Good For Tim Hudak, Evolving with the Times

"This 'right to work' issue just doesn't have the scope of the power to fix the issues that are threatening 100 per cent of the manufacturing jobs in Ontario," Mr. Hudak said.

It takes a big man to admit when they're wrong.  This couldn't have been easy for Hudak, but it was the right thing to do and he deserves credit for doing it.

But you still have to feel bad for Dave Brister.

In the interests of moving forward, though, let's focus on the fact that Hudak has shown a willingness to question his own approaches, listen to others and make adjustments were appropriate.

So - those traditional manufacturing jobs.  Change sucks and is really, really hard on those who've already carved their niche in life and would like to keep things that way.  

Here's the deal, though - the reason they're leaving Ontario is because they're going to places with poverty-level wages and almost no protections for labourers.  Like Bangladesh.  Those manufacturing operations that are moving to the States aren't so much creating new jobs down there as putting more work on existing labourers.

Either way, this more-work-for-less-pay approach isn't going to work for those jurisdictions; as we're seeing in Bangladesh, they're just simmering towards the sorts of labour revolts we've already been through that landed us with unions in the first place.

Ontario's solution isn't to freeze our economy in the past with massive industry subsidies that don't work or to reduce our quality of citizen life in favour of old-school work, but to look forward.  That means new opportunities, new dynamism on the part of all employers, employees and labour groups, training and a revisit of our traditional, hierarchical, pay-fixated model of work.

I remain convinced that Hudak could surprise everyone and gain some massive wins by being the Labour Nixon that goes to the Union's China, engaging directly with unions themselves.  

Will he do it?  Probably not.  Politicians tend to be more focused on wins that solutions, to their (and our) detriment.

But hey - he's come this far.  Shows that anyone is capable of evolving with the times when they open themselves to progressive thinking.

CSR, HR and PR: Redefining Wealth and Maximizing Success

UPDATE 10/12/13: Scott Stinson makes some legitimate concerns about limiting Executive salaries and the impact that could have on attracting seasoned talent.  I'm sure he's aware of the additional challenges Ontario faces around frozen capital, youth unemployment and some serious innovation challenges in the province - not to mention the mammoth human/social service delivery problems we're facing.

I'm all about one stone, many targets; what if a percentage of Executive Pay (or frankly, anyone who gets on the Sunshine List) gets put into a donation by the Province on behalf of the individual to a charity of their choice/added to a fund for would-be entrepreneurs that have ideas, but no business development/sales training?  It's public dollars, but it would have been salary - now it's going back to the community.  The donor gets brand recognition and some press play out of it.  The province, which would have to jig some regulations to accommodate such an arrangement, could have a truly innovative policy win on their hands.

It'd create work opportunities, inspire youth and who knows, maybe catalyze some other clever solutions, too.

Thoughts?

Last night I attended a series of short talks on open data and open government.  Among the themes that popped up in each talk - the importance of data (and of sharing data), of trust-facilitated communications and how to motivate people to share information and participate in aggregation and shared-solution development.

On the subway ride home, I got to thinking about motivation and how we're using the wrong tools (carrots and sticks) to try and motivate cognitive labour in today's knowledge economy.  Being the lateral thinker I am, I started weighing the changing nature of PR, the prevalence of social media and the increasing trend of recognition being a form of compensation valued by youth entering the workforce.  What can I say, I like elegant solutions.

Canada is in a bit of a spot right now on the economic front; as a nation, we are failing to translate good research and out-of-the-silo ideas into innovative products and services. Corporations are sitting on capital that could go to more R&D or youth hires, but political and fiscal uncertainty have them playing a wait-and-see game that, unfortunately, means other players on the international stage are getting ahead of us in advanced manufacturing and completely new services like data framing and extra-sectoral capacity building. 

There's a growing demand for Public Relations to change its model from one that's focused on talking to one that's designed to build relationships over the long term.  It's not enough to manage crisis communications as the need arises, or even to do fun social media outreach pieces as marketing tricks - if you don't have a positive brand between campaigns nobody will take you seriously - in fact, you might find your noble intentions cause you more blowback that anticipated.

 

So what do you do?  How do you tie up a perfect Gordian knot that leaves no thread exposed?

