The Zombie Shambles On

 

Unfortunately, the skills myth - like the myth of a looming debt crisis - is having dire effects on real-world policy.  Instead of focusing on the way disastrously wrongheaded fiscal policy and inadequate action by the Federal Reserve have crippled the economy and demanding action, important people piously wring their hands about the failings of American workers.

 

Moreover, by blaming workers for their own plight, the skills myth shifts attention away from the spectacle of soaring profits and bonuses even as employment and wages stagnate.  Of course, that may be another reason corporate executives like the myth so much.

 

So we need to kill this zombie, if we can, and stop making excuses for an economy that punishes workers.

 

I'm not of the opinion that corporate executives (or conservative politicians) are consciously punishing, marginalizing and dehumanizing the front line as an excuse to make more profit.  Quite the reverse; I think a focus on profit is what's giving these folk cause to dehumanize the front line.

 

Apex predators, survival of the fittest and all that.

 

That's just one piece of the puzzle for me, though.  Looking at the big picture, I see wrong-headed focus, widening communication and social gaps and not a small bit of anger all emerging at the same time as the stagnancy of our political and social systems are causing public services to reach a breaking point. 

 

Then, there's a private-sector culture that was nurtured during the Industrial Age and is poorly-positioned to maximize their labour's full potential in a more knowledge (information, communication, advanced tech, social media) economy.

 

But we don't think about such things - not when we're worried about a zombie apocalypse shambling towards us.  It takes a monstrous catastrophe of class-shattering proportions to shatter us from this revere and realize that when we opt to react selfishly instead of planning ahead pro-socially, we are that zombie.

 

Of course, this has happened before, and it will happen again.

 

Time is mythical that way.

Forbes on Right To Work

Not recognizing what's important to employees can translate into more job dissatisfaction, lower productivity, and higher volunteer turnover," says Rosemary Haefner, vice president of Human Resources at CareerBuilder.  "It's critical that companies regularly take the temperature of their workplace and survey employees to identify where the company excels in providing a positive employee experience as well as opportunities to improve."

What's with the sociology committing at Forbes?  Look, these employees have to quit expecting to be hand-held by bosses or unions through the work process.  They work, they get paid.  They work harder, they get paid more.  If they think their deal's not adequate it's up to them to make that case to their boss.

Employers, after all, own the means of production, like a field or a factory.  The workers are given access to the employer's resources and brand - it's up to them to produce to standard and if they bring in a bit more, well then they may get to keep some of that.

To expect an employer to wade into the emotional well-being and job-satisfaction of their employees - why, that's as unnatural and flighty as this play-based learning or innovation stuff.

Better to ignore special interest parties like Forbes and go with common sense policy, like Right To Work that has a long lineage of success.  

Right?

Hey Bosses, Employees Aren't Your Problem

"Ontario's health system does not have the resources to act as industry's Truant Officer."

There are presently massive changes happening in leadership practices.  It's early days yet, but the long-term prognosis is good.  As was the case with the Labour Revolution, smart employees are realizing they need to rethink their approach to Human Resources, just as HR folk are revisiting the whole purpose of their industry.

Where We've Been:

By and large, the prevalent stigma around employees is that they aren't focused on company success and are either not clever enough to see the big picture, too selfish to care or too lazy to add value without their own.  The assumption of bosses the world over is that employees are a problem that needs constant management, like weeds in a garden, if the work is to get done.

Salary and punishments are sticks and carrots to keep workers in line; all the frills they ask for are simply excuses to detract from productivity.

So, if an employee calls in sick, it's likely that they're looking for an excuse not to come in.  If they say directions weren't clear, they're stalling for time.  If they produce work that doesn't meet the expectations a boss had in mind, it's obvious the employee wasn't paying attention.

Enter micromanagement - the boss will either watch their employees like a hawk or push harder on middle managers to fill that role for them.  Sure enough, micromanagers will find employees less engaged, less productive and more likely to take every sick day available to them.  It reinforces the belief that the employees themselves are the problem.

Management, in this perspective, is about stopping truancy.

Where We're Heading

The age of the all-knowing boss is coming to an end.  Smart leaders are recognizing that being top dog doesn't make them omniscient, nor does it mean that their say-so is all that matters.  Instead, they're turning to science, behavioural economics and are willing to pilot innovative strategies to find, retain and motivate the best employees to the best results.

Google is a great example of this.  Instead of penalizing employees for being human beings that need recuperative breaks, socialization and food, they're optimizing engagement to ensure their team has their base needs met and that the process of meeting those needs feeds into the companies mandate of catalyzing innovations that will change the world (while making a profit).

