Zealise Blog

Seal the Deal with Your People!

Despite the gloomy statistics of the employee engagement surveys that indicate such high levels of employee disengagement, there are many companies out there that do not have a problem.

Some of those are organisations that are run on the basis of organisational democracy as promoted by my friend Traci Fenton at Worldblu; businesses that subscribe to the 10 principles of organisational democracy.

Apparently thousands of others "from start-ups to Fortune 500 conglomerates are using Great Game principles to achieve breakthrough results." These principles are rooted in "The Great Game of Business" as developed by Jack Stack and his colleagues at Springfield Remanufacturing Company (SRC). I only learned about this last week, but for those of you who are in the position I was in then, the story makes interesting reading.

With 12 colleagues and $100,000, Stack borrowed $9 million to purchase the failing division of International Harvester. Knowing that traditional management practices were not going to turn around the business in anything like the timescale needed, Stack recognised the need for a bold new way of managing. Accordingly Stack "took the elements of any game (teams, rules, scores, results), applied them to the daunting task of righting SRC" and got his people involved. They came to understand that their daily work does matter and that they could make a difference. As a result remarkable gains were made, and the 89-1 debt equity was reduced to 5-1 in just a few years and other people management issues "dropped precipitously."   

Naturally I relate to this approach, because it coincides with my conviction that any organisation is ultimately a team. This approach thus just delivers a practical means to effect that philosophy, and its initial success and subsequent replication elsewhere proves it works.

Both approaches deliver results that buck the trend (and make you wonder how bad employee engagement survey results would be without such organisations!) They prove, if further proof is needed, that treating people with respect is a fundamental element of sustained success. In light of this you might then question what difference my approach of valuing people would make. If you can achieve such results with greater democracy and "open book management" why would you need to go to the trouble of creating a new administrative process with all that entails?

It is a valid question, but the answer is simple. Valuing your people offers a way to create employee ownership that is fundamentally simple and more attractive than traditional employee share ownership plans (ESOPs.)  It embeds the theory and practice of making people think and act like owners and is irreversible and not subject to the vicissitudes of management changes. Thus you could say it seals the deal - and very effectively.

How fair is your business?

Nobody has ever described life as being fair. Nor is there any obvious reason it should be. Yet we all somehow expect it to be. Why? It would seem that we are all born with some sort of innate sense of justice that demands fairness. From the time we can first talk, we seem to be obsessed by it. Many a playground dispute starts with a perception that "it's just not fair!"

And it doesn't end there. Work place conflict or international political conflict, like all conflict, can be attributed to a feeling of unfair treatment. "Unfair dismissal" is recognised as a legitimate ground for industrial action. The recent strike at the Lindsey Oil Refinery began because workers were united in the conviction that the dismissal of 51 of them was 'unfair', and their ultimate total victory (no pun intended) suggests that their actions were justified.

The concept of fairness can therefore be very confusing, stretching from a loose, ambiguous concept, bordering on the ideal, to a legally enforceable principle. It is therefore useful to dig a little deeper into the word, which is defined in part as:
"Fair: (Adverb) … Open, frank, honest, hence equal, just, equitable." Webster's Student Reference Dictionary.
 
There is an immediate conundrum here, because clearly people are not equal, nor is it reasonable to expect them to be treated equally. So clearly the word's relevance has to be determined by the context, and the extent of equality has to stem from the degree of openness, frankness and honesty. This leads back to the headline question and its applicability to business generally, and your business specifically.

Treating your people fairly demands you apply openness, frankness and honesty universally across the organisation. Failure to do so across the board leaves you open to conflicts and disputes and will inevitably impact on your results. I guess that is why "fairness and dignity" is one of the 10 key principles of organisational democracy. 'Command and control' management is widely recognised to be passed its sell-by-date and yet there are few alternatives being put forward as to how it could, or should, be replaced. I believe this principle being espoused by Worldblu provides the logical platform. What do you think?

If you are truly committed to a 'fair' workplace you certainly cannot disagree with fairness and dignity. And if not, there should be no reason why you cannot agree with the others. If you truly value your people as your most important asset, this is a very good launch pad, and the Zealise solution will help you to succeed.

Are you giving your business air?

"Businesses take care to get the right value on the balance sheet for their assets, when they are useless without ideas and people. Ideas and people are the air that let your tangible assets breathe."

