on. After what seems like a hundred repeats of the same day with variations, he realizes that he’s getting these chances to relive the day until he gets it right.

I think maybe that’s why I keep hacking away at it – I want to keep after it until we get it right. “Keep chopping wood” as they say.

As I was watching the World Series this year, it struck me that the San Francisco Giants, like they did in 2010 when they last won the World Series, had something companies can emulate for success: Full buy-in from their employees/players on what it takes to be successful. Good pitching and defense, and making contact at the plate not only served these guys well in the post season, but it was enough to shut down one of the best hitting teams in MLB. (Detroit was third in the AL during the regular season.)

The Giants didn’t have the star power of the Yankees or the Tigers. And while Buster Posey is no slouch, having led the NL in batting average, he’s not a household name like A-Rod, Jeter, Prince or Miguel Cabrera, the Triple Crown winner this year.

But it doesn’t have to be about star power, you just have to have everyone on board with the plan. Marco Scutaro, a nice player who’s had a nice career, was the epitome of the Giants approach at the plate. Scutaro was traded to the Giants at the end of July and in 179 plate appearances he swung and missed only nine times. Nine times! In his 736 plate appearances this season, he swung and missed only 62 times. Wow!

Scutaro was easily the catalyst in the Giants 3-game surge against the Cardinals in the NLCS. Not a home run hitter, Marco-put-it-in-play-Scutaro.

It doesn’t take superstars to achieve your goals, it just takes everyone acting like a team, striving toward the same goals, watching each other’s backs, picking each other up when we fall short and not getting caught up in “what’s in it for me.”

You see, when you get that buy-in, there’s something in it for everyone. A better workplace, goal achievement, happy bosses and career opportunities are all by-products of pulling together for the good of the team.

It’s easy to lose sight of big goals sometimes because we want to have personal successes and be recognized for individual achievements, that’s human nature. But if you’re doing it right – playing as a team – people get the credit they’re due and everyone benefits.

So think about these Giants (and the 2010 team), even if you’re a Dodgers fan, and think about how you can contribute to the organization and the greater good for your teammates. You may even get your own Groundhog Day experience and find success again and again.

The Giants did.

P.S. For more on ways to incorporate Giants culture, check this out.

Culture & communication define who you are

I was in Seattle last week for Ragan’s 4^th Annual Employee Communications, PR and Social Media Summit. They always have great companies at their events – SAS, Best Buy, Disney, Microsoft, and bunch more you’ve heard of (and some you haven’t). Southwest Airlines is another frequent partner, although they were not at this one.

I flew Southwest from Nashville into Seattle – I always fly Southwest, unless there is no other option. In my opinion they’re the best, and second place isn’t even close. One of the things I enjoy when I fly is reading CEO Gary Kelly’s article in Spirit Magazine. Almost without fail he talks about the importance of Culture (they capitalize the “C” to emphasize its importance) at Southwest and how much attention they pay to their Culture throughout the company. Everyone owns it.

Herb Kelleher, the guy who founded Southwest and its original CEO, is actually the author of one of my favorite business quotes. He said, “Culture is one of the most precious things a company has, so you must work harder on it than anything else.” I agree on both counts. Without a strong culture, nobody – employees or customers – knows what you stand for or who you are. I also agree that it is hard work to maintain and protect culture. It’s up to everyone in the organization to be vigilant and make sure the standards are upheld and that the organization as a whole walks the talk.

That’s right; you have to work on it. Makes sense, doesn’t it? Is there any other facet of business that develops the way you want it to without putting forth a lot of effort? Of course there isn’t – they all require deliberate, intense effort to make sure they reflect the business you want. Corporate culture is no exception.

Each of the sessions I attended last week talked at length about “culture this” and “culture that” when they describe the necessity of developing an effective internal communications (IC) program. In fact, I’d be willing to make the case that an effective IC function IS the organization’s culture. When you have a culture of good internal communication, the company and the employees thrive.

You know what these companies (and a rapidly-growing number of smaller organizations) have in common? They all have dedicated internal communications people. It makes sense. What if you gave secondary responsibilities to other departments in the organization? Can you imagine marketing also having responsibility for accounts payable or receivable? Or accounting handling SEO and customer acquisition strategy? How about the folks in content cold calling in their spare time? Of course not. So if you believe internal communications to be an important part of your organization, it has to be a primary responsibility or it just won’t be a priority at all.

Best Buy spent over $200K on their internal social tool so that employees could communicate more freely. SAS has a dedicated Internal Communications team that includes a Senior Director, three team members on Social Media & Technology, six managing editors, an International Liaison and an Administrative Assistant. And Microsoft’s Frank X. Shaw, CVP of Corporate Communications has enough clout to speak on behalf of the company on Facebook when TechCrunch blasted them.

Corporate culture and internal communications are inextricably tied – they are who and what an organization is. They define the personality and behavior of the organization from top to bottom, bottom to top, and side to side. And neither one of them just happens – they both take work.

Think about it: When something goes wrong – either personal or professional – doesn’t it oftentimes come down to a “miscommunication?” So if an organization is able to create an effective, reliable IC program, doesn’t it stand to reason that it’s something they work at? Of course it does, it’s what defines them and differentiates them to their employees and customers alike.

Take Southwest for example. Doesn’t it look like the kind of company you’d like to work for? They look like they’re having a blast most of the time – really enjoying their work. The company obviously appreciates their Employees (they capitalize the “E” in employee too), emphasizes their importance and expects that the caring will be passed on to the customer – it works! It’s because of the importance they place on culture and communication.