Seeing how their stock price has topped $800, they must be doing something right.

There are other employers out there taking step in the same direction; great Canadian firms like Optimus SBR and Environics have started seeing their employees as the solution, not the problem, and are developing and implementing strategies that puts their team in the co-pilot's seat.

Surprisingly, there's even a movement growing within bureaucracies like the Ontario Public Service to change their working culture, though such initiatives are getting stuck in the clay layer of entrenched, comfortable middle-management.  Political Parties still lag far behind, but then, they're an industry focused on competition and wins, not achievement.  

Leadership, in this perspective, is about empowering individuals to be active participants in company success.

Nothing in this cognitive labour support movement is airy-fairy or pandering; it's evidence-based and it's effective.  The bosses that think otherwise can continue to lean hard on their employees and look to cut when they see their revenue drop, but this is the path to extinction.

The Conscious Revolution is here to stay - and the leaders that will build success in the knowledge economy are recognizing that their human resources are human first, and need to be treated as such.

Employees Are Not One Night Stands

HR is becoming a big pain in the neck for employers.  They have bottom lines to meet, work to get done - they want to quickly get the talent they need, pass on work (or vague concepts that can be crystalized into work and sales - hence the "hiring talent" piece) and move on.  There's a growing frustration with these apparently needy, cheeky millennials that expect clarity of direction, recognition for work done and meaningful engagement in a company's decision-making and implementation.

Um, no.  That's not how the real world works.

In the real world, bosses are in charge and new hires have to work damned hard to prove their worth. This means overtime, grunt-assignments and developing the capacity to intuit the boss' needs without them having to waste time explaining it to you.  If you can't manage this, well, that's why the new hires are on contracts only - they can be quickly canned and replaced.

You see, bosses don't have time to hand-hold or train new staff; they've got some significant sustainability issues due to the massive uncertainty around the global economy and their own sector. Partisan wars are making the policy landscape unpredictable, it's hard to know what may be a good investment or a bad one.  In a lot of cases, the solution appears to be hunker down and weather the storm.

Which brings us back to HR.  

Hiring can be a lot like speed-dating - you read a bunch of CVs, buy a couple of kids some coffee and bring on the one who seems like the best fit (skills and personality) for your shop.  If it doesn't work, well, they're only on contract; you tell um it's not going to work out, send them on their way and move on.  And on.  And on.

The more you do this, though, you begin skewering your view of what a potential hire is all about.  Are they trying to tell you what you want to hear to get the job, or are they equally interviewing you to see if there's a fit?  Is their priority to grow in a role and maximize their potential, use you to pad their CV or do they just want to make some money?  We'll get to the money-focused piece later.

Employment isn't a transaction; to say labour-for-money is the entirety of the process is like saying that food is strictly about sustenance (or romantic relationships are strictly about sex).  If you get enough value out of bread-and-water, fine, but in a competitive, evolving marketplace I'm gonna hazard a guess and say you've probably realized you need to branch out a bit.

The employer/employee relationship is not transactional - it's multi-dimensional with a whole host of factors including management style, clarity of communication, flow and even work design impacting the productivity, health and creativity of your employees.  All of this, in turn, impacts the adaptability and responsiveness of your team.

It is absolutely true that millenials have different expectations from work than their parents did - but then, the sorts of opportunities and challenges they face aren't the same as those their parents dealt with.  

This generation will live longer and work longer than the previous one.  As the CPP discussion rages on, there's less and less sense that retirement is even an option.  Besides, if you want to make money and make a difference, you're not looking at 9-to-5 jobs, either.  

There's an expectation on the side of youth that they'll have to blog, tweet and instagram about their day jobs, take calls at random hours and spend more time at networking and other related events.  They'll be thinking about their work and the value they can add while they're out with their friends, riding on the subway or shopping.

They want more from their employers, but their instinctively prepared to give more, too.  They're not looking at employers as pay cheques, but parts of their expanding network and future plans for growth.

Here's the big irony - bosses who either don't recognize the need to change and are fighting to hold the line or those who recognize that something's gotta give and are reducing their focus on HR so they can spend more energy on exploring new business avenues are missing the point.

If you hire well and commit to your staff, you can build a lasting relationship with them that will add value to what you do now and down the road.  Like any relationship, you should not expect employees to be constantly in agreement with you or to understand everything you say immediately; the reverse is equally true.  The goal isn't simplicity or one-way message flow, it's about complimentary capabilities and healthy friction that results in innovation.

