Cenek Report

Mark Salter, John McCain’s alter ego, co-author, campaign advisor and personal confidant, is a former college roommate. If John McCain should win the presidential election, most political observers agree that Mark will occupy a significant post in his administration.

I recently found myself reminiscing on how far he’s progressed in his career. Being a student of talent identification, I locked into thinking about those personal attributes that he displayed 28 years ago that may have contributed to his success in politics and publishing. While a wide assortment of behavioral traits are surely at play, including his first-rate intellectual and communication abilities, he was known to many as a person with a bottomless reservoir of energy and endurance. Mark was clearly driven, and pursued personal goals with unbridled zeal and a single-minded focus. A sure signpost for his energy and endurance levels was a rare ability to function on five to six hours of sleep for extended periods of time (caffeine-free I might add) – and still pull perfect grades with plenty “fire in the belly” left over.

That recollection of Mark prompted me to reach a very obvious conclusion – one that probably many of us have forgotten, or surely take for granted. Successful leaders tend to have levels of energy and endurance, which allow them to persevere despite significant obstacles, hassles and opposition. Like Mark, the amount of time, energy and endurance that these leaders expend on their work is largely irrelevant, or at least not burdensome. To use a hackneyed phrase, their effort and toil is a “natural high,” or using the words of Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, they’ve achieved flow.

Energy and endurance seem increasingly important in today’s hyper-competitive global economy, yet very little research has been undertaken on the topic. Yes, the omnipresent Jack Welch has long touted the virtue of high energy in leaders, but its centrality in the workplace seems overlooked or forgotten. Is it time that it takes a more prominent place on the stage?

Some new releases that deserve a place on the bookshelf….

Effective Executive Compensation (Michael Dennis Graham, Thomas Roth and Dawn Dugan)

Kudos to the authors for penning a very readable book dealing with a topic that’s traditionally been drier than a cheap box of cabernet sauvignon. Virtually no area of executive compensation is left untouched. Case studies are included – and more interestingly – they detail a number of executive compensation practices that increasingly are being frowned upon, or sure to invite shareholder discord at the annual meeting.

Strategic Staffing (Thomas P. Bechet)

This volume volume presents unparalleled insights into the world of strategic staffing. While geared more for the practitioner in a large enterprise, anyone who wades through this second edition will come away with some new techniques for more strongly linking staffing to business imperatives and direction.  Purchasers of the book gain access to online templates and other nifty resources.  Hats off to Mr. Bechet.

Warming Up the Workplace (Frank and Susan Pastizzo)

This book is largely based on the completely engaging presentations that Frank delivers to roughly 150 audiences annually. Frank offers a variety of tips, in easy to read short chapters, that would benefit many individuals in our Type A, greed-driven, “what about me?” society. An added bonus is a set of instructions on how to juggle three plastic shopping bags.

Note: These reviews have been written voluntarily by the author – and are not paid endorsements.

The so-called “generational divide” in the workplace between Boomers and Millennials continues to draw fatique-level copy in the popular business press. It’s significance grossly over-spun, (see earlier Cenek Report post), some refreshing balance has been injected into the ongoing dialogue by two reputable business organizations.

The highly esteemed Gallup organization published survey findings in its March 2008 edition of Management Journal strongly indicating that all workers want the same things from their work. Similarly, Robert Half International issued a press release reporting that Millennials, like Boomers, share similar concerns, such as saving for retirement, having decent medical insurance, and achieving work-life balance. According to Half, they also expect lots from their leaders – and see them as partners in success and job satisfaction.

Pitching the notion of generational differences is a killer revenue generator for the most enterprising authors and consulting organizations. As Harry Levinson, formerly of the Levinson Institute and Harvard University, often remarked, many people in the world of work yearn for simplistic (but inherently incomplete) prescriptions for dealing with complicated behavior in the workplace. They believe, but mistakenly so, that it provides order and explanation to the unpredictable patterns of human behavior that swirl in all work environments. Nothing else more powerfully explains the large commercial success of the One Minute Manager – or the fabulously entertaining Morris Massey tapes that all training and development departments in the 1970’s could count on to salvage reactionaire scores.