Another presence at the Ragan conference last week was companies who, like Southwest, appear on Fortune’s 100 Best Places to Work list. And you know what they all have in common? Emphasis on corporate culture and the importance of good internal communications.

Not one of those companies said they just let it happen; they make a concerted, deliberate effort to develop and nurture the culture they want – and it takes everyone in the organization to make it happen.

Like I used to tell my ballplayers, “Play the ball before the ball plays you.” It’s the same thing with internal communications and corporate culture: set the tone before a bad tone gets set. Do your part – it takes work and it’s everyone’s responsibility to make it happen.

Very interesting/encouraging infographic about freelancing from Ed Gandia.
 

Good Internal Communications is a High Percentage Play

Merriam-Webster online defines logistics as “the handling of the details of an operation.”

UPS has a new commercial out now that I really love (of course it’s sports related), that features the Doug Flutie Hail Mary against the Miami Hurricanes back in 1984. And while that was a spectacular play, UPS’ use of it to describe and define what logistics means to them is brilliant. Strategy, teamwork, and execution … “That’s logistics. And that is what we do.” That’s a little different than Merriam-Webster.

Defining Internal Communications (IC) is a little trickier; Merriam-Webster doesn’t have an entry online and if you Google it, you get about 46,900,000 results (in 0.37 seconds no less!). Since this is my post, I thought I’d give you my definition of IC: Yes, IC is about encouraging communication – interpersonal, interdepartmental, vertical and horizontal – but it’s not just conversations, it’s about finding ways for the organization to do those things better. It’s about maximizing organizational effectiveness.

The best companies – and people too – are always looking for ways to improve: Ways to improve the bottom line/salary; ways to improve processes/methods; ways to become more efficient/ better time managers, and especially ways to reduce frustration. That last one applies equally to companies and individuals because nothing stifles productivity, creativity, innovation, and motivation like frustration.

That’s where an effective IC function can play a vital role in an organization. Internal communicators are constantly on the lookout for ways to improve the workplace and reduce frustration.

In The Enemy of Engagement: Put an End to Workplace Frustration – and Get the Most from Your Employees, Mark Royal and Tom Agnew define that enemy as frustration. To overcome that frustration, they outline the necessity of providing the tools to do the job properly and making sure good employees are put in position to make their greatest contributions.

It is through effective internal communications that organizations are able to uncover where the frustrations lie. Exposing those frustrations and finding solutions is at the heart of IC, because ultimately internal communications is about maximizing organizational effectiveness. And one of the keys to employee engagement is effective internal communications.

Accounting is busy handling receivables and payables. Marketing is busy trying to figure out the best way to find and target new customers. Sales focuses on closing that next deal. Content producers strive to present the newest and best information. Customer Service stands on the front lines making sure customer satisfaction remains high. New Product Development looks for the newest way to serve existing customers while also trying to attract new ones. And Human Resources tries to keep their heads above water with benefits, regulations, counseling, complaints, and maybe most important of all employee satisfaction.

Because all these people are busy with their “day jobs,” internal communicators can focus on the internal and external forces that stand in the way of people getting those jobs done to the best of their ability. The day job of internal communications is finding and eliminating frustrations and barriers to organizational success and improving the flow of information throughout the organization.

I was on site in Connecticut last week, and noticed two employees standing in an open, newly vacant area chatting. One was holding a bowl of cereal and the other was holding a cup of coffee. It struck me that an ideal complement to that area would be several high-top tables where people could gather and chat – it’s those drive-by meetings that are gold mines for companies. We should encourage impromptu employee gatherings where camaraderie is built and ideas are shared.

You see it’s not just about the communication itself, it’s about what we can do to make the organization communicate better. High-top tables, internal communication? Yep.

Here’s the kicker: There is no downside to striving toward a culture of effective, open communication – it truly is an everyone-wins proposition. The cost is low, the returns are high, people stay informed, collaboration increases, innovation soars and everybody wins.

And here’s another thing, and I’ve said this over and over, but the numbers don’t lie: Organizations with effective internal communications have higher employee engagement. Higher employee engagement leads to higher productivity and higher profit margins. That’s not opinion, it’s fact and there is a mountain of quantifiable research and empirical evidence to back it up.

So, since higher profitability and higher profit margins is the reason we’re here, why not make effective internal communications a priority.

However you define it, you can’t deny the effectiveness of good internal communications.

Just Say It!

I love to laugh more than just about anything, so I’m a dedicated reader of the daily comics in the newspaper. Yeah, I’m one of the last old timers still getting the paper delivered, but it helps me get my day started off on the right foot.

Now I don’t sit there in a loud guffaw (usually), but a good chuckle can be had on most days and that seems like a good way to start my day. Dilbert’s a good stand-by if all the others don’t come through for me, and Tuesday’s (Sept. 28, 2012) Dilbert was particularly timely.

The Dilbert characters Ratbert and Bob the Dinosaur are sitting at a table:

Ratbert: Let’s talk like idiots.
Bob: Ha ha! You go first!

Ratbert: Slap lipstick on the pig, put a stake in the ground, and view it from 30,000 feet.
Bob: That deliverable is actionable.

Ratbert: Wait … why do I suddenly feel like hiring you?
Bob: And why do I feel underpaid?