Yes, there are certain basic skills you will want to look for in filling positions, but your focus should be more on the people than what they bring to the table on paper.  Understand clearly what you're hiring them for and what your expectations are (or perhaps even make the expectations development part of the hiring process) and plan accordingly.  If you, as a leader, go in looking to empower your future hires to reach their goals through adding value to their company (instead of a linear focus on what they can do for you) you'll be surprised what they'll be prepared to do for you in return.

All it takes is commitment.

Now back to the money-focus.

We have an increasingly laissez-faire culture that puts more pressure on front-line workers to be all things to all people - they need to follow instructions, intuit direction from unclear messaging, give regular (but simple) updates without expecting the same in return, have to find clients, pitch to clients, close deals and implement the work.  If they can't do all that, well, someone else can.

The same is being taught to students/new graduates - the ability to sell is the most important skill you can develop.  You need to sell yourself to employers, make them understand why they should hire you. Always Be Closing, etc.  To understand how foolish an approach this is, you need to have some understanding of behavioural economics.

Selling is not the same as accomplishing.  It never has been, nor will it ever be.  When you're focus in on selling, you're trying to portray confidence and incite a sense of urgency.  You have a problem, I have the solution, nobody else does.

That's what politicians do.  They overstate their capacity and undermine their opponents, then create a sense of urgency pushing you to donate to them or vote for their candidate.  Attention, Interest, Decision, Action.  So, how well and universally do politicians perform?  When does the selling game stop?

It doesn't.  Errors get downloaded, spun or ignored.  Wins are taken credit for where involvements was minimal and blown up to be larger than they are.  Problems that don't look like they have clear, communicable wins to them are simply overlooked.

It's not dead - it's resting.

Selling is about controlling the narrative, keeping up appearances and making a profit - which is not what accomplishment is about.  Accomplishment is collaborative, iterative and focused on the long-term, not the quick-hit.

We have sales-driven politics that are failing to address structural problems, but doing a great job on advertising.  We have firms across the board who are investing more in superlatives than they are in innovation or HR.

With all this selling going on, we're falling behind the curve.  Other jurisdictions are spending less time on preening and more on rolling up their sleeves.  It's time we catch up and start realizing that nobody buys the spin any more - they want to see results.

Thinking Broader and Doing Staff Better

The Canadian government's handling of climate change is part of a pattern.  Domestic political calculations here in Canada - rather than any high-minded sense of Canada's international obligations - seems to drive the Harper government's foreign policy decisions.

That would be because Team Harper is trying to maintain an empire, not nurture a democracy.

But one way or another the episode stands to change the way governments conducts their backroom business - forcing their operatives to either seek even more clandestine means to manage crisis or to stick to arrangements that can withstand the light of day.  It would be nice but probably overly optimistic to hope that they choose for the latter.

Alternative, more transparent and ultimately more efficient models designed with government in mind already exist.  In fact, a changed model is absolutely necessary for the success of open government and open data.

Mapping Out Human Resources and the Knowledge Economy

There is more.  We can argue about whether the name is right or wrong, or whether the focus should be on the company or on the employees, but what really matters is whether HR delivers value.

I cannot belabour this point (pun intended) enough.  By and large, we suck at doing HR.  

This is painfully true for policy-making bodies; as both staff and bosses (elected officials) are transitory in nature, no central body has ever seen value in creating a proper, value-added support structure.

As we enter the Knowledge Economy, smart business leaders are recognizing that the model of employee management that worked well enough during the Industrial Age isn't going to work now - different approaches are needed to maximize the potential of our cognitive labour.  These leaders are starting to think differently, basing their new approaches on new understandings of how to motivate knowledge-based productivity.

And here's the real kicker - as our social model is fraying due to its inadequacy for modern demographic needs, frustrated people seeing their savings and opportunities shrink are increasingly supporting populist leaders.  Those leaders are sticking to typical populist fare - tough-on-crime, best social program is a job, cutting is better than integrating and a laissez-faire approach to economic growth puts most of our eggs in the natural resource basket.

Don't try and tell the confident, competitive people leading the charge backwards that they're missing the trend-lines.  As far as they're concerned, they have all the answers that matter; if an idea doesn't make sense to them or isn't being communicated in a form they don't need to strain to understand, it wasn't worth their time in the first place.

There is an increased amount of pressure being put on human resources, particularly youth entering the workplace, to be leaders (craft the vision, make the pitch, manage the project).  This pressure is counter-intuitive, making it that much harder for the disruptive talent who can break a company's functional fixedness and help it adapt to current realities to get a toe-hold.

