Bob Sutton is one of my heroes. This excerpt gives some indication why:

Does your interview decision-making process end something like this?

I like this candidate. She fits our organization. She’s like us.

If so, it’s time to take a good look at the organization you’re building. In this day and age, do you truly believe the best way to succeed is going to be hiring like-minded people with like-minded outlooks and like-minded skillsets? If so, tell me how the view at the bottom looks. Because here’s the brutal truth: it’s not the like-minded individuals that grow and transform business in this maelstrom. It’s the counter-thinkers, the revolutionaries, the courageous souls who throw all the usual bullshit out the window in order to make room for ideas that transform.

Bob Sutton – Weird Ideas That Work: How to Build a Creative Company (p 11)

How many organizations use their “corporate culture” like a cudgel, bludgeoning and cramming every employee into a narrowly defined sense of what fits the executives’ idea of success? Its always couched in a way that makes it seem like its the best course of health for the business…but is it? For every Zappos that might get it right, there are countless other organizations that flail about with yet another way to control their employees.

Is the notion of corporate culture that’s paraded about today beneficial? Or does it lead to a form of necrosis that threatens the future welfare of the enterprise? Unlike organic cultures, corporate cultures rarely evolve. Instead, they become entrenched, just one more thing that gets added to the mentality of this is the way things have always been done.

What if there’s a different way of understanding culture? Of creating a better workplace that is not only successfully groomed for the future, but humanizes the organization?

As you get ready to enter 2010, take a good, hard look at whether your “corporate” culture is growing and transforming your business. Or if it’s creating Stepford-like employees who think and act alike, now is the time to make changes to your people practices.

It’s okay to embrace values to define your organization, but not at the expense of insisting each and every employee conforms to a top-down, highly limited idea of corporate culture. Stop seeking out and creating clones. Let your employees bring their whole selves to work even if parts of those selves conflict with your notion of “fit.”

Sick and tired of being sick and tired about work? While indicators for workplace health my be declining, all is not lost. Ellen Galinsky at the Families and Work Institute notes there are six ways organizations can promote a healthier and more effective workplace.

As a manager or executive, how does your organization rank based on these criteria?

• learning opportunities and challenge
• a good fit between work and personal life
• autonomy
• having a supervisor who supports job success
• economic security
• a work climate of respect and trust

More from the CNN Health article…

Earlier this week, Michael Arrington at TechCrunch managed to get his mitts on some rather juicy inside information from Google. Turns out that the tech darling isn’t the career paradise that it’s been made out to be. For all the gushing that us outsiders did over their innovative benefits and employment practices, perhaps it was all just hyperbole. From the post:

One message stands out though in most of the posts – employees thought they were entering the promised land when they joined Google, and most of them were disappointed. Some of them wondered if it meant they were somehow lacking. One person sums it all up nicely:

“Those of us who failed to thrive at Google are faced with some pretty serious questions about ourselves. Just seeing that other people ran into the same issues is a huge relief. Google is supposed to be some kind of Nirvana, so if you can’t be happy there how will you ever be happy? It’s supposed to be the ultimate font of technical resources, so if you can’t be productive there how will you ever be productive?”

There are some cautionary lessons to be extracted from this if you’re not only on the hook for your organization’s employer branding but employee engagement.

The reality doesn’t match the expectation. This is a failure of the brand to deliver the expected experience. Consumers rail against companies that deliver poor brand experiences, particularly when the brand has been hyped to the nth degree (e.g., Chevrolet, Sprint, Microsoft Vista). So, why does employer branding get a relatively free pass?

Individuals wanted to work for Google because it was supposed to be different than the norm, had innovative benefits, promoted a fun workplace, etc., etc. Turns out that maybe these were a clever facade masking a workplace and company that were just humdrum. If you want to sell the sizzle, that steak better not come out limp and soggy.