More words of wisdom from Anna Farmery's father as recorded in her Engaging Brand blog recently. Needless to say, I just loved the implication that businesses cannot exist without people and ideas. This is precisely the philosophy that I have always espoused for Zealise. Yet, somehow the way it is expressed seems more inspiring and brooks no argument. It both articulates and explains the concept of empowerment, beautifully and simply. In doing so it also implies two key lessons.

Firstly, the futility of spending so much time valuing and accounting for the tangible assets while completely ignoring these 'intangible' ones. Of course this is something that I have been challenging from day one, and why I believe human asset accounting is the only way to really beat the "war of talent" and win the employee engagement that will build sustained success.

Secondly, the inherent flaw of command and control management that still dominates current business thinking by placing so much emphasis on the top people. This was demonstrated again yesterday by the news that the new CEO of RBS will be offered incentives of £9.6 million in order to "maximise shareholder value" and oversee the bank's turnaround; reportedly enough to pay more than 50 senior civil servants.

The government is buying into this on the grounds that it is in the taxpayer's best interests as they have a 70% stake in the bank, thereby perpetuating the discredited shareholder value argument. Clearly the causes of the economic collapse have not been understood nor the lessons learned. Furthermore there is no attempt to stand by basic principles of proportionate remuneration for work done, for the major justification is that this is the "going rate" and thus the only way to attract suitable candidates. So not only is the first opportunity to start effecting meaningful change being squandered, but - more significantly - the command and control culture is reinforced.

Why? Because it perpetuates the belief of top down management and success only coming from the top. This attitude completely ignores the fact that the lower levels have more direct contact with the customer and a clearer understanding of the day-today business needs. It implies that only executives are capable of having worthwhile ideas and, in the process, cuts off the air supply from the lower echelons upon whom success ultimately depends. Employee engagement issues will never be solved until such thinking is eliminated.

Who do you really work for?

Who do you really, really work for? (Sung to the tune of "what do you really, really want?")

This may seem like a strange question, but it is a serious one, with enormous implications. Common usage suggests that "Who do you work for?" is identical with "Who are you employed by?", but there is actually a big difference between the two. The latter is a straightforward, ultimately rather superficial question, with a simple one dimensional answer that can be easily corroborated; "I am employed by XYZ Organisation." "Who do you work for?" however, is open to interpretation and thus more ambiguous. It could refer to the organisation you work for, the individual you report to, your departmental head or the executive who heads up the particular division in which you are employed.

More than that though, it also works at a deeper psychological level, and so has profound personal and organisational implications.

The fact is that ultimately everyone works for themselves. Whether your work is merely your livelihood, or whether it is your vocation and the fulfilment of everything you want in life, absorbing the bulk of your passion and commitment, it is ultimately an important part of your life, and controlled by no-one but you. You choose the type of work you do and the organisation you work for and therefore you cannot deny that ultimately you work for yourself.

As I said, this has organisational implications and is something that, if you are a manager, you need to be more alert to. Why? For two reasons:

1. The recession might have created a lull in the war for talent, but the need for quality people has ultimately not diminished and thus there is a continuing need to pay greater attention to employee engagement.
2. The global competitive pressures may, if anything, have been exacerbated by the recession, which (apart from offsetting the aforementioned lull) means that people are going to play an even more role in establishing your organisation's competitive advantage.  

Consequently, you need to rethink what "employer branding" means and move away from the traditional view of 'master and servant' employment contracts. While this ought to be an inevitable consequence of the shift away from 'command and control' management, it not only necessitates a more democratic approach, but a greater adherence to the Golden Rule, "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you."As a manager or business leader, you have to start considering managing people more in the way you yourself would like to be managed.

Exciting Developments

I am writing this blog a little later than I usually do and apologise for the delay. This is due to the additional demands made upon my time as a result of publishing my new books. However, it is with great delight that I announce:

1. The publication of the 3rd Edition of "Lean Organisations Need FAT People: How to Grow Your Human Assets." With three additional chapters it is no longer just the provocative work of the previous editions, but now reinforces the original ideas with a depiction of what valuing people as human assets would look like in practice, and an even stronger case for the benefits this would create. 

2. The publication of my new book, "A Feeling of Worth: A Manifesto for Mending Our Broken World." This book should have been my first book, as the ideas in "Lean Organisations Need FAT People" originally had their roots in these ideas, but I was afraid of being seen as a prophet of doom. However, the collapse of the financial markets and the onslaught of the credit crunch and the economic downturn proved the validity of my thinking and thus the justification for the solutions I was proposing.