By the way, one of the better articles on the topic was penned by Frank Giancola, and appeared in a past issue of Human Resource Planning.

More scholarly research is needed on the topic. To date, most of the discussion about generational differences is based on speculation, weak polling, and anecdotal evidence.

Lloyd Christmas ( Jim Carrey) of Dumb and Dumber fame could clearly be a target in Susan Jacoby’s “The Age of American Unreason.”

Ms. Jacoby, without apology, bemoans the state of American culture, specifically the lack of knowledge and a bias against intellectualism that pervades our society. According to a passage in the International Herald Tribune, she decided to write the book after overhearing two slackers in a Manhattan bar confuse Pearl Harbor with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Her book is primed to set off debate and criticism, but it contains a theme that hits one of our cultural maladies with ICBM-like accuracy.

Her newly published book covers society in general, but many of our workplaces could be her sole target.

Just consider these questions:

• How many times have you heard the statement, “We need to bring this down to their level?”

• How many of your co-workers read more than 3 business related books per year (who are not students)?

• How often do you hear co-workers yelling “eureka!” when selected to attend a 5-day training program?

• How many consultants have been labeled as “too academic,” and passed over in favor of pop psychologists ( “Five and Dime” consultants) adept at entertaining and “talking the talk,” but who tout non-evidence based theories – or describe human behavior in terms that are so fuzzy that they could not repeat their comments if so asked?

• How many employee communications get rewritten to a 5^th grade reading level because they contain too many multi-syllabic words?

What do you think?

Bryan Lund has started a blog covering Training Within Industry .  The history behind Training Within Industry (TWI) is pretty fascinating. During WWII, the United States implemented a comprehensive job methods training program (TWI) to help manufacturing firms meet wartime production demands.  The program was largely abandoned by American firms after the war (no surprise here!), but was introduced to the war torn nations in Asia. It was especially well-received in Japan, where it really became the precursor to Kaizen.   Training Within Industry has spawned a fairly large body of folklore, including an account in John Dinero’s book “Training Within Industry” (2005), in which John Shook relates a story in which a Toyota trainer brought out an old copy of a TWI service manual to prove to him that American workers at Nummi could be taught using the “Japanese” methods used at Toyota.

Check out the incredibly witty cartoons at Savage Chickens. Doug Savage offers some real gems. They’re definitely Dilbert-class.  The toons that follow are a hoot!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In “The Employee Value Proposition: How To Be An Employer Of Choice,” Stewart Black of INSEAD highlights the key organizational dimensions to use in building a strong employment brand. The article slices through much of the typical malarkey on the topic - and offers condensed, pithy advice for the busy executive.

Teresa Wellbourne, an adjunct professor at the University of Michigan, and CEO of eePulse, Inc., is an academician with an uncanny ability to translate her research into lucid narrative. Her article, “Employee Engagement: Beyond The Fad And Into The Executive Suite,” offers a meaty, alternative explanation for what drives the highest level of employee contribution.

“Employee Screening: Theory and Evidence” is a nice piece of research that supports the proposition that it’s possible to screen for candidates who are better predisposed to team-based environments.

According to a survey by Vault.com, 35% of bosses openly share their political views with employees, and 9% of workers feel pressure to conform to the boss’ views. Regarding co-workers, 30% of respondents said that a co-worker has tried to influence their choice in an election.

An article appearing at Associated Content reported that 53% of those surveyed believed that politics should never be discussed in the workplace. These results seem to reflect the conventional wisdom that discussions about religion, politics and sex should be off limits during the workday.

Some companies do not shun politics in the workplace. They allow employees to take sabbaticals while serving in a state legislature, or invite candidates for key offices the opportunity to visit their work sites. However, I suspect that most would take issue with using cubicle shields as depicted below.

While neither survey reported this, most employees hold “politically intrusive” leaders in a different light than those who walk a line of neutrality. Leaders who like to “open their Kimono” with respect to political affiliation or endorsement are often seen by employees as being more interpersonally challenged and Neanderthal-like than leaders who believe political activity is something to be engaged in away from work.