Professional failing is personal failure. It pisses me off when I hear stuff like this. Why? Because there’s a hellacious management problem here that no one is apparently trying to resolve. If a manager is going to wear the big hat and call him- or herself a leader, they better start with making sure that their people are getting what they need to be – and feel – successful. If an employee is struggling with their work, you better believe that’s likely going to get internalized as a “personal” problem. It’s a one-way ticket to not only poor engagement but a morale freefall.

When the going gets tough, uniqueness gets crushed. Yeah, I know…it’s tough out there for business. I get it. Now get over it. Everybody’s impacted so don’t think for a second that you’re special (hell, even Microsoft is laying folks off). So rather than curl up in a ball do something that none of your competition is likely thinking about right now: become even more unique and remarkable. Trust me, your competitor is hoping you’ll lay low like them. Instead, do something that will make their management wet themselves. Actually engage in employer branding. Build a workplace model where the people you have are doing their best not because they’re scared to death they’ll lose their job tomorrow if they don’t, but because they genuinely care about their work and their organization. Go out and look for the talent that’s looking for a place to make a difference (there’s plenty of good folks out there now).

Don’t waste this perfectly good opportunity. Be a leader, show some guts, and build something special when no one else appears to be doing it.

Here’s my latest blogpost over at the Connection Cafe…

Yesterday, Lacey wrote about how to engage folks who are interested in volunteering for organizations. It’s a great segue into another area that I find lacking in most nonprofit websites: staff and organizational employees. What do they both have in common? Your volunteers and paid staff are part of a diverse community within your organization. However, it’s this diversity in community that is often neglected.

Frequently, staff can get left aside in the community. Why? Is it because they are paid members of the community? Are their roles separate from the community that includes folks like donors, volunteers, Board members? If you’re thinking ‘yes’ to either of these questions, I would argue that these ideas can’t work in today’s world where employee engagement is a true key to strong organizational health. It’s time to bring your staff more fully into your organization’s community.

Here are some ideas that can help you better integrate your own staff into your organization’s community:

Head on over to the cafe to Cafe to read the rest of the blogpost…

Over at Mission Minded Management, Michelle Malay Carter asks whether hiring star performers can be a mistake. At the heart of the question is the danger of hiring someone who is overqualified per the job role (as well as underqualified):

Our data shows one in five people is in a role that does not tap their full capacity, i.e. they’ve been overhired in a role. In contrast, only 15% are slotted in roles that they simply do not have the mental bandwidth to handle. So our data shows that overhiring is a larger problem than underhiring. Either shoots engagement in the foot.

When I was a hiring manager, the notion of job fit was important. The last thing I wanted to do was bring in someone who had a more advanced skillset than was necessary for the work defined by the carefully crafted job description. Isn’t that how we’re all trained by HR when we interview candidates? You find square pegs for square holes. Well, what if that approach, that system is what’s broken?

A square hole may turn out to be a teeny tiny box.
If you craft a job description too tightly, how can you possibly hope for an employee to be able to move freely about? I’ve seen job descriptions that honestly ought to be called job “prescriptions.” No need to worry about a manager micromanaging an employee – the job role has it’s own built-in mechanisms to do it for them.

What you can do as a manager…Focus on setting the position’s big picture. Start with wide boundaries and let your employees co-create the work details along with you.

A square hole may need to be a round hole at times.
Be careful what you wish for. You might want an employee who meets the specific criteria laid out in the job description. Ahhh…but then the job needs to shift to meet new organizational goals. You now have a potential misfit to contend with.

What you can do as a manager…Think broadly and openly when weighing your candidates. Consider their aptitude for being flexible when work needs to shift. Consider altering the job description to better fit a candidate who offers some intriguing upsides to the organization or brings new strengths to your team.

Square pegs can become round pegs over time.
What? People learn and change? Yes, Mr. Organization it’s true. That individual who you hired last year and was perfect for the role has now exceeded the expectations and competencies of the job description. So, now what do you do? Ignore it and hope they won’t notice? Promote him or her? Start making subtle hints about how exciting working at that new business down the street might be?

