Loyalty in Business and Politics

 

 

What is loyalty?  Is it partisan - my country right or wrong? Or is it through dedication to the mission and conscious support of decision makers?  When I think about loyalty, I always come back to this quote from Crimson Tide:

 

Be careful there, Mr Hunter. It's all I've got to rely on, being a simple-minded son of a bitch. Rickover gave me my command, a checklist, a target and a button to push. All I gotta know is how to push it, they tell me when. They seem to want you to know why.  

7 Qualities Of A Truly Loyal Employee

Dharmesh Shah

Founder and CTO at HubSpot

First things first: Where employees are concerned, loyalty has nothing to do with blind obedience, or unthinking devotion, or length of tenure.

 

Surprised? Think of it this way. Which employee displays greater loyalty?

 

1. The employee who has been with you for ten years and in that time has learned to do just enough to fly, unseen, under the performance issues radar, or

 

2. The employee who has been with you for 18 months and believes in where you’re going, how you want to get there – and proves it every day by her actions

 

Of course experience is important, but given the choice I'll take the employee behind door #2 every time.

 

At HubSpot we’re fortunate to have hundreds of extremely loyal employees. We're working hard to create a culture that recognizes and rewards true loyalty. We still have a long ways to go, but you can see our "work in progress" in our Culture Code slide deck.

 

Truly loyal employees are not just committed to helping their companies succeed; their loyalty is also displayed in other ways, some of them surprising.

 

1. They display loyalty through integrity.

Many people assume loyalty is proven through obedience: Often unthinking and unquestioning, even when a request or directive falls into a gray area or, worse, is unethical or illegal.

 

An employee who consistently seeks to do the right thing is not just following a personal credo – she’s also looking out for your long-term interests. You may see her as disloyal today… but in time you’ll realize that she displayed the highest form of loyalty by helping you avoid missing the “do the right thing” forest for the “do it right now” trees.

 

2. They generate discussions others will not.

Many employees hesitate to voice their opinions or feelings in a group setting. Some even hesitate to voice their opinions in private.

 

An employee once asked me a question about a new initiative. After the meeting I pulled him aside and said, “Why did you ask about our new pricing strategy? You know what we’re doing – you were part of the planning.” He said, “I do, but a lot of other people don't, and they’re hesitant to ask since they aren’t directly affected. I thought it would help if they could hear what you’re thinking and what we’re planning.”

 

Loyal employees have a great feel for the issues and concerns of the people around them, and they ask the questions or raise the important issues when others won’t. They know, for the company to succeed, that you need to know what employees are thinking… and that employees need to know what you are thinking.

 

3. They praise their peers.

Truly loyal employees care: About the company, about its customers, about its mission… they feel they’re working for something greater than just themselves. So they appreciate when another employee does something great because that means the company is fulfilling its mission.

Employees that praise and recognize others, especially when it’s not their job to do so, don’t just display great interpersonal skills. (When you do something well, praise from your boss feels great… but it’s also, at least generally speaking, expected. At least it should be. Praise from a peer feels awesome, especially when you respect that person.)

 

By praising others, they show they care.

 

Caring forms the basis of loyalty.

 

4. They dissent and disagree

Every great company fosters debate and disagreement. Every great leader wants employees to question, to deliberate, and to push back. Weighing the positives and negatives of a decision, sharing conflicting opinions, playing devil's advocate… disagreement is healthy. It’s stimulating. It leads to better decisions.

 

Loyal employees share their opinions, even when they know you may not initially appreciate those opinions, because they want the company to be better tomorrow than it is today. And they’ll occasionally take stands against a point of view or decision.

 

5. They support in public.

After a decision is made, loyal employees get behind that decision even if they privately disagree. And they don’t just pay the decision lip service; they support the decision as if it were their own – because when you’re loyal, every decision is, ultimately, your own.

 

When they disagree, some employees (the not so loyal ones), whether passively or actively, try to show that a decision they disagreed with was in fact wrong.

 

A truly loyal employee puts aside his feelings and actively tries to make every decision the right decision – instead of willing it to fail so they can prove themselves right.

