347-878-3837

Business

Here are articles on Business

Please don’t steal my products.

, , , ,

A friend just forwarded screen shots from a forum where the audiobook of my book has been posted by thieves. It’s been downloaded 202 times. I wish I could say I’m flattered, but I’m not. I’m just pissed. Two years of my life, tens of thousands of dollars of PR (not to mention lost income from time I spent writing Get-it-Done Guy’s 9 Steps to Work Less and Do More), and 161 Get-it-Done Guy episodes available for free, and people think buying one tiny little book (however magnificent and astonishingly useful) is just too expensive.

WTF??

If I save them 5 mins/day, it pays for itself 100 times over. I may sick Europa and Thomas on them… 🙂

Please remember that it takes incredible amounts of time and effort to produce a quality information product. If you steal and redistribute it, you’re just removing the incentive for me (and others like me) to produce more. I have to make a living, and I’ll find another way to do it if necessary.

If I’m really lucky, I may actually see royalty income in a couple of years. If I’m really, really, really lucky, I may even make enough to pay for the book launch.

“Information wants to be free” is stupid. Quality information is expensive to produce. Crappy information is free to produce. By paying nothing for information, you gradually select only for the crappy information produced by people and organizations who can do it for free. In other words, hacks and shysters.

You wouldn’t walk into a stereo store and take one home without paying. Don’t do it with an audiobook, or an online program or an electronic program. Ease of theft does not translate into the right to steal. And when people steal, ultimately they simply drive the quality producers out of the marketplace. (Or at least they will for me, since if I can’t make a decent living at this, I have no intention of producing more content. If there’s no income that comes from my podcast, it makes no sense for me to continue.)

Facebook’s new UI: Productive? Failure?

,

There’s been much ado about Facebook’s new profile pages. Facebook noticed people like pictures. So they added lots of pictures, hoping of course to hijack our attention completely, while they slide ads into our peripheral vision. But just because it’s more compelling, does that mean the new interface will actually work? I think not.

read more…

Authenticity? Hogwash.

I’ve  been reading a lot about how important it is for companies to be “authentic” with their customers. People love to point out how “authenticity” is now what people need, and social media makes it all that much more important.

I beg to differ.

Authenticity doesn’t matter.

What matters to customers is not authenticity; it’s believing that they’re being treated authentically. There’s a world of difference between the two.

Here’s the authentic story: the companies you do business with are in business to make money, create prestige, and give people power. Very few of them would exist if the founders and employees had other sources of cash, status, and power. Maybe some of those founders and employees truly, genuinely care about the business as a vehicle for meaningful relationships. Here’s how you can tell: next time the company founders, see how many top managers reduce their salaries to keep their employers employed. Next time there’s a problem with a company’s product, let’s see how many companies actively seek out customers to refund their money (versus simply having a silent policy that complainers get refunds). And next time the company does something wrong or unethical or breaks a promise, watch how it eagerly rushes to its blog to discuss its ethical transgressions.

For most businesses, social media is simply another new hurdle to be dealt with. An appropriate brand image is designed and an ongoing conversation is created to reinforce that image. If part of that image is to be “authenticity,” then it helps for the blogger to put in a few embarrassing self-effacing comments or air a few customer complaints. And voila–authenticity achieved.

The Internet Doesn’t Necessarily Lead to Authenticity

There’s a theory that now there’s so much information around that it’s hard to hide misdeeds or give a crafted impression. Huh? Since when. I have direct experience to the contrary.

Several years ago I posted a blog post about a controversial issue in which a particular Fortune 500 company had a large, vested interest. Within an hour of my post, I got a call from the Board of Director’s PR person, informing me that they wanted to spread word of my post. It seems they had a database of 10,000 bloggers with a cumulative following of several tens of millions, who believed that they (the bloggers) were privileged keepers of truth. By leaking information to this network of bloggers, the company could flood the internet with whatever information (or misinformation) they wanted. It would appear to come from thousands of independent sources, all of whom were being played by being fed the pre-packaged information along with lots of flattery about how important they and their blog are to the world.

The company wins: it gets its message out there in ways that seem completely unrelated to the company.

The bloggers win: they are privvy to “inside” information, they increase their followings, and get a huge ego boost.

The consumers: well, they get to pay more money for stuff and keep consuming.

