пятница, 14 июня 2013 г.


'70% Disengagement' - 3 Ways To Engage Those Who Aren't

The latest numbers from Gallup’s survey of 150,000 workers are in:
Fewer than 1 in 3 (30%) American workers are committed to the success of their organization and are engaged in their work. Over half (52%) are ‘disengaged’ – defined as ‘less emotionally connected’ and not willing to do any more than necessary to keep their job.  Most alarming of all, nearly 1 in 5 works are ‘actively disengaged’ – actually against their organization, their boss, or both. If you only had five people working for you, this would make for a bleak support team!
However you interpret these numbers, they paint a disturbing picture and point to a dire gap between the leadership required in today’s flatter and more pressure-laden organizations and the leadership that people are getting. Given that engagement is indispensable to building competitive advantage and staying the course in an increasingly global marketplace, these numbers are a siren call to leaders at all levels to become more deeply engaged in closing the gap lest it grower wider.
While there are countless theories on fostering greater employee engagement and no one clear solution, my experience working with individuals and organisations across cultures, industries and hemispheres is that the most powerful paradigms are also the most practical. This, combined with my research while writing Stop Playing Safe, helped me develop the adjacent engagement framework, which incorporates three core domains for masterful leadership that deepens employee engagement and lifts organizational performance.
i) Connect – Build Trust:Relationships are the currency of the workplace, and so the stronger your connections, the more influence you wield.  To better engage workers in the work, leaders must first better engage with their workers.  This starts by building trust, respect and the lines of communication. People respond better to leaders they respect, even though they may not always like them.  Being able to communicate effectively with employees to direct and guide their actions first requires making a genuine connection with them. This cannot occur if leaders remain in their polished offices, removed from the shop floors and front line where employees live each workday. It requires, as I wrote in a previous column Why Leaders Must ‘Get Real’ – 5 Ways To Unlock Authentic Leadership, a willingness to lay vulnerability on the line, to engage in open conversation, to share authentically, and to constantly acknowledge and appreciate the efforts of those around them (the topic of another recent column).  Employees will be far more ready to go the extra mile for leaders they can relate to on a human level, rather than someone whom they perceive thinks of themselves as a ‘little bit better’ than everyone else.
ii) Inspire – Share The Bigger “Why”: In workplaces around the world today, millions of people show up thinking that what they do doesn’t matter beyond the pay-check they get for it. The cost to the human spirit of such widespread resignation and disillusionment far transcends even the vast cost to the bottom line.  As human beings we long to feel a sense of purpose and meaning in our work, not just our lives outside it. We want to believe that what we are doing with our time and talents, skills and expertise is being used for a worthy purpose. Sadly, too few people do.
People who don’t view the tasks they do each day as holding any larger utility beyond the obvious will scarcely be willing to put forth any extra effort, more prone to cutting corners, and more likely to cover up mistakes.  Which is why it is imperative for leaders to continually strive to ensure employees understand the bigger “Why” – enabling them to connect their actions to a vision – the company’s mission – and how that vision impacts the world around them in a meaningful way. There is little more demoralizing to workers than having a leader who can’t clearly articulate why employees should care about what they’re doing.
As I wrote in Stop Playing Safe, ‘While spirituality and business may seem an oxymoron, organizations that can connect employees to a bigger purpose – to a ‘why’ that transcends their pay check – are those that will tap their full potential and inspire employees to continue go the extra mile.’  Leaders must help people see that their role, while it may seem relatively insignificant in the big scheme, is both valued and valuable. More so, that the attitude and spirit they bring to fulfilling it is no less important.  In short: it’s a leaders mission to inspire those they lead to do more, learn more, and become more than they otherwise would. As leadership expert Lance Secretan wrote in Inspire: What Great Leaders Do, ‘A leader who does not inspire is like a river without water.’
While I have no data to substantiate this, I suspect that the reason employee disengagement is highest among those under 25 is that they are the ones who still have the burning fire in the belly desire to change the world, yet suddenly find themselves in a ‘job’ doing the mundane tasks young workers tend to be given, and struggling to see any connection between what they’re doing and the bigger problems they see in the world around them (a feeling I can still recall myself at that age.) Helping bridge that gap and connect the role an organization is playing in creating a more equitable, prosperous, and sustainable world (all values important younger people) will help to not only deepen engagement but inspire workers to go the extra mile and challenge themselves in new ways, knowing that they are part of something bigger than themselves. When people know that there’s something bigger at stake as they go about their work, they will approach every challenge with greater determination, resourcefulness and initiative than they otherwise would.
iii) Embolden –  Cultivate a Culture of Courage:   Willingness to step beyond our comfort zone is crucial to both our success and that of any organization we’re part of. But in order to do that, we have to know that it’s safe to do so and that we won’t be punished if our efforts fall short of the mark. In Stop Playing Safe, I wrote extensively about the importance of leaders at all levels in cultivating a ‘Culture of Courage’ that encourages innovative thinking and makes it ‘safe’ for employees to take risks, make ‘smart mistakes,’ challenge status quo thinking, and provide candid upward feedback.  When employees feel that their contribution is truly valued, and are challenged to push the boundaries of possibility, experiment, and express their opinions openly (though constructively), it triggers greater ownership of their own success as well as their commitment to the larger mission of their team and organisation.
When leaders are committed and actively working to connect, inspire andembolden – they unleash untapped potential and raise the bar not just on productivity, but on the value their organisation contributes to all it’s stakeholders.  Not only that – and of no less significance – they nurture and embolden an entire new generation of leaders to take on the yet seen challenges of tomorrow, clear in the knowledge that while what we do each day at work matters, it is the attitude we bring to what we do that matters far more.