It starts, of course, with hiring, retaining and motivating the right staff. 

There's a lot of grumbling in the corporate world about young whipper-snappers coming out of school with advanced degrees and expecting to get a ton of recognition with their first job.  That's not the way it works, these bosses will say; you have to work hard and climb the ladder, with success being the only reward you need.

This is an approach that needs to change.  The economy we're entering now is not your grandpa's economy; the labour requirements are different, as are the labour supports and incentives.  This isn't just whipper-snapper talk; study after study shows that knowledge work, creative problem solving and innovation aren't motivated by traditional financial carrots and sticks; if you take that approach you're simply creating a drag on your cognitive labour.  This a big part of why we haven't got innovation happening right now.

So if raises and titles don't motivate the best in cognitive labour, what does?  First, you do need to pay your team well - if they are worried about paying the bills then they aren't focused fully on your work.  Beyond that, you need to add value to your employees; this means building a community of experience that lets every one of them know they are part of the team and that their work matters.  It means accommodating them in such a way that they can spend less time worrying about peripheral stuff and more time producing on your behalf. 

The last point gets its own paragraph, as it feeds into the other two issues.  The big reason we value money is that it confers social status; higher salaries equate to greater personal value, but also allow for more expensive everything, the ability to buy drinks for friends or host fancy parties.  Money allows you to contribute and enhance your status.  When you have status, people want to hang around you.  That's called lekking.

Of course, it's not just the rich people that develop retinues; in fact, most founders of religious movements and many a social movement were poor.  The same thing applies to fashion trends or memes - a charismatic person or a cool idea can attract people and encourage them to contribute to a bigger brand because they want to be part of that experience.

This is where we return to corporate social responsibility.  There are all sorts of reasons why it's good for companies to give back proactively, just as there are multiple reasons for companies to properly motivate their employees.  Why not do both at the same time?

 

Picture this; you're a young person with a bag full of ideas, looking to make your mark on the world.  You're considering positions at two different firms; both have more or less the same job description, but Firm B offers a bit less direct compensation than Firm A.  That's because Firm B has a built-in bonus system that, on top of the already decent pay, ensures that value-added work will be rewarded with an additional contribution of capital that will go, on behalf of the employee and the company, to a charity of choice.  This donation will be promoted through social media and maybe even a press event. 

This brings us into PR disruption.  Instead of reinforcing the importance of what you do periodically, or solving crises reactively, you can spend some of your energy showing why you work in the space you work and how you are working with your team to make the world a better place.

You've just found one solution for your innovation, HR and PR needs.

Here's the real kicker - you don't need to just pay lip-service to social demands, you can actually realize them and strengthen your company at the same time.  People will believe in you more, feel better about buying your products and when the inevitable crisis does hit, will be that much more likely to forgive, or even defend you.

Funny how doing the right thing turns out to also be the most efficient, value-added thing to do, too.

Cognitive Labour Discussed at Toronto Council

 

 

"I don't think it is fair to people who are trying to do their jobs to have them not know from one moment to another what somebody's going to do."

 

Y'know, Councilor Milczyn, I think you've hit on something here.

 

 

Politics, on the whole, does a terrible job at HR, which is kinda sad - if anyone should have their cognitive labour working at maximum potential, it's the policy makers.

 

They can do better.  As I've been saying for years, the time's coming when they won't have a choice not to.

 

I think it's always better to be proactive and benefit rather than be reactive and hope to mitigate damage already done, but what do I know?  I'm not the boss.

 

Employers: How Do You Define "The Best Person?"

For example, a middle-aged man with lots of industry knowledge and experience might still have trouble identifying with the way an African-American teenage girl makes purchasing decisions.  A twenty-something, or a twenty-something African-American woman, might have an easier time targeting the needs of that particular client base as they can better relate.  Working together, the two could put together a strategy and solution that works best for both the company and the customer.

One of my favourite topics, this, because it's that important.  There are still those who assume immigrants are stealing their jobs and that the hiring of employees of diverse backgrounds is biased against them.  They seem to think that skills are written in stone, immutable, and that the people involved in any transaction don't matter.  Or, they figure that sales is sales - if you're competitive enough, you can sell anything to anyone

Equally, there are those who blame residents in marginalized communities for not taking some risk and fighting back against criminals in their midst, or blame those of different faiths of disrupting social norms.