Authenticity is a Choice; Know Why You’re Choosing It

For some people, authenticity is a choice. They strive hard to present an online image that reflects what they’re like in person. I’m like that. As someone whose product is information–the market price for which has been steadily pushed down by the internet–what makes me unique is my personality. So I strive to present myself online with all my offline quirks.

So what do I do when someone tweets me, telling me they like my Get-it-Done Guy persona better than my Twitter or Facebook personae? I hadn’t realized they were different, but yeah, the Get-it-Done Guy is a kinder, gentler version of me, in part because he goes through an editing process first. So even when I’m doing my best, my different online presences bring different parts of my personality to the fore. I’m being authentic, it’s just that each lens into me is getting a different part of the whole.

Rather than worrying about authenticity, realize that internet commerce is about transactions. It’s not about making friends with a company. And as a company, the internet is simply one more playing field where reputation management matters. In my humble opinion, the easiest way to manage your reputation is to do a good job, ethically and morally. Then you don’t have to worry about handling the coverups.

I’ll end with the $100,000 question: is this blog post sincere, or just an attempt by me to give the impression I’m authentically sharing my thoughts?

Negotiating equity with a co-founder.

, , ,

A student entrepreneur wrote and asked how he should negotiate with his company co-founder, a Professor, for equity. The Professor has proposed the the student get almost nothing, and the Professor get the bulk of the equity. Here’s my response to the student.

Negotiating around equity is tricky. There are conventions, but at the end of the day, it really comes down to nothing more than the ability to conversationally create huge perceived value and then use that as a negotiating leverage.

Check out this article I wrote on the topic: https://www.steverrobbins.com/articles/equitydistrib.htm

The book Co-opetition defines your “value-added” in a negotiation as the value-of-the-deal-with-you-in-it minus the value-of-the-deal-without-you. Once you know your value added, it can help with negotiation. Let’s say you and a friend are starting a business and neither of you can be replaced. With both of you present, the business is worth $100. If either of you leaves, the business is worth $0, so you each have a value added of $100, which gives you symmetric bargaining power.

Let’s change the situation a bit. Let’s say that you have special technology without which the startup won’t work. He’s bringing valuable sales skills, but if he were to drop out, you could find someone else who could do sales, but let’s say it would take enough time and money that you’d have to spend $5 replacing him. (Thus, the value of the business without him would be $100-$5, since you spent $5 on a Craigslist ad to replace him.) Your value added is $100 – $0 = $100. His value added is $100 – ($100- $5) = $5.

In this scenario, you have considerably more bargaining power than he does. Note that having the bargaining power doesn’t mean you can or should get that proportion of the total pie, just that you have that relative strength of bargaining power.

I wouldn’t actually try to do specific numeric calculations. But do think about what you bring to the table that would be hard to replace, and use those as your disucssion points. There may be many things you bring to the table that justify a request for equity:

  • If you helped originate the idea.
  • If you plan to take lower wages or work longer hours that would be expected solely from your salary.
  • If you’re the only one who can do the work.
  • If you bring any unique resources or connections to the table.
  • If you put in initial cash to get it off the ground.

My prediction for the 2010s

,

In 1999, I put forth the theory that we all had enough basic computing power and the competitive shift in the 2000s would be towards usability and user interface. I think that was about half right. The other half was the rise of social media, powered in large part by smartphones (whose success may be partially due to usability and user interface).

My prediction for the 2010s is that we’ll shift from “be connected” to “be less connected, but in just the right ways.” I suspect that by about 2013, we’ll begin to see a real backlash against the total information saturation we’re currently experiencing.

Is Equity-Based Compensation a Good Thing?

, , ,

QuestionDo you think an equity-based compensation plan is a good way to motivate employees?

AnswerMy first instinct was to write, “Yes, of course.” Halfway through my third rewrite, however, I discovered it’s a wickedly complex question. Yes, equity motivates, but the question is what does it motivate? It has to motivate the right behavior for the right reason to be effective. And even when equity does what you want, its hidden gotchas can still cause a train wreck.

What do you hope equity will motivate people to do? You might find easier ways to get the same results.

One popular reason for giving equity is “We want people thinking like owners.” But think again. Most employees don’t want to think like owners; otherwise, they’d be out there starting companies. Besides, one thing owner’s think is, “I will get a huge percentage of the company’s value when it’s worth something.” I have yet to meet an owner who wants their employees thinking that.