I wouldn't characterize it as idiot talk, but if you work anywhere near a corporate-type setting, you know how hilarious that is. If you don’t, you should read Get Fuzzy – those guys are usually good for a smile first thing in the morning too.

There’s been much written and said in the communications field recently about cutting jargon from messages and just saying what you mean, and this strip hit the nail right on the head. The funny thing about jargon is how quickly it seems to catch on.

When was the last time you heard someone talk about “low-hanging fruit” when they meant “the easy stuff?” And how about “space” when they mean “job” or “industry?” The first time I heard someone say, “How long have you been in that space?” I had no idea what they were talking about.

“Solutions” is another popular one. Like, “We’re your corporate printing solutions provider.” What does that mean? Are you a traditional printer? Are you in the copier business?

And the ever-popular, “At the end of the day,” which has many meanings including “When this project is done.” But according to the Office Life’s Ridiculous Business Jargon Dictionary it really means “The speaker would like you to know that he has a profound understanding about what is important and what is not.” Hmm, better watch usage of that one.

Everybody nowadays seems to provide solutions in their space. It’d be cool if they just did their job and provided products and/or services, wouldn’t it?

Of all of that jargon though, the one I like least is “smartest person in the room.” Like the others, it isn’t completely clear, and may oftentimes be a person’s opinion of themselves. In my experience, it’s usually said about someone who’s forceful, opinionated, typically inflexible and oftentimes overbearing – all of which would disqualify this person from smartest if you asked me. I'd say the smart ones are usually inquisitive, open-minded, willing to learn, and value input and feedback.

You’ve probably heard the old saying that, “Two heads are better than one,” right? Unlike corporate jargon/garbage/clutter, old sayings are old sayings for a reason: More often than not, they’re accurate, clear and true! This old saying is especially true when it comes to the smartest person in the room because that person definitely needs more input and feedback.

George Bernard Shaw said, “The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.” Good communication is ongoing, clear and to the point.

Don’t let your message get confused because you got caught up in jargon. If you have something to say, just say it. Your audience will be clear about what you mean, and you’ll be free from the bondage of confusion and misunderstanding. It may make YOU the smartest person in the room.

Good Communication: It's Personal

I was listening to sports talk radio the other day (shocking, huh?), and Vanderbilt football coach James Franklin called in unexpectedly. This guy is one charismatic son of a gun. After listening to him, you’re hard-pressed to not like him – he’s one of the most positive, upbeat people you’ll ever hear – especially for a football coach. His enthusiasm is contagious.

He was talking about a lot of things related to his program, including how important it is for the Nashville community to rally around the Commodores. He made a case that a successful Vandy football program benefits the community as a whole. I was ready to buy season tickets by the time he was done!

For me though, the most impactful thing he had to say was about the importance of trust for his program to be successful: Trust between the coaches, trust between the players, and trust between the coaches and players.

And they go to great lengths to develop a culture that fosters what they’re trying to do as a program. They are deliberate in their transparency, their honesty, their development of relationships, and their openness to opinions and suggestions from players and coaches alike. Coach Franklin says those things are absolutely necessary for his people to function as a team and to be successful.

Aren’t those the same things that make all organizations sustainably successful? Why don’t more organizations do a better job emulating success?

We spend a lot of time talking about “best practices.” But what are best practices except tried and true methods others have used successfully? They all had a starting point, didn’t they? Someone, somewhere said, “What if we try this?” and it worked. Boom! New “Best Practice.”

It’s no different with good communications – internal, interdepartmental, external – there are plenty of accepted best practices that work great. But what they all require – all best practices – is the buy-in and participation of everyone in the organization.

Good internal communication doesn’t come “one size fits all.” It’s customized so that there are elements that fit no matter your communication style. Everyone isn’t comfortable with the same things: Some people are outgoing, while others are more reserved – they need different ways to give and receive information of all kinds.

I’ve talked a lot about the importance of good communication and how it’s imperative that it be a two-way, give and take relationship. Don’t be confined by the perceptions of others regarding the “right” way to communicate – do what you’re comfortable doing.

I’ve often said that the best wine and cigars are the ones you like best – not what someone else likes best. I believe the same about good communication: The best method is the one that works best for each individual, not necessarily what works best for me.

Here’s the thing though: It’s only going to be as good as we all make it. We have to participate, get involved and do our part –deliberately – to make good communication a reality.

Sydney Smith is credited with saying, “It is the greatest of all mistakes to do nothing because you can only do little – do what you can.” And Edmund Burke said, "Nobody made a greater mistake than he who did nothing because he could only do a little."

They are eerily similar, but I thought the sentiment was worth repeating.

Good internal communication, and the trust that it can develop, is important to all organizations – especially those with growth on their minds. Do what you can, even if it’s only a little.

Do The Things We Want To Do

My mom tells a story about how I came up to her when I was about 15 years old and asked her if they’d let me adopt when I got old enough. She said, “I don’t know. Why?” And I replied, “Well, I don’t want to get married, but I do want to have kids.” I don’t remember that exchange at all, but for as long as I can remember I wanted to have kids.

Well, I did get married a little over 23 years ago, and my wife and I have two boys – Tyler’s 18 and Sam is 15. Like most families, there have been rough spots here and there, but I can say I have enjoyed parenthood WAY more than I thought I would – and like I said, I was really looking forward to it.