There's an old saying that bears repeating - don't judge someone 'til you've walked a mile in their shoes.

The same applies - or should apply - to everything we do in life.

When we learn about other cultures, speak other languages, eat other foods and practice other customs, we open up windows of understanding that enable to us do whatever social activity we're engaged in better.

Put it another way - you can't lead if you aren't willing to listen.  If you can't penetrate the world view of a client or a competitor, does it not make sense to gain some inside perspective?  New Canadians, those kids who "don't get how the real world works" and those who think different aren't problems to be solved, but rather opportunities to be harnessed.

That's not pandering; that's working smart.

Employee Engagement is More than Motivation (Dave Willis)

Employee Engagement is More than Motivation

In my previous blog post I talked about why employee engagement is critical to any business endeavor and is your most important job as a manager. I referenced part 7 of Mike’s Leadership Principles, He Drinks 7-Up, as a key lesson in how to create highly engaged employees. But of course, the point of that story is not that you need to know your employees’ preferred brand of soda. The point is… well, let’s hold off on that for a second. I’ve got a beverage story of my own.

Several years ago I was mentoring a rising star in the consulting firm I worked for. Let’s call him Darren. Darren accompanied me on a number of client presentations. After several of these sessions, I asked Darren if he wanted to take the lead role in the next one. He was more than ready, and he eagerly agreed.

Unfortunately when the day came, it was a disaster.Not sure if it was nerves, sun spots, or just a bad hair day, but Darren didn’t do a good job. And he knew it. From my perspective there were two problems to be solved. One was the damage control needed to repair the relationship with the client. That wasn’t going to be fun, but it was comparatively easy. The other challenge – much harder – was how to turn this experience into a productive one for Darren.

Immediately after the session, I took him out for a beer. Instead of chewing him out, or providing him with a full review of his mistakes and a litany of suggestions for improvement, I asked him what he learned and what he intended to do differently as a result. His response was amazing. For thirty minutes he talked non-stop about his performance, and it was obvious he knew exactly what he needed to do to improve. I told him that was good enough for me, and that he had my blessing to do the next client presentation as well.

I worked with Darren for another 24 months, and across that time his level of commitment to the job was as strong as any employee I’ve managed. Oh, we had disagreements, and there were other times I needed to deliver some tough messages. But we had established a basis of trust. He knew I trusted his ability and his work ethic, and that I wasn’t going to jump down his throat (or submarine him in a performance review) if he made a few mistakes along the way. And if you think about it, did that half hour really cost me anything? Actually it did: about $20. I paid for two rounds of Stella Artois. I’d say that investment produced a pretty good ROB (Return on Beer).

It also led to one of the proudest moments of my career. A couple of weeks later Darren was relating this story to a co-worker, and he finished by saying “if you look up the definition of ‘good manager’ in the dictionary, you’ll see a picture of Dave Willis.”

The lesson of the Darren story (and the 7UP story) is that you create highly engaged employees by exceeding their expectations. At the end of his presentation, Darren was feeling very low. He knew he’d underperformed. He knew he had not met my standards; he knew he hadn’t meet the clients’ standards. And perhaps most importantly, he knew he hadn’t met his own standards.

Knowing how most organizations and most managers provide feedback, he had every right to believe that his conversation with me was only going to (a) state the obvious, that the event was not successful and (b) make him feel even worse. Instead, we used the opportunity to provide him with helpful feedback – which he himself delivered – and to reinforce that I believed in him.

I’m not suggesting that exceeding your employees’ expectations is easy. There is an art to it. You have to get to know your people and really care about them in order to exceed their expectations. How well do you really know your current employees? What do they want out of their current job? What’s their dream job, and is at your company or somewhere else? How can you help them get there? What skills do they most want to develop? What’s important to them outside of the job? Do they prefer more direction and oversight from you, or less? If you don’t know the answers to these questions, or haven’t thought about them in a long time, start there.