We say, “think like an owner” when we mean, “be cost-conscious.” And equity is supposed to do that? I’ve watched company owners take a salary of $200,000 and spend a week and $10,000 worth of management time deciding whether to buy a $500 laser printer for their product development group. When even owners don’t think like owners when it comes to cutting costs, it’s foolish to ask it of employees.

Besides, owning stock doesn’t necessarily lead to frugality. Even in startups, the small expenditures are peanuts. Employees reason (often correctly) that the big expenses—rent, executive salaries, property, plant, and equipment—will make or break a company. And those decisions are big enough that cost is considered as a matter of course.

If the real goal is frugality, skip the stock. Offer people a budget and give them a percentage of any money left in their budget at year’s end. I guarantee you’ll have cost consciousness oozing from the company’s collective pores.

Perhaps “think like owners” means we want employees to get the big picture, use good judgment, and keep the company’s best interest foremost. A laudable goal, but again unrelated to stock. Lack of big-picture thinking is often a leadership void. If you want holistic thinking, share the big picture with people about ten thousand times, coach them to live it every waking minute, and add “gets the big picture and acts on it” to the yearly performance evaluation on which their bonus is based.

Of course, stock is also used to make up for being woefully underpaid and overworked. It motivates until burnout occurs, at which point nothing can rekindle motivation. Given overseas job migration and record joblessness, unemployment fears probably keep people working 100-hour weeks as well as equity could. And if you don’t like to rely on economic bad times to retain people, spark commitment by aligning the culture and work with the people’s values. Equity is optional.

When equity is justified

A closely related goal may justify equity: retaining employees and creating long-term commitment to the company’s success. Stock does this well, especially if they think it will be worth a lot of money someday. Of course, providing meaningful jobs well matched to individual strengths also keeps people around.

You might also give stock to employees so they share in the long-term value they create. If this is your motive, more power to you! You’re a rare breed. Stock is a great way to do this, and I’ve even known private companies to spread the wealth with simulated “phantom stock” granted to employees.

You want people owning stock for the right reasons—but stock motivates different people for different reasons. If someone wants stock in order to get rich in three years, will they make good long-term decisions for your company? Coming from the start-up world, high-six-figure executive motivation puzzles me. Many of these folks jump companies for higher salaries. In start-up land, executives join because they’re passionate about the opportunity and idea. They get $70,000 for thousand-hour weeks, and bend over backwards to make the company successful. It’s beyond me why a big company would pay upper execs ten times that for employment based on money and not a passionate commitment to the company.

You want people emotionally invested in the company’s success. You can get that investment by giving them meaningful work in service of a worthwhile goal. Hire people who believe in what you’re doing and match them to jobs. If you want to reward their commitment, then give them stock, but make it crystal clear you’re rewarding their innate involvement, not trying to buy it.

Although you can’t expect stock to give people an owner’s attitude, some people really do think like owners once they own stock. They take pride in the company and commit 100 percent. They save money, talk up the company, bring in great employees, and sacrifice to help it succeed. If stock motivates someone to do the Right Thing because they identify with the business, give them that stock today!

Of course, some people think equity will give them control. They believe it will give them a voice. If that’s someone’s motivation, think twice. Other than institutional investors and founders, no one will have enough stock to wield power. Besides, if someone wants control and can’t get it by presenting a lucid case through normal channels, do you really want them trying to exert control through shareholder meetings?

Avoiding the stock gotchas

So stock is a great motivator if it makes employees act like owners, rewards emotional commitment, or shares the long-term wealth. But even in those happy circumstances, granting stock is fraught with peril. In many cases, stock recipients have no idea how to value it and have expectations far out of line with reality.

Stock can stop motivating when reality sets in. We hear “stock” and think, “this is it, baby—billionaire in three months!” If you’re using stock to motivate sacrifice, you better make sure it’ll justify that sacrifice. In twelve start-ups over the last twenty-five years, I’ve seen just how worthless stock can be. If someone waits too long and sees the pot of gold evaporate as the company tanks, equity-based motivation turns to equity-fueled cynicism.

