Why E. W. Scripps Transformed ‘Talent Management’ Into ‘Career Management’

In today’s workplace many feel that the pendulum swings too far in the company’s favor when it comes to accrued benefits.  Simply put, many believe that the average employee exists merely for the pleasure and benefit for the organization.

Whether these beliefs are grounded in reality really isn’t the point.  The point is to recognize there’s a certain level of cynicism out there.

It doesn’t take a rocket-scientist to figure out that when people feel that they’re viewed as a means to an end they’ll be far more likely to be less engaged.

Showing greater levels of respect to employees is a way to avoid this pitfall. People want to feel valued—one that is reflective of a professional work environment.

At E. W. Scripps, a long-standing media company of some significance, they’ve ceased using the term ‘talent management’—a program that Scripps feels is integral to their success. Instead, Scripps now uses the term ‘career management’.  This change was made to put the emphasis on the employee, not the company.  The change isn’t window dressing, it’s substantive.

Scripps worked hard in enabling employees to realize honest-to-goodness value from this ‘career management’ approach.  The employee drives it, managers and HR support it.  The approach enables people to paint themselves into the picture.

When people feel like they’re integral to the success of the company good things happen. This is precisely why we advocated in The Power of Professionalism that culture should be centered around an organization’s professionals. An organization that has as its focus a ‘culture of accountability’ runs the risk that the employee sees themselves as a pawn for the organization’s pleasure.

Instead, an organization that has as its focus a ‘culture of professionals committed to accountability’ is far more likely to be engaging to employees in much the same way that the Scripps approach did. Chapter thirteen in The Power of Professionalism outlines this approach in greater detail.

An Agonizing Situation Made Almost Pleasurable

Many years ago, while still in the corporate world, I was hiring for a key position within my department from a pool of internal candidates.  Two finalists emerged.   One was an up-and-comer; the other was seasoned.  Both had unique strengths.

I hired the up-and-comer. …but it wasn’t without a lot of consternation.

Turns out, the seasoned candidate (let’s call him Rory) had lost his former position as a result of a downsizing. Rory could post for any internal position he wished, but was given a time limit to make his transition.  If, after a pre-determined number of months, Rory failed to land a job—he’d be let go.

It was the 11th hour when Rory interviewed with me.  Rory wanted to be hired on merit, although we both knew that if I didn’t hire him his stellar career with that company would be over.

Naturally, I was torn.  It wasn’t a decision I took lightly.  In the end, I didn’t hire Rory–as the other candidate was a better fit for our department’s needs at the time.  Even though I felt good about doing what I thought was the right thing for the organization, I agonized over making that phone call to Rory.

Despite being disappointed about not being chosen, Rory was gracious beyond words.  A normally tension-filled call was made almost pleasurable by how he conducted himself.  To say I was impressed is an understatement.  A year after leaving the company, Rory called me to re-connect. He had made a successful transition to another organization—one he was flourishing in. We have subsequently stayed in touch.

How many times have you heard about these types of situations going ‘south’?  I know I’ve heard of far too many!  Given the stakes involved, it’s no wonder why.

It was Rory’s professionalism that helped turn a potentially contentious situation into a really positive one.  He really stood out.  In that situation, Rory demonstrated mastery of his emotions. Plus, he didn’t let his ego undermine him in a highly stressful situation.  Of course, all of this is consistent with mind-set #6—a mind-set that most people struggle with.

Think about the people you consider to be a consummate professional.   I’ll bet they rate high on mind-set #6. They’re likely to take a measured approach to stressful situations; and not be prone to uncontrolled emotional outbursts.  The types of professionals remain in control, never letting their ‘lizard brain’ take charge.  When they do express deep emotion, it’s a conscious choice—not a shrill, often automatic response, that they might regret later.

In many ways, mind-set #six is a hallmark of the consummate professional. It’s precisely why I admire Rory so much.

 

Do You Know The Code?

Each organization, each culture, each leader typically uses some form of ‘code’ when communicating. It’s important to know the ‘code’ you’re constantly exposed to.

A business leader says, “we’re not doing so well. In the meantime, keep doing what you’re doing.”

