The word about our workplace is spreading. Here's some recent articles and blogs:
Forster & Kreuz: Das Geheimnis erfolgriecher Firmen
No idea what this one says. The google translation is weird!
Independent: Even poets have been cited
Roger Trapp was the first journalist to write about Happy, back in 1996
Thinkers 50 Video: Henry Stewart Interview
My best attempt at capturing our beliefs in 15 minutes.
Calcalist Israel: On transparent salaries
Google translate gives a good sense of thsi one, if your Hebrew isn't strong!
Indian Economic Times: Management's motive should be to nurture people
A piece by me on what management can be like if it was people-focused.
MIT Sloan Management Review: What is your management model?
Interesting piece on Happy and others.
Forbes India: Virgin would never hire Branson
Actually my quote says the opposite of the title but never mind.
Enjoy! Thoughts welcome
Henry
Friday, 12 February 2010
Thursday, 11 February 2010
The Servant Leadership Approach
At Happy we've worked a lot with the UK Greenleaf Centre for Servant Leadership. The idea of the leader as one who serves others provides a great perspective. This story (moast recently posted by Phil Johnson in LinkedIn) is a great leadership tale:
A legend tells of a French monastery known throughout Europe for the extraordinary leadership of a man known only as Brother Leo. Several monks began a pilgrimage to visit Brother Leo to learn from him. Almost immediately, they began to bicker about who should do various chores.
On the third day they met another monk going to the monastery, and he joined them. This monk never complained or shirked a duty, and whenever the others would fight over a chore, he would gracefully volunteer and do it himself. By the last day, the others were following his example, and from then on they worked together smoothly.
When they reached the monastery and asked to see Brother Leo, the man who greeted them laughed. "But our brother is among you!" And he pointed to the fellow who had joined them.
Today, many people seek leadership positions, not so much for what they can do for others but for what the position can do for them: status, connections, perks, advantages. They do service as an investment, a way to build an impressive resume.
The parable about Brother Leo teaches another model of leadership, where leaders are preoccupied with serving rather than being followed, with giving rather than getting, with doing rather than demanding. Leadership based on example, not command. This is called servant leadership.
Can you imagine how much better things would be if more politicians, educators, and business executives saw themselves as servant leaders?
A legend tells of a French monastery known throughout Europe for the extraordinary leadership of a man known only as Brother Leo. Several monks began a pilgrimage to visit Brother Leo to learn from him. Almost immediately, they began to bicker about who should do various chores.
On the third day they met another monk going to the monastery, and he joined them. This monk never complained or shirked a duty, and whenever the others would fight over a chore, he would gracefully volunteer and do it himself. By the last day, the others were following his example, and from then on they worked together smoothly.
When they reached the monastery and asked to see Brother Leo, the man who greeted them laughed. "But our brother is among you!" And he pointed to the fellow who had joined them.
Today, many people seek leadership positions, not so much for what they can do for others but for what the position can do for them: status, connections, perks, advantages. They do service as an investment, a way to build an impressive resume.
The parable about Brother Leo teaches another model of leadership, where leaders are preoccupied with serving rather than being followed, with giving rather than getting, with doing rather than demanding. Leadership based on example, not command. This is called servant leadership.
Can you imagine how much better things would be if more politicians, educators, and business executives saw themselves as servant leaders?
Friday, 29 January 2010
Science says Don't Give Bonuses to Bankers
Just back from Daniel Pink, who was speaking at the Wired breakfast at RIBA this morning about his new book Drive. The key message is that short-term financial rewards, like the banker bonuses, do not produce great performance.
The science on this is clear, he explained. The carrot and stick approach may have worked in 1850s management: As Dan Ariely explains in the March 2010 issue of Wired UK, "Bonuses can boost activity, but not the quality of the work."
One example is the candle experiment. People are given a candle, matches and a box full of tacks and are asked to fix the candle to the wall. The secret is to empty the box, pin it to the wall and put the candle in the box. This became interesting when experimenters offered rewards of 5% for being in the fastest 25% and $20 for being the best.
Those in the incentivised group took, on average, 3.5 minutes longer to solve the problem. The reward actually increased their 'functional fixedness' and got in the way of creative approaches.
Pink explained that studies of companies show that cultures based on high short-term bonuses result in poor long-term performance. Instead companies need to build intrinsic motivation based on:
Autonomy - Search for Mastery - Purpose
Contrast Microsoft's failure with its Encarta encyclopedia (Encarta is now just a dictionary and thesaurus) with the success of Wikipedia. Microsoft paid its contributors well and hired managers to ensure delivery on time. But it is Wikipedia, with its editors contributing for free on topics they are passionate about, that has become the encyclopedia of our age.
This is true of Open Source generally and the success of Linux, Apache and more. Pink emphasised the importance of feedback. Many of the programmers who get involved in these projects probably only get feedback once a year or so in their main jobs, at their annual appraisal. But in the Open Source world they get regular feedback and can build a real reputation purely on the quality of their work.
