Company Limits Bathroom Breaks To Six Minutes a Day

Yes, you heard right. Here’s the reference: Company Limits Bathroom Breaks To Six Minutes a Day

No doubt there was some employee shenanigans (think: excessive Facebooking and texting on mobile devices in the bathroom) that brought this on. And perhaps management did some things that contributed to this outcome as well.

But would the ‘Six Minute Rule’ have been invoked if management genuinely viewed their staff as professionals? Not likely!

Invariably, self-management practices go way up when management treats the staff as professionals. The staff’s ‘best-self’ gets proudly displayed. They’re motivated to do the right thing, and they’ll do it more often. Of course there’s always going to be a few knuckle-heads, but still…..

Who doesn’t want to work in an environment in which ‘professional’ is the organization’s aspiration. And who doesn’t want to work with colleagues who are professionals? Of course, the questions are rhetorical. An organization that centers its organization on professional ideals wouldn’t stoop to this.

Culture’s Influence on Performance—Greater Appreciation Abounds

It was John Bogle, the founder and former chairman of Vanguard, that noted that ‘the most important things in life are often the most difficult to measure’.

How true—especially things like trust. In the work world, culture is another ‘thing’ that is really important but is often difficult to quantify. Culture (which some have characterized as how we think and act) is not only a vague notion for some but one that Is next to impossible to put on a balance sheet. Rest assured though that culture (which is inseparably linked to trust) effects the balance sheet and other facets of organizational performance.

This weekend two articles ran on the East Bay Times (a San Francisco Bay Area paper) editorial page (Sunday edition) that highlighted the dysfunction of two public-sector cultures that have had a significant impact in terms of degrading public trust. In my experience, it’s rare for two investigative reporters (on the same day, on the same editorial page) cite culture as the major culprit of discord in their stories. I was harkened by the two investigative reporters, acting independently, that were speaking forcefully about the pervasive nature of culture. For ‘culture deniers’ (whom I run into somewhat regularly, are prone not to give the influence of culture it’s due) these types of articles help put a ‘real-world’ context to the impact of culture. In other words, the two articles give a hard edge (albeit with imperfect measurement) to a supposedly soft subject.

The first public-sector culture under the microscope in Sunday’s article was Caltrans (California’s transportation department) for their contribution in the new eastern span of the San Francisco Bay Bridge. Daniel Borenstein, the article’s author, refers to Caltrans culture as unprofessional—with senior leaders routinely using heavy-handed intimidation, secrecy, and denial as means to the meet the leaders ends. As the article points out, the costs for the eastern span skyrocketed from $1.4 to $6.4 billion. The project suffered significant construction delays and is now is under scrutiny for safety concerns. Not all of these issues have ‘culture’ as the sole cause, but certainly culture is considered a significant contribution. For the complete story see:
Daniel Borenstein Gov. Brown Must Fix Caltrans Culture

The second culture under scrutiny is the Veterans Association (VA). In the VA’s case, it is believed that the silence and secrecy embedded in the culture led to patient deaths. How sad. As author Kate Scannell’s article points out, the VA culture has other troubling issues as well. See:
Dr. Kate Scannell: VA scandal shows we must speak up about the deadly silences in health care

Both of these examples illustrate the very real consequences of a dysfunctional culture. In both instances, trust is on life support. Plus, key performance targets have failed miserably. In the case of the VA, people died. Edgar Schein, an early pioneer in the field of organizational development, may have put it best: ‘culture is to the organization what character is to the individual.’ Both of these examples have been well chronicled in articles beyond the two highlighted here. It’s clear that both these organization’s cultures were by-products of their leadership—in this case inadequate leadership.

Schein also wrote ‘there is a possibility that the only thing of real importance that leaders do is create and manage culture’. Given the era in which Schein made that statement, it was difficult to justify that point-of-view. Today it’s much easier, especially given these two examples.

Character: An Important Lesson From Peyton Manning

Yesterday’s Super Bowl was, arguably, anti-climatic—given all the pre-game hype.  Yet there’s a wonderful post-script to the game—the post-game reaction of Peyton Manning.

No doubt Manning was crushed (emotionally) after he and his team failed to match the skill and intensity of the Seahawks on football’s biggest stage.  Yet, he took the high road.

Manning has a well- deserved reputation of being a class act—win or lose. Yesterday was no exception.

Said another way, Manning is a real ‘pro’—defined primarily by how he conducts himself, not because of his skill on the football field. He’s a professional worth emulating.

Here’s an article that gives an insightful first-hand account of Peyton’s post-game activities.

How many mind-sets do you see in action?

Status Quo–Part Three

Recently I mentioned that if there’s ever any confusion as to who the leaders are and who the managers are in your organization—just watch how they treat the status quo.  Managers tend to make the status quo more efficient while leaders tend to make a new status quo.