In pre-public companies, stock can be granted, but it is worthless without an IPO or acquisition. I owned stock in a private company for almost twenty years before it was finally worth one-tenth of what I’d originally hoped. Even if a private company gets acquired or reaches the IPO stage, major shareholders may make out OK, but little shareholders can get screwed. It doesn’t do wonders for morale. Resumes begin circulating.

Stock has a place in motivating employees, but check out alternatives carefully.

When the money does come through, jealousy can rear its ugly head. For some weird reason, the further people are above the “game over” amount, the more they care about who has what. Those who’ve stuck it out through thick and thin resent making far less than the founder when a company goes public.

If a company is planning an IPO or acquisition, they’ll lose the “you’ll get rich from our stock” effect once they’re on the other side. In that case, motivation based on something other than stock had better be in place.

Public company gotchas

Gotchas aren’t just for private companies. Big public companies have plenty of gotchas, too. There’s rarely a link between someone’s work and share price. Stock makes a nice bonus for people, but it doesn’t affect their performance because no one can figure out how to have an impact. So stock is a nice reward while the share price rises. When the price falls, though, the company has to resort to motivating with good old-fashioned salary.

Warren Buffett doesn’t believe in linking market price to performance. He won’t give options to top managers. He says a manager can do nothing and stock prices will still rise at a company’s return-on-equity, as long as the company can reinvest in its existing business. Executive options become worth millions, even though the recipients are just taking up space. Buffett instead gives managers ample yearly bonuses, contingent upon their producing actual results above ROE.

Even though top managers are given tons of stock, ostensibly to align their interests with the shareholders, the reality is that large and small shareholders don’t have aligned interests. The top company executive who holds ten million shares of stock would sure like the stock to be worth $10 per share, but still scores a home run even if the price drops down to $1. The smaller shareholder with 10,000 shares, however, cares a lot more about that price. Will the top manager do what it takes to make the smaller shareholder rich?

Vesting also makes people do crazy things. Companies don’t give stock all at once, they “vest” it over time to ensure people will stick around. The gotcha is that it works. They’ll grant 5,000 shares over five years, and the employee gets 1,000 shares each year. Disgruntled employees in a successful company end up with the perverse incentive to stick around until their next vesting date. They happily poison morale, radiate misery, and doom projects while waiting for their stock to vest. In this scenario stock has motivated retention too well; a little less retention would be a good thing.

So where does all this leave us? It leaves us realizing that stock is complex. It motivates, but often for bad reasons. Even when the reasons are right, hidden gotchas can turn it into a negative depending on later events. Stock has a place in motivating employees, but check out alternatives carefully. You may find other motivators work just as well and leave everyone happier in the long run.

Stever Robbins is founder and president of LeadershipDecisionworks, Inc., a national consulting firm that helps corporate companies develop far-reaching leadership and organizational strategies to sustain growth and productivity over time. You can find more of his articles at https://www.steverrobbins.com.

See other stories in this series.

Managing Execs Who Didn’t Get the Promotion

, , , ,

QuestionThe managing director heads an organization with three vice presidents under him. For the last two years the company has been run this way and has been successful in turning around.

With reorganization on the agenda, it is proposed that one of the vice presidents be appointed as the CEO. This has led to resentment among the other team members. The fallout has been demotivation horizontally and vertically. What could be a “win-win” solution for this issue?

AnswerEgo, ego—who’s got the ego? Power, control, ego, and pride seem to account for the lion’s share of business behavior. Emotions at the top are propagated throughout the ranks; problems below may simply reflect problems at the top. So let’s start at the top in fixing the situation.

It sounds like what you really want is a healthy company. A healthy company needs a healthy executive team, and we all know what that looks like: The CEO has the respect and cooperation of the team. The team works well together, with each member bringing their top strengths and competencies to their jobs.

You need to align your executives behind a common vision of what a healthy executive team is. Gather your quarrelsome veeps for a heart-to-heart behind closed doors. They need to clear the air and then align behind a team they can all fully support.

Make sure everyone understands the common goal

Your executives must agree on the goal that’s really before them: creating a leadership structure that lets the turnaround continue and flourish. They’ll be tempted to include a goal like, “reach an accommodation where we three get what we want.” While that’s win-win for the individuals involved, it neglects the fourth player: the greater life form known as The Company. The company’s health affects everyone else working there. Keeping the company well fed and happy is more important than the personal whims of the vice presidents.