четверг, 13 июня 2013 г.


The Four Questions Great Leaders Ask
“Judge a man by his questions rather than his answers.”
—Voltaire
Ever notice how great leaders ask the best questions?
A masterful leader will sit Yoda-like in a meeting, listening intently to the dialogue and then, with Zen Master timing, ask a question that will change the tenor, the focus and the performance of the entire team.
Seeing a seasoned leader ask questions is like watching a great musician or athlete who just seems to know what note to play or what play to call. In my opinion, this rare ability is the performance art of business.
I aspire to be this kind of leader and hope that with age and experience, I will eventually have the wisdom and timing to use less oxygen and get greater results.
(As my mother used to explain—often, I am afraid—God isn’t finished with me yet.)
From my experience, many of the best questions revolve around the following themes. My hope is that by asking these questions of yourself and your team, you get the outcome you want and your people get the leadership they need.
Question 1: Is this urgent or essential?
Urgent matters have a way of getting in the way of the essential. For example, you and your team checking emails first thing in the morning may feel essential but in reality, it may not even be that important. There is a growing school of thought—one that I endorse—that if you start each day by knocking off one or two of the most essential things on your list (before the urgent matters get in the way), you’ll be successful. As a leader, setting the context around what’s super important versus what feels important at the time is a great thing to question.
Question 2: What should you stop doing?
In order to have time to focus on the essential, you must eliminate the less important and distracting activities that occupy your time. Does your team have a “stop doing” list? Helping people become aware of what they might stop doing first will allow them more time and energy to focus on the essential “to-do” list.
Question 3: What makes you feel strongest?
Here’s a well-kept secret: Great leaders know what they suck at. More important, they know how to find working partners with superhero powers that disguise this suckiness through masterful delegation, thus giving them time and energy to focus on their strengths. Just because you can manage a project, drive the P&L, come up with the new marketing hook, and recruit good people doesn’t mean you are passionate and, for that reason, have the potential to be great at all of the above. If your friends or teammates think they are good at everything, lack of awareness and/or humility will conspire to keep them from being outstanding. Asking questions that help focus them on their passions and strengths is a gift that keeps giving.
Question 4: What might we be missing?
Great leaders are open to the fact (and it is a fact) that they are missing something—be it in new service offerings, make up of the senior leadership team, or “simply” in the assumptions they are making about the competitive environment. Pressing the team to consider what WE might be missing, demonstrates humility, awareness and openness to possibility. Wherever you find an innovative culture, you find leaders asking this question.
Extra Credit
The way you ask questions is critically important. By starting questions with “How to” or “I wish” and finishing them with the challenge that you can’t figure out, e.g., “I wish I knew how to get this idea through our legal hurdles,” you are modeling great leadership. Why? Because great leaders humbly share their biggest challenges with their teams and ask them to help solve them.
I was interviewing a young person the other day. As our time together came to a close she said, “You interview inexperienced but driven people like me all the time. Would you mind sharing some of the questions that I should be asking you that I am missing?”
Yoda would be pleased.