What you can do as a manager…Learn about what other talents your employees bring to the party. Could be the individual sitting right outside your office has a skillset that could lead to a breakthrough in how your team does things. Ask what types of things your folks like to learn. Just don’t assume that your square pegs are always going to be square.

Regardless of what this all may sound like, I’m not knocking the ‘concept’ behind work roles. Each employee must know what their core work is and what’s expected of them. Boundaries are essential to engagement. But the art of employee engagement is knowing how to build constructive boundaries that tap into each person’s unique qualities and help them bring them into their work. A round peg in a square hole may be complaining because he or she wants the freedom to bring more of themselves to the organization. And it’s to the organization’s detriment not to find out how to meet this desire.

(And if you’re interested in learning more behind Michelle’s post which inspired this one, head over to Mission Minded Management…the thought and care she uses in thinking about these issues never fails to amaze me.)

Want to know the power of a system? Consider this…if you place a good manager within a bad system, they will founder nine times out of ten. Same goes for individuals; a bad system will dilute a superstar employee’s potential. Yet, how many times are we willing to give up on, demote, or release an individual rather than take a good hard look at our own systems? Right…I thought so. Perhaps because it’s easier to level the blame on a person than do the more intensive work of analyzing and overhauling a system that’s ineffective or downright bad. But by focusing on individuals rather than systems, managers maintain the idiotic charade that makes it look like they’re being proactive by rooting out the crappy people when in reality they’re just reapplying lipstick to the pig.

In Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths and Total Nonsense, Jeff Pfeffer and Robert Sutton write that systems trump individual effort on a regular basis. They argue that “bad systems do far more damage than bad people, and a bad system can make a genius look like an idiot. Try redesigning systems and jobs before you decide that a person is ‘crappy.’”

What are examples of bad systems? Here’s one that plagues non-profits and for-profits alike: silos. I’ve personally witnessed innovative and resourceful individuals rendered ineffective within a siloed organization. Yet, when it was time for the annual review (there’s another example of a bad system), these individuals had to take the lion’s share of the blame for their performance failings. It’s rather like giving a racer a Ferrari and then telling them to perform at their highest level on a dirt and gravel track.

So, then these individuals are labeled as crappy people, the kind you want to figure out how move off your team or out of your organization. But here’s the thing…that outlook will never lead to anything other than mediocrity in your organization. Consider again what Bob Sutton wrote a couple of years ago on the subject:

The worst part about focusing on keeping out crappy people, however, is that it reflects a belief system that “the people make the place.” The implication is that, once you hire great people and get rid of the bad ones, your work is pretty much done. Yet if you look at large scale studies in everything from automobile industry to the airline industry, or look at Diane Vaughn’s fantastic book on the space shuttle Challenger explosion and the well-crafted report written by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, the evidence is clear: The “rule of law crappy systems” trumps the “rule of crappy people.”

If you’re a senior manager and all of this sounds achingly familiar, don’t despair…let’s improve the system. Begin doing something that most organizations don’t do which is take a holistic and deep-penetrating assessment of your people-systems.

• Review your organization’s structure. Is your organization siloed or structurally ineffective?
• Review your organization’s social networks. Do your employees have quality relationships with others outside of their working groups? Do they know how to communicate effectively, have constructive conflicts, and build new connections?
• Review your organization’s knowledge management infrastructure. Can your people access other individuals easily and openly? Can your people access not only the knowledge of others but expertise that may exist outside of the job description?
• Review your organization’s learning systems. Do your employees know how to learn and share that learning in ways that benefits others in the organization?

These four assessment points of your people-system signal just the beginning of change. There’s still much to do to initiate and follow-through with the changes…issues to be addressed in future posts (or contact me for how I can help your organization). But the next time you rant about the underperforming employee or underachieving team, think first about the systems that got them there.

Pamela Slim is my new superheroine…and I can’t believe it took me this long to find her. For proof, check out these fantastic posts from 2006. First, an open letter to the C-level folks. Then, an open letter to employees. For anyone who is feeling low about their corporate existence, these two manifestos offer sage advice with just the right amount of kick-in-the-pants.