So, if you are concerned about the economic situation and the state of the world, and would like to get a different perspective with some innovative ideas as to how things might be improved, you can be amongst the first to purchase a copy by simply going to "A Feeling of Worth" now. Alternatively if you were intrigued by the earlier editions but were unable to envisage how the concepts would work in practice, or even thought they were too idealististic, you might want to purchase this new edition of "Lean Organisations Need FAT People" now. You might even want to acquire both. I hope so, because I really would love to hear your thoughts. 

Who knows, together we might even make a difference and help change the world.

A Special (Limited Time) Offer

For the next 7 days my publisher is giving away a free ebook if you purchase my new book “A Feeling of Worth: A Manifesto for Mending Our Broken World.” This gives you an ideal opportunity to get the new, updated edition of “Lean Organisations Need FAT People” for free.  

You’ll find most of these books available in print format on Amazon too, but if you want to get my topical book now and take advantage of this offer, I urge you to follow these quick instructions.

1. Visit http://www.bookshaker.com/product_info.php?products_id=218 This will take you directly to my new book, “A Feeling of Worth”
2. Click on the “Add to Cart” button in the top right hand corner above the book image.
3. Follow the instructions to complete your order.
4. Send my publisher an email using this form http://leanmarketingpress.com/contact
5. Include your Bookshaker order number to get your free updated copy of “Lean Organisations Need FAT People” or, if you prefer, any other book of your choice. (I don’t mind if you would rather order a print copy separately, directly from Amazon!)

I do hope you will take advantage of this opportunity and that you enjoy your reading.

How to SAve Jobs - Ask Your People

Have companies that have laid off employees missed a trick?

Top Consultant's latest newsletter quotes the findings of a survey of 2,500 people conducted by the independent Keep Britain Working campaign, which indicates that there is more altruism in the workplace than had been previously suspected. The report indicates that, if it would help colleagues keep their jobs:

• 96% of workers would accept changes in working conditions
• 38% would accept a pay cut - 29% without reducing hours
• 53% would accept a reduction in hours
• 60% would take on extra responsibilities
• 48% would change their role entirely.

What I find surprising about this report, is the tone that suggests that these findings are unexpected. I would have expected most people to be prepared to make some sacrifices to help their colleagues. The caveat to this is, of course, the expectation of a management lead - their setting an example. Not surprisingly this was also borne out by the survey which showed less of an inclination to do so if there was no management sacrifice. Then 10% would be prepared to take direct action with 3% ready to consider strike action.

In its first month the Keep Britain Working website received more than 400 innovative and effective ideas to help employers cope with the downturn other than by simply cutting jobs.

Redundancy programmes:

• Cost the organisation in severance pay (at least in Europe);
• Mean dispensing with past investment made in people;
• Undermine the organisation's ability to snap back when the economy improves;
• Result in additional costs when people discarded do need to be replaced.

They also have a major impact on morale, and one of the main contributory reasons for that is the atmosphere of fear they create, through the secrecy with which they are conducted. This, however, may be a two-edge sword, for it means that there is an almost total disregard for the contribution that their workers could make.

400 effective solutions in a month gives a hint as to what opportunities businesses may be missing by laying off people, which, added to the long-term consequences of redundancy, makes the whole approach even more dubious. 

A Powerful New Message

"Stick to the knitting!" Tom Peters.   

If memory serves me correctly, this was one of the key messages of "In Search of Excellence." Anyway, whatever the source, it certainly has some relevance for me, for I have learned over the past few years that it is not easy for someone with a financial background like me to become an expert marketer.

Despite my absolute conviction that I have the solution to one of the major business issues of the age, I have not had much success getting people to beat a path to my door. Needless to say I recognised that this was because my marketing and communication was not all it should be, but my efforts to rectify this made little or no difference. I realised, however, just how bad things were when someone I have networked with for a number of years admitted recently, "I am still not clear what you do!"

Those words were a real jolt and prompted me to immediate action. As a result I have:
1. Rewritten my website.
2. Clarified my product/service offering.
3. Rewritten the free download available from my website so that it is more customer focused and less academic. 