One of the most frustrating things about parenting though is that your kids can’t learn from your mistakes; they have to make their own. The best we can hope for is that we raise them right, give them a good moral compass and hope they follow the right path. That sucks.

I remember when I was 18 (a looong time ago). It was great to know everything do only what I wanted to do (well, almost), and live the bullet-proof life that was my birthright. I also remember how much smarter I was than my parents. “No way that could happen.” Of course it usually did – I always learned things the hard way.

My 18-year old is still under the youthful illusion that he shouldn’t have to do anything he doesn’t want to do, that any inquiry is an interrogation, and household rules are prison-like. I’m pretty confident that he’ll see the light eventually – most of us do.

So, Tyler’s getting ready to move out, Sam just had a birthday and I’m getting ready to have another birthday. They’re growing up – I didn’t want that to happen so quickly. But those three things got me thinking about what age does to our thought processes. (I haven’t had one of those birthdays that smacked me between the eyes, so this wasn’t like some “come to Jesus” revelation moment – just contemplative).

I thought especially about the idea that when we were young we oftentimes didn’t do things we didn’t want to do. Now we do things all the time that we don’t want to do – that’s part of being an adult and having responsibility.

What about doing the things we DO want to do? Why don’t we do more of those things? I’m not just talking about Bucket List-type stuff – although you should make time for those things too. I’m talking about personal stuff and even work stuff that we want to do but choose not do for one reason or another. Maybe it’s because even though you want to do something and know it’s the right thing to do, it’s a new direction or departure from the norm that might be a little uncomfortable.

Grey beards like me know that the only way to get comfortable with something uncomfortable is to do it. And it takes repetition to get comfortable doing new things.

We’ve been talking for the last 16 months about creating a culture of open communication, and I don’t recall anyone saying that it would be a bad thing. In fact, just about everyone seems to be in agreement that it’s a great ideal to shoot for. Unfortunately it doesn’t seem to be getting embraced the way you might think it be, and the only reason I can come up with is that it’s new, a little uncomfortable and maybe everyone’s waiting for someone else to go first.

Doing things we want to do is sometimes times harder than doing the things we don’t want to do. Open communication and the culture change that accompanies it is not easy, and there will inevitably be bumps along the way – there always is with change. Change is a dynamic evolution for an organization and it requires the participation of everyone to become reality.

A culture of open communication is an absolute necessity if organizations in today’s world are going to be successful. I read an article today that said by 2015 36% of the workforce is going to be comprised of millennials, and they are going to demand open communication in the workplace – and it won’t be long before they’re in a position to do just that.

I’m going to keep trying to coach my boys through the pitfalls and hoping they learn to do more of the things they don’t want to do. And I’ll keep trying to advance the culture of open communication. Experience tells me both of those things will lead to much smoother paths in the future.

Three Important Factors of Team Success

My 15U baseball team had a tournament last week in which we played pretty well through the first three games – we were 2-1, but really should’ve won the other one too. The temperatures in Nashville those days were 105 and 107 degrees! By the third day – the 109 degree day – we started to show some signs of wilting.

We had a manpower problem though – only nine of our 12 players were available for the tournament. And while that would normally be a challenge in a tournament anyway, it was especially challenging with those temperatures because we had no way of providing anyone downtime during the games.

Another problem that arises when you’re shorthanded is that you can’t always put your best people in their best positions – you have to do the best you can with the numbers you have. If you’re only playing a game or two, you can get by with a skeleton crew, but when your task is large, you need all hands on deck.

Needless to say, the combination of being shorthanded, ridiculous temperatures, and playing guys out of position was our undoing: We made it into tournament play, but then lost our first game. I think those things ultimately had an impact on our guys psyche too – when mistakes break your spirit early, it’s hard to recover.

It got me thinking about organizational teams and the importance of those three conditions in business:

• ·    Manpower: Proper staffing levels are critical. When people have more on their plates than they can handle, they tend to achieve acceptable, not excellent.
• ·    Good working conditions: This applies not only to workplace comfort and tools, but not having hostile working conditions either. As with team sports, encouragement oftentimes goes a lot farther that criticism, and having the necessary tools and conditions to perform is imperative.
• ·    Maximize talent: Let people do what they do best. I believe in a well-rounded player/worker who knows how the pieces work together to produce the whole. But I also believe everyone should play to their strengths – it benefits the team and the organization as a whole when well-rounded teams have experts doing what they do best.

These components are essential to success whether on the playing field or in the office. Teams and organizations can flourish or flounder in much the same way.

When you have a well-rounded, fully-staffed team, you get better input and therefore better output. You have the ability to give and get specialized thinking, unique perspectives, and hopefully more spirited discussion and better all-around group thinking.

More participation. More diversity. Better end results.

Confidence v. Arrogance - There IS a Difference

I’ve been coaching baseball for about 13 years – age groups from 4-year olds to 15-year olds – and I’ve come to appreciate a certain amount of confidence and cockiness in a player. It’s probably because with that oftentimes comes some sharp, sarcastic wit – and I LOVE that, even in kids.

I had a player about six or seven years ago who I love to talk about to this day. He played shortstop for me and he was our closer (the pitcher who comes in at the end of the games to preserve a win). I can’t tell you how many times I brought him into a game in a really tight situation – bases loaded, no outs, bottom of the last inning up by one. Yeah. Uncomfortable.

Matt didn’t care one bit – he knew he was capable of handling the situation and relished the opportunity to test himself. I don’t recall a time he didn’t succeed although I’m sure over the years there were some. But he delivered in the clutch consistently and always with a smile.