Here’s a few closing thoughts on status quo…lest there’s any confusion from my first two posts on the subject last week:

***the status quo, per se, may not always be a bad thing—especially for a successful company who is dominating their niche.  Growth (an allure for most leaders) for growth’s sake may not prove to be a smart move.  Be aware of what Jim Collins refers to as the undisciplined pursuit of more.  What’s undisciplined?  1) Taking action inconsistent with your core values. 2) Discontinuous leaps into arenas for which you have no burning passion. 3) Launching into activities that do not fit with your economic or resource engine. 4) Investing heavily in new arenas where you cannot attain distinctive capability.  The complete list is contained on page 55 of Collin’s 2009 book How The Mighty Fall.

***consistent with the previous item—sometimes the best decisions turn out to be those so-called opportunities you elect not to pursue.  Instead you chose to focus on those things you believe you can do exceptionally well.  For instance when Steve Jobs returned to Apple as CEO he killed any project that did not fit into one of four categories he decreed as company priorities. The categories were those that Jobs believed Apple could become a leader in. He created a new status quo—in that Apple would no longer chase growth in areas where they had little chance of differentiating themselves.    

***a new status quos (one with BIG impact) isn’t a one-and –done type of thing.  The new status quo of  ‘everyone an innovator’  that was introduced at Whirlpool in 1999 for example, took time before it was fully integrated and bore fruit.  Introducing another major initiative during that time would have created havoc.  It was only after the ‘innovator’ status quo was mature could Whirlpool consider introducing the next one.

***a good manager and a good leader can both introduce change—the difference being in the degree of impact.  Change for the manager is typically more incremental in nature, for the leader it’s more analogous to a breakthrough (because it creates a new status quo…which typically requires a higher level of thinking).  Remember when we say manager or leader, we’re not referring to someone’s title.  Rather, we’re looking at their impact. There are a lot of wonderful leaders out there who have ‘manager’ embedded in their title.

***making the status quo more efficient (what managers do) is analogous to “doing your job really well”.  Creating a new status quo (what leaders do) speaks to a higher purpose, looking at the bigger picture, and creating even more “greater good”. The level of thinking between the two is vastly different.

***we don’t mean to suggest that all change associated with the status quo is good.  Sometimes the proposed change backfires (because it’s fundamentally a bad idea) or muddies the water (because of bad timing—i.e. there’s already too much churn in the organization) or becomes a distraction (a good idea that provides short-term benefit but drains focus, energy, and resources away from an initiative      that’s expected to provide a bigger long-term benefit).

Hope these thoughts help.

 

Enjoy Retirement Tony

Earlier today, Tony La Russa announced his retirement–this after winning the World Series last week in dramatic fashion. He’s going out on top. I’m thrilled for him.

La Russa, who wrote the Foreword for The Power of Professionalism, had a brilliant career and undoubtedly will be a first ballot entrant into baseball’s Hall of Fame.

Cardinals star pitcher Chris Carpenter said of Tony, “I’m not sure there are a lot of people that can match the preparation, the dedication and the ability to put it all together.”

Carpenter is ‘spot on’.  In recruiting big name contributors (such as Tony) for The Power of Professionalism I had one singular criteria–that the individual had to emulate what I was writing about in the book. Tony does….he’s such a pro.

La Russa leaves a lasting legacy. Managers will forever model not only what he did but how he did it. Baseball was lucky to have him.

Enjoy your retirement Tony.

 

 

Where’s The Professionals When You Most Need Them?

Sad, but not surprising, news—Americans’ distrust of government is at its highest level ever. 89% say they distrust government to do the right thing. 84% believe the country is on the wrong track.  We’re in uncharted waters here.

A democracy depends on trust.  Without it the country suffers in a big way–just as it is now.

The answer?  Professionals who happen to be politicians…not professional politicians.

Professionals: Not What, But How

In our August 30, 2011 post we illustrated why it’s a bad idea to think an organization should automatically be considered ‘professional’ because it produces technically sophisticated products developed by really smart people. A recent article in Fortune couldn’t have been more timely or effective in complimenting that earlier post. The story–based at the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer–is outstanding.  It’s one of the best business articles I’ve read in a really long time. Here’s the link: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2011/07/28/pfizer-jeff-kindler-shakeup/

There is perhaps no greater threat to an organization than dysfunction in the top team. And when that top team leads the world’s largest drug company, the potential consequences are huge. ’Inside Pfizer’s palace coup’ is the title of the article. Trust me–it’s aptly titled. In terms of bad behavior, these people had nothing on Machiavelli. Revenge, betrayal, power-grabs…it’s all there. If this story would have taken place in the military, it would have been described as ‘behavior unbecoming’.

Pfizer’s historical performance has largely been impressive….they make technically sophisticated stuff….they have exceptionally bright people. Yet ‘professional’ is a term that most reasonable people would find hard to use in describing Pfizer’s top team after reading this article. And, of course, the whole organization takes a big ‘hit’ because of that. It’s simply unavoidable. Remember—most people define an organization as ‘professional’ not by what the organization delivers but by how they go about their business. Pfizer’s experience should always be a reminder of that.