There are lots of books and articles written with very tactical suggestions on how to engage your employees. Many of them have good advice, but they miss the bigger picture. Engaging your employees isn’t about the tactical task of buying them 7-Up. It’s about knowing what they care about and why, anticipating their needs, remembering their preferences, and solving problems for them before they even know they have them. It’s about being a better manager, and delivering a better employment experience, than they ever expected.

And if you think that sounds very similar to the recipe for great customer service, you’re exactly right. But that’s a subject for another blog post.

Cognitive Labour: An Idea Going Viral

 

 

The notion that we're repeating the Industrial Revolution, only with a focus on cognitive labour? 

The thought that the society-wide mental health crisis is a manifestation of poor labour practices?

 

The idea that we're going to see a second labour revolution that will piss off employers in the short term, but enhance productivity and innovation/improve quality of health in the long term?

 

Seriously, there are all kinds of trends and patterns out there - you'd have to be crazy not to keep them front-of-mind.

 

 

 

Work Longer, Work Dumber: The Case Against Long Hours

 

Here’s a crazy idea – tonight, when 5 o’clock rolls around, go home. Leave your laptop at the office. Turn off your phone. Don’t check your work email. In fact, don’t do anything work-related until 9:00AM the next morning. Repeat for a full week, if you dare.

 

I can sense your panic slowly rising as you read this, and I know what you’re thinking — no f*ing way. What would my boss think? What would my peers think? I have too much to do!

But not so very long ago, a 40-hour work week wouldn’t have seemed crazy at all. It would have been common sense. What changed?

A History of the Modern Work Week

In a fascinating piece for Salon, Sara Robinson details the history of the 40-hour work week, its demise over the last 30 years, and some very compelling reasons for bringing it back. Robinson writes:

The most essential thing to know about the 40-hour work-week is that, while it was the unions that pushed it, business leaders ultimately went along with it because their own data convinced them this was a solid, hard-nosed business decision.

 

Unions started fighting for the short week in both the UK and US in the early 19th century. By the latter part of the century, it was becoming the norm in an increasing number of industries. And a weird thing happened: over and over — across many business sectors in many countries — business owners discovered that when they gave into the union and cut the hours, their businesses became significantly more productive and profitable.

 

Though the 40-hour week began as a way to maximize industrial workers’  output, the benefits apply to knowledge workers, too. In fact, Robinson argues that knowledge workers have closer to five or six productive hours in them per day, which amounts to 25-30 hours per week. The balance is most likely spent in meetings, checking emails, and gabbing with co-workers (look at your own workday patterns, and you probably know in your heart that it’s true).

Double Hours (Does Not) = Double Output

That’s not to say that overtime isn’t useful in specific, short-term instances. Brief bursts of longer hours — for example, to launch a new product or website — do lead to greater output, but only for a few weeks at a time. Even then, you won’t get the same hour-for-hour output from hour 12 that you did from hour 2. According to Robinson:

 

The Business Roundtable study found that after just eight 60-hour weeks, the fall-off in productivity is so marked that the average team would have actually gotten just as much done and been better off if they’d just stuck to a 40-hour week all along. And at 70- or 80-hour weeks, the fall-off happens even faster: at 80 hours, the break-even point is reached in just three weeks.

 

As much as we’d like to think otherwise, we aren’t machines, and we have limits. Longer hours may help you get more done for awhile, but ultimately they lead to diminishing returns, exhaustion, and burnout.

Work Longer, Work Dumber

Our best work happens when we’re well-rested and refreshed, not after a string of 12-hour days and weekends spent tethered to our phones. Most of us already know this. So why does the culture of long hours continue?

 

The reasons are complex, and they range from economic insecurity to our own fragile egos. But I think there’s a larger reason that our other insecurities merely feed, and that is the persistent and misguided belief that more face-time equals more dedication at work.

 

Raise your hand if you’ve ever stayed an extra hour at the office after the day’s work has been completed, fiddling with emails and Facebook, afraid that an early or even an on-time departure will brand you a slacker in the eyes of your boss and your peers. Oh, the irony…

 

The good news is that unlike the economy and other people’s egos, the face-time myth is completely within our power to change. We can start by giving ourselves, our peers, and our direct reports the permission to work a reasonable schedule. Long hours are a recipe for working dumber, not smarter. They’re bad for you, and they’re bad for business. And if your boss doesn’t agree, you have my permission to hit them (gently) over the head with the hard data that proves otherwise.

