Welcome to the Blog space for TalentAnarchy.com. We (Jason and Joe) will drop some thoughts and ideas on you here. Our hope is that these thoughts might trigger other thoughts for you to use and share.
"Traditionally-managed companies, by inadvertently draining the motivation levels of their employees, are stifling productivity, innovation, and creativity. Companies cannot expect to remain competitive when such large numbers of employees do not feel like they are treated like responsible adults nor when they feel like their input has little or no impact on the company's decision-making process." This comes from Asher Adelman, Founder and President of the Workplace Democracy Association, which has just released the results of a workplace survey that they conducted with Zogby. A few of the uninspiring data points:
Do you work in a dictatorship? Dictators need to be deposed and that does not happen by itself.
-joe
I've been pondering lately on why we have such a tough time in business putting any real numbers to the value of training. In fact, it seems that some leaders have completely dismissed the notion of training as important to the success of their business. Why is this?
One would think that we should all be predispositioned to understand the value of training. Consider the fact that most of us spent at least 13 years of our life in a training system called our K-12 schools. Regardless of whether we liked being there or not, it's undeniable that we learned a few things. Because of this intense "training" we can now read, write, add and subtract, type, etc. These are pretty important skills that we would have had a much more difficult time acquiring were it not for this training system. This would seem to make a pretty compelling arguement for the value of training.
But even if we accept that training is valuable, the next step seems to be to establish the ROI of training. Training, and human resources, seem to be held to a pretty high standard when it comes to justifying the value of our solutions. This isn't totally unwarranted as our peers have wasted enormous amounts of time and money in the past on flavor of the month solutions that never really delivered on thier promises. To complicate things, executives and finance folks seem to take pride in arguing that you can't really measure the true impact of training because you can't hold all of the other variables of the work environment constant. This is an unrealistic expectation that we must fight.
Consider the example of going on a diet to lose weight. If you started on a specific diet, let's say the Atkins diet, and 3 months later you weighed 20 lbs less, you'd probalby attribute your success to that diet. However, the Atkins diet only instructed you on what to eat. But other things may have changed in your behavior while on the diet. Because you were on a diet, you may have also started eating less, maybe not even consciously. It's possible that your level of exercise increased slightly and you didn't even realize it. These other factors could also have contributed to your weight loss, but does that mean the diet wasn't successful?
I think the issue is with measurement. If training teams across this country got clear on what performance indicators their training was designed to affect, then measurements could be done before and after the training. If the measures improve, it's likely that it was due at least in part to the training. But, if they don't improve after a few cycles, the training team needs to admit that thier training isn't working and make some changes. The job of training professionals is to design training that affects results positively. To do that you must measure the impact of your training on results.
-Jason
I recently attended a workshop where I was a participant in an exercise. It was an exercise where we were each labeled with a tag that we couldn't see, but that the other volunteers for this exercise could see. As the volunteers, we had a task to perform. The experience was pretty powerful for me.
As participants in the exercise, I was struck by how we all waited for the others in the exercise to give us a cue as to our label so we knew how to behave. This wouldn't be that interesting except that we were given the instructions that were to behave as normal, but we were to treat the OTHERS based on their label. However, it was very clear that all of us waited to be shown how we were supposed to behave. It was scary how quickly I packed up my leader, type-A personality and becamse passive and reactive.
This caused me to think about how powerful expectations and culture could be. If we would so easily give up our identity so quickly in an exercise with very low stakes, think about how much adapting we might do where we care about keeping our job or earning a promotion. If the cultures of our organizations or teams aren't open and embracing of difference where people can bring them true selves to work, think about how much we are losing.
-Jason
In their book, Boom! , Kevin and Jackie Freiberg outline a concept they call Congruence. Here's how they define it, "Congruence is that place where your gifts and talents and your passions are aligned with what needs to be done." The conceptitself doesn't seem all that revolutionary, but I was struck by it. I've always been one that was skeptical about the statistics that claim that the majority of working americans are not "engaged" in their work--that they are at work, but not really "at" work.
But, as I've thought about this simple definition of congruence, it starts to seem more realistic. How many people do you know who are really passionate about their work? Of those, how many of them are using their talents and skills fully to serve a need of the organization? That's a pretty short list in my experience.