"Motivation is not something you can do to somebody else", explained Dan. The message is that to get the best results -instead of bonuses - give people control over the work, a sense of purpose and a chance to learn and develop. Could be straight out of the Happy Manifesto.
The science on this is clear, he explained. The carrot and stick approach may have worked in 1850s management: As Dan Ariely explains in the March 2010 issue of Wired UK, "Bonuses can boost activity, but not the quality of the work."
One example is the candle experiment. People are given a candle, matches and a box full of tacks and are asked to fix the candle to the wall. The secret is to empty the box, pin it to the wall and put the candle in the box. This became interesting when experimenters offered rewards of 5% for being in the fastest 25% and $20 for being the best.
Those in the incentivised group took, on average, 3.5 minutes longer to solve the problem. The reward actually increased their 'functional fixedness' and got in the way of creative approaches.
Pink explained that studies of companies show that cultures based on high short-term bonuses result in poor long-term performance. Instead companies need to build intrinsic motivation based on:
Autonomy - Search for Mastery - Purpose
Contrast Microsoft's failure with its Encarta encyclopedia (Encarta is now just a dictionary and thesaurus) with the success of Wikipedia. Microsoft paid its contributors well and hired managers to ensure delivery on time. But it is Wikipedia, with its editors contributing for free on topics they are passionate about, that has become the encyclopedia of our age.
This is true of Open Source generally and the success of Linux, Apache and more. Pink emphasised the importance of feedback. Many of the programmers who get involved in these projects probably only get feedback once a year or so in their main jobs, at their annual appraisal. But in the Open Source world they get regular feedback and can build a real reputation purely on the quality of their work.
"Motivation is not something you can do to somebody else", explained Dan. The message is that to get the best results -instead of bonuses - give people control over the work, a sense of purpose and a chance to learn and develop. Could be straight out of the Happy Manifesto.
Thursday, 21 January 2010
Great Workplaces lead to Commercial Success: The Evidence
I've been asked to write a piece for the Journal of Direct Marketing on whether there is evidence of there being a link between having a great workplace and growth and profits. This is some of what I found:
Research into the companies that appear in the best workplaces indicates there really is a close link between a great work environment and commercial success. An investment in April 2001 of £100 in the 23 publicly quoted companies in the 2006 UK rankings would have been worth £166 by 2006, compared with £132 invested in the FTSE All Share Cumulative or £125 invested in the FTSE 100. (Financial Times, May 18, 2006).
This was backed up by a Gallup 2006 study, of 89 organisations, which found that earnings per share (EPS) growth of organisations with engagement scores in the top 25% was 2.6 times that of organisations with below-average engagement scores.
The 2009 Macleod report to government, “Engaging for Success”, found a wide range of evidence indicating a direct link between employee engagement and business results. They defined an engaged employee as one who “experiences a blend of job satisfaction, organisational commitment, job involvement and feelings of empowerment”.Gallup’s research has identified 12 core elements of employee engagement that they believe predict performance. These range from knowing what is expected of you to having the opportunity to do what you do best, every day, having a supervisor who seems to care about you and staff feeling their opinions count.
One of the strongest correlations was in the area of innovation. “Fifty-nine per cent of engaged employees say that their job brings out their most creative ideas against only three per cent of disengaged employees."
Of course it could be the case that a strongly performing company leads to strong engagement, rather than vice versa. Marcus Buckingham, previously of Gallup and now behind the Strengthfinder approach, “concludes from various longitudinal studies that it is engagement that leads to performance, and this is a four times stronger relationship than performance leading to engagement. (Macleod Review 2009)
There are a range of clear benefits from engaged staff:
Research into the companies that appear in the best workplaces indicates there really is a close link between a great work environment and commercial success. An investment in April 2001 of £100 in the 23 publicly quoted companies in the 2006 UK rankings would have been worth £166 by 2006, compared with £132 invested in the FTSE All Share Cumulative or £125 invested in the FTSE 100. (Financial Times, May 18, 2006).
This was backed up by a Gallup 2006 study, of 89 organisations, which found that earnings per share (EPS) growth of organisations with engagement scores in the top 25% was 2.6 times that of organisations with below-average engagement scores.
The 2009 Macleod report to government, “Engaging for Success”, found a wide range of evidence indicating a direct link between employee engagement and business results. They defined an engaged employee as one who “experiences a blend of job satisfaction, organisational commitment, job involvement and feelings of empowerment”.Gallup’s research has identified 12 core elements of employee engagement that they believe predict performance. These range from knowing what is expected of you to having the opportunity to do what you do best, every day, having a supervisor who seems to care about you and staff feeling their opinions count.
- The Gallup 2006 study, of 23,910 business units, compared the results from those in the top 25% of engagement with those in the bottom 25%.
- Those with engagement scores in the bottom quartile averaged 31 – 51 per cent more employee turnover, 51 per cent more inventory shrinkage and 62 per cent more accidents.
- Those with engagement scores in the top quartile averaged 12 per cent higher customer advocacy, 18 per cent higher productivity and 12 per cent higher profitability.