That’s code for: “hold on while the smart people figure this out.”

Granted, that’s not terribly inspiring—but at least you know the code. At least you’ll know what you’re up against.

We’ve recently added a new category ‘Do You Know The Code’ to this blog. This post, as well as those in the future on this same topic, will be archived there.

If you have examples of ‘code’…please share them…we can all benefit from them.

Seven Myths About Blue-Collar Workers

My colleague-friend Bill Tomei provided me with great insight and perspective that has helped shape this post.  Thanks Bill.

Myth #1—Blue-collar workers are ‘less than’ than their management brethren.

‘Less-sophisticated’…’less-responsible’…’less-committed’ …these are three of many inaccurate perceptions held about blue-collar workers.  These perceptions are unfortunate—because they’re typically turn out to be self-fulfilling prophesies.  The vast majority of blue-collar workers are intelligent, capable, and responsible.

Myth #2—The core values of blue-collar workers are vastly different than those in management.

People are people. Blue-collar workers want many of the same types of things everyone else wants in their work-life—-competence in a field that they can continue to excel in, work that holds meaning, respect, etc.  There are few major differences in values between blue-collar workers and ‘management types’.

Myth #3—Blue-collar workers are either unable or are unwilling to understand (let alone accept) the truth about the business.

This perception is particularly troublesome—largely because it suggests that blue-collar workers are somehow incapable of understanding the (so- called) complexities of the business.  That’s disrespectful on any number of levels. Through various applications of self-management ,any number of companies have shown the fallacy of this perception.

Myth #4—Blue-collar workers’ self- interests will always take precedent over the interest of the business.

The implication is that blue-collar workers are just in it for the pay check.  This hasn’t been my experience nor the experience of my colleagues.  There endless numbers of examples that put a stake in the heart of this myth.

Myth #5—Blue-collar workers will lose respect for management if managers don’t have all the answers.

This is a common misconception. A manager being unaware of something is OK (assuming ‘being unaware’ hasn’t become a pattern) as long as the situation is looked into and communicated back to the troops.

A manager who, when faced with a serious issue ,says to the troops “I don’t have all the answers” will not be disrespected by the troops as long as that same manager also commits to finding a solution to the issue.  Blue-collar workers (at least reasonable ones) aren’t expecting their manager to be Superman.

Myth #6—The risks associated with blue-collar workers too-frequently out-weigh the benefits.

In many ways, the United States was built by working people—what we might refer to today as blue-collar employees. It’s a disservice to hold the mind-set that the glass is half-empty when it comes to blue-collar folks.

Myth #7—Blue-collar workers aren’t really professionals.

Sorry, I don’t buy it.  Being a professional is an equal opportunity aspiration.  This myth is de-bunked in chapter two of The Power of Professionalism.   As I mention in the book, “being a professional has little to do with the color of one’s collar”.

There are a lot of misconceptions about blue-collar workers.  That’s really  unfortunate—especially since companies like Morning Star, the Contra Costa Times, and (at one time) Saturn have demonstrated first-hand (through various self-managed practices) just what a fallacy these myths are.

It’s been said that, “how we see the problem, is the problem.”   For those holding any of these myths, that couldn’t be more true.

 

This Is The Way We Do It…Part Three

This is the third (and final) installment on “This is the way we do it.”

Two mind-sets, #1 (having a bias for results) and #2 (being a part of something bigger), have the biggest impact on people or organizations in terms of managing change (think:improving things).

Organizations whose cultures have managed to create a strong commitment to results naturally embrace improvements—whether they be central to the enterprise’s core strategy or merely a tactical process change.  The client I mentioned in the last post—the one whose management practices are bench-marked across the world—is a good example.  In that organization, people are maniacal about delivering results.  They know constant improvement is integral to sustaining the superior level of results the organization has become accustomed to.

When there’s a track record of successfully managing change well—which includes committed sponsorship—future change has a much greater degree of taking hold. Unfortunately, most organizations aren’t that good at managing change. Thus, the status-quo lives on to fight another day.