Demand More From Your Staff, But Abandon Them In Tough Times

 

Anyone remember reading about this in the Toronto Star?

 

I've written periodically on how poorly we do when it comes to hiring/training/supporting practices across the board, but especially in politics, from the politicians on down through to their staff.  I've even suggested some ways we could do better.

 

Thing is, we know, from study after study, how harmful our current approach is to both our health and our economy.  The Feds have even developed a psychological health and safety standard to address the kinds of concerns that stem from the labour relations practices favoured by the likes of Tony Clement.  When there are succeeding, best-practice models to crib from, why on earth aren't we consciously choosing to do better?  If we truly believe people matter, precarious employment leads to presenteeism and the like, why aren't we investing in the people who shape our policy?

 

Why isn't government following its own advice?

 

As the voter/ultimate shareholder, it's up to us to look in the mirror for that answer.

 

In Tough Times, Abandon Your Employees

Bruce K. Co-author of Smart Customers, Stupid Companies. Helps companies be more humane.

Henry Blodget's excellent piece on short-term greed got me thinking about a very basic question: do companies owe their employees loyalty when the economy gets tough?

 

For some time, I've been appalled that major companies are simultaneously laying off employees and reporting record profits. The picture differs depending on where you live and work, but that's a fairly common trend.

 

Contrast, for example, CNNMoney's report at the beginning of this year, Hey Wall Street, Get Ready for More Layoffs with John Cassidy's July 16 story, which starts like this:

What do these large dollar numbers have in common: $6.5 billion, $5.5 billion, $4.2 billion, and $1.9 billion? They represent the latest quarterly net profits made by too-big-to-fail banks—in order, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs.

Now imagine that your company has been growing quickly, and that the culture of the company is to expect employees to step up when challenges and opportunities emerge. If there is an important pitch coming up, you are expected to stay late or work over the weekend. If there is an important order to fill, you are expected to work until the order gets filled.

 

You work hard. You step up. You are a hard-working and loyal employee. You recruit your friends to come work at your company; you put your personal reputation on the line.

Then the economy hits a rough patch. The company lets you go; two months later, they announce record profits.

 

Is that the right way to do business?

 

I understand that companies are not charities, and that they can't exist forever paying out more in wages than they earn in revenues.

 

But it strikes me as horribly short-sighted for a company to simultaneously report record profits and fire loyal employees. But some will argue that companies are here to make money for their investors, and that such moves are entirely warranted.

 

That's why I'm calling on companies that employ this strategy to make it obvious. I suggest they band together under the banner, "Profits before People". In fact, to make this easier, I've created a few simple ads they could run to attract more investors.

 

I'm not trying to be cute or clever. If this is an intelligent and proper strategy, why shouldn't companies formally declare that they follow it?

 

Take a look at my crude examples, and create your own Profits before People art, then post links in the comments below.

 

On the other hand, if your company sticks by its employees in tough times, then PLEASE feel free to brag about that below.http://cce-wakata.blogspot.ca/2013/07/what-canadas-political-parties-can.html

Voting the Bums Out: Political Presenteeism and the Public Executive

It is the duty of the executive to remove ruthlessly anyone – and especially any manager – who consistently fails to perform with high distinction. To let such a man stay on corrupts the others. It is grossly unfair to the whole organization.  – Peter Drucker

 

If you visit this blog periodically, you'll know I have an obvious interest in workplace behaviour, leadership, human resource management and that newly identified field, cognitive labour.

 

For the most part, I think we do this incredibly poorly.  We don't know the right way to motivate our human resources to be productive in the modern economy, nor how to design work and define roles to foster the best work from our teams.  It's not just me that thinks this way - the private sector has come to the same conclusion, as has the Canadian Mental Health Commission.  When even Stephen Harper's hands-off Conservative government comes up with psychological health and safety standards for Canadian workplaces, you know it's a significant issue.

 

How have we gotten to this point?  Why are we so bad at creating a culture of cognitive productivity?

