The Closer

Now that we’re in an 'official' recession, your sales reps may have reconciled themselves to failure. Many of them figure they’re probably out the door at the end of the year, anyway, so why bother trying?  Some of them may simply be pathetic (that’s always a possibility, though, as trainers and learning professionals, you try to be nice about it and think of euphemisms for that characteristic), but others might be reflecting the attitude of their managers back to them. Or, another way to think of it is they’re living up (or down to) their managers’ expectations.

So if your sales reps are under-performing even by the standards of a recessionary economy, you may have to start with their bosses to unravel the problem. Have their supervisors given up hope of a turnaround or improvement in sales this year?  Granted, it’s unlikely given what economists are saying, but not impossible. If you’re significantly down in sales at this last-few-seconds-before-midnight point in the year, you obviously aren’t going to be able to end the year with a bang. But your reps could rally just enough to pick things up a little so it’s not quite so dismal. Couldn’t they?  If you don’t honestly believe any improvement is possible, and the managers coaching the reps don’t either, that’s when a successful fourth quarter push becomes all but impossible. Why should they try to do something you’ve tacitly told them through your attitude isn’t realistic?

Then, too, maybe many of your sales reps take for granted your company is going to let them go at the end of the year because they didn’t “make their numbers.”  They know, mathematically speaking, they could try as hard as they can, but there’s no way to meet the numerical goals set for them back at the beginning of the year, or at least months ago, before the economy began its bumpy plummet. It might be time to broach the topic with executives and managers of easing or “readjusting” satisfactory sales markers in light of the officially pronounced recession. In addition to enabling you to retain workers who may be suffering from a temporary slump due to extenuating circumstances, telling reps the old markers have been recalculated to take into consideration current financial conditions may spark fresh enthusiasm for selling. “Oh, it’s not a hopeless case after all,” they’ll say to themselves.

Along with changing your own attitude, and that of your managers, about the sales prospects of your reps, emphasize the importance of celebrating small wins. A new account that’s no big deal when the economy is healthy, is major now, so be sure to give the rep who won it proper recognition even if you can’t promise him or her a bonus as a reward. Training sessions that include role-play exercises about selling to prospects in a recession are a good idea. Along with readjusting your sales performance benchmarks, you also need to readjust ongoing sales training to reflect the changed sales environment. A capable trainer, with the help of sales managers, can probably do this him or herself with a little creativity, so don’t worry if you can’t afford an outside sales consultant right now.

What you have at the moment is the depressed person’s version of “resting on laurels.” In high times, a rep coming off a big winning streak is liable to take a break for a few months to admire his or her achievement and bask in the glory of self-greatness. Now, there’s inaction for the opposite reason—they’re resting on the recession. Coming off a big losing streak, they’re content to take the rest of the quarter off to bask in the glow of their self-bleakness. It’s a darkly humorous spectacle (like a comic strip about a consistently down-and-out character), but you should probably be hoping for something more than gallows humor—even if we are in an “official” recession.

What are you doing to buoy the spirits of your sales team?  Do you and your managers share in the sense of hopelessness, or is there a plan in place to cheer up and (successfully) move on?

Thanks, But No Thanks

What are your company's leaders worried about?  If you don't know, think about what's missing. This holiday season it's probably a party that feels like a reward. If you don't know what's coming, don't get your hopes up. It most likely won't be as swank as last year’s (which wasn’t as swank as the year’s before). You’re also probably missing numerous co-workers who were either laid off, or suspecting they were on the chopping block, decided not to do like the Thanksgiving presidential pardon turkey, and wait for an unlikely last minute reprieve.

 You can tell a lot about your leadership’s top concerns by noting what they’ve said “thanks, but no thanks to” this month. More serious than holiday parties are bonuses and raises. Has there been any mention of salary and hiring freezes yet?  As learning professionals, what your leaders say “no thanks to” often becomes your problem. Unlike them, you can’t say “no thanks” to the problems that arise from their streamlining. If hiring and salary freezes are in the works, what are your plans for retaining your workforce?  Don’t assume your competitors can’t offer them something better. They also may be suffering financially, and avoiding raises and additional new hires, but that doesn’t mean their ears won’t prick up if one of your high-level, or maybe even mid-level, star players say they want to join their team.

