Criticism without Solutions Simply Doesn’t Work

As leaders, we are often in a position where our opinions and criticism carry great weight and those perspectives can positively and negatively affect the lives of those around us. Unfortunately we’re not always careful with our criticism nor are we mindful of the corresponding responsibilities that go along with our words.
In an age where we can all be critics, whether it’s in blog post comments, on our own websites, on twitter, Facebook, or anywhere else we can share our ideas and opinions, the importance of understanding our responsibility as a critic is great. Yet we often ignore this responsibility and blast away at the object of our derision with little thought for the implications of our actions. Well allow me to offer a challenge for all of us to aspire to be something more than a simple critic

As a leader, it’s easy for you to rain down criticism upon the work of others. You don’t do the work – you simply set the direction for the work to be done, define the performance standards, and judge the quality of the work after it is completed. Like it or not, you’re a professional critic.
What you must understand is your criticism carries weight. It impacts the performance reviews of your people. It determines whether a supplier wins a contract or gets booted. It shapes the perspective on whether someone gets promoted or not. You get the picture – your words change lives.

I invite you to go a step beyond simple criticism. Help build something beyond your words. Instead of simply designating something as inadequate, offer constructive thoughts on how to improve it. Give people the coaching, feedback, and resources to improve their product, service, performance. Identify opportunities to connect ideas and people so they can build something greater. Be part of the solution rather than simply pointing out the problem.

Better yet, change your mindset from one of critic to one of architect. Instead of looking at your job responsibilities as only setting direction and judging the work of others, spend time with your team creating new ideas. Roll up your sleeves, make your own contributions to that idea, and be open to your work being judged by others. It’s risky. Our insecurities hold us back and relegate us to the safe world of the critic rather than allowing us to take the chance of creating “oh my! Something let’s say Average”.

If you’re not up for being an architect, at least be willing to put yourself out there to support and defend new ideas. Don’t simply follow the crowd and their opinion of something. Form your own independent thoughts and stand behind those beliefs. Don’t bow to the criticism of other critics who might criticize you (wow… stop and think that one through). It’s hard enough to create something new for those poor souls who subject themselves to the criticism of the world. I’m sure they would welcome your support, encouragement, and suggestions.   Another issue with being critical of the efforts of others without being having input on a solution is that you risk becoming irrelevant to the people you lead. It is very important to take a step back and think about what you are doing and how things might be improved before opening your mouth in judgment.

For an example, consider the following: a few years ago, an executive in a company I work for visited a customer site where things had gone very poorly during a recent project. This person scheduled an urgent conference call in which he spent 15 minutes lambasting the entire field team based on what he heard from one customer, then ended the call. No suggestions for improvement, no consideration of all of the customers who were extremely satisfied with the work – nothing about correcting the situation at all. I can certainly believe he was very upset at the time and demonstrated poor judgment in doing what he did, but there was no apology and no real change of behavior in subsequent calls.  The unintended consequence of such behavior is that many of the staff formed their own judgment – that the opinion of that person was not useful in the mission of having excellent customer relationships, so why waste time paying attention to them?

Leadership is about being out in front and taking others to new places. You can’t lead if you simply follow the conventional wisdom because it’s safe. So the next time you consider dropping a criticism bomb on the work of another, I invite you to consider the feelings of that individual, the effort they put into creating that work, the risk they’re taking in subjecting it to judgment, and the hopes and dreams they have tied up in the idea. After you’ve considered those things, then render your criticism appropriately and try to go beyond just the judgment.

While people drive the culture, the culture drives the brand…or is it that brand drives the culture? The truth is they are too intimately tied together to discern which comes first. Great companies leverage their culture to promote their brand. Companies such as Zappo’s, Dream Works and Google take pride in their culture and use it to promote who they are as an organization. Every interaction with an employee, a client, or a stakeholder is an opportunity to brand the organization. These very interactions are the ones that over time define and reinforce the organization and the culture that permeates it.