среда, 12 июня 2013 г.


How To Stop Three Billion New Ikea Customers From Wrecking The Planet

Healing Mother Earth is the last thing you think of when you ponder a cavernous, bustling Ikea store filled with shoppers hauling out flat-packed Faktums by the SUV load. Steve Howard is out to change that perception. He’s been Ikea’s chief sustainability officer for two years and gave a talk yesterday at TEDGlobal in Edinburgh to explain how the $37 billion (sales) retailer with 340 stores is throwing its weight into making mass consumption green.
“Sustainability is a fantastic business survival strategy,” says Howard. “The great decline in commodity prices in the 20th century is already reversing and we’ve got 3 billion people joining the middle class by 2030.”
Howard spent 25 years as an environmentalist but jumped at the chance to work inside a big company even though he wasn’t sure he’d fit in with the Swedish retailer’s homespun corporate culture. “My boss jokes that the only time we hired on competence was with me,” says Howard.Ikea plans to double the amount of sustainable material from in its supply chain by 2020. It has committed to getting all of its lumber by 2020 from forests certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, which mandates a stricter standard than most companies have taken, and a step that has already brought the retailer some scrutiny. A huge buyer of water-intensive fabrics, Ikea has, along with Nike, invested in a startup called Dyecoo that uses carbon-dioxide to dye textiles without using water.
To meet its other 2020 goal, generating 100% of its store power from renewable sources, Ikea has installed 300,000 solar panels on the roofs of its stores and distribution centers and now owns and operates 14 wind farms. In 10 U.S. states, Ikea already has the biggest solar-panel installations aside from utilities. Several of its stores in the U.S. are using recirculating pumps that send heat underground and bring the warm water up in colder months of the year. The chain has banned compact fluorescent lightbulbs and is working to exit the halogen business, opting instead for LED fixtures that save up to 70% of the energy compared to incandescents.
Howard is aware of Ikea’s accessibility issues. The chain typically places its stores in so-called peri-urban areas to keep its real estate costs low, but, for the young and on-a-budget types who shop there, that often means driving a rented or borrowed car to haul back the Stolmen systems. Howard says the chain is dealing with the issue in a few ways. One is to subsidize van service and encourage more online shopping and concentrate the deliveries into fewer truckloads. It is also seeking as often as it can to locate closer to public transit or other transportation alternatives, such as in the case of its waterfront Red Hook, Brooklyn store, where Manhattanites can pull up in a water taxi. Howard says the company is also looking at car-sharing programs that could tap into the 60 million members of its loyalty program. Why not encourage shoppers to seek rides or borrow a car from one another? “The sharing economy is an interesting space,” he says.
Howard knows that staking the company’s reputation on sustainability can make it a lightning rod for criticism, such as in the horse meatball scandal from earlier this year. Ikea, which sells 150 million of meatballs a year, pulled every package from the shelves when traces of horsemeat were first found in Ireland. Even though the contamination was limited to Europe, the flap galvanized the company’s ongoing efforts to audit its restaurant operation’s supply chain. Howard says Ikea is working with theMarine Stewardship Council and other aquaculture groups to ensure its salmon and herring are without problems, and with Fair Trade to certify its cocoa and coffee.
Ikea has more freedom than most multinationals to pursue sustainability goals. It is privately held by a foundation set up by its billionaire founder Ingvar Kamprad and has idiosyncratic financial policies. It caps its profits at 10% of revenue and lowers its prices every year by 1% to 2%. Any “excess” profit gets reinvested in the company or is given away by the foundation. It’s a good home for Howard to do his work. “Good quality doesn’t mean high prices. And today we have choices,” says Howard. “We can make beautiful, functional, affordable sustainable products.”