 

I believe this to largely be a hold-over attitude from the Industrial Revolution, where work was pretty standard - every worker was a cog in motion; carrot and stick motivation worked well at promoting manual labour.  Management simply had to apply the carrots and sticks and make sure the machines kept running - underperformers could easily be replaced and what happened to them afterwards was someone else's problem.

 

 

Which is why I find the approach taken in the article linked to at the top so interesting - the implication therein, that underperformers should be cast away, completely avoids answering the question of why certain individuals would be underperforming in the first place.  Drucker seems to think it's likely these were just bad hires in the first place - and I think it's fair to say a majority of employers would agree.  They hire and fire; it's up to employees to do and if they don't they can be replaced. 

 

After all, it's not like staff turn-over hurts the bottom line, right?  Especially when you don't bother training; nothing gets lost when you're not investing in your employees.  Of course, one questions what is gained when it's the cognitive abilities of your employees (their networks, their ability to process and analysis information, produce reports, handle external relationships, etc.) that you're after.

 

So, here's a problem facing many a workplace in this knowledge-and-relationship based economy; employees are hired, their role and office relationships (internal protocols, support services, etc.) are never clearly defined and their managers are using Industrial Age carrot-and-stick management tools to motivate work.  People aren't getting raises or bonuses on churning out more widgets, nor being fired for not producing enough - their performance is being judged based on their ability to read the minds of their managers/employers, figure out what their roles are and manage down their employers anxieties long enough to get the job done.

 

What happens when people in this situation fail to be occupational psychics?  What happens when they struggle to figure out what their duties are, or are never given enough time to finish a product thoroughly, or they are told they must manage their time wisely but write daily reports on productivity to their supervisors?

 

This thing called presenteeism, which looks an awful lot like those under-performing employees mentioned above.  Bosses can pull out their hair, frustrated at all these young kids that don't seem as disciplined or "with it" as they are and churn through employees - this isn't helping their bottom line any.

 

So let's revisit the equation a bit; what, beyond ruthless removal, is the role of the executive?

 

The Executive Director is a leadership role for an organization and often fulfills a motivational role in addition to office-based work. Executive Directors motivate and mentor members, volunteers, and staff, and may chair meetings. The Executive Director leads the organization and develops its organizational culture.

 

That's from Wikipedia, who many still have problems with - but it jives with what management guru David M. Dye has to say about organizational culture:

 

You may use different words, but it is critical that you create a culture where everyone is expected to do what they need to do and to treat others with respect.

 

A culture of respect; everyone treats everyone else with respect.  Does that include the executive, as well?  I would tend to think so; if the role of an executive is to ruthlessly cut out any performer who fails to set a high standard, then any executive who fails to motivate and mentor members, volunteers or participate in meetings is failing to walk their own walk, potentially fuelling a culture that corrupts the very behavior they should be enhancing.  One would think that any executive worth their salt would fall on their own swords should it be pointed out that they are failing to provide valuable leadership to their organizations.  Right?

 

There are some best-practice organizations out there who are investing a bit more in their hiring practices and taking the time to show respect and value to new team members before they even begin.  These organizations are seeing dividends for their efforts and, I imagine, will start to outpace the HR laggards out there, setting a new trend.  You'd think those organizations committed to excellence would seek out and emulate these examples, if they were sincere in their intent.

 

Which finally brings us to government.  Remember those underperformers who could be easily replaced?  They become government's problem; through the work of Ministries of Labour, through economic incentive and training programs but above all, through research, consultation and active commitment to labour/occupational mental health issues, it's the role of government to ensure that everyone has the tools they need to succeed.  If it isn't them, it's nobody.

 

Given the magnitude of this responsibility, you'd imagine government wants the best-trained employees with the right level of commitment and would be constantly researching best HR practices to ensure their teams have the tools they need to succeed, right?

 

You'd be wrong.  Politics is regarded in much the same way as a factory floor in the industrial revolution; there are lots of bodies looking for opportunity, we need only cycle through them to find the right fits.  The people can be discarded; it's the elected folk, the executive, that really matters.  This is why, despite the commitment of governments across the country to occupational mental health, you'll be hard pressed to find a Political Party that has internally implemented any of the federal standards for psychological health and safety.  Training is non-existent for the same reason it's hard to find in all kinds of fields; with constant staff turnover expected and presenteeism not understood at all, the powers that be don't see any need for complex training.