In the book Good to Great (HarperCollins, 2001), Jim Collins’s research shows that business leaders build the greatest companies when they put company interests ahead of personal interests. If each VP defines winning as “I get to be CEO,” then win-win is impossible. But since your VPs are surely great CEO material, they all know that a healthy company is the goal, not personal status and power. So make sure they abandon the goal of win-win and instead shoot for healthy leadership structure.

Your executives should keep one thing in mind: If the CEO slot hasn’t actually been awarded yet, their behavior now is part of their audition. If they’re tanking company morale because it looks like they won’t get the job, they’re demonstrating their unfitness for the position.

Introduce the brutal truth

The brutal truth, part one: When three people vie for the top spot, two won’t get it. Period.

The brutal truth, part two: The execs must work as a team and support each other. If they won’t, some of them will have to go—and it won’t be the CEO. All three were happy being VPs when they joined; it’s their elevation of one to CEO that’s causing the problem. The passed-over execs need to find a way to support the new corporate structure or leave. There’s no place in an executive suite for members who won’t do their job.
(Oh, yes… If they leave, don’t give them severance! By punting on the hard work of forging a strong team, they’re not earning their salary, much less anything more. You don’t want to send the message that divisiveness is a great way to collect a golden parachute.)

If they decide they want to stay and forge a strong team, it’s time to help them redesign their attitude.

Clear the air of emotional crud

Your executives may spend their time posturing rather than facing the tough emotions that underlie the situation. They need to confront and resolve the real emotional issues in order for the team to function.

Sometimes, just the chance to voice disappointment is enough. Emotions are often most troublesome when they don’t get to run their course. We may consider some emotions (discouragement, worthlessness) so mortifying that we never learn to acknowledge and move past them. But blocking an emotion before listening to it rarely lets us move on gracefully.

Ask your execs to use their feelings to get to their underlying motivations. This can get into sensitive stuff, so they can do this privately and just bring the result to the meeting. Have them recognize and acknowledge their feelings about the situation. Then have them ask, “What is this emotion trying to tell me?” They can follow this thread to find the real issue underlying the bad morale. That issue can then be brought to the group for discussion.

Emotional rescue

This section is based on my experience with emotions, not on any therapeutic or counseling models. I’m assuming your morale problems come from “everyday” emotional reactions. Severe emotional issues may require therapy. Here are some examples on how I might respond to these emotions.

I feel jealous. Jealousy means someone else has something that you want. Wallow in it for a few minutes, and then realize that someone else’s good fortune isn’t your misfortune. Behind jealousy is “I’m not getting what I deserve.” Sadly, that might be true. Welcome to reality—life isn’t fair. Maybe you deserved the CEO spot, maybe not. Either way, jealousy isn’t healthy for you or the team. You were happy as a VP before. Be happy now. If you can’t, consider therapy or coaching. The issue for the group: how to make sure that each person feels he or she is getting the rewards he or she deserves.

I feel betrayed. Betrayal means someone didn’t fulfill a promise. Who promised what? Be precise. If the board promised you’d be CEO and they didn’t follow through, you may have a legitimate complaint. If a board member mentioned you were in the running, you may have read a promise into that. Talk through the promise and subsequent events with your alleged betrayer and clear the air. Often, however, betrayal is a neat smokescreen for emotions like discouragement or worthlessness, which may be more awkward to confront.

I feel discouraged/small/worthless. Feeling discouraged means you aren’t getting results, and you’re internalizing the cause. Does being passed over for CEO mean you’ve hit your competence limit? Not at all! Promotions are only vaguely related to competence, even in the best of times. We’re raised to believe that every little thing that does (or doesn’t) happen to us directly reflects our ability as human beings. The real world is more complex and usually a lot more arbitrary. If three equal candidates compete for one job, two must be passed over. It’s not about competence; it’s about only having one job opening. The issue for the group: how to identify the executives’ competencies and meld them into their jobs.

I feel contempt. Contempt comes from believing that someone is incompetent in an area you’re super-competent. If you think the new CEO is an incompetent boob, you won’t buy in to the direction, strategy, or tactics he or she is setting. It’s time for persuasion! The issue for the group: Make sure the strategy reflects the entire team’s expertise and buy-in. Spend some time airing doubts, questions, and concerns. Create something that you can believe in. If you can’t, though, it’s time for separation. An executive’s job is to help a company succeed. While the current CEO’s plans may not guarantee success, executive friction, in-fighting, and sabotage will virtually guarantee failure.