Meanwhile, how many comfortable, well-heeled folk see the social change that's remodelling everything as an economic storm, not cultural climate change?  How many capital holders are choosing not to take risks on untested but creative talent or invest in R&D?  Enough, apparently, that federal and provincial governments (plus a think tank or two) are trying to find ways to shake that capital loose.

There are moves to break the silos and build a system, with lots of focus on open data, user-friendly one-stop-shop portals and engaging the public in conversations, which is important.  Similarly, there are steps being taken in the direction of social service delivery reform, with an emphasis on building programs that put the person first, rather than relying on a bucket-funding model that puts end users at the bottom.

This is huge.  People are co-morbid; we're not just a doctor's visit or a school curriculum or a traffic ticket, we're connected.  Our services need to be connected, too.  They need to be mapped out and that map needs to be placed in our hand, via smart-phone Apps - this way we can navigate the path to sustainability that works for our individual needs.

Which brings us back to Human Resources.  We've gotten into the habit of putting The Economy first; that's putting the cart before the horse.  It's people that must come first, for if they aren't in good shape, how can the economy possibly be healthy?

We suck at doing human resources, primarily because we've forgotten the human part.  That sort of thinking can't last, because society has evolved beyond it.

If our labours are to produce sustainable results, we have to become conscious of this oversight and catalyze change.

Let's get passed fearing seas of troubles lapping at our shores - there's an ocean of opportunity and beyond, undiscovered countries waiting for us to explore.

My Phone Will Start Ringing Any Minute Now!

Two narratives I'm contemplating today as I dive further into defining what a truly networked society would look like, how it would work and why partners from across multiple spectrums will work together to catalyze it.

 

The public service Integration Imperative:

 

Human and social service leaders are responding to the changing preferences and usage patterns by developing a range of new digital platforms, including integrated websites, online accounts, and smartphone and tablet apps.

 

The apps have a range of capabilities enabling clients to update personal information, upload documentation, and view transaction histories across a range of programs.

 

Integration, for instance, can remove perverse incentives that cause providers to work in isolation rather than share resources and collaborate to achieve more effective interventions.

 

The evolving nature of PR:

 

I asked him about the state of the PR industry, and he said the challenge for PR pros is this: We're mainly talkers in a world where companies are looking for makers.

 

It’s safe to say that in the evolving marketing communications landscape, PR firms are competing more and more often with ad, digital, social media, content, and whatever new hybrid agencies appear on the horizon. The industry’s challenge is not only to get clients to think about us, but to think of us first.

 

The real challenge for PR is that it's a sales business; a focus on marketing existing value over creating new content is hard-wired into the industry.

 

The biggest challenge of government is that service delivery models are silo-focused; everyone knows they need to integrate, but A) don't know quite what that looks like and B) see integration as a threat to their turf.

 

How on earth do we bridge the gap between what we're comfortable doing and where we need to be going?

 

Sorry, phone's ringing, gotta sign off.  You know where to find me when you're ready to have a conversation!

Colle On Political Staff

"Obviously it's highly inappropriate," said centrist councillor Josh Colle, "but you start to worry about the safety of a pretty young group of people in that office who are being exposed to questionable characters.  You'd hate to think they're being put in a situation that's not safe."

Colle's empathy for political staff and concern for both their immediate well-being and the impact of deleterious work conditions on their long-term interests is to be commended.

Given the enormous power, high expectations and partisan stresses being placed on them, it's no wonder stories of staff are emerging in abundance.  When it happens so regularly, it's not an individual thing, it's a structural thing.  Where are young staff learning to act against the public interest when they're spending their entire working careers in politics?

Next, there will be more questions about exactly what training and supports they get to do their job as effectively as possible.  That, in turn, will lead to interest in hiring practices, which will lead back to elected officials themselves and the institutions that support them.

Yet another reason why smart pols are going the Open Government route now - best to own up and fix one's own house proactively rather than risking being called out on poor HR management later.  There's a lot of focus on occupational mental health, productivity and innovation these days, with pressure being placed by governments on the private sector to do better.

And if there's one thing we should be noticing, it's that there is low tolerance for political hypocrisy these days.

The Brainstorms Are Failing! The Brainstorms Are Failing!

I get to speak with a lot of amazing social entrepreneurs - people with amazing artistic or design talents they hope to build businesses out of or hardcore problem solvers looking for some way to fund the exploration and trial of their solutions.

I also speak with a lot of policy generators, managers, system leads, etc. looking for ways to paint themselves out of corners, best harness new opportunities or make what they are doing now work better.

From time to time, I even get to sit in on conversations/conferences where big leaders are trying to solve world problems.

You know why Canada lags so far behind when it comes to both productivity and innovation?  It's because, complacent, comfortable people that we are, we suck at both.  

