Business


Back at work more full time these days, and this project is taking me 4 hours away from home Sunday night through Thursday. So I’m still trying to settle into the new routine, but it’s taking time away from reading and thinking…although I’ve started listening to all the good Christian authors I have on CD while I’m on the road, so maybe that time will spur some thought processes. 🙂

Advertisements

Over the years, I’ve read a number of text books, magazine articles, and leadership newsletters about motivating employees. From what I remember, they tended to be rather “one-dimensional.” At least I’m remembering it that way based on an article I read in July-August’s Harvard Business Review. Now, I could be all wrong on this, but from what I remember, most of what I’ve read was about finding out what motivated am employee, and focusing your efforts on that. I suppose it could have meant multidimensional, but I tended to take it as finding out if people wanted more money, position, importance, recognition, etc. But this article by Nitin Nohria, Boris Groysberg, and Linda-Eling Lee made me think.

The part that really hit me at first was the authors claim to have identified drives that could explain almost 60% of the variance in whether an employee was motivated or not. Hmm, that’s a pretty good percentage when you think about it. If you know your employees well, and you can hit at least 60% of those areas that motivate an employee, and possibly more as you get to know the employee, you would have one extremely motivated workforce. And what company wouldn’t love to have employees that were that motivated.

The drivers that they identified in the article are:

  • The drive to acquire – we all want to earn money in order to buy what we need to survive, but by structuring rewards such that poor performance gets the same as excellent performance, motivation is destroyed.
  • The drive to bond – “… the drive to bond accounts for an enormous boost in motivation when employees feel proud of belonging to the organization” (pp. 80-81). This is where leadership can really shine. If we can create a culture of caring and trust within companies, employees will bond easily and also defend (#4) against competition much more aggressively.
  • The drive to comprehend – “We are frustrated when things seem senseless, and we are invigorated, typically, by the challenge of working out answers” (p. 81). I really appreciate this concept, because I have been in situations where decisions were made that had I known the reasoning behind the decisions, I know I would have fought harder to accomplish the end result.
  • The drive to defend -“Fulfilling the drive to defend leads to feelings of security and confidence; not fulfilling it produces strong negative emotions like fear and resentment” (p. 81). I know I would rather defend against competition in the world than be insulated from it and not know why things aren’t doing as well.

The article presents an interesting statistic: if you take a company in the 50th percentile in its industry, and are able to improve on one of these drives, the company would only increase to the 56th percentile. But if you engage the employees on all four drives, it rises to the 88th percentile. That’s a significant gain!

What’s the leader’s drive in this knowledge? I can give you a quick, non-altruistic one; imagine your bonus if you are able to increase productivity to drive the company’s profits up that much in just a few years?

— Nohria, N., Groysberg, B. & Lee, L. (2008, July-August). Employee Motivation: A Powerful New Model. Harvard Business Review, 86-7/8, 79-84.

Ever needed to find an in-house expert on a topic at your company, but didn’t know where to look? That’s the subject of this article related to “information networks,” or how we find information.

The authors studied how people found experts in a large multinational consulting company, and mapped out the number of steps each attempt took. They found that three groups of people had the most difficulty finding the experts:

  1. Employees who were relatively new,
  2. Employees who resided at the periphery of the organizations social network, and
  3. Female employees.

New employees and those who are at the periphery of the social network of the company I can understand, but female employees being in there intrigues me. Is it the “boys club” nature coming through again? Or could it be some other factor?

The obvious solutions to finding an expert were mentioned in the article, “One potential solution is a mentoring program that not only pairs newcomers with veterans but also tries to match people across various social lines” (p. 9).

Another idea came to me, which also is good for building a skills matrix on employees. Companies should build an intranet where the employees are listed along with skills the company markets. Let everyone vote for who they think are the experts in the field. As the number of votes rises, the “real” experts in a particular field should rise to the top, and then the information is available for anyone to search.

— Hayashi, A. M. (2008, Spring). The World Might Be Small, but Not for Everyone. MIT Sloan Management Review. http://sloanreview.mit.edu/smr/issue/2008/spring/04/.

According to Val Rahamani, general manager of IBM’s Internet Security Systems, “The security business has no future” (¶ 2). The rapid growth of threats recently, as well as reports that 90% of websites are vulnerable, has made me wonder if we, as IT people, can keep up. I do think Rahamani has it right with this statement:

“The security industry is flying by the seat of its pants,” Rahamani said. “Security infrastructure has been dictated by the bad guys… as new threats arise, we put new products in place. This is an arms race we cannot win” (¶ 3).