Culture has a tangible impact on employee engagement. Employee engagement is a measure of an employee’s commitment to his or her job, team, manager and organization, which results in increased discretionary effort or willingness to go “above and beyond” normal job responsibilities. This level of commitment is critical in the success of early stage companies and also results in the employee’s intent to stay with the organization. The primary factor that seems to separate an engaged employee from just a satisfied employee is that the engaged worker consciously puts forth additional effort in a manner that promotes the organization’s best interests. Not only does engagement have the potential to significantly affect employee retention, productivity and loyalty, it is also a key link to customer satisfaction, company reputation and overall stakeholder value. Employee engagement drives workforce productivity.  Multiple studies demonstrate how a strong and thriving culture with high employee engagement leads to greater employee productivity. Innovation and creativity are often key to the growth of early stage companies. In a great culture where new ideas are respected, and mistakes are viewed as opportunities for learning, employees can actually enjoy their work and be energized by the environment around them. They are naturally more productive because they are eager to be part of a company where they feel valued and their contribution matters. It is a simple concept, but happy employees make for happy, successful companies.

Company culture is unique and provides arguably the most sustainable competitive advantage an organization can have in the marketplace for distinguishing itself against the competition.  Competitors may attempt to poach employees, steal customers and duplicate the product or service an organization has worked hard to develop. Culture, like the brand, becomes the fabric of an organization. The stronger the culture and the brand, the more difficult it is for competitors to pose a threat to the organization.

Does Your Company Draw Top Talent?

I had a meeting the other day with a prospect and we were discussing why some organizations always have people applying for jobs wanting to work for them while others have a difficult time filling similar positions. I believe it’s all about a company’s reputation. Everyone wants top talent, yet few are willing to do the work that is required to be deserving of these people. That’s great news for those who are serious about becoming the type of workplace where everyone wants to work.

It’s hard to change perception, but it’s not impossible. Here’s how:

Be open to change. I’m tired of hearing business owners and leaders say that the reason things are done a certain way is because they’ve always been done that way. This kind of thinking won’t help you become the type of workplace that attracts people who are innovative. In fact, the opposite is true. People who are stuck in their old ways will remain thereby leaving you with a workforce that will never go above and beyond the status quo.

Rid yourself of toxic employees. Nothing brings a workforce down quicker than toxic employees. All it takes is one or two lousy managers to taint the workplace. I’m not going to tell you how to identify these people, as you already know who they are. Take action. Eliminate those who are making your workplace a stinky place to work.

Energize your workplace. Companies have been running mean and lean for so long that it’s now become the norm. Employees are dragging their butts to work every day and slogging along. Candidates who are interviewing with your company will sense the negative energy the moment they step foot in your door. Start investing again in your business. Begin by restoring pay cuts and by making some visible investments that will let your employees know your company is back on the move again.

Tell your story. You may be a great company to work for, but what good will that do if no one else knows about this? Revisit your mission statement and include a section on your company’s philosophy toward your people. Start a company blog, redesign the career section of your website, ask employees to tweet, hire a PR firm. Just do something!  Everyone wants to be on a winning team. Change up your strategy, trade some players and create the type of organization where only exceptional people need apply.

Are you responsible for employees resigning?

Could you be pushing your best employees out the door without realizing it? If staff retention is an issue for your company, then you’ll need to think about what could be causing your top talent to look for other opportunities.

There are numerous ways that managers can drive great employees away without even realizing it. I’ve told leaders this many time “people don’t walk out on companies; they walk out on managers”.  Here are three actions that always impact employee retention :

1. Focusing on the bad rather than the good

Employees might make mistakes, but blaming them for mistakes instead of providing constructive feedback and advice is an even bigger mistake on a manager’s part. Star employees are those who aren’t afraid to take risks. Recognize that taking successful risks can create massive beneficial change for your company. There will be times when plans and projects fall through; accept those mistakes as learning opportunities and move on. Your top talent will walk away if you focus more on their weaknesses than on their accomplishments.

2. Thinking money is the only motivator

A big mistake employers make is thinking their employees are there just for the paycheck they receive at the end of the month. In the short run, money is a definite factor for retaining employees, but it can only remain a motivating factor for so long. If your staff does not find their work fulfilling and get the job satisfaction they desire each day, they’ll soon get bored.