Take the senior executive who is nearing the end of their career.  Many are reluctant to take on major change initiatives. Why? There can be many reasons, but mainly they just don’t want to be bothered.  They may even believe (intellectually at least) in the change effort!  But still, it doesn’t always translate into action.

Before any of us get too self-righteous in judging the senior executive, it’s been my experience that most change efforts are stymied (in whatever aspect) for all-to-human reasons—not for the lack of rational business justifications.  Said another way, sometimes it’s us that doesn’t want to be bothered!  Seeing oneself as a professional can help get us out of that funk.

There’s nothing quite so personal as a job change.  Years ago I interviewed a gentleman for a position in an organization I had stewardship for.  At the time I happened to know this gentleman was 2 years away from retirement.   He was old enough to be my father.  I had seen too many people merely coast to retirement’s finish line.  Often, the outcome wasn’t pretty.  ‘Retired in place’ would aptly describe it.

“Howard, I asked, how do you want to feel about your last 2 years here? You know, as a professional, how do you want to go out?”  Howard didn’t hesitate, “Bill, I want to go out with a bang.  Six months into my retirement I want to look back and feel proud about my contributions here.”

To many people’s surprise, I hired him. Howard indeed went out with a bang.  I couldn’t have been more pleased.  Howard was responsible for the development and execution of two brand new programs—the outcome of which enabled our department to post results that ranked within the top 5% of the company.  Howard probably could have coasted to retirement’s finish-line from his former position.  But that wasn’t Howard.  He wanted ‘in’ on some the promising action we were in the process of cooking up.

Howard was a professional. He held the mind-sets I would later memorialize in The Power of Professionalism. It was never about him.  Rather, it was about what he could contribute.  He wanted to improve things—leaving them better than when he found them.           

Let’s not be pollyannish. Change is tough.  And there are a lot of mandatory ‘head-level’ aspects of the change process that must be accomplished to make the change both compelling and appealing.  Yet successful change is far more about one’s identity as a professional (along with the accompanying mind-sets) that any list of costs and benefits.

This Is The Way We Do It, But…

As we were reminded in a recent post a little over a week ago, being open to new possibilities can be rewarding.  It certainly was for my daughter’s friend who came to realize that by implementing a different approach to food management she would change her overall backpacking experience for the better.  In other words, a seemingly small change can really be a big one in disguise.

Of course, getting to the point where people will consider ‘change’ is key.  Sometimes that’s a tough nut to crack. There are a million reasons why people resist change.  My experience tells me that ‘comfort with the status-quo’ is near or at the top of most people’s list.  That’s why ‘this is the way we do it’ seems like a mantra in some organizations.

I’ve found that there are generally two types of people when it comes to change—those that tend to be open to it and those who aren’t. Here are some characteristics of:

Those who tend to be open to change:  they’re curious, they’ll mess with the status-quo if a new approach holds promise, they don’t mind rocking the boat, they tend to equate change with opportunity, or they see ‘change’ as part of their legacy (a driver for some senior executives).

Those who tend to avoid change:  they’re not terribly curious, they’re confident that the status-quo is sufficient for their needs,  they aren’t ‘boat rockers’, they tend to equate change with risk, or (frankly) they just don’t want to be bothered.

Let’s be fair here.  Life’s experience and personal temperament has influenced many to be risk-avoiders.  Many have gotten burnt after having stuck their neck out.  Others just don’t have the stomach for it.  And sometimes the proposed change doesn’t make sense—the timing is wrong, there are bigger fish to fry, the proposed change is ill-conceived, or a myriad of other perfectly good reasons.

Let’s face it, leaders and managers (especially in organizations steeped in hierarchy) who are risk-adverse will throw cold water on most change efforts.  That’s unfortunate, but it happens.  If you’re in one of those organizations, it makes your efforts to improve things that much harder. (Note: Chip and Dan Heath’s book Switch is a thought-provoking treatise on change—personal, organizational and everything in between. Chip and Dan share several experiences of those who faced great odds—including resistive bosses or cultures—and made a difference.)

I’m currently working with an organization that is world-class in their management practices. Their approaches are reflected in a myriad of best-practices lists around the world.  Yet, they strive for perfection.  In learning about how they approach things, their people will explain (in effect) “this is the way we do things, but….”   Virtually everyone in their organization thinks about it this way.