 Beyond the compensation issues, what are you doing to make your workforce feel valued?  Suppose last year your holiday party was held in an elegant event space with everything from shrimp to sorbet, plus dancing, and maybe even a band?  And now you either won’t be having a holiday party, or you’ve just sent an “invitation” to your huddled masses regarding the “holiday bash” in the 5th floor break room—adjacent to the Coke machine?  It’s funny, but also cause to worry if staff retention and morale is an issue. Your employees will laugh, but how appreciated do you think this “affair” will make them feel?  You don’t need to do lavish, but investing in a celebration this holiday season that isn’t an embarrassment just might be worth the spend if it results in fewer of your prized talent looking elsewhere or becoming too dispirited to keep up their old levels of productivity.

 In the realm of training, what is it safe to say “no thank you” to?  You obviously are loath to let any of your prize learning gems go, but since that’s another thing your executive board has expressed concern about, you’ll have to slash something. I vote for the Palm Springs, CA, senior leadership retreat you always do in March. How much does that cost you?  And, also, for you large corporations, how about axing one or two or three of the executives raking in the multi-million dollar salaries?  Yes, yes, I know, I’m heartless for suggesting it, but you know I have a point.  As a matter of full disclosure, I have to tell you I’ve never been rewarded with a multi-million dollar compensation plan, so there’s definite bias involved in my feelings. That said, if you ax even one of those “strategizers” you may be able to save at least several of the jobs at the middle or lower levels who belong to individuals feverishly toiling away for the last five years to realize the “big picture” thinking Mr. and Ms. Multi-Million Dollars.  By the way, to those of you in HR, a question:  What are those $10, $15, $20 million dollar people getting paid for anyway?  Are their ideas that much of a commodity?  Okay, but then why are we in the mess we’re in?

 Pre-holiday rants aside, there really does appear to be quite a bit your leaders are saying “thanks, but no thanks to” this month (and last month, too).  How far do you think holiday cheer will go in retaining and motivating your workforce?  You may have to push your leadership to start saying “Yes, thank you very much” soon. Being a yes man or woman isn’t always such a bad thing.

 What’s your strategy for coping with all your executive “no thank yous?”  What they say “no” to out of fear of a faltering economy, you’ll have to say, “yes, thank you” to as a new workforce management problem.

Stuck in the Middle

The middle is usually bad--as in the middle seat of an airplane, being placed in the "middle" of an argument, or being the middle child. There's an implication in all these scenarios of insufficient space and comfort, or being ignored in favor of those at the top and bottom. In the corporate world, the middle, as in middle-management, follows the pattern.  Entry-level employees are looked after with on-boarding programs, probationary periods, and follow-ups to ensure retention, and those at the top often receive the benefits of the executive suite, including relatively high pay, and perks such as hefty bonuses and luxurious incentive trips.

Where does that leave mid-level managers?  They have the "gravitas" of being the boss to their own set of workers or department, but while the executives make the plans, and those working under them follow orders and get credit for doing the work, what's the role of the middle-manager?  There was a more lucrative time (who knows how many years ago--before I was an adult probably) when the middle manager didn't make the big strategy plans, but at least had the comfort of giving orders he or she didn't have to pitch in with. These days, with an economy always on the verge of the ultimate tank, middle management not only has to dole out the assignments; it has to take on more than a few itself. It has to both manage the work of others as well as get its own piece of grunt work done. It's the worst of both worlds.

To ensure middle managers aren't taken for granted, you might try recognizing them a little more often. Most of us are currently cash-strapped, but what about non-monetary  recognition  such as a special middle management-focused award signed by the CEO that these workers can put on their resume, and which can be made an official part of their record for future job opportunities at your company?  Don't assume it won't mean anything if there's no added money involved. Added money is always an enormous plus, of course, but it's nice knowing hard work is appreciated, and it's even nicer knowing you have that recognition in a documented form that can be used towards future career growth.

In hard times, when many corporate learning curriculums are probably experiencing cutbacks, you also could use middle-management recognition as a way of narrowing the field of workers who qualify for training programs. That way you save money by limiting the number of employees given entry into leadership development seminars or career counseling while not throwing out the middle management with the bath water--or whatever it is that's going down the drain at your company.

You also might think about how to lessen the burden of middle managers. First, begin by acknowledging to them that there in fact is a burden. Along with recognition of a job well done, people appreciate it when those giving them the tasks that are making their lives harder point out that they know what they're doing to them. Then, see if you can start an intern program that would add additional manpower to their teams.