 

Think about that for a second - the people who advise your government policy and communicate your government's message have little to no training on how to do their job, unless it's on the political side.  If presenteeism is a recognized issue and poor performance is seen as a contagion, is it any wonder we are constantly seeing a cycle of entitlement boom and bust in politics? 

 

It'd be all too easy to join the throngs of frustrated citizens shaking their fist at lackluster politicians failing to perform with the highest distinction and turn to our favourite political mantra of "kick the bums out!"

 

But not so fast.

 

How much training do our politicians get?  Do they receive any management courses, any negotiation or mediation training?  Do we expect them to receive budget training, provide them with clear mandates and provide mentorship if they're missing the target?  Who would you expect to provide that training?  Do we consider periodic and high-level briefings or the odd awareness-building protest sufficient training to empower politicians to do the job we expect of them?

 

The fact is, government is among the most poorly run organizations there is - politicians, their staff and their internal overseers all fumble around with personality management, time management, task prioritization.  Nobody says boo about this; we somehow expect politicians to come to their Legislatures as fully-formed and perfect representatives.  When we, surprise surprise, don't get that, we either stew until we can vote them out or tune out of what they are doing entirely.

 

To let such a man stay on corrupts the others. It is grossly unfair to the whole organization.

 

In a democracy, it's the people who form the Executive; by how we engage, what motivation and support we offer, we either motivate and mentor our politicians, or we don't.

 

If we expect them to conceive and execute our work with no direction, we have only ourselves to blame for the outcome.

 

There's only one way we can ensure Canada or Ontario or any of our jurisdictions remains competitive and keeps moving forward (instead of falling behind others) - and that's for us as citizens to get informed and get engaged.  If we expect our representatives to perform with the highest distinction, it's up to us to set that standard ourselves.

 

Is the Future of Talent in Clusters?

The Future of Talent Is in Clusters

by Dave Aron | 8:00 AM February 1, 2013

 

An effective team is a powerful thing. Many of us have participated on teams where the members complement each other, trust each other and find ways of working that are not only effective, but also enjoyable. For teams like this, performance is typically much higher than might be expected of the sum of individuals.

 

And yet while teams often are where the real work gets done, most businesses don't value or manage them well. Many businesses aren't skilled in talent management or team nurturing. Team management, in particular, is often a scarcely recognized activity.

 

What's more, most employees don't work in high-performing teams for long periods — team members move on, projects finish, and other pressing needs come to the fore. While it's part of the normal course for organizations, disbanding well-functioning teams is actually a value-destroying activity, eradicating the "team capital" built and stored in the team. Because businesses don't fundamentally recognize such teams as entities beyond the activity they are performing, this value destruction seems inevitable.

 

But what if there was another way? One in which organizations capitalize on the inherent value of a well-functioning team? One where the organization evolves its management style to let teams self-manage to preserve their culture and value?

 

A New Kind of Team: Clusters

 

Clusters are a radical alternative to our traditional notion of teams. They are formed outside a company context, but are hired and paid by companies as a unit, as a permanent part of the company. They manage, govern and develop themselves; define their own working practices and tools; and share out remuneration. Technology trends and tools like the cloud, and collaboration suites, are evolving to make this more and more workable.

 

The business or agency treats the cluster as an atomic unit of resource and it hires, fires and positions the cluster as a unit. Likewise, each cluster appears as such a unit in the business's organization chart. Clusters plug together like Lego bricks to achieve the business's goals.

 

A cluster is not the same as a consulting model. The main difference is that clusters will typically be hired permanently by a business with a mutual intention to commit for the long term. As such, a cluster can be considered a real asset of the business, just as high-performing staff members are today. Also, the cluster model puts extreme emphasis on teams that learn how to work well together and determine their own tools and work practices. This is not always true of consultancies. An individual can be in different clusters over time, and possibly in multiple clusters at once, similar to a conventional part-time work model. Similar approaches can and should be applied to consultancy models.