I feel hopeless. Hopelessness just means you’ve stopped anticipating future success. So start now! Create a rich image for yourself of how you can make your current position a job that really lets you shine. The issue for the group is how to make that happen.

I feel anger. Anger means you feel threatened. It often comes from fear: fear of survival, of being unworthy, of loss, etc. Dig around for the underlying fear. You can handle some fears on your own. If you feel your survival is threatened, a little financial planning may make it obvious that a $200,000 salary is a tad above the poverty line. Some fears can be brought to the group. If you fear you’ll lose respect because you weren’t promoted, the issue for the group would be: How can you be sure you are still portrayed and treated respectfully?

I want more money, status, and control. Who doesn’t? If you can’t marry into it and didn’t get this promotion, stop griping and start building. Complete the turnaround and help grow the business. Growth brings more money, status, and control automatically. If that’s not enough, reopen compensation negotiations. If you’re only in it for the cash, it’s worth rethinking the fit between you and the company. The past few years have given us dozens of examples where executives who care only about the dollars can kill the business faster than any competitor.

Create a team they can align behind

Once level heads have prevailed, everyone has to ask the hard questions: Can I support the new CEO’s plans and strategies, and can I commit wholeheartedly to my current position as I do so?

If anyone answers “no,” it’s time to start negotiating graceful exits. At the end of the day, an executive who can’t get behind the company must be traded in for a better model. They’ll make decisions for their own best interests, and not for the business’s long-term benefit. “It’s all about me” behavior can be fine at manager or director levels but, especially during troubled times, it can tear your company apart at the leadership level.

Your situation is a tough one. The vertical morale problems will probably be OK once the top levels get sorted out. But this is a case where it’s not about what’s rational; it’s all about emotion. The top team has to settle its issues and back the CEO to heal any rifts in the company. The CEO has been chosen. Strong emotions are natural, but the solution is to use them to identify issues that can be addressed, and then move on. Whining changes nothing, and certainly doesn’t build a healthy company. It’s time for the team to buy in or say “bye-bye.”

© 2004 by Stever Robbins. All rights reserved in all media.

Why Diversity Is an Opportunity

, ,

QuestionHow should we think about the importance of diversity, and how best to understand and value cultural differences?

AnswerDiversity, the misunderstood child of the Age of Aquarius and Political Correctness, is an incredibly powerful tool for an organization. Diversity brings thoughts, feelings, and cultural knowledge that benefits decision making, marketing, operations, culture-building, hiring, firing—just about everything a business does. But its true power comes out only when diversity starts at the top and pervades the business. Alas, most businesses score dismally when it comes to understanding and using difference.

In my experience, many diversity programs are really anti-harassment programs. Someone says something offensive about a different race, gender, religion, geographic origin, or sexual orientation. The diversity police jump in and mandate “diversity training.” It’s a good thing they jump in—inaction sends the wrong message and can bring big lawsuits—but the motivation and the training many times boils down to, “Don’t say these things because people get upset.” In really enlightened companies, diversity training happens before it’s needed, so that first incident can be avoided, too.

Don’t get me wrong; diversity training can produce some effect. The true bigots who don’t intend to change at least know now which conversations to save for behind closed doors. People who are ignorant but care will be able to change a bit. But don’t expect much benefit beyond a decline in harassment.

What is diversity?

Diversity takes many forms. We mostly notice and legislate the visible stuff: people have different skin color, talk with different accents, wear different clothes, have different (dis)abilities, are different ages, have same-sex partners, practice different religions, and use different hands when they write. Most discrimination targets the visible stuff, and many anti-harassment programs help people understand that despite surface differences, deep down all people are worthwhile and valuable.

Surface diversity is what we deal with when we wish to avoid problems. We teach people to value the person within. But it’s the diversity within that brings great benefits. Inner diversity includes the Psych 101 stuff—different personality and work styles, brain dominance, etc. More subtly, it includes different thinking styles and different fundamental assumptions about the way the world works.

It’s easy to assume outer diversity signals inner diversity and vice versa. Not necessarily. A professor once remarked within my earshot, “Never again will most of these students be somewhere with such diversity of race and geographic origin. And never again will they be somewhere with such uniformity of thought and attitude.”