Another idea is to carve out a small portion of executive meetings for a middle management update--from a middle manager him or herself. You could select presenters by random means, or draw from the same pool of high-achievers you've recognized. The presenters don't need much time--maybe 10 or 15 minutes, or less even, to run down a list of their top five or 10 concerns for the quarter. You'd be surprised what your "strategizers" might learn from the work horses who do what they're too "high-level" to get their hands dirty helping with.

More than anything else, don't just ignore them, hoping they won't notice. Remember how uncomfortable you were the last time you had to sit in the middle seat on an overnight flight, or a lengthy train ride?  Your efficient middle managers are taking your company where your "strategizers" told them they want to go, but not without a post-destination headache.

What do you have in store for your middle-managers?  Anything good?  Or more time spent being ignored?

Performance Management Means...

"Performance Management" isn't my favorite term because it's too catch-all. It can mean anything from a bare bones employee appraisal process in which the goal is simply to determine if the worker should be promoted and/or receive a raise; stay where they are with or without a raise; or gotten rid of. At the other end of the spectrum, it can mean appraisal to determine all that plus how, if at all, each person fits into the organization's succession planning, and as a result of that determination, how each of them should be developed.

Or it can mean absolutely nothing. It can be bandied about when in fact nothing at all is being "managed."  In difficult economic times, it's hard to have meaningful "performance management" because it's hard to promise your workforce anything. How many companies can still commit to developing even stellar employees?  With budgets getting slashed right and left, their "development" may be no more than the reward of getting to keep their jobs and maybe, if they're lucky, get a raise. Can you do all that plus promise the added development your "performance management" system dictated is right for them?  I assume if they had to choose between a raise in salary and more instruction they'd chose the extra cash. It's cynical of me to think so, but I have a suspicion about that.

What's worse, a lot of companies, including a couple I've witnessed, have committed the horrible "performance management" sin of hiring new workers only to fire them within a few months (or even weeks in one case!) because the company suddenly changed course in a desperate effort to stay afloat. Or, most awful, knew at the executive ranks they had no use for those new workers, but due to corporate strategic confidentiality, weren't able to communicate the change in needs to the mid-level managers doing the hiring. Crazy to consider, I know, but I saw that last scenario happen with my own eyes at a former company. The decision-makers felt they couldn't tell anyone until just the right moment (whatever determines when that is) that the production department would be "consolidated" in a faraway location with, of course, a much, much smaller staff.

It's also hard to make a show of "managing" performance when many companies can't calmly consider the workload for each employee, and then, in a highly sane fashion, give each worker the precise duties that have been recommended for each, and nothing more. With a stressful financial climate reigning, the atmosphere at many, if not most, organizations is more akin to an hysterical person (hopefully not the boss) wildly throwing papers in the air hoping somebody, anybody, in the office will catch them and do whatever is needed to get the work done--regardless of what their job title happens to be. Am I being a little hysterical myself with this vision of mine, or is there some truth to it?

Of course, I like to think of the executives of a company diligently looking over the employee assessments of each worker, and then thoughtfully deciding the right assignments for each person, and then taking care to give them only that work deemed appropriate. But it just doesn't seem to work that way in reality. So why make any pretense about "performance management?"  Is it a PR thing more than anything else, or does the term still carry meaning at your organization?  If it does, what does it mean, and can you give any evidence that it actually means that?

If you can't give evidence that the term is meaningful, can you stop using it?  The word "management" implies much more organization and strategy than is usually present in companies worried about keeping up their profits, or just staying in business. It's possible--but unusual--to demonstrate organization and strategy in the throes of financial life and death. Maybe "performance hope," "performance goal-setting," or "performance tentative planning" would be better.

As is true about life in general, empty promises in the work world are worse than no promises at all. If you lead your employees to believe there's a definite plan guiding their work life, and then end up dumping vast amounts of tasks on their desks that appear irrelevant to the plan you shared with them, they might get demoralized. "Performance management" is a catchy term, but honesty is okay, too. If you're honest about not being able to keep everyone on organized, neat paths because everyone has to pitch in for the moment wherever they're most needed in order to thrive during a difficult time, your employees may surprise you with their response. If I were them, I would appreciate that my bosses respected me enough to tell me the truth, and would respond by doing all I could to buoy the company. Do you think this is an atypical response and that most others would respond by fleeing?

If you choose to stick with your "performance management" references regardless of whether it has any basis in reality, there's one piece of good news: the holiday season is approaching, and you could always bill "performance management" as the new Santa Claus. No one has seen or interacted directly with it, but it's a comforting story.