Loose Threads

Resisting the urge to pull on a loose thread can be tough for some of us. Lest you think today’s post is about fabric, it isn’t. Loose threads are interpersonal teases.

They occur in meetings when someone:

  • makes an innocent error on an inconsequential fact
  • pauses for a moment to gather their train-of-thought
  • says something provocative in a well-intended attempt to challenge people’s thinking

What do you do when this occurs? Pull on the thread or leave well-enough alone? Some pull on the thread—interrupting the speaker, asking an inappropriate question, filling a void in the meeting with our own ‘stuff’, or taking the conversation in an unhelpful direction. We tell ourselves we’re being helpful…

…but closer to the truth is we’ve been unable to resist having the last word or getting in our two cents. In other words, it’s about us—often a not-so-veiled attempt to show how smart or important we are.

In meetings this can be death—especially for the inexperienced or ineffective leader/presenter. How many times have we all seen meetings completely unravel because one or more attendees couldn’t resist the urge to pull on a loose thread or two? This is not only frustrating, but expensive too.

Professionals resist the urge to pull on loose threads, largely because they:

  • quickly turn from one into eight (people pile on)
  • knock the leader/speaker off their train-of-thought
  • are a catalyst in derailing a meeting’s momentum
  • are a sign of disrespect

Professionals aspire to master their emotions—especially when it comes to pulling on loose threads.

When Sacrifice Isn’t

A wide receiver throws a great block, springing his running back teammate around the corner for a 15 yard gain. The announcer in the booth (a former wide receiver himself) sings the wide-out’s praises–finally paying him the ultimate compliment by commending him for how he ‘sacrificed himself’.

Huh?  Last time I checked football was a team sport.  Suggesting that the wide receiver (a ‘skill’ player) was ‘sacrificing himself’ by performing a skill with less prestige (blocking)…or by suggesting that he did it begrudgingly (because he dislikes it)…or by suggesting it’s especially admirable because it’s out of his comfort zone is myopic. It’s a team sport. People are expected to do what’s required to achieve the desired result. He’s not sacrificing himself, he’s attempting to help his team win!

I’ve noticed that managers are sometimes like the announcer…they think that when one of their ‘skill players’ performs a ‘lesser skill’ (something ‘beneath them’) they consider the ‘skill player’ to be making a sacrifice. Regretfully, these managers haven’t caught the vision of mind-set #2 – being a part of something bigger than yourself.

Consider:

  • the busy rainmaker at the law firm who takes their precious time and shares their considerable influence to open an important door for a colleague.
  • the mechanical foreman who takes 20 minutes out their day to provide encouragement and technical advice to a second-year apprentice who has run into a particularly vexing problem.
  • the theme park GM who– one day a month–works ‘the front lines’.
  • the Marketing VP who willingly gives up 5% of their departmental budget to R&D as a result of an unexpected new research breakthrough.

Neither the rainmaker, the foreman, the GM, nor the VP, consider themselves to be ‘sacrificing’. They, like the wide-receiver, realize they’re a part of something bigger than themselves. They’re a part of a team – they do what is required for the team to succeed.

People on winning teams constantly do things that may be out of the norm or that stretches them but they are rarely seen as a ‘sacrifice’. It’s just not how they see things.

Should I Say What I Know?

That’s a question that some of us constantly ask ourselves.

Most of us wouldn’t:

  • tell our friends how the new blockbuster movie ends.
  • speak up in a meeting on an arcane point if we believed doing so would derail the meeting.
  • share an innocent, but little-known, fact about a colleague that, when revealed, might be used against them.

Sometimes knowing when (and when not) to speak up is a matter of judgment. In other instances, it’s a matter of character. Either way, the fact that we’re asking ourselves the question as to whether to speak up or not is evidence that we should tread carefully.

I once had a manager who always ran in the right circles.  He hung out with the ‘big dogs’—the ‘A’ list crowd. He was always “in the know”.  And he couldn’t wait to demonstrate that he was “in the know”.  Initially, it was just awkward…the information he’d tell me about.  I initially suspected he was revealing information he shouldn’t.  After awhile it was obvious that was exactly what he was doing. It seemed he just couldn’t help himself—revealing confidences that is.

It’s really tempting to be ‘in the know’….tempting to say what we know. In most business cultures,  the more information we possess, the greater our standing in the eyes of others. For some being ‘in the know’ is a (self) validation of one’s own self-importance.  Being ‘in the know’ can be intoxicating, because with knowledge comes a form of power–perceived or otherwise.

It also means that someone has taken us into their confidence…they’ve extended trust. That’s the trouble…my manager was violating confidences.  He had broken the trust that had been extended to him.

When this happens it’s typical:

  • for people to share only the information that’s absolutely essential with the offender (especially if that person is higher up in the food chain than we are).
  • that the offender develops a reputation for having ‘loose lips’ …which translates to a blemish on their character – eventually undermining their own effectiveness.
  • for the offender to lose the respect of others – the polar opposite of the enhanced ‘standing’ they may have originally hoped for.

So when you’re tempted to say what you know…remember, discretion is the better part of valor.