“Two All-Beef Patties, Special Sauce, Lettuce, Cheese, Pickles, Onions, On a Sesame Seed Bun”

Even if you weren’t around to enjoy the original airings of the commercials for the iconic Big Mac that aired in the mid ‘70’s, you’ve no doubt seen a retrospective at some point. Remember the speculation around the “special” or secret sauce?” It was really only a jazzed up thousand island salad dressing. But it set that burger apart from all others.

That’s my question to you today. What’s the secret sauce in your organization that makes it special? What sets it apart from of all of the other organizations that offer the same product or service? If you don’t have an immediate single answer, you may be in trouble. You’ll struggle to recruit and retain both employees and customers. Further, you may find yourself longing for a new opportunity.

I have recently had the pleasure of partnering with a couple of human services, non-profit organizations and I could quickly define their secret sauce as “passion for their mission.” Their employees were so mission-minded that all else paled. The employees aren’t paid competitively with their for-profit counterparts, but never did I hear any whining or complaining. Everyone in each of the organizations was focused on their purpose and how they could personally contribute (sometimes at their own expense) to the well-being of their clients.

Another organization with which I am familiar is on the complete opposite end of the financial spectrum. This organization has fared very well. They have experienced great revenue growth and each of the employees has participated in that success. You only have to drive into the employee parking lot and see the type of vehicles parked there to know that the employees are among the affluent. When I asked one of the employees of this organization recently what was their secret sauce, she responded, “Are you kidding? I work hard, but I’m generously rewarded.” Clearly, their wealth-sharing compensation plan is the secret sauce for the employees.

For other organizations, such as Zappos, their secret sauce is their amazing customer service. Talk to any of their customers. They will tell you. Almost as soon as you mention the company name, someone in the crowd will remark on their quality service experience.

So, figure it out. If you don’t know your secret sauce, decide what you want it to be. And then, act as if. Set out to make it so. Let your desired secret sauce guide your decisions and your actions. Get buy-in from other leaders. Within a short time, all stakeholders will recognize the element of excellence that distinguishes your organization. You’ll know the secret sauce that sets your organization apart from all others.

]]> http://www.consultchastain.com/2011/11/14/two-all-beef-patties/feed/ 0 http://www.consultchastain.com/2011/07/20/in-the-end-they-treated-them-well/ http://www.consultchastain.com/2011/07/20/in-the-end-they-treated-them-well/#comments Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:26:37 +0000 Joyce http://www.consultchastain.com/?p=164

Even though, we’re seeing early signs of economic recovery, some organizations continue to “right size.”

One such organization systematically planned, over the past few months, to reduce their number of employees by 30%.  In the organization’s history, this was the first time staffing levels had ever needed to be reduced.  Three senior managers (CEO, COO and HR Director) looked at all aspects of the pending actions and carefully weighed their decisions from a business perspective.   Departments were merged, eliminated and restructured.  Employee’s names were on the list, off the list, reassigned and, in many cases, back on the list again as positions were considered for elimination.

Initially, I wasn’t completely in agreement with the decision to have this event known only to those three.  I felt input from the front-line managers would provide significant value.  As the process evolved, however, I discovered how the business units were immensely interrelated.  If managers had been given a voice, the organization would have imploded due to each manager’s differing opinions of “high performer.”   In the end, it didn’t matter.

This organization chose to look first at their business needs.  Which departments were critical to the business function?  How many and which positions were required to meet the client needs?  Once those elements were established, they staffed those necessary positions with the employees with the requisite skills who had been with the organization the longest.  They did not consider performance.  If there were two employees occupying the same role and only one was needed, the one who had been with the organization the shortest amount of time was laid off—even if there were noteworthy performance differences.

Entire departments were eliminated and some employees who had been with the organization for over 15 years found themselves without a job.  It was tough.  But, it was fair.  At a single meeting, departmental managers were informed of the process, the conclusions, their duty to execute the decisions and their role going forward.  These managers may have been surprised by the news and may have felt out of the loop, but the process was clean and driven by data, rather than emotion.  It was easily defended.

Even though termination conversations are never easy, the individual discussions with the affected employees were straightforward.  The decision was simply based on business need and the date of hire—nothing more.  Those leaving were treated with respect.  They had no reason to feel ashamed.  They had done nothing wrong.  To ease the burden of losing their jobs, the organization presented each departing employee with a reasonable separation package.  They also had computer stations set up and staffed with human resources professionals to assist the employees in completing an on-line application for unemployment compensation benefits.

All in all, well done.