What does "performance management" mean at your company?  Do you, or anyone you work with, know?  Do you have proof that it actually means whatever you think it means in practice?

Effective training in 3D learning worlds – doing more with less.

If you are thinking of how you and your team will survive current downturn, you are not alone.  Over the last couple of months this became a theme of many conversations I heard and for a good reason.  Training is not going to be immune to this round of belt tightening.  Regardless of the level of your optimism, budget slashing seem to be the inevitable next item on the agenda, or perhaps it already affected you and your organization.  This is exactly the reason why AHG created a new training tool that allows you to cut budget without jeopardizing your work and future growth.  Trying to preserve budgets in current environment is a loosing battle. The better strategy is to concentrate on a solution that saves significant resources while improving training results – KPI’s, time to ready and durability.  Immersive Communication Training System (ICTS) can create uniquely-effective training solutions in 3D learning worlds, such as Second Life.  But this is only half of the story.  The second half is that you do need to hire or involve inside or outside programmers and training designers do not need to have technical background.  You create training simulations using intuitive Graphic User Interface.  If you are capable of using computer mouse to move color rectangles on a screen, clicking them to interconnect rectangles with arrows, then you can create a training simulation as simple as short sales call, or as complex as equipment handling lesson.

Prior to the age of personal computers, professionals would hand-write their notes and then have them typed by typists.  Similar situation still exists in training where instructional professionals design training and have programmers implement it using computer technologies.  It certainly looks like a silver lining of this downturn might be in the 3D learning environments (i.e. Second Life), and technologies, such as ICTS, to get rid of intermediaries.  Doing this might just be the key to preserve and position your team for better future in the times of slashed budgets.

You will find more information on http://www.ahg.com (click on the Immersive Communication Training System button, or click on the direct URL:

http://second-life-training.ahg.com/training_simulations/second_life_immersive_communication_training.htm

)

Company Valuables

I was lucky enough to be at the Tower of London last week (as a travel writer for sister publication Incentive), and saw the Crown Jewels for the first time. That got me thinking about the symbolic diamonds,  rubies, and emeralds companies seek to protect. Does your company, for instance, pride itself on its integrity, corporate social responsibility, efficiency, barracuda-like market competitiveness, or all of the above?  Most of you will probably give the public relations-automaton answer of 'all of the above,' though I doubt it's true in reality. The majority of companies I've been exposed to seem to weigh one or two of the values I listed much more than the others. Similarly, your employees are smart enough to say they consider all those values of equal importance, but, in actuality, they only care about approximately one or two of them.

That leads me to ask you not only which one or two you truly care about, but also which one or two of those values you get most excited to see in employees?  Not to be too cynical and awful, but I assume you most cherish the employee value of agreeing to work like a dog for the salary of a dog without complaining if they also happen to suffer like a dog in the process. In other words, I'd say you prize efficiency most, and if that efficiency happens to cost you very little, so much the better--regardless of its impact on your employees. I hate to be insulting, but that's how it appears to me. Does your company fit this mold I'm guessing at, or are you really, truly, a lot loftier than that?  Any proof of your worthiness you'd like to share?  Bet you can't prove it.

I have little faith that "corporate values" or intentional "corporate culture" exists because I don't think enough care is taken during the hiring process to make it a reality. When a position becomes vacant, and you need to fill it fast (assuming in this down economy it's one you intend to refill, that is), you only have time to assess the "competencies" of the applicants. You read their resume (or at least skim it--so much artificial bulking you usually have skim the fat off the top), and then, if they're really fortunate (who wouldn't consider themselves fortunate to work for you?) you talk to them in person. At that point, I'm told you make a big deal (either consciously or unconsciously) about the supreme importance of eye contact (assuming a thief or a serial killer would be incapable of looking you in the eye--ha, ha, ha), and then, too (though not always when picking a president--i.e. see recent history) you want to assure yourself they know how to put words together to form coherent sentences. So, eye contact, sentence formation, and a resume and that still looks good once the fat has been scooped out--well, then, I guess they're hired! 

Horrible of me to feel so negative about it, but that's how I think the hiring process too often works. So I don't see where the value assessment you need to preserve your "corporate values" or "corporate culture" comes into play. How do you do that anyway?  Any tricks you'd like to share?