But what is the alternative? According to Rahamani, “security companies must sell their customers solutions that assume ‘everyone is infected’ so that they can safely do business, which makes a business sustainable” (¶ 5). It will be interesting to see what IBM ISS does bring out in the future. But throwing this challenge out at RSA Conference 2008, it better be a good solution.

— Higgins, K. J. (2008, April 10). IBM: The Security Business ‘Has No Future’. Dark Reading. http://www.darkreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=150830.

As leaders, influence is our “stock and trade.” It’s what allows us to get those jobs done that we need our team to do. But are we influencing people the right way? Subtle changes can make a message either very effective, or cause people to dig in their heels against the message and resist the change. This article describes a situation that describes this subtlety well.

Consider the Petrified Forest National Park in Arizona, which loses more than a ton of petrified wood each month because of theft. In hopes of preventing the vandalism, the park has instituted a deterrence program in which prominently placed signs make visitors aware of past thievery: ‘Your heritage is being vandalized every day by theft losses of petrified wood of 14 tons a year, mostly a small piece at a time'” (p. 85).

The sign sounds good. It alerts people to a problem in the hopes that people will realize that they shouldn’t be stealing the petrified wood. But the result?

… a woman he described as someone who would never take even a paperclip or rubber band without returning it – he was astonished when, after reading the sign decrying vandalism, she whispered to him, ‘We better get ours now'” (p. 85).

The core to the problem in that sign was an implicit approval of stealing because others were doing it also. How many times have we seen people do something at work because someone else was also doing it. Or, have you mentioned to your team the amount of time that some people are doing something that is a waste of time, and it only seemed to encourage that pattern of behavior?

In order to test this assumption, the authors created a situation in hotels with the “help save our environment by reusing towels” cards in the rooms. By changing the wording on the cards to, “Join your fellow guests in helping to save the environment,” they were able to increase participation in towel reuse by 34%. By implying that everyone was doing it, other hotel guests began to join the program.

So be aware of “how” you’re saying something when you’re working with your team. You might be inadvertently encouraging the behavior you’re trying to stop.

— Griskevicius, V., Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2008, Winter). Applying (and Resisting) Peer Influence. MIT Sloan Management Review. http://sloanreview.mit.edu/smr/issue/2008/winter/20/.

Here’s an interesting article on who is paying the most in taxes. Is it time to “stick it to the rich” as the Democratic candidates think? Consider these statistics:

  • The bottom 40% of Americans had, in aggregate, an effective tax rate that’s negative (meaning they got back more from the government than they paid in taxes),
  • The top 10% of tax payers paid 70% of total income tax,
  • The top 1% of tax payers paid 40% of all income tax.

While I firmly believe those are the bottom end of the income scale shouldn’t have to pay much in taxes, should so much of the Federal government (and state government funding supplied by the Federal government) be paid by just a few? From a sustainability point of view, that’s not good. Suppose they decide not to work for a year or two?

Maybe it’s time for the flat tax, 10% of everyone’s income is paid to the Federal government. No deductions, no tax shelters, no credits. How would you spend the average 10-20% more in income you would receive? A quick look at the adjusted gross income for 2005, as reported here by the IRS, was $7.4 trillion. So if everyone paid 10%, that would give the government at least $740 billion to spend for the next year.

I know there are other nuances to this issue that are beyond a blog, but think about spending 10% of income on taxes instead of 20-30-?%

— Colvin, G. (2008, April 2). The Tax Debate We Need to Have. Fortune. http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/31/news/economy/tax_debate.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008040211.

There’s a good article on Fortune this week called “Wall Street Whiners.” Read the whole thing, but I really like this section of the article:

The various reports may have gotten one big thing right: Many argued that a broad, principles-based approach to both accounting and regulation would work better and cost less. But living according to principles requires a certain maturity and a long-term view of where one’s self-interest lies. Right now, Wall Street seems like a child who can’t keep his hand out of the cookie jar, even when the cookies are going to make him sick (¶ 9).

Good advice for Wall Street…and Main Street.

— McLean, B. (2008, April 1). Wall Street Whiners. Fortune. http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/31/news/economy/wall_street_whines.fortune/index.htm.

Next Page »