понедельник, 10 июня 2013 г.


Will You Be More Productive If You Know How Your Pay Compares With Your Colleagues'?
Will you work harder and produce more if you know not only how productive you are compared to your colleagues but what your colleagues are getting paid? The answer is yes, according to a paper by two academics at the London School of Economics, Jordi Blanes i Vidal and Mareiki Nossol.
The paper ran a year ago in the journal Management Science and was highlighted yesterday in an item on the Harvard Business Review’s blog, The Daily Stat. The paper examines a German wholesaler that gave its warehouse workers information on both their relative performance vis a vis other workers, and their relative pay. Once they had that information, workers’ productivity increased by 6.8%
The paper is worth considering, given that in many U.S. workplaces, both bosses and employees rarely discuss pay or productivity relative to other workers. We may have performance reviews and discussions about raises or bonuses, but generally our performance is judged based on what we have done in the past. In other words, we are compared with ourselves, not others.
In the paper, called “Tournaments Without Prizes: Evidence from Personnel Records,” the authors examined data from the main warehouse of a German wholesale and retail operation. They looked at 65 workers who were performing the core work of the warehouse, picking up customer orders, gathering together the goods, packing them onto a hand truck and moving it to the area where the products could be picked up. The workers got paid by three criteria. One was a fixed salary amount, another was based on the quantity of goods they moved and the third, on a more amorphous “quality” standard. The authors note that these are dead-end jobs because the skills don’t transfer to other positions at the firm. Of 207 people who had the job over 10 years, only two were ever promoted. So career advancement was not a motivation.
In the summer of 2001, a few members of the non-unionized workforce asked management for information about the wage per hour earned by the average worker. One interesting fact: two workers who had been complaining constantly about the conditions on the job and riling up other workers were among the worst performers, so management thought that giving them the information might get them to change their behavior.
Management decided to tell each worker where they ranked in both wages and productivity, compared with other workers at the warehouse. Workers didn’t get specific information on colleagues’ pay, but they did learn where their pay ranked within the range for their job.
The bosses gave the workers the news that they would receive this information a month before they shared the data. The workers’ productivity increased by 2.8% as soon as they found out they would get the productivity and wage information. According to the paper’s authors, this is probably because as soon as they knew they would get this data, workers became concerned about how they would rank, and immediately started performing better. Once they had the information, their productivity increased by another 4%.  One other interesting finding: the results were consistent across the workforce, with almost no workers decreasing their efforts at any stage.
In the paper’s final analysis, the authors volunteer several caveats. They acknowledge that they have measured only one unique workplace, where employees work solo rather than on teams. Workers who don’t like their relative performance and pay have only one way to change, through their own efforts. The authors acknowledge that their analysis applies more to workers in singular pursuits, like salespeople who work on their own, as opposed to, say, corporate lawyers, who often collaborate. They also note that management gave the information to each worker privately. What would happen if management made the information public?
Here on the Forbes editorial team, we don’t have a formal performance review system or even regular salary reviews. But since we established our blogging platform two years ago, we do have concrete information about how our pieces perform relative to our colleagues, in the form of a page view number at the top of every post. That number is there for everyone to see, including readers and colleagues. When I notice that other writers are generating far more views than I am, it motivates me to produce more solid, reader-friendly copy and to get my own page views up. (Of course page views aren’t the only thing we consider in a writer’s performance and journalism isn’t as quantifiable as a warehouse job.)
I’m not sure how I would feel if I knew where I ranked on the writer pay scale here. Would it make me work harder if I learned that I was low on the ladder, or closer to the top? How comparable is work in a warehouse with other jobs? The authors don’t answer those question but they do present some hard data about a what happens when management gives workers meaningful information about pay and productivity.

воскресенье, 9 июня 2013 г.