In an article titled, “Hiring the Handicapped: A Matter of Good Business,” Newsweek shared that a talent pool that is often overlooked is that of disabled individuals.  It went on to explain that many businesses are reluctant to hire individuals with disabilities because they fear that these workers are prone to injury or are concerned that they won’t be good workers.  However, according to the article, production records indicate that workers with so-called disabilities have average or better attendance, loyalty, safety and productivity.  Here’s the kicker.  That article, which shared a dramatic business case for hiring individuals with disabilities, is dated April 25, 1955!

Nearly 60 years later, we continue to hear some of the same concerns expressed by hiring managers when considering hiring an applicant with a known disability.

Federal contractors have a legal obligation under Executive Order 13078 to develop outreach efforts and recruit individuals with disabilities.  All employers, however, should note the significant contributions and positive business outcomes (all of which are statistically documented) resulting from hiring individuals with disabilities.

In a study completed in 2010, only one-half of the employers surveyed said they would consider hiring individuals with learning disabilities.  Their response was tied to their fear of appropriately supervising these individuals.  How do we dispel the mythical worries of high-maintenance associated with employees with intellectual disabilities?

I’m a big fan of the television show, Glee. On Glee, Lauren Potter, plays Becky Jackson, one of the Cheerios at McKinley High.  Lauren, along with Robin Trocki, who plays Jean Sylvester (Sue’s sister) are the two cast members on Glee with Down’s syndrome.  I watch Glee because it entertains me—not because it celebrates diversity.  Oh, I know New Directions is comprised of the so-called high school “misfits” but, it was only recently that I realized just how many of the regular and guest cast members actually have known disabilities.  Shouldn’t it be that way in the work place as well?  Effectively and capably completing the position responsibilities should outshine any inconsequential disabilities.

Here are the facts:

• The prevalence of persons with disabilities is between 13 and 16% of the population.
• Only 21% of persons with disabilities aged 18–64 are employed full- or part-time.
• Over 10 million unemployed persons with disabilities are seeking employment.
• People with disabilities are the largest single minority group in the U.S.
• Half of the persons with disabilities need no accommodation at all, and those required are inexpensive.
• A 30-year DuPont study revealed job performance by workers with disabilities was equal to or better than fully functioning peers
• Employees with disabilities have a 90% above-average safety and attendance records—far above the norm.
• The Work Incentives Improvement Act enables persons with disabilities to retain their Medicaid benefits after obtaining private employment, thereby eliminating the concern that insurance costs will rise.
• Disability is a part of life.  It is experienced by almost everyone, at some point in their life.

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is this, if it was you, wouldn’t you want an employer to give you a chance?

“You do not lead by hitting people over the head—that’s assault, not leadership.”  -President Dwight D. Eisenhower

Above is one of my favorite quotes.  There’s such a dynamic message in those few words.  We’ve all known people who have confused commands with leadership.  Perhaps we’ve even been one of them.

Barking out orders may be effective in the short run, but long-term effective leadership requires building relationships and demonstrating mutual respect.

I recently encountered a “leader” who has been tasked with heading up the human resources department of a sizeable organization.  After only a few months in the role, here’s what her team of HR pros share about her:

• She spends a significant portion of her day attempting to impress us with all of her accomplishments, certifications, and supreme knowledge.  She is more focused on admiring her own virtues than on professional development of her team.  She is not building relationships.
• If there is a mistake made by the team, she berates us about our failures—never including herself as part of the team or using the word, “we.”
• She believes that her job is to command the department.  In her mind, she is above us.  We work.
• She leads.She spends all of her time talking about us rather than to us.

Now, listen to what she says:

• I can’t trust these people.  They snoop around my office when I’m not here.  I’m having the locks changed on my office so they can’t access it.
• They don’t respect me.  They talk about me behind my back.
• They don’t value my processes.
• This team doesn’t appreciate my talent and skills.  Maybe they’re not a good fit.

Wow.  What an opportunity for the rest of us to learn what not to do.  In the world of leadership, “subordinate” is not a synonym for “inferior.”  Respect for your team builds loyalty.

A team wants to follow a leader they trust.  A leader needs to be able to trust the team.  You don’t get there by “hitting people over the head.”

I recently wrote about trust in the workplace as one of the significant contributors to employee loyalty and reduced turnover.  That started me thinking about “Truth.”  It is very closely related to trust.  Do your employees trust you to tell them the truth?

Truth telling does not mean that you have to reveal every minute detail of the business operations and financial performance.  Quite frankly, not all employees are equipped with the business acumen and the background knowledge to appreciate and understand the details of the operations.  Telling the truth does mean, however, that you are honest in what you do share with your employees.  Can your employees believe what you tell them?  Can they count on your honesty?