Here's a great trick I heard about from the Days of Yore: Have the work group the finalist applicant would join spend some time with him or her in a more casual setting by, say, taking him/her out for drinks (assuming alcohol consumption at a bar with job applicants (uh-oh?) doesn't violate your corporate values, or for the more conservative, coffee and hot chocolate or (if your company is a big spender) lunch. Granted, to guard against legal liability you'll have to coach work groups on not delivering any formal job offers over tequilas, and not making any other promises, or asking any questions that would get the company into trouble. It's a gamble, but well worth it. Much more chance gauging what's important to a new employee in a real world setting than seated across the table for a half-hour in a recruiter's office. Don't you think?  Potential work group mates also get the chance that way to take the potential new addition for a test drive, which means looming personality clashes may come to light before you ever let them far enough in your doors to have to fire them. Wouldn't that be great?  I bet a lot of you wish you could have test driven some of your co-workers (well, maybe at least one here and there) before co-signing the lease. Am I right?

So is my vision of Days of Yore casualness about the hiring process, in which you can experience your potential future co-worker in a relaxed, real life setting, possible, or are we now living in much too much of a litigious society for that?

Ironically, I think more than possible legal entanglements, its your, ah-hem, corporate values that would preclude it. Greater formality and process has been added to your list of tacit values whether or not you intended it to be there. Have you noticed that, too (especially you veterans who have been in the workforce for a few or several decades now)?  With so much stiff procedure involved in the hiring process, how can you ever tell what the people you're hiring care about?  If you have no true way of figuring out what they care about, and each them, added together, equal your corporate values, isn't the whole thing a sham? 

Luckily, corporate values doesn't have to be a phony mantra. You're only a few Margaritas or lattes away from getting a better handle on new additions to your payroll. Even better?  You can argue the getting-to-know-you refreshments or lunch supports your corporate social responsibility drive. What better way to support the local economy than a visit or two to the nearest locally-owned bar or coffee house? Who knew alcohol and caffeine could be so philanthropic (in a corporate values-acceptable way, of course)?

How do you assess the work values of job applicants? Do you even bother trying?  If you do, and you think you do it successfully, could you share your tricks with the rest of us?

Designs on You

More companies seem to be investing in their own 'cafes,' where workers can...do what?  Are they supposed to just get their coffee or hot chocolate and then flee back to the fortifications of their cubicles?  Is the whole cafe thing just for show so  your company looks good when business partners and customers visit, or do you really want your workers lounging in there watching TV (a lot of these 'cafes' have TVs now, I believe) and chit chatting?  I bet you'd get nervous if you strolled to your 'cafe' at 4 and noticed cliques of diligent workers avidly watching and dissecting an episode of "Oprah."  Call me crazy, but I just have a feeling about that.

Really, though, you shouldn't worry so much about eliminating time "wasters" and "distractions" from your workers' lives. I'm of the school of thought that even the most seemingly dumb time waster can result in great conversation, bonding, and the generation of new ideas. Say your workers are horrified by the plight of a family discussing their credit crisis on "Oprah."  Sure, their interest is partially schadenfreude and salacious, but what if in chatting about it with peers they came up with a way to reach customers better during this time of economic uncertainty?  Or what if the episode dealt with a movie star discussing her new film?  A complete "waste" of time on the surface, but how about if in batting back and forth the merits of the movie, your workers suddenly came upon a marketing idea generated by thinking about the movie's themes and target audience?

You never know when brilliant ideas will hit your employees--that's where the image of the crazy professor or genius comes from, after all. The epiphany sometimes arises from the "distraction."  Ever notice how creative people are often characterized as "scatterbrained" or "in their own world?"  They are, but not unproductively. They let their whimsy dictate where their attention travels, regardless of whether it matches the "task" at hand, and while that sometimes results in counterproductivity, it also can spur innovation that a person who thinks strictly in straight lines would never discover. There's such a thing, in other words, as focusing too intently and narrowly on one's work.

So in terms of workplace design, what are those cafes, or other communal places like the kitchen or break room, for anyway?  Is it your sincere wish that your employees just use it for defined, utilitarian purposes like coffee and microwave popcorn, or do you hope they're also cooking up some good ideas in there?  If you don't have a kitchen or break room large enough for informal congregations, where can your employees meet to chat and maybe bounce a few ideas off each other?  Don't tell me you're one of those short-sighted companies that says that kind of "undisciplined" behavior is not part of your culture?  Come on, you can't be serious!  Or can you?