 

6. They tell you what you least want to hear.

The Inverse Rule of Candor states that the greater the difference in “rank,” the less likely an employee will be to openly take a different position: An entry-level employee is fairly likely to tell his direct supervisor that he disagrees with that supervisor’s decision, but he is almost totally unlikely to tell his boss’s boss’s boss that he disagrees with his decision.

If you’re the CEO, that means your direct reports may pull you aside for an open, forthright chat… but few other employees ever will.

 

Truly loyal employees know that what you least want to hear may be what you – and by extension your company – most need to hear: That an initiative won’t work, that a decision-making process is flawed, that a mistake has been made… truly loyal employees realize that while you may not like what you hear, ultimately you want to hear it because what matters most is doing what is best for your employees, your customers, and your company.

 

Well-intended silence can be a good sign of loyalty; speaking up, especially when it’s awkward or even painful to do so, can be the best sign.

 

7. They leave when they need to leave.

If you can’t tell by now, a truly loyal employee is almost always a sensational employee. Often, they’re your best employees – so the last thing you want is for them to leave.

Yet sometimes they do: For a different lifestyle, for a better opportunity, for a chance to move to a different industry, or simply to take what they’ve learned and start their own company.

When it’s time, they tell you it’s time to leave – and they help you prepare to fill the hole they create.

You? You’re disappointed but you wish them well. For a time, even if only for a few years, they put your company’s interests ahead of their own…

 

…and now it’s your turn to do the same for them. Of course, you can always make your most convincing arguments to encourage them to stay (hey, you’re loyal too!) – but if it doesn’t work out, the right thing to do is to return their loyalty, wish them well and help them continue to stay awesome.

 

Dharmesh Shah is founder/CTO at HubSpot and blogs somewhat regularly at OnStartups.com. You can get new updates by clicking "Follow" at the top of this page.

Collaboration Soup: Inspired Teamwork and the Secret to Innovative Success

 

But she wonders if in seeking the Holy Grail of innovation, companies (and authors) are actually looking in the wrong direction.

 

“Perhaps it is a culture of collaboration that we should be seeking as the Holy Grail.”

 

Contents:

 

A Proven Recipe: Collaboration Works

Why Competition Doesn't

The Profit Paradox

Ingredients for Success: Start with a Stone

Why WAKATA

 

Everyone is trying to motivate innovation.  The standard method of increasing incentives and fostering competition doesn't seem to be doing the trick - Finance Ministers and Prime Ministers are growing frustrated with the lack of results.

 

So - how do you foster innovation? 

 

A Proven Recipe: Collaboration Works

 

Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne is famous for her campaigns and her office culture - everyone loves working with her.  They have a good time, they get recognition (frequently and intentionally from Wynne herself) and they do work that matters.

 

My former boss, retired Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry MPP Jim Brownell, was famous for his Brownell Nights - pub evenings where ideas were shared and bonds formed over food and drink.  These nights not only boosted staff morale and encouraged team-development, they also resulted in some cool ideas, a few of which resulted in policy and regulatory action.  Brownell Nights weren't just about drinks, they were a conscious effort to create a collaborative space under the Brownell banner that got things done and in the process, strengthened the brand.  It worked.

 

Why Should I Care is a civic engagement event/speaker/series/pub night started by Terri Chu, a wickedly smart engineer who embodies the 7 traits of successful entrepreneurs to a tee.  From humble beginnings in Terri's kitchen, WSIC has grown into a monthly event that attracts the kind of speakers you generally have to pay big bucks to hear at The Canadian Club, including Art Eggleton, John Tory, Rosario Marchese and Dr. Ilse Treurnicht of MaRS.  The reason the model works so well is that it empowers the audience to participate, it gives speakers an opportunity to engage with a different crowd and of course, there's food.
 

Over the recent Ontario Leadership Race, my friend James Borer organized a Rural Roundtable - a tweak on the typical debate format that challenged participants to bring forward ideas, not criticisms.  Everyone loved it - the conversation was positive, everyone gained new insight and a couple of cool ideas were introduced to the discussion.

 

In each of these cases, everyone from the organizers to the staff to the volunteers to the attendees have walked away glad to have been part of something special.  The reason for this that in each of these cases, everyone involved, from all angles, felt like actual participants. 