Optimists Become CEOs, Study Finds

Chief executive officers in the U.S. are more optimistic about life than are members of the general population, according to a new study by researchers from Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business. The study’s authors, professors Manju Puri, Campbell Harvey and John Graham, scrutinized 3,000 personality test responses to draw their conclusions, available here, in a paper called “Managerial Attitudes and Corporate Actions,” which will be published in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Financial Economics.
The professors also found that the CEOs, besides being optimistic about life in general, were upbeat about the prospects of their businesses and were more willing to take risks than members of the general population. Those traits, in turn, influence companies’ financial policies and decisions, according to the paper.
According to the personality test results, 80% of U.S. CEOs are what the researchers dub “very optimistic” people. That compares with only 65% of chief financial officers who are presumably less optimistic than CEOs because they have to deal with the nitty gritty of companies’ finances. Though the paper doesn’t say what percentage of the lay people considers themselves optimistic, they note that the CEO and CFO numbers are well above the mean.“The executives are a vastly different breed than the average person,” said international  business professor Campbell Harvey, in a statement.
The study also looked at how finance executives rate their CEOs. “Finance executives go so far as to say that their CEOs are more optimistic about almost everything in life,” says finance professor Puri, “even beyond their outlook on business prospects.”
The researchers also found that companies tend to attract CEOs who reflect a firm’s “personality,” including risk aversion and optimism.
In turn, company policies are closely related to executives’ personality. That includes traits like risk tolerance and outlook on future financing. A risk-tolerant CEO might initiate more mergers and acquisitions, for instance, according to the research.  Adds John Graham, who is also a finance professor at Fuqua, risk-tolerant CEOs initiate more mergers and acquisitions because “they are more content to ‘roll the dice,’” on business deals.
The researchers also evaluated how CEO personality traits affect pay structure. The study looked at risk-taking versus non-risk-taking CEOs, and at CEOs who are patient and those who are impatient. Risk-taking CEOs are much more likely to be paid with a greater share of their package made up of stock, options and bonuses, and less in the form of salary. Also CEOs who are impatient tend to earn a greater share of their compensation in the form of salary, than do patient CEOs.
The researchers concluded that it costs companies more to compensate risk-averse CEOs because the companies have to pay more in salary and go the extra mile to encourage their chiefs to take on expensive investment projects that have more risk. Ultimately, firms match their CEOs’ personality traits in a way that cuts the cost of incentive compensation.

суббота, 8 июня 2013 г.


You don't need a better mousetrap, or three steps to start a successful business

The vast majority of successful businesses are started with the basics:
  1. First have a product (not necessarily new) or service that people want to  purchase.
  2. Sell it to customers at a profit.
  3. Repeat and increase in size as desired and required to support the business.
That’s it.  Note there was nothing in there about having something new that people haven’t seen before.  With these basic steps, tens of thousands of business start up and flourish, including online resellers, retail stores, professional service firms, you name it.   There are obvious contextual elements in these three statements that must be attended to, and there are business books that take these three steps and turn them into 100 steps, or write several volumes on one portion of a step.  So if it’s so easy, why isn’t everyone rich?  Mainly because of neglecting the details or completely ignoring the basiccs. For instance, I have heard from many people that come to me with an idea of the next generation of a solution that no one has heard of before, asking my opinion as to whether they can form a business from it.  My answer is always the same – who will pay for it?  If you know the answer to that question and ideally can get the customers to write checks in advance, then you have a start on step one.  There are many other elements in step one, including customer identification, market analysis, competitive analysis, barriers to entry, etc, but if you don’t have customers willing to purchase your product you won’t have a business.
Step two plagues hobbyists and lifestyle businesses, as they often try to minimize their profits out of lack of experience, or in some cases demand excessive profit and lose the customers from Step 1.  This becomes more complex as the business expands and suddenly there are infrastructure costs that require a minimum amount of sales, which requires expanding the customer base through marketing and maximizing repeat sales.  Failure to provide good customer service or a good product at this stage often results in a decrease in the customer base, forcing the entrepreneur back to step one to find customers to purchase their product.
Step three is what turns a hobby or lifestyle business into a real business.  Many people start their own businesses as an alternative to working for someone else and nothing more, with no desire for employees, infrastructure, or the headaches and risk of an actual business.  Others want to take over the world from day one, becoming the Number One (fill in the blank) and a household name across the world.  The rest of the businesses owners fall somewhere between those two ends of the spectrum.  Step three requires more than simply understanding what the business does, it requires understanding what the business is and how to manage all aspects of it, including sales, marketing, accounting, logistics, management, HR, etc.  The successful entrepreneur is usually very good at one or more of these areas and either gets up to speed on the rest or hires to compensate on the remaining areas.  One very common example give of this is the new franchisee who wants to own a sandwich shop because they love to make sandwiches.  As long as the owner is making sandwiches all day, they are not paying attention to their finances, inventory, personnel management, infrastructure costs, etc.  Being able to manage all of those other issues personally or through good hiring is the key to entrepreneurial success, not personally being able to make a great sandwich.
Starting a business doesn’t require some world shattering idea, a genius IQ, or the work ethic of a world conqueror.  Everyone can be great if they can conquer their own demons, and this applies equally as well to entrepreneurial activities as it does to life in general.