At the same time, you need a balance. A well-designed office should have the communal meeting spots such as a lounge or break room, but also supply enough privacy so each worker can retreat when necessary into his or her task. How large are your cubicles?  Can workers avoid feeling watched while they do their work?  Do they have to watch (and listen) to their co-workers eating their 2 p.m. peanut butter and jelly fix every day?  In addition to allowing employees to concentrate when they need to, providing cubicles with ample coverage, and, if possible, noise reduction, increases the chances they'll feel like reaching out to colleagues for advice and support. Think about it: If your whole day revolves around trying to ignore your cubicle neighbors long enough to get your work done, how likely are you to voluntarily seek their counsel?  "What, you want me to spend voluntary time with peanut butter and jelly man?  I don't think so," may be how their thinking goes on that one.  Comfortable, reasonably private work stations give employees the security to explore their greater workplace surroundings because you've given when an anchor space they can retreat to should things get a little too wacky out there--lest the "Oprah" conversation take a creepy turn.

The main thing is to think about how your office is designed and whether it suits most of your workers' needs.  Maybe it doesn't suit anybody's needs. Have you thought about that?  We're in hard times, but I think you could manage shuffling some cubicles around and putting up a partition or two, couldn't you?

Meanwhile, I can't make up my mind about the usefulness of personal cell phones at the office. How do you think that impacts the workplace environment?  If your cubicles are private enough, I suppose a worker speaking in a discreet tone could discuss his torn ligaments without causing his cubicle neighborhood pain, and I guess they'd just talk about it on their business line if you took away the cellie, so it seems we're stuck with the unappealing in-office personal phone call. You can, however, request that your workers turn their cells onto vibrate, or change all musical ring tones to a generic ringing sound. You could also ask that after answering personal calls they expect to take longer than a few minutes, they move into a communal or down-time area away from their work stations to finish the conversation. Would that be so horrible of you to ask?

Profitable innovation aside, one of the best things about providing at least one area of the office for leisurely activity (or sitting around) is that its taken out from under your nose and that of your workers. Whimsical distraction is one thing; listening once again to your cubicle comrade's dry cleaning needs is another.

What's your company's workplace design like?  Any ideas on ideal office spaces, and how to know if yours is a disaster?

Up for Debate

The world's most visible job interview, or, if you're me, one of the year's best TV comedy hours. Since, like many of you, I already know who I'm voting for, the presidential debates are mostly about entertainment. But you workforce managers should take notes in between your laughter and outrage. Apparently the songs and dances of these candidates mirror on a bigger level what you experience with your own job applicants: artificial bulking up of resumes, lack of evidence of good leadership judgment, and holes in experience that will need to be filled in fast if you decide to hire them.

One advantage the public has during election season that you don't have at your company is the ability to pit the two final applicants against each other face-to-face in a forum open to all "stake holders."  Another is the benefit of more than just one person making the final call on whom to take on as a new leader. As crazy as it seems at first thought, is there any way to take these two election advantages and apply them to your own company, entirely changing the way you make hiring decisions?  And would it be legal?  What if you wanted to take the two finalists for a top-level executive job, and have them answer questions in front of the board of directors, or even a larger audience from the company? I think it would be a useful exercise, but I wonder whether you legally are able to do that, and whether the job applicants will stand for it. Then what if, instead of leaving the final hiring decision up to one person, you had all the employees who would directly work under the person, or maybe even the whole company, vote to decide who gets the job? Would it work?  On the one hand, you'd have the benefit of more than one management genious getting to decide. On the other hand, a high volume of decision-makers sometimes doesn't lead to better outcomes. After all, look at some of the presidents we've ended up with!

How about what's forgivable for presidential contenders and what's okay for corporate job applicants? How much false resume boosting is acceptable? Is the old joke about everyone lying about their experience true, and if it is, should hiring managers accept it, or use evidence of it as basis for taking the applicant out of the running?  As a direct, self-deprecating person, I would vote in favor of throwing out the applicants who are caught lying to make themselves look better than they are. Not so much because of the offensiveness of the lie but because it's evidence of a man or woman who's not secure enough to be open about possible weaknesses. Many of you will say it's just good sense to keep weaknesses to yourself during a job interview, and that applicants who fail to do so demonstrate a lack of savvy, but I disagree. A person who admits he doesn't know the answer to one of your questions or that he lacks familiarity with a skill-set, but then explains how he would acquire the knowledge, and compensate for his ignorance until he learns, shows strength. It's a fool who pretends to know what he doesn't only to louse up his new job and company once he gets in.