This is especially true for your best, most talented employees. If your star employees can acquire a new position somewhere else that will give them greater responsibility, strong mentorship, increased recognition and new opportunities to learn and innovate, they may jump at the opportunity — even if the pay is not as high.

3. Do as I say, not as I do

You’ve secured the title of manager, but if you think sitting back in your chair and delegating work is going to get the work done, you’re not in touch with reality. When the going gets tough and a key project is due, rolling up your sleeves and working alongside your team shows your commitment and gains you respect. Star employees are looking for strong leaders and role models and are less likely to leave bosses and managers who are accessible, approachable and respectful.

If you don’t think as a manager you need to be respectful of your employees, you’ll find it very challenging to keep great employees and will always end up with mediocre performers.

Throughout my career, I have seen this time and time again.  Managers that set a good example, listen to their employees and genuinely make employee’s feel they care about them, will benefit from great employees staying with them through thick and thin.

If you distrust your employees, discourage innovation and creativity, ignore their advice and communicate poorly, they’ll start hunting for other positions.  As the economy slowly improves finding and keeping great talent will become even more challenging.

Collaboration vs. Teamwork…What’s the difference?

Leaders want to get people to collaborate and think as one company. But managers in different functions or different business units seem surprisingly reluctant to work together. Why does collaboration fail? There are lots of reasons. Collaboration can be time-consuming. It creates risks for the participants. Competing objectives can be hard to resolve. But in my mind the biggest problem is that people confuse collaboration with teamwork.

To understand the difference, think about what a team is. Teams are created when managers need to work closely together to achieve a joint outcome. Their actions are interdependent, but they are fully committed to a single result. They need to reach joint decisions about many aspects of their work, and they will be cautious about taking unilateral action without checking with each other to make sure there are no negative side effects.

As long as the team has someone with the authority to resolve disputes, ensure coordinated action and remove disruptive or incompetent members, teams work well. Team members may dislike each other. They may disagree about important issues. They may argue disruptively. But with a good leader they can still perform.

Collaborators face a different challenge. They will have some shared goals, but they often also have competing goals. Also, the shared goal is usually only a small part of their responsibilities. Unlike a team, collaborators cannot rely on a leader to resolve differences. Unlike a customer-supplier relationship, collaborators cannot walk away from each other, when they disagree.

So a collaborative relationship is necessary when  you cannot use a team or a customer-supplier relationship. It is a form of customer-supplier relationship in which the participants have all the difficulties of contracting with each other without the power to walk away if the other party is being unreasonable or insensitive.

So be careful about relying too much on collaborative relationships except when a company objective is important enough to warrant some collaborative action but not so important as to warrant a dedicated team. For example, you might want to rely on collaboration if you need to get geographic business units to work with a central product development team or where business units share a sales force or a brand.

In these circumstances, success depends on whether:

• The participants have committed to work together — collaboration requires emotional engagement;
• The participants have high respect for each other’s competence on the topic of the collaboration or a natural first-among-equals exists amongst the participants, because of technical knowledge or experience;
• The participants have the skills and permission to creatively bargain with each other over costs and benefits.

Before setting up a collaborative relationship, assess whether it is really necessary and whether the conditions for success can be created. And don’t think of it as a permanent solution. You should be looking to transition to an easier form of interaction, such as a team or a customer-supplier relationship. In these forms there are clear mechanisms for resolving disagreements.

How to Spot an Eagle

Aardvarks are really good at one thing: eating bugs — sometimes 50,000 in one night! No other creature on the planet can match their appetites. Star performers in their own corner of the
jungle, when they tuck a napkin under their aardvark chins, they produce impressive results, just like your hardworking employees can in their jobs.

Too often, however, in an attempt to do the aardvark and the organization a favor, a decision maker will insist the aardvark fly like an eagle. There are no flying aardvarks. You can certainly
throw an aardvark out of an airplane midair, but you won’t end up with a flying aardvark. Being destroyed doesn’t motivate your employees, not the one who just failed or those who witnessed the crash.