 

Why do Political Parties have trouble with membership?  Why is voter turnout on the decline, with a resulting shrinking of the policy idea water hole?  It's because people don't feel engaged, don't feel their participation is respected and don't believe they can truly contribute.  Oh, and there's not enough food, either.

 

Collaboration works.

 

Why Competition Doesn't

 

The prevailing theory is that competition drives innovation - the desire to beat the other guy or to make oodles of cash through the selling of something new is what encourages entrepreneurs to work harder and develop the exciting, innovative ideas and products.  Key to this notion is the myth of the lone innovator, the creative stalwart who gets hit by idea lightening, out of the blue, birthing fully-formed ideas that will change the world.  It's a compelling myth, this, despite being one that has no basis in fact.  

 

Nothing comes from nothing, especially ideas.  The lone innovators we idolize in actual fact have stood on the shoulder of others, just as today's innovators stand on theirs. You can't make soup without raw ingredients - if you've never made a soup before, having someone else's recipe gives you a starting point to add your own flourishes to the mix.  Why should we ever think innovation would be different?

 

To a large degree, it's because we associate innovation with profit and to lesser degree, problem-solving.  The evidence doesn't support this, either - most exciting innovations stem from whimsical inspiration, not a planned outcome.  This isn't to say having a "why" in place doesn't matter - you need a destination if you're to recognize the paths that will lead you there.  If gravity wasn't on Newton's mind, he might have viewed that apple as a pain, not an opportunity.  It's a glass half-full/half-empty thing; if you think you're having a bad day, you will invariably notice only the things that back up that premise.  The same holds true for a positive demeanour.  Innovation works the same way - you could have a billion ideas connect in your head, in passing, but its the ones that illuminate your pervasive theme that will stand out and be noticed.

 

But I mentioned profit.  Standard wisdom once again provides an intuitive, counter-factual perspective on innovation - people are motivated by greed and fear, which is why a carrot-and-stick approach works best in keeping people productive.  If it works for widget-making, it must equally apply to creativity.  This is the labour-management equivalent to wielding a hammer and viewing every problem as a nail - we are deluding ourselves that our existing tools are fool-proof and misattributing failure.  Pollsters do it.  Stock-pickers do it.  Politicians do it.  It's everywhere.

 

The fact is, carrots and sticks are good for motivating physical work, because they target our reactive mind.  Innovation is all about being proactive, adding value to what already exists.  You don't motivate creativity by making people think reactively, but by incentivizing legacy.  This is a simple truth that is backed through rigorous testing, lived experience and even neuroscience.  Whimsy, not necessity, is the mother of invention. 

 

And as the best innovations aren't developed with profit in mind, they also tend to be free.

 

The Profit Paradox

 

This puts us in a bit of a spot - why on earth would conventional wisdom be so wrong about the role of competition and profit in motivating innovation?  Surely any idea that off-the-mark would be weeded out, wouldn't it?

 

Do you read your horoscope in the newspaper?  Do you accept the results of polls as indisputable fact?  Does fortune-telling persist?

Yup. 

 

“But the methodology does work,” Wright told the Star in a telephone interview from the Ipsos head office in Paris. “We do $2.6 billion of research a year out of this corporation, and if it was all broken no one would be using it.”

 

I always nod and smile when anyone tells me confidently, aggressively that they're good at what they do.  Then I do my homework to see if that's actually the case.  Surprisingly, it often isn't.

 

If innovation is whimsical, cause-driven and relies on curiosity and collaboration, financial competition is all about a lean focus on profit and promotion.  If you want to sell, you have to market and you absolutely have to have the tenacity to close a deal.  Like physical labour, it's the carrot-and-stick system that motivates the aggressive, competitive, successful sales people.

 

Confidence sells.  Aggressiveness sells.  Bluster, charm, great hair or a brilliant smile sells.  A complex understanding of the associations between cognitive labour motivation, workspace design and fostering innovation?  You've lost 'em at A.

 

The reason the Myth of the Lone Innovator persists is because the people who are successful at selling innovation want it that way.  They want it believed that only they have the ability you want and you're going to have to pay to get it.  Quite frankly, they're so good at what they do that nobody can challenge them on their presentation; those who do will be put-down, dismissed or threatened with law suits.  The great patent fights of history are what this looks like in practice. 