пятница, 7 июня 2013 г.


America's Fastest Growing Tech Companies 2013


Finding growth stocks isn’t difficult. What’s difficult is finding growth stocks that don’t fade and are built to outpace their rivals. To identify firms that have proven and sustainable businesses with a pipeline of innovative ideas, FORBES created its list of America’s Fastest Growing Tech Companies, now in its 11th year.
We sift through more than 2,100 publicly traded tech firms, selecting only profitable outfits with a minimum revenue of $150 million and a market cap of at least $500 million. List membership requires sales growth of at least 10% for each of the past three fiscal years and over the last 12 months, as well as estimated earnings growth above 10% over the next three to five years. We then rank the list by three-year average sales growth rate.
Since 2003 a market-cap-weighted basket of each year’s Fast Tech 25 has beaten the Nasdaq, often by a wide margin, except in 2005, 2006 and this past year. This year’s underperformance, during a period when the Nasdaq was up 7%, can be attributed partially to the publication of last year’s list just before a peak in shares of Apple AAPL -1.54%–the company with the largest market cap on the list.
LinkedIn LNKD +4.09% is at the top of our list yet again, and blew away other Fast Tech 25 firms with three- to five-year estimated earnings per share growth of 51%.
America’s Fastest Growing Tech Companies 2013
RankCompanyBusinessLatest 12 Mo. Sales (mil)Latest 12 Mo. Sales Growth3-Yr Avg Sales GrowthEst. EPS Growth1
1LinkedInSocial Networking$1,10980%102%51%
2FacebookSocial Networking$5,48936%87%25%
3AppleComputer Hardware/Software$169,10419%55%15%
43D Systems3D printers$37845%46%30%
5IPG PhotonicsLasers/Amplifiers$58117%46%26%
6EPAM SystemsIT Software/Services$46430%43%25%
7ShutterstockOnline Commercial Digital Imagery$18338%41%21%
8InvenSenseConsumer Electronics$20936%40%20%
9ShutterflyOnline Photo Products/Services$66631%39%16%
10OpenTableOnline Reservation Services$16816%34%20%
11SolarWindsIT Management Software$28231%32%25%
12Cognizant Technology SolutionsComputer Programming Services$7,65618%31%18%
13athenahealthCloud-based Healthcare Services$45129%31%27%
14IxiaCommunications Equipment$45043%30%15%
15EquinixData Center Services$1,98117%29%29%
16FortinetSecurity Systems Services$55221%29%20%
17GoogleOnline Search Engine$53,49934%29%15%
18F5 NetworksCommunications Equipment$1,43113%28%15%
19Rackspace HostingInternet Hosting Services$1,37025%28%24%
20VantivPayment Processing Services$1,92815%27%15%
21Skyworks SolutionsSemiconductors$1,68911%26%17%
22CreeSemiconductors$1,31820%26%21%
23Liquidity ServicesOnline Auctions$49625%25%17%
24CommVault SystemsSystems Software$49622%23%25%
25Trimble NavigationNavigation Systems$2,09419%22%14%