So how do you know the difference between an aardvark and an eagle? How can you recognize those who can and will engage in the critical but difficult work of creating strategy? Whether making a hiring or promotion decision, based on the individual’s proven record of success, ask yourself the following:

• Does this person understand how to separate strategy from tactics, the “what” from the “how”?

• Can this person keep a global perspective? Or does she or he become mired in the details and tactics?

• Do obstacles stop this person?

• Can he or she create order during chaos?

• Does this person have the ability to see patterns, make logical connections, resolve contradictions and anticipate consequences?

• What success has this person had with multitasking?

• Can this person think on his or her feet?

• Can this person prioritize seemingly conflicting goals — to zero in on the critical few and put aside the trivial many when allocating time and resources?

• When facing a complicated or unfamiliar problem, can this individual get to the core of the issue and immediately begin to formulate possible solutions?

• Is this person future-oriented and able to paint credible pictures of possibilities and likelihoods?

• How do unexpected and unpleasant changes affect this person’s performance?

• When in a position of leadership, does this person serve as a source of advice and wisdom?

The core competencies that drive a particular organization may differ, but the ability to think analytically and dispassionately remains constant. The overarching question is this: “When
acting in a strategic role, has this person typically performed as needed?” If the answer is “yes,” the person probably has the innate talent to be a strategic thinker and will just need to improve requisite skills to support the talent. If the answer is “no,” don’t gamble by putting this person in a more demanding position. As valuable as the aardvarks of the organization can be, virtually all organizations need more eagles, strong critical thinkers who can learn from mistakes and make bold decisions.

Company Culture always affects the bottom line

Zappos Chief Executive Tony Hsieh spoke at the annual Society for Human Resource Management conference this year.  He explained that before joining Zappos, he dreaded coming to work at his own company. It wasn’t fun to work there anymore
because the company culture went completely down the drain.

When he began his work at Zappos, he decided to make a change. Eventually, their company mission evolved from having the greatest selection of shoes online, to providing the best customer service, to having a dynamic and fulfilling company culture. Along the way he learned lessons to share with other organizations trying to do right by shareholders and employees at the same time.

“Our number one priority is company culture,” he explained. “If we get the company culture right, then . . .delivering great customers service or building a long-term brand or business will follow.”

Their culture begins with the hiring process. Potential candidates participate in two sets of interviews and they need to pass both in order to be hired. Often, they pass on very talented individuals that do not fit with their company culture.

The first set of interviews may inquire into the person’s experience and skills that would make them a good employee, while the second set determines whether they would be a good fit within the team. The second set includes questions concerning each of their core values.

Hsieh said at first, the company,  resisted drafting core values because it seemed very corporate and often they read like a press release. But, they asked the employees for their suggestions and a year later released the values.

To ensure that these values are taken seriously and integral in the company’s culture they must be committable core values. The company can fire people for not following the values, even if they are executing their traditional roles correctly.

For example, when interviewing, in order to determine whether one person would be able to thrive under these values, the company will try to determine whether they value honest relationships, transparency, embrace opportunity and are humble, among others.

Humility, the last value, is very difficult to determine, but after the interviews, HR will circle back with the shuttle driver who brought the applicant to the company offices and ask how they were treated. If they did not treat the driver with kindness and respect, then they won’t be hired, no matter how well they did on the actual interviews.

They also ask on a scale of 1 to 10 how lucky the potential hire is. Obviously, they don’t hire those with bad luck, he jokes. However, basing this exercise on a research study, after their answer they have them scan a fake newspaper for the number of photos. Within the newspaper is a headline that gives them the answer. According to research, those that answered that they were luckier found the headline. Luck is about
being open to opportunity, said Hsieh, an important value for the company and their employees.

“It actually doesn’t matter what your values are, what matters is that you have them and that you align your organization around them.  You may disagree with the values established by Zappos, but purposefully establishing a company culture works successfully
for many companies.

Stop problems before they start

We’ve all read or heard the old English nursery rhyme about Humpty Dumpty who fell from that darned wall. Humpty was irreversibly damaged  and could not be put back together again.