 

Intellectual property is only profitable when it's supported by law, force or that same sales ability - which is why the greatest innovators always have partners - there's the brains, then there's the business.  Sometimes, you get the two in one package, but not often.  Nowhere near as often as we'd like to believe.

 

By the same token, the great sales agents are great at never failing themselves - blame will always, always rest on someone else's shoulders.  It's a form of narcissism, really - brand over substance and a blatant refusal to accept responsibility.

 

So what does that leave us with?  The really innovative people are driven to do.  The best sales people are motivated by what they get out of the deal.  It's therefore the latter that control the narrative of the former for the general public.

 

 

Ingredients For Success: Start with a Stone

 

 

What's the best work or volunteer experience you had? Was it the one that paid you the most money? Was it the one where the rules were rigid and everyone was obliged to stay within their boxes? Or was it the one that was fun, engaging, collaborative?  What sort of ideas did the team come up with?

 

Back to Kathleen Wynne.  As mentioned, her campaigns are always fun, engaging, meaningful experiences for her teams.  They also came up with some cool material, varying from collector's item swag, a dance introduction for her convention speech and an award-winning website designed by Taylor Scollon.  Oh yeah - they also won.

 

What makes Wynne's campaigns work?  She embodies the parable of stone soup - the idea that something - a person or a vision - is required to bring disparate elements together to create a whole that's more than the sum of its parts.  Call it inspired teamwork.

 

Most teams are teams in name only - in practice, they function more like a series of canoes paddling side-by-side; each faces the current alone instead of collaboratively pulling together.  It's less complicated, maybe, but it's also far less efficient.  Plus, when you give people a mandate to paddle together and challenge them to figure out how, that's when you come up with ideas like the horseless carriage.

 

I have four rules that guide my work with any sort of team, but volunteers in particular:

 

1) Keep them fed

 

2) Make sure they get the chance to do meaningful work - this means rotation and the opportunity to provide input

 

3) Acknowledge their contributions

 

4) Make sure they feel as part of the team - not tools of a core group of organizers.  To treat people as team members, though, you have to actually see them as team members.

 

This approach takes time, involves a lot of emotional validation and time spent listening instead of doing, but it works.  Greta Hoaken is a great example of the sort of talent you can find if you give your people half a chance.

 

When you include your team members, you encourage them to put their skin in the game as they get to share the glow of the end product.  It allows them to feel truly part of something larger than themselves - they will thank you for that.  Engaged people also tend to be more willing to share and play with ideas - the more ideas you have to start with, the better your end solutions are going to be. 

 

There's another key benefit to this approach that makes a difference - respecting people and letting them participate breeds loyalty.  This is important, because most people seem to think loyalty is owed to a brand and therefore, volunteers (or employers) can be manhandled in any way the top dogs want.  In fact, this discourages innovation, disenfranchises volunteers (making them more likely to walk) and makes existing team members less productive. 

 

One of Canada's most respected political organizers once told me that campaigns invariably end up being run by a small group of organizers who are the only ones who get stuff done.  This individual has a habit of domineering a room and disregarding ideas that don't originate in their circle, a trait all too common in organizations across the political, private and Not-For-Profit spectrum.  Chris Mazza provides a good example of just how well this top-down, closed-communications approach works.  Worth noting - this person did not work on Team Wynne's campaign.

 

Why WAKATA 

 

The idea of collaboration leading to stronger, more sustainable results might be somewhat foreign to traditional capitalist culture, but that doesn't mean it's foreign to everyone.

 

No, I don't mean communism - the Great Socialist Experiment wasn't about collaboration, either; it was all about caste and silos.

 

I'm referring to Talking Circles in particular, although there are plenty of cultural examples to chose from.  Some of the most innovative, enterprising people I know have a mixed bag of ethno-cultural background themselves.  Their exposure to different perspectives has fueled their growth as critically-thinking, creative individuals.  Some of them have even turned their experience into a new model for post-secondary education.

 

There are shared workspace models out there that allow people of different backgrounds to work together.  There are a few exceptional work models that actually nurture collaboration, rather than sticking people in a room and hoping it happens or worse, pitting people against each other in a futile attempt to nurture innovation.

 

But what does a truly collaborative work and workspace model look like?  What would it require to function, to produce tangible results and contributions and empower people to shine?  How could you make this concept more than just a matter or work, but a lifestyle?