He was a big time travel hockey guy too, and he played baseball like a hockey player – 1000% everything, all the time. He was sharp as a tack – always with the snappy comeback and that twinkle in his eye. It was never disrespectful, but usually just a little left of center. Cocky and confident. He was also respectful to his teammates, and they willingly recognized him as a leader on the team, and had confidence in his ability to lead.

I had another player some years later who also had very promising skills on the field – especially at the plate. This guy could flat out hit. He also had a great deal of confidence in himself on the mound. And while he didn’t get the same consistent results as Matt, it didn’t seem to affect his image of self.

The difference between the second player and the first player is that the second player crossed the cocky/confident line to arrogance. He had a belief that he was better than those around him – including his teammates. That’s hard to coach, and hard to incorporate into a team setting. And because of his arrogance, he didn’t have the respect of his teammates.

On the other side of that fine line past cocky and confident where arrogance starts, it’s hard to communicate and collaborate too. And I don’t know anyone who relishes arrogance as a trait to admire, but I really loathe any kind of condescension – especially arrogance. Arrogant people seem to have a belief that the rules of comportment – in business and in their personal lives – don’t apply to them; that they are somehow above it all.

For me the difference between cocky and confident, and arrogant is this: Cocky and confident means I believe in myself. Arrogant means I believe I’m better than you.

I know that not everyone is comfortable with cocky, but there is a certain amount of self confidence that is necessary to be successful in life and in business. It’s the inner voice that says, “Bring on the challenge. I’m ready to test myself and make myself better. I can do this.” There’s a belief in yourself, and there’s a willingness and eagerness to continuously learn and improve yourself as a person.

On the flip side of that, I’d argue that arrogance stands in the way of progress because the arrogant person oftentimes doesn’t believe that improvement is necessary – he may even believe that improvement isn’t possible; I don’t know. What I do know is that no matter who you are there is always an opportunity to learn, and there is always someone who knows something you don’t know. Yes, there is always someone smarter than you.

Effective leaders, and those who wish to become effective leaders understand the concept of lifelong learning both personally and professionally. They have the self-confidence to be open to learning; the self confidence to admit they don’t know everything, and the willingness to learn from those around them – even those in subordinate roles.

Self confidence and a healthy belief in yourself is great. Arrogance and condescension may work for a while, but you’ll never truly have allies to help you succeed in life or business. Effective leaders not only have confidence (some with a dash of cocky), they also have another necessary ingredient – committed followers.

Satisfaction is Good, Engagement is Great

I was at my youngest son’s high school baseball game last night, and my wife and I chose to sit in seats that were somewhat away from the other parents on the team. We chose the spot not to be antisocial, but so that we could have a fuller view of the entire field – we hate obstructed-view seats!

After we’d been there for a while one of the other dads came over and sat down next to me and said, “Man, I wish I’d waited until you guys got here ‘cause I got my chair in the wrong place, and I don’t wanna be rude and move now. They’re all over there talking non-stop, and none of it’s about baseball; not even this game.”

It got me thinking about the difference between satisfaction and engagement (Yeah, I know. I can’t help it.)

You see those folks sitting over there talking were very happy to be at the game and socialize – and maybe even miss a play, hit, or pitch. That’s satisfaction.

For my wife (Chaney) and I, and that other dad, we’re happy to be there, and we’re willing to socialize between innings, but we don’t want to miss any of the action on the field. We’re not only there because our kids are playing; we’re also real baseball fans. That’s engagement.

Satisfaction is great and it’s a nice goal for companies to reach for – it means they care about their employees. But engagement is a difference maker. With engagement they’re not only satisfied, they’re giving that extra effort that turns into positive results on the bottom line for their organization.

Employee engagement is all about how the employee feels about the employer, and specifically the extra effort they’re willing to give.

That’s how you determine engagement – with that extra effort – not satisfaction, and that’s why companies with a higher level of engagement outperform those with lower engagement (or worse, disengagement).

The key with engagement is the reciprocal relationship between the two: What extra effort is the employer willing to give in return? If employees don’t have that connection with the employer, there’s virtually no chance for engagement.

That’s where managers come in.

Managers at all levels play a very important role in the engagement equation because they are the ones with whom employees (direct reports) have the most contact – to many employees their manager IS the company.

Good managers are in tune with their people and know how to motivate each of them individually. If they’re effective, that can lead to engagement and the extra effort that comes with it. The payback for managers is better personnel development, better unit performance and better company performance – it’s a can’t lose proposition.

It’s good to have satisfied employees. It’s great to have engaged employees.

If you want to improve yourself as a manager, ask yourself this question: Are my people there to socialize, or are they there to watch the game?

Communication – A Healthy Obsession

I have a tendency to be a little OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder). My wife would probably tell you it’s more than a little, and I have friends who would probably say that I’m just anal.

Whatever you want to call it, I admit that I have some idiosyncrasies – and sometimes they even bother me. I’ll see something “out of place” or think about something that needs to be done and I can’t concentrate on the next thing until I go fix whatever it was that was “out of place” or that needs to be done.

Why does that insignificant little thing matter to me? It’s not that important, so why can’t I stop thinking about it until I set it straight (at least “straight” to my way of thinking – which my wife will also tell you isn’t the way others think)? It really can be disconcerting sometimes.