In business, we spend a lot of effort fixing what has been broken, rather than preventing the breakage in the first place. Think of your own organization and recall how much effort went into trying to fix that last big problem that could have been critical to your business and, ultimately, sales and earnings. No doubt that once the issue reared its ugly head, you went into fire drill mode, running around to get to the bottom of the problem and fix it immediately, as measured in hours and days, not weeks and months.

Stop and think about the cost, the interruption factor and diversion of effort this “pick up the pieces” exercise inflicted on the organization. Key people had to drop everything and scramble, not to make a penny but to stop the loss. Of course, every business periodically hits a slick spot and has to maneuver quickly to regain control; it comes with the territory.

Wouldn’t it have been easier, however, to prevent the crisis before it became one? Just ask BP about its oil spill last year and what it cost in hard dollars (or pounds), not to mention the almost irreparable harm to its reputation and perhaps long-term future. This is a dramatic case of failing
to take the necessary steps to avoid the oil damage itself, as well as the near cataclysmic peripheral stumbles made in handling communications. The poor PR efforts are what really pushed BP’s Humpty Dumpty, aka the Gulf of Mexico Deep Water Horizon spill, off that proverbial wall. What actions can your company take to ensure you don’t encounter your own Humpty Dumpty?

Sure some companies have risk management programs, which involve assessing potential dangers, working to prevent them and determining
the costs if the unimaginable does occur. Unfortunately, too many companies apply the risk management thought process only to issues that are most associated with accidents. The Humpty Dumpty theory has to be extended to all areas of a business, from customer service to employee productivity and everything in between.

It starts with paying attention and sweating the small stuff and taking action when the first whiff of a problem occurs. It’s almost a gut
feeling that surfaces when good executives encounter something that just doesn’t seem right. Call it a sixth sense, but it can happen at any time and in some of the most unusual places.

As an example, you’re reviewing an internal report on an important new project, and as you study the material, something just doesn’t
seem right. The numbers add up, but nonetheless you know that all the dots aren’t connecting as they should — you’re just not sure what’s wrong. You put the report down for a minute, and start addressing something else and then it hits you.    A subtle yet critical step was omitted from the plan. Now that you’ve found the missing piece, you make a few calls and a potential problem that could have easily transformed into a big
issue is squelched.

These same gut feelings apply to “reading” people, not necessarily by what they say or do but many times by what they don’t say or do.
Here’s another scenario, your biggest supplier, best customer or employee  normally touches base with you like clockwork, sometimes if only to say hello. One day you realize you’ve not heard from this individual recently. You wonder what’s up with this? However, you’re busy and the thought quickly passes.

Big mistake.

You should have picked up the phone, found out what the story was, and if there was an issue brewing, fixed it then and there.

It all gets down to trusting your instincts and recognizing when your Humpty Dumpty might be leaning too close to the wall’s edge. That’s
the same wall from which anything can topple and shatter beyond repair.  Preventing that from occurring requires paying attention, looking for telltale signs of change and then being perceptive enough to know that there is something that needs scrutiny — even if you can’t pinpoint exactly why or what.

The risk in your own little kingdom is that when your Humpty Dumpty falls you may not have enough of the King’s horses and men to put the
pieces back together again.

Where are Company decisions made?

I think everyone who has ever worked, especially in some type of corporate environment can tell you a story or two about terrible meetings they have attended.  There are also many, many examples of meetings that, while not awful, are far from productive. One of the reasons for these experiences is that meetings are not often a place where decisions are made effectively – or even made at all.

Meetings, of course, aren’t the only place where decisions can and should be made, but in the context of meetings is one way to talk about how decisions can be made.

That discussion must start with the leader. The leader must consciously (better) or unconsciously (far too often) determine how a decision for any specific situation will be reached. The basic choices are:

An independent decision – one made by the leader alone. These decisions may be announced at a meeting, but by definition they don’t require any input from others; a meeting isn’t required to make them.