Inner diversity gives the biggest bang for your buck. Personality and behavior style profiles are widely used to help groups identify and talk about inner differences. Not only can the distinctions help explain why people clash, but used in team building, they can help you balance the skills needed to finish a project. For example, one profile distinguishes “people people” from those who are task and process oriented. If you were designing a customer service call center, you would involve both profile types so your systems are efficient but also give a good interpersonal experience.

Profiles can also help match people with jobs. Using profiles, some companies discover all top performers share common attributes. With that knowledge, they can do a better job matching. If Myers-Briggs ESTJs make the best salespeople for your organization, your chronically dissatisfied engineer whose profile is ESTJ may become a huge resource if given a chance in sales.

Cultural differences and deep learning

Though personality diversity is valuable for team building and job matching, even different personalities from the same culture will share a common set of cultural assumptions. The invisible diversities of culture, religion, and value systems are where you can reap real business benefit.

Cultural differences are where you discover the most basic assumptions that you’ve never even questioned. This causes problems; questioning deep assumptions can feel very threatening. So threatening, in fact, that reactions are defensive bordering on violent. But if you can manage the emotion and create a safe space to play “what if,” you may find your thinking changes dramatically.

A reader wrote in last month, “Americans work 50 percent more per week than people in my country and take four weeks fewer vacation, yet they don’t get more done than we did in my country.” America has cultural assumptions about working a lot and measuring it by face time. A foreigner can point out that there’s another way. An American company that listens and learns might be able to offer six weeks of vacation and short hours to attract outstanding employees. (And I know of at least one company that has done this.)

The Dalai Lama points out in his book The Art of Happiness that Eastern cultures believe in reincarnation. As such, they approach even daily tasks very differently. So I tried it (believing, that is, not reincarnating). Believing in future lives removes a lot of my daily stress in this one and also gives me a much longer-term time horizon. Suddenly, consuming my grandchildren’s oil seems like a bigger deal, because those grandchildren might be me, reincarnated!

A company that explores a reincarnation belief might end up taking a long-term view on their products. Seventh Generation does just that. They produce environmentally friendly household products. Their cultural source isn’t reincarnation, however. The name refers to the Iroquois Confederacy practice of considering consequences seven generations out.

Cultural differences can hint at new markets. Gloria Estefan recognized that the American music business is highly English-centric and has built her own business empire in America’s Latin and Spanish-speaking populations—populations almost invisible in mainstream media. The wildly popular reality TV show, “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy,” has helped the mainstream world enjoy “gay sensibility,” with USA Today reporting (March 3, 2004) that sales for products mentioned on the show soar as much as 300 percent.

Challenging an assumption doesn’t automatically point to opportunity, but it’s a start. A European colleague proposed hiring me to speak in his country. I asked, “Where should I stay? What are the good areas of town?” He was amused. “A very American question!” he proclaimed. “Have you ever considered a town might have only good areas?” Um, no. I never had. Even before our current fear-filled time, “bad areas of town” were a given. Knowing it’s possible prompts me to ask how to make it happen. Is there a business there? I don’t know. But an urban planning or civil engineering firm might find a few trips overseas could trigger some great ideas.

Some of the ways to extract diversity’s benefits:

  • Identify previously overlooked cultural markets.
  • Create new products for existing markets.
  • Change corporate culture to attract a different employee mix.
  • Form relationships and making inroads internationally.
  • Get things done in better ways.

“Comfy” diversity programs held for compliance reasons that skirt the real issues waste time and money. Your leadership challenge is to draw out the differences and help the group safely explore what those differences suggest about the business. You might find new opportunity, but either way, it’s simply the right thing to do in an increasingly diverse workforce. It helps people feel valued and more worthwhile, and at the end of the day, why do we even have business if not to have more worthwhile, valuable lives? That’s my underlying assumption, and if it isn’t yours, your first diversity assignment is to try it on for size.

© 2004 by Stever Robbins. All rights reserved in all media.

The truth about book tours

, ,

I’ve been heartened and flattered by the many requests to tell people when my book tour will take me to their city.

Help me find a way to make it possible!

It turns out that in this day and age, unless you’re a celebrity, book tours are little but an excuse for an author to pay to travel around and indulge themselves in an appearance here and there.

read more…