Politics can be very emotional topic for many. Nonetheless, the most disciplined leader will do him or herself a huge favor by refraining from political banter in the workplace. He or she can further their leadership presence by being “banner blind” and not judging others based on their political affiliation.

Thirteen years ago, I published an article in the Journal of Quality and Participation dealing with the underlying reasons for failed or stalled change efforts. About every two years, I find myself revisiting the article to check for its continued relevancy.

The article hardly rocks, but it’s still relevant, and only in need of minor updating.   I’d probably add these additional reasons why improvement efforts frequently fail:

Lack of resources. This is becoming a more significant issue in organizations. Consultants report to me that they find their clients increasingly short on time, money and energy;

Change fatigue. Some organizations do not provide folks with enough time to fully digest a change effort —- and then all of a sudden, a new one appears. Some employees are becoming “change drunk,” the organizational version of the “punch drunk” boxer;

Organizational arteriosclerosis – Some organizations have “hardening of the arteries,” and are led by individuals too arrogant to believe that they need to change – or that the organization needs to change. This is especially true in younger companies that were highly successful in their infancy.

What other reasons come to mind for you?

Fortune’s list of 100 Top Employers is a perennial attention grabber for me. It’s thorough. It’s titillating. It’s outright entertaining to read about the “over the top” perks offered by America’s most sought after employers.

This special issue goes far in fueling the conventional thinking that happy or satisfied employees drive higher levels of operating performance. The most recent academic endorsement of that theme comes from Knowledge at Wharton, which referenced an interesting piece of research by Professor Alex Edmans showing a strong causative relationship between employee satisfaction and share price appreciation.

Employee motivation and happiness on the job are very complex. With each passing year, new research adds a thicker veneer of esotery to the topic. A subscription to the Academy of Management Journal or Personnel Psychology will prove the point. Wading through this research quickly makes one glassy eyed. To stay “grounded,” I must remind myself that employee satisfaction is important, but at the end of the day it’s only a necessary – and not a sufficient condition for high levels of employee engagement.

Employee happiness and satisfaction are passive mental states. One can be very happy on the job —- so happy that he or she spends the bulk of the day at the water cooler or in a side hall chit chatting with co-workers. The employee may be happy; but are they engaged and committed to the enterprise?

While surfing through back issues of the NTL publication, Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, I stumbled across an incredible article written 38 years ago by Roger Harrison.

Roger may not be as well known as some of his contemporaries, but suffice it to say that he has been a leading organization development (OD) practitioner and theorist since 1956, and has been involved in most of the developments and applications of OD from its inception. A leading force behind the advent of t-groups and sensitivity training, his writings and work are a treasure trove of original thought on building healthier organizations.

His article, “Choosing the Depth of Organizational Intervention,” really struck home for me. He advances two key axioms in the article:

An organization development intervention should occur at a level no deeper than that required to produce enduring solutions to the problems at hand; and

The intervention should be at a level no deeper than that at which the energy and resources of the client can be committed to problem solving and to change.

All too often organizational development and human resource professionals ignore those two pearls of wisdom – and embark on a change interventions that are doomed to fail.

The Cenek Report is returning from a lengthy hiatus. I just returned from a long term assignment in Brussels, Belgium and Istanbul, Turkey, and feel like writing again. My writing will be irregular, but my aim will be to post at least one meaty contribution monthly.

My trip abroad was one of the most educational experiences in my life - not unlike the first year that I lived in NYC on the Upper West Side (during the Koch years I might add).  I’ve reached several conclusions based on my organizational development work abroad:

1. Most employees across the globe want the same thing from their workplace – a good boss, recognition, fair pay, and trust in their organization;

2. We are a global community. Most people are decent individuals, and harbor wholesome values not unlike what I remember during my formative years in the Midwest;

3. There are cultural differences - and some of these play out in how women are viewed in the respective society; and

4. Our country is revered for its wealth and power; but adhored for its wastefulness and high consumption of natural resources.

My next post will be about a great article that I rediscovered – one written by one of the original titans in the field of OD.