And what about this business of making spouses part of the decision-making process?  I've read that, though illegal to make an official part of the hiring decision, corporate boards have clever ways of finding out about the husbands and wives of CEO contenders. Like a first lady or first husband, does it have any bearing on how the individual performs his job?  Sure, the CEO has to schmooze at cocktail and dinner parties to get her way, but if her husband is unintelligent and has bad table manners, will that schmooze acumen be compromised?  It may be overly idealistic of me, but I think potential business partners are too self-interested to let an unappealing spouse get in the way of a beneficial business decision. So a new vendor partnership or corporate acquisition will earn both parties millions of dollars, and all because the wife slurps her soup and likes to talk about her cat's OBGYN problems, the deal is dead?

Similarly, much has been said about people voting for the presidential candidate with whom they'd most like to have a beer rather than the one they deem most intelligent and capable. Are your hiring managers just as susceptible to this unproductive thinking, or have you trained them so well that this faulty judgment never happens at your company?  Sure, if all things are equal, a job candidate's likability is perfectly reasonable to consider. But when one job candidate is more qualified than the other, but a little less easy to relate to or charming, what do you do?  Some say social and emotional intelligence is at least as important as various skill-sets and "book learning," so is it really so dumb to choose the more likable over the more conventionally intelligent?  Again, based on past presidential election outcomes during my lifetime, I would say it is kind of dumb. "But what do I know?"  I'm secure enough to ask.

Employee resentment toward CEOs might lessen if they voted, or at least it would take the burden of their unhappiness off of you. When they complain about their fates at the hands of a blubbering, incompetent, mean-streaked top executive, you could ask them to recall how the bozo got here in the first place. "Well," you'd have to remind them, "it was your idea."

What's CEO selection like at your company?  Any parallels to the pitfalls of the American presidential election process?

Commuter Can't-Do

As a well-documented, openly, unapologetically lazy person, I'm not a good judge of what can and can't be tolerated commuter-wise. I tried it (under duress) for a month while living in a suburb of NYC, and I can tell you the experience wasn't up to my standards. What?  You expect me to get up uncomfortably early and sit on a train for an hour just to get to work?  Come on!  You must be joking!

So, it's no surprise to me that companies are worried about, and maybe already experiencing, worker loss due to commuter blues. Not only is commuting offensive to lazy people who like to sleep in; it's now unmanageably expensive, too, thanks to still-high gas prices. And, then, too, for those who are environmentally-conscious (in addition to lazy/selfish about comfort), it's bad for the environment.

The dilemma facing companies is what to do about it?  If you want to offer commuter benefit packages that reimburse the tired commuter for her labors and gas expenses, how do you afford it?  It seems counterproductive to add commuter benefits and then keep salaries stagnant and carry out layoffs, but it's a well off company these days that can both increase employee benefits and increase salaries while having no need for layoffs.

If your company can't offer commuter benefits, and you're asking workers to reconcile themselves to expensive, uncomfortable commutes (can't trust workers to be productive telecommuting, of course), then I guess you'll have to make the commute worthwhile. One way (for ambitious workers looking for added channels of development) is to create podcasts or CDs with learning programs on them that can be listened to with a test taken later at the office or online for special certifications or other resume-boosting opportunities. Or, the programs they listen to in the car and are tested on later could be used as qualifiers to an elite leadership development program. They've proven they're motivated enough to haul themselves long distances to sit inside a cubicle, all the while incurring horrible personal expenses and listening to a training program, so there's a good chance they're leadership material. Don't you think?  The commute in this approach is considered a test of strength, which is fair. Employees deserve credit for working hard, and commuting sure is hard work.

At the same time you need something for the commuters who have no desire to listen to training programs on the way to work (that would be me), but whom you also wish to retain because, though they're not open to inconveniencing themselves too much for their company, they're still highly competent at what they do. For them, offer special in-office commuter surprises once a quarter, such as a visiting masseuse, portrait artist, nutritionist, or psychic (or whatever your workers would consider a treat). These special visitors would perform services paid for entirely by the company, and just for employees who commute at least an hour in each direction. It'll cost you, but probably not as much as offering another formal benefits package to a wide swath of workers. Depending on what your company does, you might be able to get these services at a reduced rate, or maybe even free if you can work out a bartering arrangement. Don't tell your commuters when these visits will occur. Keeping the dates secret will encourage commuters to get themselves to work everyday with the idea that something other than a long, uncomfortable car or train ride might be right around the corner.