I’m not like that about everything. Is there such a thing as Selective OCD? And it’s really not the kind of thing that you’d notice about me if you don’t know me well and spend significant time with me. It doesn’t alter my activities of daily living – it’s not debilitating. It’s just kind of a hassle sometimes.

O.K, so why have I bared my soul? Because there’s something out of place, something that needs to be done and my OCD nature won’t let it go.

Corporate communications, specifically internal communications can be very frustrating because the messages are designed to promote a culture of collaboration and dialog, but getting participation in a traditional workplace can be like pulling teeth. Turning the words into action requires participation from others.

Turning words into action requires partnership with others – you can’t do it alone.

One of the main barriers to open communication in organizations is trust. People don’t trust that you can really speak your mind and not get smacked around (figuratively, of course) for it. I’m not talking about bitching; nobody wants to hear that all the time. And complaining is different than expressing yourself about real problems – we all know how to tell one from the other.

I’m talking about honest, constructive communication – real dialog.

In the open-communication workplace, offering opinions, disagreeing with a point of view, or standing up for your opinions when someone higher in the pecking order seemingly shoots you down are not only the norm, they’re expected.

Another trust factor is related to job security. It seems people may be unwilling to share what they know for fear that if others know it’ll make them expendable. That’s a huge problem because the only way to improve is to share knowledge –that’s how products and processes improve.

Front line employees like sales and customer service have regular contact with those using the products and oftentimes get feedback about what’s good or bad, and what works and what doesn’t. They have to be willing to share what they learn so that those producing the products aren’t spinning their wheels on unnecessary things.

And those working on the products need to be willing to listen to the feedback so that they’re hitting that sweet spot for the customers. In fact, everyone should not only be willing, they should be eager.

The only way an organization can move forward to open communication is if there is a willingness on everyone’s part to take that leap of faith. Mutual respect and, wait for it, treating others the way you want to be treated are absolutely essential. (Hmm, I may have used that line before.)

Real communication isn’t pushed from the top down, it’s shared top down, bottom up, and side to side. Make information sharing and collaboration your obsession – you’ll be better for it, and so will your co-workers.

Silos Kill This Big 3!

Silos are great if you’re a farmer protecting grain. Silos are horrible if you’re an organization trying to adapt and grow.

In agriculture, silos are those big cylindrical vertical tubes that are used to keep the good stuff, like grain and corn, in and the bad stuff, like rain and critters, out. In business, silos keep information apportioned so that one part of an organization doesn’t know what’s going on in the other parts – even when they’re interdependent!

In business, silos are what prevent organizations from doing their best and being their most productive. In fact, according to the Harvard Business Review, CEOs site silos as the number one killer of innovation. And the worst part is that oftentimes people can feel protective of information. As if others won’t know what to do if they are trusted with the same knowledge – this is the kind of environment where trust struggles to survive.

Tearing down silos fosters trust, communication and teamwork.

1. Trust is built because we know what’s going on. We can see that our coworkers aren’t out to get us, and they can handle the knowledge sharing.
2. Communication is enhanced when we do a better job of sharing information. Again this has to be horizontally and vertically, flowing back and forth – top to bottom, bottom to top, side to side.
3. Teamwork happens seamlessly when we employ trust and communication because we’re able to develop better working relationships – across departments and across locations. We do better work – and work together better – when we know people have our best interest at heart.

In any organization – even in our own homes – silos create dysfunction. People need to know what’s going on so they can make good, informed decisions. What happens when the right hand doesn’t know what the left hand is doing? It’s not uncommon for them to not only head off in different, but conflicting directions working against each other.

In a company where one of the stated strategies for employee growth is innovation, tearing down silos is absolutely critical. When you consider that no individual or department can function without the functioning from another department, it only makes sense that they should share information as freely and openly as they possibly can.

I got this from the HBR Blog Network:

"It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defender in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarm-ness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor, and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who does not truly believe in anything new until they have had experience of it."

You know who said that? Niccolo Machiavelli, in 1533 – yeah, THAT Machiavelli. 500 years ago! He's describing the culture of a siloed organization - afraid of different, afraid of change.

Here’s how The Leadership Freak describes silos and what to do about them:

Organizational silos:

1. Grow inward like incestuous families.
2. Isolate talent.
3. Hoard resources.
4. Slow progress.
5. Dampen enthusiasm.
6. Create paranoia.
7. Act in self-protective ways that damage others.
8. Don’t network.
9. Focus on individual good rather than organizational good.
10. Win when others lose.

Bonus: Silos resist change.

Silo Breakers:

Silo-breaking is painful and slow but can be done.

1. Form a clear picture of your organization without silos.
2. Define specific behaviors that enhance collaboration and break silos.
3. Hold cross-department planning meetings. Let them see the “enemy.”
4. Embrace decision-making by participants not isolated bosses.
5. Tell stories that honor collaboration and illustrate silo-breaking.
6. Reward teams and teamwork.
7. Develop leadership skills and attitudes that enhance collaboration.
8. Measure performance in terms of teams.
9. Seek best solutions regardless of the source.
10. Establish inclusive rather than exclusive systems.

Bonus: Embrace maximum transparency and information sharing.


Silos are slow, cumbersome, and destructive. Organizations with silos may win battles but eventually they collapse inward and lose the war.

Here’s the organizational imperative: The key to breaking down silos and building trust is transparency and open communication. For organizations to thrive in the future, information must flow freely vertically and horizontally.