 

Clusters Manage Themselves

 

A cluster typically consists of five to eight people, is hired by a business with a clear scope of work, and remunerated based on outcomes. Clusters have already established shared values, work practices, tools, and roles, such as who is good at what. Balancing team roles can be particularly important to avoid the Apollo effect, where every team member needs his or her idea to dominate and the team is unable to come to a consensus. Clusters actively seek the variety of skills, talents, and personalities necessary to create a high performing team (see the Belbin model for a good example of nine discrete team roles.)

 

While there are close equivalents of clusters in a few corners of the working world (elite military teams, medical units, and TV and film crews), this model could and should pervade much further into the working world, possibly and ultimately for all operational and project work, and sometimes even for leadership teams. I would project that by 2020, 30% of work will be performed by permanently employed, self-managed clusters.

 

The cluster manages itself by finding, hiring and firing members; governing itself and resolving conflicts; creating and sustaining work practices and tools; and managing its engagement with other clusters, teams, people and organizations in order to fulfill its direct business goals and to nurture itself.

 

In short, a cluster is an extreme version of a self-managed team. It is extreme because the enterprise only has a formal legal and financial relationship with the cluster, not its members. Note that while a cluster is self-managed, it is not typically a self-directed team. Self-directed teams define their own goals, whereas clusters agree on outcomes with the businesses for which they work.

 

Clusters Create More Value

 

Clusters offer four main benefits:

 

Higher levels of business performance through higher motivation. The cluster model, when executed well, addresses known performance drivers such as purpose, autonomy, and mastery (see Daniel Pink's book Drive for more on these).

 

Higher levels of business performance through a custom work environment. Clusters can create and sustain leading-edge electronic work environments since they are less burdened by bureaucratic decision-making and the need to serve the diverse needs of many types of teams and individuals.

Talent management in the right place. The cluster model removes the burden of team and individual performance management from the business — where it typically sits uncomfortably and ineffectually today — to the cluster. The cluster knows its own members, contributions and development needs much better.

 

Higher levels of personal happiness. Clusters are sufficiently small for members to genuinely know and care about each other, and they are stable and autonomous enough for members to support each other's long-term personal development.

 

Clusters Have Risks, But They Are Manageable

 

For the cluster model to work well, with businesses hiring, firing, positioning and remunerating clusters as atomic units, considerable changes are needed in the macro work environment, to HR and payroll, recruitment agencies, legal, financial, and real estate. Even if these macro changes are made, there are two main real and perceived risks with the cluster model: the formation of mini silos, and the inability to retain clusters or their loyalty. The key to success is to ensure that the cluster's agreed-on scope of work includes appropriate levels of commitment to, and multiple interfaces with, broader corporate goals and initiatives.

 

Eventually, wherever the cluster model is adopted, businesses will need to work hard at managing and leading them well, just as they have always done for their emerging talent assets — ensuring that the best are motivated to stay, the worst are inclined to go, and those in the middle are motivated to improve.

 

More blog posts by Dave Aron

More on: Hiring, Human resources, Talent management

Dave Aron

Dave Aron is a vice president and Gartner Fellow in the Gartner CIO Research group, focusing on IT leadership issues. His work on clusters is part of a Gartner Maverick research project, which examines high-impact future scenarios as they emerge.

Cloud Calls for a Concious Revolution

“for decades, we’ve treated computers as precious and humans as cheap. And most IT organizations still think that way. But cloud is what computing looks like in an age of abundance—a world where tech is cheap and humans are expensive. To capitalize on this requires a shift in culture and mindset, a willingness to take risks and to experiment, and a much faster-paced, more iterative, kind of business posture. That’s an uncomfortable shift for much of Canada.”

 

The demands of work are changing - as is what employees demand of their employers.  Imagine a labour market that treated human resources the way it did computers - ensuring regular upgrades, supportive environments and interconnectivity.  How do we motivate innovative success?  How do we best support our cognitive labour resources?

 

What is required for success in the knowledge economy is a completely different model than that which fueled the industrial economy.  It will take a revolution not of technology, but of consciousness for us to get from here to there.

 

Welcome to the 21st Century; welcome to the Conscious Society.