There is nothing more painful than watching the "so what?" model of concept criticism discourage innovation and shoot down ideas that, with a bit of guidance, could have great potential.  To me, this is the equivalent of putting every kid in the same class with no accommodations and failing all of those who don't make the grade; it's selection of the fittest, defining "fit" with a very narrow criteria.

We can keep on expecting innovators to be communication experts and marketing gurus and financial whizzes, dismissing or ignoring those who aren't the complete package and whose ideas, while brimming with promise, need a bit of nudging.  But that's what we're doing now.

If we want to start getting ahead of the curve, we need to change our perspective.  To do that, though, we need to accept that our current one is outmoded.  Change and introspection can be scary, but such is the risk of leadership.

It's time for Canada to lead again.

3 Reasons Your Brainstorming Sessions Are Failing

You’ve heard it before, right? “Think outside the box.” “Change the paradigm.” This stuff isn’t new. But it’s been regurgitated so often that it has lost all meaning.

Project managers face an inconvenient truth: brainstorming sessions often lead to nowhere. The ideas that come out of these meetings tend to be obvious, lacking the innovation that businesses need in order to survive.

Why are your brainstorming sessions producing little of value, and what can you do about it?

1. The Fear of Creativity

We all pretend to embrace creativity, and most of us genuinely believe that we want creative ideas, but scientific experiments suggest otherwise. An experiment conducted by the University of Pennsylvania tells us that uncertainty creates fear and outright hatred for creative ideas.

In the experiment, one group of people were told that they would be paid by a random lottery, while the others were given no special instructions. They found that this random payment system made the participants feel uneasy, and uncertain about the future.

More interestingly, while the “normal” participants associated the word “creativity” with words like “sunshine” and “rainbow,” the uncertain participants associated it with words like “vomit” and “hell.”

That’s right. A sense of uncertainty literally makes creativity feel like hell.

In a second experiment, the same team found that people justified this fear of creativity by actually convincing themselves that creative ideas were somehow less creative.

Brainstorming doesn’t work unless your employees are at ease. Thankfully, the experiment also uncovered a simple way to accomplish this: by asking the participants to write an essay about how there is more than one solution to every problem. While asking your employees to write an essay is probably overboard, calling attention to this frame of mind on repeated occasion is going to do a lot for the success of your brainstorming sessions.

2. Linear Thinking

In another psychological experiment, scientists discovered that paradoxical thinking helped people come up with more creative ideas. The experiment was the result of a collaboration between Harvard, Carnegie Mellon, and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology.

In the experiment, participants were asked to read a series of reviews of a hypothetical toy by expert judges. If the judges said that the toy was creative, that it was cheap, or that it was creative or cheap, their performance on a creativity test was average.

But when they read reviews that the toy was creative and cheap, they got a boost on their creativity scores.

This was the result of paradoxical thinking. We typically think of things as being either creative or cheap. Realizing that a product could be bothwas enough to boost their creative potential.

In a similar experiment by the same team, half the participants were asked to come up with at least three paradoxical statements, while the others were asked to just write three statements. Afterward, they were asked to solve a complex creative problem, called the candle problem. Those who were asked to come up with paradoxical statements were much more likely to solve the problem.

In other words, successful brainstorming requires your team to be willing to mix and match ideas that don’t seem to go together.

3. Face to Face Brainstorming Doesn’t Work

This one’s painful for a lot of project managers to hear, but it’s the truth.

Experiment after experiment demonstrates that people come up with more, higher quality ideas when they brainstorm alone.

This goes against our intuition. If creativity is about mixing and matching ideas, shouldn’t group brainstorming make this easier? One experiment at the University of Texas demonstrates that when people listen to a tape before brainstorming alone, they actually do come up with better ideas. So the perspective of others does seem to play a part, but only before brainstorming.

There is one exception to this rule, though. The same team discovered that if people shared their ideas through a computer interface, their brainstorming sessions were even more successful than when working alone.

The problem is that face-to-face brainstorming creates too many distractions, fear of judgment, and a tendency to focus on a narrow group of similar ideas. These problems are avoided with a computer interface.

This calls attention to the power of computer-based collaboration. Rather than invest in single-person interfaces like Microsoft Project, managers can turn to collaborative alternatives like WorkZone, which allow for distraction-free brainstorming.

Conclusion

Innovation is a crucial component of success in modern business, and understanding it is a necessity for modern project managers. By conquering uncertainty, embracing paradoxes, and tapping into the power of computer-mediated brainstorming, you can outperform your competitors and deliver results.