This brings me to another question then, why are we so poor at finding work that matches our passions, skills and talents? I'm certain I know the answer, but I will continue to ask questions until I do.
-Jason
Once in a while, I come across a book that literally changes the trajectory of my thinking. As Joe has noted in his post, he thought highly of the book, The Halo Effect, by Phil Rosenzweig and recommended I read it. It is a book that reminds you to be skeptical about the claims we hear in business and about business every day. The delusions outlined by the author are powerful and very practical. Pick up a copy, you won't regret it.
-Jason
A white guy, a white guy, and a white guy walk into a bar…did we lose you yet?
Thought so. Nothing interesting was going to come from that joke. Humor works when you have an unexpected, compelling outcome. So does the innovation process. In fact, that's the goal, and it's often achieved by adding diversity—getting the ideas of people of different ages, genders, races, and ethnic backgrounds; people with varying perspectives, personalities, experiences, mindsets, etc.
But when most think about the topic of diversity, it is invariably in terms of "inclusion," "multicultural acceptance," and "global integration." All of those have tremendous merit, but why the heck, when you hear the word "diversity," are you suddenly thinking like someone who has Equal Employment Opportunity responsibilities? Yes, your company does, but you are responsible for hardcore growth results: marketing, and new product development.
So start thinking about diversity that way. And if you do, you will elevate the value of diversity far beyond the words in the employee handbook. In fact, you are bound to come up with: Diversity=Sustainable Competitive Advantage. (This, of course, is the Holy Grail.)
Don't take our word for it. Some of the best, and most innovative, companies—Booz Allen Hamilton, Deutsche Bank (DB), DuPont (DD), Pfizer (PFE), and Raytheon (RTN)—believe diversity to be one of the invaluable ingredients that leads to sustainable competitive advantage.
The argument breaks into three parts:
1. Understanding. If your workforce mirrors the diverse demographics and cultural aspects of your customers, you are bound to have a better understanding of your audience. (Providing you encourage all those unique voices to contribute. If all you are doing is counting heads—"let's see we employ 53% women, 11% blacks, 16% Hispanics…yep, we're covered; now let's have the same old people at the top make all the decisions as they always have in the same old ways"—you have not gained a thing.)
2. Credibility. If your workforce looks like the people you are trying to reach, you increase the odds of closing the sale. Let's use a simple example to make the point. From whom would 22-year-old guys want to buy their $85 athletic shoes? A 63-year-old grandmother or a 22-year-old guy?
3. Connectedness. And if your workforce is the same as the people you are trying to reach, you are bound to be closer to them at all times, which give you a leg up on the competition.
The takeaway is clear: Diversity makes a company more capable—because you are adding more skills, and smarter—because you are drawing on more, and different, brains.
Innovation success is driven by the ability to make connections (BusinessWeek.com, 4/10/0
. Most connections that lead to meaningful innovations are part of your current perspective or world view. (Want proof. Sit down and a draw up a list of all the things you have never thought of.)
That's where the benefit of diversity comes in. It provides a different lens that allows us to see the world in a different way. The more (different) inputs we have to work with, the better chance we have to make connections.
So you can see how innovation can actually be fueled by diversity. Too abstract? Okay how about some numbers, courtesy of The New York Times?
Hispanics, African Americans, and Asian Americans now constitute almost 30% of the country's population, or 85 million people. These three groups, taken as a whole, already represent the majority in the 10 largest U.S. cities. They are also the fastest-growing populations in 50 of the top urban areas. Since 1999 they have become, for the first time in history, the majority group in California, which is the largest and most powerful consumer market in the U.S. Across the country, they command over $1.5 trillion in annual purchasing power. By the year 2050, these same groups will tip the scale from minority to majority.
Wouldn't you want to know what it's going to take to get all those people to buy from you? Shouldn't you be tapping into their thinking? Talent, brains, curiosity, and creativity are all race/gender/ethnicity agnostic, and an indispensable part of your innovation success. We recommend you don't innovate without as many different viewpoints as possible.
That—and not some government mandate—is why diversity is important. (Sorry for the bad joke at the beginning.)
G. Michael Maddock is founding partner, and Raphael Louis Vitón is president, of Maddock Douglas, a company that invents, brands, and markets products "for companies driven by innovation." .
Bravenet Blog 
Blog Community
Get a Free Blog
Manage your Blog
bravenet.com