 

Understanding is the place where diversity meets and innovation happens.  WAKATA is the pot. 

 

There's money to be made from the concept - there's legacy to be created and brand that can be built.  Most importantly, there are solutions out there waiting to happen - they lack only the right connective tissue. 

 

It's something worth having a conversation about, don't you think? 

 

POST SCRIPT

 

If a culture of open, respectful collaboration is the Holy Grail for innovation and productivity, would that make a culture of top-down management fueled by fear the Golden Calf?

 

If so, it's no wonder Stephen Harper is so frustrated with the lack of innovation and job development coming out of his government.  It's not too late for him to change his approach and get back on track - he simply has to be willing to actively listen to others and just maybe have a bit of faith in people.

Stephen Harper's Fall From Grace

 

“All I know is for a man (Harper) who started out as a reformer, which basically is bottom up democracy, grassroots, he totally went the other way, he is all top down.”

 

Why has Harper fallen so far from grace?  It's simple - he's lost faith in the judgement of the people.  He fears what will happen if he isn't in control. 

 

It's typical micro-manager behaviour, really - the kind of behaviour that's proven to have a negative impact on the occupational mental health of employees.

 

It's a good thing he's committed to a national mental health strategy with emphasis on the workplace - let's just hope he carries this lesson hope with him.

How To Save Your Business Money

- by keeping your most valuable tools - your employees - in good working order:

Time to take mental health to work 

By Rosana Pellizzari, Peterborough City-County Health Unit

Tuesday, December 11, 2012 1:07:12 EST PM

 

 

With the growing openness to talk about mental health and illness, it’s time to take mental health to work! With most adults spending 60% of their waking hours at work, the work environment becomes a key driver in people’s physical and mental health. According to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), one in five Canadians will experience mental illness in their lifetime and the other four will know someone – a friend, family member or co-worker – who has. It touches us all.

Some employees come to their workplace with a pre-existing mental illness. For others, their mental illness, usually depression and anxiety, is a result of their work environment. According to one study, almost three-quarters of all people with a mental illness are working.

 

The effect of mental illness is not just felt by the individual but by their co-workers and their workplace. CAMH reported that “mental health is the number one cause of workplace disability in Canada, accounting for nearly 30% of disability claims and 70% of the total disability costs.”

 

To raise the profile and provide support to workplaces, a new voluntary Psychological Health and Safety in the Workplace standard has been created, to be launched in 2013. The standard outlines 13 psychosocial risk factors that can either improve or worsen a worker’s mental well-being: organizational culture, psychological and social support, clear leadership and expectations, civility and respect, psychological demands, growth and development, recognition and reward, involvement and influence, workload management, engagement, balance, psychological protection and protection of physical safety.

 

To properly support employees with mental health problems, we need to challenge our own assumptions and stereotypes. In addition, workplaces need to create an environment that makes it safe for employees to talk about aspects of their lives that are having an impact on their mental health. According to the Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA), “employees who were diagnosed with depression and who took the appropriate medication saved their employer an average of 11 days a year in prevented absenteeism.”

 

What can we do if we believe a co-worker is struggling to cope with depression, anxiety or any other mental illness? Here are some tips.

 

1. Encourage the co-worker to enlist the support of someone they trust who can help to advocate on their behalf (e.g., union steward, a sympathetic work friend, family member, or friend).

 

2. Make the co-worker aware that there is a psychological health and safety standard as well as other resources that may help guide the support she or he can ask for in their workplace.

 

3. Suggest to the co-worker that they make use of other services/resources available in the community and through work (e.g. employee and family assistance programs or benefits).

 

If you or someone you know needs help, visit www.pcchu.ca for a list of services in our community. Employers who want to ensure that your workplace is psychologically healthy and safe, visit www.healthatworkpeterborough.ca for resources that can help you get started.

 

The World Health Organization predicts that depression will be the single biggest medical burden on health by 2020. A recent report by Pubic Health Ontario and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, “Opening Eyes, Opening Minds” found that the burden of mental illness and addictions in Ontario is more than one and a half times that of all cancers, and more than seven times that of all infectious diseases. Early detection and timely treatment are critical. Whether at home, at work, or at play, let’s all take note and take care of one another.