What's Your Recipe for Success?

Here’s a good story from Ian Harris of RockstarComms in London:

In 1952 Colonel Sanders ran his own restaurant in Corbin, Kentucky. It was doing well, but one day he heard about plans for a new highway that would bypass the town of Corbin.

Seeing that his business was about to evaporate, he sold the restaurant and began driving around the United States, trying to license his chicken recipe to restaurant owners.

The Colonel would walk into a restaurant, and issue a challenge to the owner: "I bet my chicken recipe is better than yours."

He'd propose a cook-off, and if the owner liked his chicken recipe, he'd franchise it to them at 5 cents per chicken.

The Colonel visited over 1,000 restaurants. Each one turned him down. He didn't have one successful deal.

Then one day, a bar owner tried his chicken and explained to him: "Look, I'm trying to sell beer, not chicken. You need to make this saltier so customers will get thirsty and buy beer!"

The bar owner grabbed some salt, and took another bite. "THAT'S more like it" he said. "Just add salt to this recipe, and I'll take it!"

The Colonel took a bite himself. It tasted terrible! But that was because he'd been on a salt-free diet for 30 years. His tastes were obviously different to everyone else's.

The Colonel wasn't stupid. Although he didn't like salt, it was better than starving - and so began the Colonel's enormously successful Kentucky Fried Chicken legacy.

At one time, if you bought a box of Kentucky Fried Chicken, it said on the side: "When Colonel Sanders added the 11^th spice, he instantly knew it was the best chicken he'd ever had."

Of course they didn't tell you what spice it was.

There are three lessons you can take from this:
1) Colonel Sanders could have visited 1,000 MORE restaurant owners, driven his car into the ground, and still had nothing to show for it, had he not been willing to change his recipe.
2) Although the recipe he so passionately believed in was the best recipe for his taste buds, it was NOT the recipe that his customers really wanted. Without a recipe that the customers wanted, no amount of effort or persistence would make it work.
3) The “magic ingredient” was ordinary table salt.

I’d say there are a few more good lessons:

1. We need to keep our minds open to change. Consider the possibility that sometimes change for the sake of change is a good thing, but change for the sake of improvement is always good.
2. For innovation and new product development to drive the company into the future, the company has to make sure new products are what the customer really wants – not just what we think they want. Our focus on customer feedback should drive our efforts.
3. Sometimes the answers are right in front of us. Let’s be willing to get feedback, provide feedback and engage in constructive conflict. Conflict isn’t a bad thing unless it’s threatening. We should be willing to disagree with one another – constructive conflict should be stimulating, not threatening.

Unlike KFC, where protecting the secret of the ingredients is part of the culture, transparency and a culture of open communication are key ingredients for growth and success.

Leadership Lessons from "Gladiator"

"My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next."

What a great line!

That one, and "At my signal, unleash hell" – both from Gladiator – are two of my favorite movie lines ever (of course I probably have in excess of 100 "favorites").

I think it must be a guy thing this watching movies over and over, but I watch Gladiator every time it comes on – and I own it on DVD! I do that with a lot of movies, many of which I also own. I know a lot of guys who do that. A friend of mine watches Roadhouse every time it’s on. Not sure what to make of that.

Anyway, Gladiator was on the other night and I stumbled across it while channel surfing. While I was watching it this time I was struck by the leadership lessons taught from the very beginning of the movie all the way to the end.

Maximus, Russell Crowe’s character, is “Rome’s greatest general” and it’s apparent from the outset that he has the love and respect of his men. They identify with him, and appreciate his camaraderie while still understanding that he’s the boss.

On the flip side is Commodus, played by Joaquin Phoenix, who murdered his father and assumed the title of Caesar which was strictly against his father’s wishes. Commodus also clearly conveys that he’s the boss, but through a brutal and ruthless display. Needless to say, Commodus engenders none of the respect and admiration that Maximus has.

Many leaders in business today are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of employee involvement, but effective leaders that engender the loyalty of their workers is not a new concept. Neither is the Commodus-style of leadership.

The difference between the two is what their followers are willing to give. Or not give.

The Maximus-style leader gets not only the respect and admiration of his workers, he also gets their discretionary effort – they go the extra mile to ensure that this leader is successful. They are willing to “go to battle” with him.

The followers of the Maximus leader know what’s expected of them and they are willing to do what it takes to give even more. They know that when this leader is successful, they will all share in the spoils – they derive satisfaction in seeing this leader succeed and they know that they too will succeed.

The Commodus-style leader can get results too. But unlike the Maximus leader, this leader does not get any extra/discretionary effort from his people. They give to the level of expectation and nothing more. They oftentimes will withhold that “little bit extra” even when it would cause them no hardship to move the effort from good to great.

The Commodus leader isn’t interested in getting buy-in or feedback. Like a parent disciplining a child, this leader expects things to get done “because I said so.” And workers who report to this leader often respond like children – they give the bare minimum in return.

Organizations today need everything they can get from their workforce to compete.

Today’s business climate is increasingly challenging and in order to ensure long-term, sustainable success for their organizations good leaders must have the commitment of their people – their minds and their hearts.

If organizations are going to win, they need their “troops” aligned with their strategy, willing to give whatever it takes to be successful, and ready to “unleash hell” on their competition.