This organization has ‘proved’ many of their approaches.  In other words, their approaches work.  They get great results.  If ever a company would be a candidate for complacency it would be them.  Yet, they realize they’ve got a ways to go.  They aren’t about to rest on their laurels.  That’s why you hear the word ‘but’ as a qualifier when they explain how they do things. They want to learn from others.  They want to recognize their blind-spots—to the extent they exist.   In short, they want to get better.

What a different approach from those who hold a bias for the status-quo!  Being open to new possibilities is important—especially in today’s current business climate. Great companies think differently.  This is one such example.  In my next post I’ll explain how the mind-sets play into all this. As you’ll see, they do—prominently!

 

Doing Their Very Best Work…The Ultimate Example

Being non-judgmental, selfless, caring, responsible…you gotta love people who can get beyond themselves (think: mind-set two—being part of something bigger than yourself).  I’ve regularly observed that people did their best work (and were most fulfilled) when they were a part of ‘something bigger’.

Hey, that describes moms.  Happy Mother’s Day to all you moms out there.

Professionalize Teaching ?—A Duke University Senior Speaks Out

‘We must become more professional’ is a mantra I regularly hear amongst both the for-profit and non-profit sectors. For instance, many have argued that management should have the same types of standardized professional requirements that law does.  Whether you agree or not isn’t the point.  Rather, it’s symptomatic of some level of dissatisfaction of the profession itself.

Recently in the Contra Costa Times another such article “Educating Under Oath”, surfaced. It’s about teachers–written by Matthew Straus, a Duke University senior. Check it out.  And notice the thinking that is foundational to the oath Straus proposes teachers take.  To me, it’s clear that Straus holds several of the mind-sets we write about in The Power of Professionalism.  Am I surprised?  Not at all!

Can We Tolerate Working With You?

In 1999 Whirlpool began a quest to go from one-product, one-customer manufacturer of washing machines to being the global leader of marketing and manufacturing major household appliances, with revenues over $10 billion. Today the Whirlpool brand is the top-selling appliance brand in the world.

Many contributed to Whirlpool’s remarkable success story—but arguably none more than Chief Innovative Officer—Nancy Snyder.   Nancy was the chief architect of this remarkable transformation.  She tells the complete story in her 2009 book Unleashing Innovation.

Nancy would be the first to tell you that there was an endless array of people who deserve credit for this remarkable transformation.  That said, amongst those that were closest to the work itself, there’s an especially important group.  Nancy calls them iHeros.   Without the efforts of the iHeros many of the remarkable commercial innovation successes would have never come to fruition.  In addition, these people were the catalysts that enabled the organization to institutionalize (culturally) innovation at Whirlpool.

These are people who took out-of-the-ordinary personal risks, made personal sacrifices, and constantly ‘took one for the team’.  In the end, their ‘reputational capital’ was off-the-charts. It goes without saying that they were respected—but people also liked them.  They were iHeros because their peers recognized them as such—not because the organization issued them an award.

There were those within Whirlpool that were almost singularly responsible for some remarkable commercial innovation successes at Whirlpool.  Yet, they weren’t recognized as iHeros by their peers. Why?  Because they were perceived to be more about ‘me’ than ‘we’.

Whereas iHeros weren’t self-glorifying, these individuals tended to be. General Richard Myers once told me that self-aggrandizement was just about the worst character trait one could have in the military.  Turns out, it’s one of the worst at Whirlpool too—although fortunately they don’t seem to have much of it!

Recall in The Power of Professionalism I advocated that professionals are defined by how, not by what they do.  Here’s yet another example of that at Whirlpool.    

‘Can we tolerate working with you?” This is one of only three key questions that several respected executive recruiters tell us need be asked in hiring interviews.  (The other two are:  ‘can you do the job?’ and ‘will you love the job?’)  While it’s more important to be respected than liked, the Whirlpool experience reinforces how important it is to be liked as well.  Ask yourself, everything else being equal, who would I rather work with—someone I like or someone I just tolerate?   Kind of a no-brainer, huh?