Of course the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but I invite all my readers to revisit my website and - even if you have already downloaded it - to download a fresh copy of my starter guide. I am sure you will see that the message is much more powerful and hopefully it clearly shows what you have to gain by implementing my ideas. After all, it's not every day you hear a claim that you can improve bottom line results by at least 20% - a big claim, but one I am confident I can help you meet.

So, please checkout the offering and let me have your feedback. While it is still not my knitting, I would like confirmation I am getting better.

Even better, if you are looking for bottom line improvement on that scale, or if you know anyone else who is, please contact me to explore further how I can help. That would be even more convincing, and assure me that, in this instance, Peters was wrong!

Beyond "The Management Myth"

"If you want to succeed in business, don't get an MBA. Study philosophy instead." Matthew Stewart.   

Those words, the byline of a June 2006 article, "The Management Myth", were brought to my attention by my friend Alexander Kjerulf, better known as the Chief Happiness Officer. While they certainly caught my attention, I was even more intrigued by the fact that they were written by the founder of a successful management consulting firm; an industry where an MBA is almost obligatory. 

In the wake of the credit crunch, business schools, consultants and MBAs have all come under great scrutiny and suffered rather tarnished reputations, so it was noteworthy that this piece was written before that professional Icarian plunge. This enhanced its credibility even more. For me, however, it struck an even deeper chord. For as long as I can remember the ambitious part of my persona has hankered after studying an MBA, while the more prosaic, natural inclination has always leaned more towards studying philosophy. This appeared to vindicate such leanings.

Yet it goes deeper than that, because it actually articulated something that I had never dared voice - a question as to the real merit of an MBA. The longer I worked the more I have grown to see 'management' as being primarily about people. Business, like any other walk of life, is ultimately all about people, with sustained success therefore being the ability to make the most of the people one works with. Thus management and people management are actually synonymous terms. Consequently, the greater my exposure to management theory and MBAs, the more convinced I have become that they are deficient because they do not adequately address the humanitarian aspects upon which success is ultimately dependent. Now, here at last, is independent justification for my quasi-heretical thinking.

Of course there is more too it than that, because as a consultant myself, there is a kind of schizophrenia that prevents me from distancing myself too far from the "bread-and-butter" management theory that provides my livelihood. There is no doubt that Stewart has some very forthright opinions, and certainly does not have a high regard for the profession or the management theory that underpins it. Thus I found myself challenging every statement to ascertain to what extent I could or couldn't accept it or had compromised myself.

For instance, he writes about the "maddening papal infallibility" for which he appears to find scant justification. He also refers to the fads, and says, "Each new fad calls attention to one virtue or another - first its efficiency, then quality, next it's customer satisfaction, then supplier satisfaction, then self-satisfaction, and finally, at some point, it's efficiency all over again."  This certainly caused some soul searching, because I passionately believe that my service makes a difference, and thus I could easily fall into a trap of "papal infallibility." I also found myself questioning whether my offering could be categorised as being a fad, or even whether I was myself being trendy in following the "self-satisfaction" fad.

I was certainly relieved to be able to convince myself that this was definitely not the case. Why not? Because my approach is a philosophical one! It is founded entirely on creating a win-win for individual and organisation, and based on mutual-optimisation. Certainly the potential benefits it offers exceed anything normally associated with management theory. I am sure Stewart would approve!

Recognising the Investment of Years

Businesses owe their employees - the investors of years - the same consideration that they owe their investors of capital. Discuss!

However, before you do, you might like to read the blog "What do we owe an employee?"

This certainly is an interesting read and provides much food for thought. Is considering employees just some old-fashioned, liberal mumbo-jumbo that the massive culling of jobs we are currently witnessing gives lie to, or does it point to some old fashioned values that need to be restored?  

As I said in my comment on the blog, perhaps the whole employee concept is outdated. While people have worked for reward for centuries, Gary Hamel's thought-provoking book, The Future of Management, states that the concept of an employee as we have come to know it is very much a 20th century phenomenon. Perhaps then it is one whose purpose has served its time.

Certainly the bonds that have cemented the employee relationship appear to be breaking. Neither party delivers the loyalty intrinsically expected of the other, while employee engagement statistics indicate that people are only giving a small part of what they could be. So maybe it is time for new solutions. And maybe my solution - valuing people as human assets, with its concomitant offerings - does offer a new way forward: a way of rebuilding the trust that will allow individual and organisation alike to go much further towards respectively maximising their potential, and creating greater happiness at work. I would certainly like to think so, but I would be most interested in your thoughts.