March 2009

Playing to Win

In a competitive environment, I can't fathom the notion of permitting yourself to get less from your people when you have a chance to get more. Especially when you can establish a competitive advantage in a tough time because your competitor might not be doing it.

Increasing employee connectedness to your organization's goals and strategy during an economic downturn is akin to tuning your car so it runs on all cylinders. 

It's such a fundamental concept: Assets are inert until someone does something with them. Organization's that get the most from their people have a distinct advantage over those that don't, all things equal.

In "Playing to Win," a just-released article for Communication World magazine, I've outlined specific actions that several of our clients have taken to dramatically increase quality, revenues and productivity and reduce costs, cycle time and accidents. They did it by better connecting people and what they do the goals of the organization. They did it by creating a spark that built the passion and enthusiasm of their people to do great things for customers.

Please click here to download this article.  I hope you'll find a nugget that you can use to generate higher performance in this economic downturn.

When Corporate Culture Becomes an Excuse

Leaders need to be careful not to use their corporate culture as an excuse.  I hear all too frequently, "Well, that's our culture," then sotto voce, "That's just how it is, you know." What it says is that the culture rules, even at the expense of the business.

Here's a recent public example.

In an attempt to rationalize taking $25 billion in government handout money and then planning a "recognition junket" to Las Vegas with his employees, the CEO of Wells Fargo claimed, in full page ads no less, that "Events such as this are the heart of our culture...."   In other words, "The culture made me do it." 

In the same ad, the Wells Fargo CEO again tried to rationalize the eventually-junked junket by stating that for many of his employees, "it's the only time in their lives that they're publicly recognized and thanked for a job well done."

The ONLY time in their lives?

Obviously, Wells Fargo has a low or no-recognition culture that in the eyes of the CEO justified a Las Vegas recognition trip.  Again: "The culture made me do it." 

From a business standpoint, this makes no sense. If you have a low recognition culture in your company, you shouldn't try to make up for it by doing something that 1) won't fix the cultural problem at home and 2) is inconsistent with producing a positive public image, especially when you're on the public dole.  

Had the Wells Fargo junket played out, the attendees would have felt the sugar-buzz from their "once in a lifetime" event, returned to their jobs and nothing would have been different. The low recognition culture would still be there.  The bank wouldn't get the benefit that comes from daily, constructive feedback and the cycle would raise its head again.

This is an example of two things. The failure to align a culture to today's reality and the failure to eliminate the root cause of a cultural flaw.  

Where Are The PR People?

Did the Well Fargo corporate communication people counsel the CEO about the downside of this ad--that from a business perspective it simply didn't make sense? Did the copywriters cluster in a corner and laugh at what they were being asked to write? Perhaps they did and were ignored.

Did the PR people counsel John Thain (recently fired CEO at BofA's Merrill) that spending $1.2 million to redecorate his office with shareholder money might not look good in a post-Enron culture? 

What did the PR folks tell the car guys when they were trying to decide how they were going to get to Washington to beg for money?  Did they suggest that taking the private jet might not sit well with people?  Or were they ignored? 

Are the folks who are supposed to be leading the effort to guard the corporate brand and reputation being assertive enough?  Are they being as assertive as the legal counsel or chief financial officer?  Are they being listened to as much as the CEO listens to the legal counsel or CFO?

The Myth of Cascading Information

A few weeks ago a client was miffed because information she'd given a group of leaders in her organization hadn't been passed on to the rest of the employees.. At a meeting with all of her employees, she said, "I'm sure your leaders have shared with you the information we provided them recently."

Blank stares!

She was surprised at the response, but I helped her see that she was getting exactly what the process was producing. Here are the questions I asked her.

Were the leaders who received the original information hired into their jobs because they were good communicators?

Do these leaders believe that moving information accurately and efficiently to their people is expected of them?

Do they have the skills, knowledge, tools and processes needed to move the information to their employees successfully?

Are these leaders held accountable for doing this job well?  Are there consequences for doing the job well and other consequences for doing it poorly? 

Cascading information honors the hierarchy, not the customer. It's a remnant of the old notion that leaders need information before we give it to everyone else.  It's part of the information is power syndrome.  After all, our leaders might get blindsided by an employee who has (gasp!) more information than his leader.

Unless each handoff within the hierarchy truly adds significant value, there's little to nothing good that comes from this antiquated message distribution process.  At each level, there's an opportunity to spin, distort, speculate, misunderstand, ignore or stop the information.

People need to receive information as quickly, economically, efficiently and accurately as possible. In this speed-driven world, this doesn't mean bowing to the organizational chart.  It means bowing to the customer.

Jim