Give and Take, Quid Pro Quo - Do Your Part

Google employee engagement and you get millions of results – I got about 6.5 million initially. Employee Engagement isn’t a new concept, but it’s a topic that’s been leading the business news cycle for an unbelievably long time given the speed with which stuff moves in and out of the short-attention-span psyche these days.

According to Aon Hewitt, high (employee) engagement firms had total shareholder value that was 19% higher than average in 2009. In low-engagement organizations, total shareholder value was actually 44% below average. For those data geeks, it’s not just these guys; there is a ton of research out there to back this up.

I think a big reason for that is that companies are looking to gain an edge in an improving economic marketplace, and all the research – and there are mountains of it – point to increased profitability with increased engagement. You can attribute some that profitability to reduced turnover, sick time and training, but the real payback for organizations is in increased innovation, customer satisfaction and productivity. The payback for workers? They get to love what they do AND who they do it for.

According to ModernSurvey’s 2012 Spring National Norms Survey conducted last month (March 2012), the two things employees want most are senior leadership’s clear vision of where their organization is going, and the opportunity to personally learn and grow. Remember Maslow’s  Hierarchy of Needs? Take care of the basic needs and then let me grow personally.

The really cool part? The company gets what they want – shareholder return. And the employee gets what they want – self actualization.

O.K., so engagement is great for everyone. What is it?

Within those millions of Google search results, you’ll find many definitions too. In its simplest terms (which is best for me), engagement is employees giving extra effort with the company’s best interest in mind. They work for and think about what’s best for the organization. You know why? Because the organization has demonstrated that they work for and think about what’s best for the employee. Quid pro quo.

Here’s another interesting little tidbit: According to BlessingWhite’s 2011 Employee Engagement Report, executives have a greater potential impact on engagement than manager actions. I touched on that in my last post when Greg Smith torched Goldman on his way out and blamed it on the CEO and the President. But it makes sense, doesn’t it? The tone is set by the big guys, and hopefully their people will follow their example.

A manager can make a tough situation tolerable, or a great situation horrible. But if the executives are promoting a high-engagement organizational culture managers typically follow. Not all the time, but usually.

Here’s another cool by-product of employee engagement emphasis: It IS your culture. So you’re knocking out two birds with one stone. And you know what that stone is, right? Effective communication. Employee engagement and corporate culture are inextricably tied to effective communication because in order to engage and develop that type of organization, you must have transparency – open communication.

I’ve said it before (I’ll probably say it again): Effective, transparent communication is a conversation. That means it flows back and forth, up and down, side to side. If you want the type of organization I’m describing here, do your part and join the conversation.

The Sweet 13

Greg Smith, a 33-year old executive with Goldman Sachs bared his soul to the Wall Street Journal – and the rest of the world – on Wednesday, March 14 in an open letter. In the letter, Smith lamented the organization’s perceived decline in a customer-first culture, and he placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of Goldman’s two top dogs, CEO Lloyd Blankfein and President Gary Cohn.

I found this interesting for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is Smith’s apparent concern for an organization he claims to have loved but could no longer tolerate, much less support.

But the really interesting thing to me is that Smith places the blame directly on the CEO and the president. Nowhere in the letter does he mention his immediate supervisor. That’s interesting because survey after survey, and research paper after research paper all suggest that the single most important influencer to job satisfaction is a worker’s immediate supervisor.

And while I won’t even try to mitigate the impact of the immediate supervisor in most instances, the truth is that the tone is set for the whole organization by those in the C-suite. The workforce looks to the top executives for guidance and to see which behaviors are rewarded and which are punished. What gets rewarded gets done.

Like “What gets measured, gets done,” rewards provide workers feedback that encourages certain types of behavior. Managers need to be mindful of what behaviors they encourage. Encouraging certain behaviors is how you shape a culture – “What you do is so loud I can’t hear what you say” (remember that one?).

There will always be individual managers whose skills need refining or fine-tuning to align with executives – you can’t bat 1.000 all the time when you select your team – but by and large managers will try to emulate the behavior of those in charge.

I’m reading Good Boss, Bad Boss: How To Be The Best … And Learn From The Worst by Robert Sutton. It’s Sutton’s follow up to The No Asshole Rule (one of my favorites – and they should be read in order), and it provides even more insight for bosses and creating effective workplaces. The story about Greg Smith made me think of Sutton’s 11 Commandments for Wise Bosses:

1. Have strong opinions and weakly held beliefs.
2. Do not treat others as if they are idiots.
3. Listen attentively to your people; don’t just pretend to hear what they say.
4. Ask a lot of good questions.
5. Ask others for help and gratefully accept their assistance.
6. Do not hesitate to say, “I don’t know.”
7. Forgive people when they fail, remember the lessons, and teach them to everyone.
8. Fight as if you are right, and listen as if you are wrong.
9. Do not hold grudges after losing an argument. Instead, help the victors implement their ideas with all your might.
10. Know your foibles and flaws, and work with people to correct and compensate for your weaknesses.
11. Express gratitude to your people.

I think I’d add a couple more:

1. Act with integrity
2. Treat EVERYONE with respect

It sounds easy, and intuitively we know it’s right and that it works – we all know the difference between right and wrong, good and bad. Guess we’re back to the Golden Rule again.

I don’t know Lloyd Blankfein or Gary Cohn, but if they are responsible for cultivating the culture Greg Smith describes, I wouldn’t want to work there either. If the executives at your workplace don’t employ Sutton’s 11 Commandments, do your best as a manager to use them with your people anyway.