• A decision with input - the leader wants input from others before making the decision; a perfect reason for a meeting.
• A collaborative decision – more than just a bit of input, in this approach the group deliberates on the facts and other factors before a decision is made.
• A consensus decision – a decision where the leader themselves isn’t making the decision, but truly the full group comes to the decision collectively.

Each of these decision-making types, including all of the nuanced versions of them, are valid and valuable in the right situation.

Next week I am going to provide readers with the best meeting approach for your situation. Your answers to certain questions will help you create better and more open decision-making processes, and in the meantime help you create more effective and productive meetings.

Oh and one very important reminder:

If you have already decided which direction to go, or which course of action to take, do NOT ask for input.

It damages trust, wastes people’s time and is a dangerous manipulation.  I have seen this far too many times.  You know who you are……

To be continued…..

Boost your bottom line…Invest in your people

As the economy slowly recovers, it’s no secret that companies would like to boost productivity and profits. Many think the best way to do so is to slash costs.  Well Joan Blades co-author of The Custom-Fit Workplace: Choose When, Where, and How to Work and Boost Your Bottom Line, thinks otherwise.   She suggests paying your employees more.

In her article she writes of the growing body of evidence that shows that companies that pay fair wages, and offer flexibility and training to entry-level and lower-skilled employees, do better than those that don’t. A vast number of businesses mistakenly assume that their lowest-wage workers are easily replaced or not worth investing in, but those that do the right thing soon find that they’re doing the right thing for their bottom lines. It’s time that this becomes a business norm.

Certainly, in tough times, higher wages, profit-sharing and training seem like optional perks. But here’s the other side of the story: When you invest in people, they respond by performing well. In her rigorously researched book, Profit at the Bottom of the Ladder, Jody Heymann presents a well-documented lineup of businesses that have flourished in large part because their management practices include respecting and empowering their lowest-paid workers. Jenkins Brick, a major U.S. brick manufacturer in Alabama, credits higher wages and profit-sharing with increased productivity and quality, as well as reduced turnover and lowered accident rates. Dancing Deer, a Boston-based high-end baked goods company, opens the financial books, and makes training and stock options available to all employees because they are convinced that this gives the firm a competitive advantage. Specifically, management credits these practices with improving sales, boosting productivity and helping them attract talent.

Perhaps a more well-known example is Costco. The company pays more for an entry-level position than Sam’s Club (Wal-Mart‘s wholesale branch), gives even part-time workers at least a week’s notice about their schedules and offers all employees the option of getting on the management track. Costco also makes thousands of dollars more per employee than Sam’s Club, which suggests their investment pays off. Costco is so convinced that its policy is sound that it has kept paying better wages than rivals, even as Wall Street has pressured the company to conform to industry standards. Trader Joe‘s is another large company known for paying its entry-level workers well and benefiting as a result.

Yet despite the strong evidence we have that an employee who is paid fairly and treated respectfully will significantly outperform an employee who is underpaid and ordered around like a child, too many employers are unable to resist the apparent bargain of paying less per hour or buck the traditions of an authoritarian work culture. They tell themselves that standing at a cash register, working in an assembly line, or answering phones is so simple that anyone can do it — that workers doing these jobs can easily be replaced. And this shortsighted approach costs them. Simple math does not capture the human dynamics.

As an employer, I can personally bear witness to both the quantifiable and the more subtle benefits of treating everyone in the workplace with respect and dignity. The people who answered the phone and greeted visitors at our front desk at Berkeley Systems, the software company I co-founded, were at the bottom of our pay scale, but we knew that they also created people’s first impressions of our organization. If they felt downtrodden, the first impression of our business was likely to be merely adequate. We needed the first face of our business to be enthusiastic and helpful.

At MomsRising.org, an advocacy group working for greater economic security for families, we offer flexible work hours, ask each member of our team to contribute to our decision-making processes, and look for pathways for our entry-level positions to grow into roles with more responsibility.

It’s time for employers to see the big picture and embrace the benefits of creating a great workplace for all of their employees. They will be rewarded with a happier, more productive and robust workforce, a better bottom line and the satisfaction of participating in the transformation of modern work culture to a culture of dignity.