 

Dr. Rosana Pellizzari is medical officer of health for Peterborough city and county.

Lead By Example and Stop Bullying

Fifteen-year-old Amanda Todd was found dead in a Port Coquitlam home at 6 p.m. Wednesday, five weeks after she posted a heartbreaking video on YouTube detailing how she was harassed online and bullied.

Students and staff at Amanda’s school were grieving her death Thursday.

I'm sure her bullies are among the grieving. 

 

Here's a question for you - is it a dog-eat-dog world where only the most competitive survive?  Do you have to be tough to get ahead?  That's frequently how office politics works.  It's certainly how politics proper works.  Now, with clamp-downs on information flow, a reduction in social supports and heightened security measures, that's how government policy is working.   

 

If you really believe that a job is the best social program and that people should fight aggressively for the positions that are out there, then you must feel this young woman was a whiner unwilling to do what it takes to survive in this world.  Terrible thing that she killed herself, but probably best all around. 

 

Does that shock you?  Why would it?  We all buy in to political attack ads that denigrate individuals.  That's bullying.  Despite all the talk about mental health in the work place, aggressive micro-management and bosses with tempers are tolerated as "management styles."  Really, though, that's bullying, too.  When staff get that favoured talk, "look to your left, look to your right, one of you is going to be gone," that's a way of fostering healthy competition - by encouraging your team to work against each other and come out on top. 

 

It drives me nuts when people try to tell me "but it's different."  In what way is it different?  Is taunting not bullying when it comes from Members of Parliament?  Is calling people useless or worthless not bullying if it's someone's boss saying the lines? 

 

We might not like to look at it this way, but we have a whole culture of bullying:

 

- Students who are bullied and/or cyber-bullied face increased risk for depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal attempts.

 

Studies have shown that protracted exposure to stress caused by living in an uncivil environment lowers morale and increases the chances of developing coronary heart disease and other illnesses

 

The American Psychological Association has estimated that workplace stress (considering absenteeism, loss of productivity, medical expenses and turnover) costs U.S. businesses about $300 billion a year

 

Bullied teens commit suicide.  Bullied employees underperform, take anxiety meds, end up in ERs thinking they're going to have heart attacks and snap at their families.  Folk at the bottom of the social ladder bullied by the social system find their own ways to excise their pent-up cortisol.  Even people in prison being treated like rats in cages engage in self-harm.  Folk will say that adults should be tougher, that a bit of aggressive smack is healthy for workplace competition, etc. Nobody can ever tell me why, other than to use the confabulated excuse "it's different." That's not good enough.

 

BC Premier Christie Clark says “No one deserves to be bullied. No one earns it. No one asks for it. It isn’t a rite of passage."

She's missing the point.  Bullying isn't an add-on behaviour - it's genetic.  Aggressive people bully.  They tend to get ahead that way, too, encouraging more of the same.  People under resource pressures - like those who are worried about their economic stability when a pink slip comes in the mail - react biologically to their stress with a flight or fight response.  Fight might mean bullying the staffer next to you; flight might mean suicide.

 

We live with this head-smacking cognitive dissonance that bullying is bad but that the solution largely rests in the hands of the bullied.  We deplore bullying in one context when we ourselves are bullies in another.  The why is easy - we don't want to accept that just maybe, we're responsible and to avoid causing future such challenges, it's us, not them, that need to change.

 

 Bullying if a form of aggressively controlling or minimizing threats from opponents for resources, pure and simple.  Very useful genetic tool to have in a survival-of-the-fittest environment, it lets you remove opposition.  Rather detrimental in a social context, though, as we can see.

 

The more resource-challenged people are, the more aggressive or despondent they will become.  People who are supremely focused on getting themselves ahead will do so at the expense of others, reducing threats through tactics that embody the very essence of bullying.  We like to question the "mental health" of people who commit suicide, but perhaps we should be be dedicating an equal amount of energy looking at the cognitive functioning of their bullies.

 

It's a culture shift that needs to happen if we are to ever address bullying properly.  We owe this to every future Amanda Todd, their families and their communities.  Our leaders can decry bullying all they want, but until they start leading by example and exhibiting the behaviour they wish to nurture in our youth, our workplaces and in civil society, no one is going to listen.