If there is something going on in the business that you are legally or ethically bound not to share, say so.  You don’t have to disclose the details, but if you say nothing is going on, but then act like something really big is happening, your employees will notice and you’ll lose their trust.  Employees need to feel secure in their work environment.  When they don’t know the facts, and sense turbulence, they assume (and fear) that the worst is going to happen.  They then doubt the stability of the workplace and will look elsewhere for the security they need.

Being honest also means you trust your employees with the truth.  Don’t sugarcoat.  Don’t say things are rosy, if they’re not.  You lose credibility and it’s a sure fire way to quickly disengage employees.

Suspicion, disengagement and high turnover—all costly to business financial health—are the consequences of leadership secrecy and dishonesty.

If you’ve encountered a leader who was less than honest or acted like everything was a big business secret (and you’re comfortable sharing your story), please comment.

Having it is Free; Losing it is Pricey

If you’re in a position of leadership in your organization (and who isn’t?), you hold the key to one of the most important elements of employee engagement—trust.  Do your employees trust you?  I’ve heard and read a lot about organizational trust lately.  It’s almost as popular a discussion topic as “organizational transparency.”  I’m actually glad that the topic of trust is getting some press time.  It’s crucial to employee loyalty and longevity.

As a leader of your organization, you control the stability of your employee’s income.  Trust is critical.  The employee has placed their family’s economic balance on your organization.  We’d all like to think that employees have amassed a little financial nest egg, but the truth is most employees continue to live from one paycheck to the next.  Considering the precariousness of most employees’ finances, you can begin to appreciate how important it is that you’re trustworthy. 

Trust is not just related to finances.  It’s also about creating a trusting work environment.  When employees are discussing business issues and strategies, is it collaborative or is it more about documenting whose idea it was, in case it goes south?  In a trusting work environment, employees are free to explore growth options without fear of playing the blame game.  No one wants to get up and go to work every day where they must defend every action.  You hired them because they brought value to your organization.  Trust them to be focused on the organization’s mission as they carryout their duties and responsibilities. 

Your high performing employees also trust you to maintain a high performing organization.  Trust me, the high performers know who the low performers are.  They trust you to handle them appropriately.  I love the Dilbert cartoon.  Recently there was one where the low-performing and annoying employee, Ted, is sitting in front of the Evil HR Director (love it!) who says, “Ted, I’m transferring you to a job with higher risk of industrial accidents.  Your new job will involve reaching over a vat of acid while wearing no safety harness.”  And Ted asks, “Why do we have a vat of acid?” (Really!  That’s what Ted heard?)  But, the Evil HR Director, never deterred, responds, “Because toxic fumes take forever.”  Be candid with your employees.  Don’t manipulate the low performers into leaving.  Either coach them to high performance or set them free to excel elsewhere. 

Be true to your word.  No excuses.  Organizations with mutual trust have minimal turnover.  Conversely, trust, if lost will probably not be regained by the same group of employees.  Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, I’m outta here!

There’s a belief that our core decisions are based on unconscious bias.  To test this theory, you can quickly take the Implicit Association Test (IAT).  After you’ve read this post, I strongly encourage you to actually go to the site and complete one or more of the tests.  They don’t take long and the results will amaze you.  The IAT measures the implicit attitudes and beliefs that people are either unwilling (deceiving others) or unable (deceiving themselves) to report.  For example, you may think that men and women share an equal place in the work force.  Yet, your responses to the IAT may show women more greatly associated with the home and men more greatly associated with the office.  It seems there’s proof here that people don’t always know their own mind.  

Consider how many negative compound words and phrases begin with the word “black” (example:  blackmail.)  When training on preconceived notions, I sometimes ask the attendees to take two minutes and write down as many words and phrases they can think of that begin with black.  There are many, but relatively few that are positive in nature.  In a recent session, there were a total of 37 different words listed by the group in two minutes and only three (Black Beauty, Black Beans and Black is Beautiful) were not negative.  In the old westerns, what color hat did the good guy wear?  What color are angels?  What’s a white lie?  Black is the color of death.  Widows wear black when they’re in mourning.  We hang black wreathes to symbolize a death has occurred. Black is bad.  White is good.  We’ve trained our brain to think this way.  I have been asked if I think this color association is related to race.  There is reference to black being evil as early as 1401 BC, prior to a time when cultures and races were geographically mixed.  So, while I don’t know why we’ve trained our brain to make this association, I do not believe it is related to race.  

We have the ability to train our brain in positive ways, too.  Ask any parent if they had to teach their child to lie.  It’s quite the opposite.  Lying is intuitive to a child.  When challenged and they know the true answer will get them in trouble, they will instinctively lie.  It’s self-preservation.  Parents must train their child NOT to lie and hopefully there comes a time when truth telling is instinctive for the child.  Remember the George Washington/Cherry Tree story.  That is purposely taught to early childhood students to stress the importance and self-gratification of being truthful.  