Trainers eager to diminish the impact on commuting also can try teaching workers about local carpool programs, and can even organize a company carpool that doubles as formal collaboration sessions for workers (yet another carrot for the ambitious among your workforce). These collaboration groups would be responsible for coming up with whatever ideas and plans your company happens to need such as new product or marketing concepts. In exchange for participating in these carpool/collaboration sessions, workers would receive corporate university credits, or simply have their participation added to their performance record. For a more a structured, accountable approach, give credit or recognition only to those groups who submit actionable ideas every four months.

In any case, don't ignore the discomfort of your commuters. Times are tough, but they can still go elsewhere. Actually, with our temperamental (mostly gloomy) current economy, many of them, like your other workers, already are suffering from the loss of retirement savings.  A boring, frustrating car ride, or stuffy, crowded, smelly  train  commute, isn't what they need to get into a good  mood. 

What are you offering commuters to make the trip to your office worthwhile?  Anything good?  Or just hoping they'll stay out of desperation?

If You Don't Laugh You'll Cry

Do you ever get paranoid about the way certain workers on your payroll don't smile pleasantly--ever?  I hate to point this out (preferring to spread cheer and optimism) but since entering the workforce I've experienced employees who not only won't smile and say "hello" to co-workers; they also will even give off hostile vibes, such as suspiciously looking a colleague up and down, raising their eyebrows in lieu of a friendly facial expression; and sometimes looking in any direction rather than the one of the oncoming person in the hallway, the idea of having to smile and say "hello" seeming odious to them. I'm not an extrovert, or even a great lover of people (as mentioned in previous blogs, I hope someday for a world dominated by house cats), but I try to at least be pleasant and genial if not bubbling with outward-facing excitement.

Times are rough and stress is prevalent, so I certainly can't blame my workforce comrades if they don't feel like smiling, but if your company is suffering from this dour affliction, it might be more than unpleasant; it might mean you have an employee retention problem on your hands. Who wants to work in a sad scene, no matter how high the compensation, and whatever the perks?  Maybe trainers should team up with human resource peers to come up with a strategy to lighten the mood. Of course, heaven forbid, you don't want to cut into productivity, but what about contests for joke of the month or a bulletin board on every floor where workers are encouraged to post amusing blurbs from magazines and newspapers? In addition to laughter, the shared material also might stimulate new ideas and creativity. An innovation firm I visited here in New York City last year did that very thing to an extreme--everywhere you looked in the office were places for shared anecdotes and inspiration, much of it entertaining.

Feeling entertained more than cultivates a happy work environment; it keeps the minds of workers engaged enough to be alert to their tasks. When you're sad, the brain seems to tune out unconsciously in an effort to escape, and a kind of walking depression sets in. The unhappy worker is functioning, but just barely. Inside, he/she actually never got out of bed that morning.

While print and electronic media make great shared fodder for entertainment, don't overlook the contents of your employees' work day. How about once a month asking for submissions for the funniest customer service story, the most humorous company operations slip-up, or the funniest on-the-job gaffe? Besides encouraging laughter, asking workers to share those stories in a comfortable environment makes it easier to address the problems that led to the "funny" moments. Teaching employees to laugh at their workplace frustrations, and then learn from them, will enable them to more constructively handle stress, and the process of sharing on-the-job anecdotes with peers will foster camaraderie.

The worst is an office where employees are given the message they'll be frowned on for laughing, that their laughter is a sign they're not taking their jobs seriously. I hate to be the bearer of bad news to executives who deem their sales of widgets and widgette deluxes a matter of life and death, but even physicians are known to laugh quite a bit (coming from a medical family I've heard the stories, and I know)--even, gasp, at work! 

What's the big deal?  So you lost a million dollars. Did anyone die?  If they did die, is scowling and acting unpleasant going to raise the dead?  Since I trust most of your workforces don't have to worry about raising the deceased, encourage executives in leadership development programs to be a model of lightheartedness along with efficiency, and teach them tactics for cultivating a more easygoing, open-to-giggle-rather-than-cry team of employees.

I hope Wall Streeters have learned to laugh. I guess now would be the time for that..ha, ha, ha. They might not be able to "laugh all the way to the bank," but maybe it'll make the trip to the poor house easier.

Are you teaching work teams to laugh together in stressful times rather than tear each other's hair out?  What's your strategy for encouraging a pleasant work environment?