For those of us that are charged with making sound business decisions, these unconscious prejudices should be of great concern.   

When evaluating business decisions consider these issues: 

• Is there a conflict between two or more values?
• Who has a stake in the decision?  Do you have a tie to an interested party?
• Who’s being harmed?  Who’s being helped?
• What’s the worst that can happen?  What the best that can happen? 
• And, perhaps most importantly:  Can I live with the outcome?  Could my mother see me do this and be proud?  Would I want my children to do this?  

Be mindful of how old attitudes formed by these implicit associations may be tainting your business judgment.  Take the time and energy to overcome these preconceived notions.  One more time, train your brain to make sound, legitimate business decisions based on facts and evidence rather than an antiquated way of thinking.

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
when first we practice to deceive! – Sir Walter Scott

That line is one of the most famous quotes from English poetry.  Walter Scott’s poem, Marmion, from which the line comes, is about an English Lord (Marmion) who desires a very rich woman (Clara).  Unfortunately, Clara is engaged to another man (Sir Ralph).  Through an elaborate series of lies told by Lord Marmion and with the aid of his mistress, a dishonest nun (Constance) who is completely smitten with Lord Marmion, Sir Ralph is exiled.  Clara is broken-hearted and chooses to go to a convent rather than be with Lord Marmion.  Lord Marmion, devastated about losing Clara, turns on his former partner-in-crime Constance and abandons her.   

That poem was written in 1806 about an event that occurred in 1513.  So, 500 years later, what’s so different?  If we lose the “Sir” and “Lord” titles, the men in this poem are just government employees.  They are military men serving at the request of King Henry VIII.  Is it really so great a stretch to write a current day version of the story?   

Think of how many times we hear of ethics breaches in the workplace.  Corporate and public-sector scandals are the lead stories most evenings on the 6 o’clock news.  More and more companies are designing ethics policies in an attempt to legislate values and morals.  It seems to be the trendy new policy to add to the Employee Handbook.  While it is important for an organization to have an emphasis on ethics, a culture built around respect might be more effective.  

What are ethics anyway?  What impacts them?  This list is probably endless, but some of the things I’ve come up with are:  peer pressure; current circumstances; gender; culture; religion; position; race; who’s watching; geography; power; money; education; status.  These factors, and many more, determine and ultimately develop our moral convictions. 

Some ethical issues are obvious.  All cultures place a value on not inflicting harm and on truth telling.  But what about little white lies? What about the lies we tell to protect someone’s feelings?  One of my dad’s favorite stories occurred when he was visiting with friends for a few days.  On the first morning, his friend, the host, burnt the breakfast toast and was very apologetic.  My dad’s response to his friend was, “Oh don’t worry about that.  I like my toast that way.”  For the remainder of his stay, his friend intentionally burnt the toast—thinking he was accommodating my dad’s preference.   

Since ethics are an applied moral code, let’s examine morality.  In “Moral Decision-Making—An Analysis,” Chris MacDonald, Ph.D., says, “Morality is a system of rules that modifies our behavior in social situations.  It’s about the doing of good instead of harm and it sets some standard of virtuous conduct.”  One definition says, “Morals are arbitrarily and subjectively created by society, philosophy, religion and/or individual conscience.”  So, we all may have a different and unique sense of what’s right and what’s wrong or at least a distinct variation of it. 

Collectively, our ethics are based on the culture that is in place at the time.  The early U. S. Constitution declared women ineligible for citizenship.  Our constitution writers were responding to, “What is a citizen?”  Even when the culture remains constant, but the circumstances are different, right and wrong changes.  When is it okay to help yourself to a cookie?  If you’re a non-dieting adult, the answer is probably, “whenever you want one.”  But if you’re a three-year old and must push a stool over to the counter, climb onto the stool, then heave yourself onto the counter to stretch into the high cabinet to grab the cookie bag, the answer is probably very different.  

Some of the current hot buttons with which our society is grappling are centered in our personal interpretation of ethics.  For example, what is the definition of marriage and when does life begin?  Regardless of where you stand on these issues, the fact that we are discussing them is an indicator of how values change. 

Defining a single ethical code or creating a definitive list of morally acceptable behaviors is beyond challenging.  It’s nearly an impossible task.  Even if attempted, there will always be extenuating circumstances or gray areas.  

I recently read, The Power of Nice by Linda Kaplan Thaler and Robin Koval.  In this book they tell us, “The surest and quickest way to self respect is behaving in a way that makes you respectable.”  Good advice, indeed.  And, in this perfect world, workplace ethics policies would not be required and we’d be off to write a different trendy policy.  Oh!  Wait!  We wouldn’t need ANY workplace policies.