(Gallup, 2006)
One of the strongest correlations was in the area of innovation. “Fifty-nine per cent of engaged employees say that their job brings out their most creative ideas against only three per cent of disengaged employees."
Of course it could be the case that a strongly performing company leads to strong engagement, rather than vice versa. Marcus Buckingham, previously of Gallup and now behind the Strengthfinder approach, “concludes from various longitudinal studies that it is engagement that leads to performance, and this is a four times stronger relationship than performance leading to engagement. (Macleod Review 2009)
There are a range of clear benefits from engaged staff:
- 70% of engaged employees indicate they have a good understanding of how to meet customer needs; only 17 per cent of non-engaged employees say the same. (CIPD 2006)
- Engaged employees are 87 per cent less likely to leave the organisation than the disengaged. (Corporate Leadership Council 2004)
- 78% of engaged employees would recommend their company’s products of services, against 13 per cent of the disengaged (Gallup 2003).
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
Away with Long Hours
At Happy, if we find somebody working long hours, we try to work with them to reduce them. It may be the result of a heavy workload but it is as likely to be the result of working less effectively than they could. For myself, if I know I'm going to be at work until 8pm I work with a lot less urgency than if I know I have to leave by 5pm.
Salina Gani, Learning & Development Manager at Paul (the bakery chain), backed up this view when I met her last week. "The most productive time of my life has been the time I've worked less hours", she explained. I used to feel guilty if I left at 6.30, and that was my official leave time. I worked long hours and it made me ill."
"What changed? A new manager who didn't expect those hours. My job is to identify my workload and get it done. I manage my own time. I'm happier, I'm less stressed and I just get more done. My manager says I do the equivalent of several times what she's seen others do at other firms."
The same is true of me. Before we had children my wife was completing an MBA and I worked long hours - and was in the office most Sundays. When our first baby was born, I cut back my working time by around 2 hours a day - and cut the Sundays, to be at home with the baby. But the remarkable thing was, I didn't seem to get any less done. I was simply more focused and effective, knowing that I couldn't just catch up that evening.
Do you, or your colleagues, work longer hours than you would like? is it because you really need to, because its expected at work, or simply because you've got into the habit of it? What would happen if you cut back and did something that you enjoyed and revitalised you?
Salina Gani, Learning & Development Manager at Paul (the bakery chain), backed up this view when I met her last week. "The most productive time of my life has been the time I've worked less hours", she explained. I used to feel guilty if I left at 6.30, and that was my official leave time. I worked long hours and it made me ill."
"What changed? A new manager who didn't expect those hours. My job is to identify my workload and get it done. I manage my own time. I'm happier, I'm less stressed and I just get more done. My manager says I do the equivalent of several times what she's seen others do at other firms."
The same is true of me. Before we had children my wife was completing an MBA and I worked long hours - and was in the office most Sundays. When our first baby was born, I cut back my working time by around 2 hours a day - and cut the Sundays, to be at home with the baby. But the remarkable thing was, I didn't seem to get any less done. I was simply more focused and effective, knowing that I couldn't just catch up that evening.
Do you, or your colleagues, work longer hours than you would like? is it because you really need to, because its expected at work, or simply because you've got into the habit of it? What would happen if you cut back and did something that you enjoyed and revitalised you?
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
One law for the banks
This morning the OFT (Office of Fair Trading) withdrew from its battle against the banks exhorbitant penalty charges, following the court case ruling against them last month.
I have to declare a personal interest in this. I was one of the original group of 5 who set up a Bank Charges Action Group in 2004, following an article by barrister Richard Colbey in the Guardian money section. Here's details of one of the first cases with Stephen Hone, one of the original group members. Though it was, of course, the likes of Martin Lewis at Money Expert who turned it into a compaign involving millions.
There has been much press debate about whether the charges are fair, with some arguing that it is quite right that those who go overdrawn should subsidise the more well behaved account holders. But the argument ahs never been about fairness but about the law. What Colbey pointed out was that, under well establihsed UK law, it was illegal to levy penalty charges that were greater than the cost incurred.
In the early days the banks argued that the charges did reflect their costs. I was one of the first to go to court, in 2005, and NatWest won that one because their barrister persuaded the magistrate that the £35 charge per bounced cheque reflected their actual costs.
In fact it later emerged, from internal bank leaks, that the true cost was closer to £2. A penalty charge so out of proportion to the cost was clearly illegal and so the banks changed their argument, claiming that it wasn't a penalty but a charge for a service provided.
In reality we all know they are penalty charges, and they used to be referred to as such. And we all know, as Peter McNamara - ex Head of Personal Banking at Lloyds - acknowledged on the Today programme this morning, they are used to cross subsidise other personal accounts - an act that would be illegal if they were recognised as penalties.
It is sad that the OFT has chosen to withdraw from the battle to get the banks to obey the law of the land, which could have benefitted millions. So the banks will be able to continue, as John Humphreys put it this morning, to "rip us off".
I have to declare a personal interest in this. I was one of the original group of 5 who set up a Bank Charges Action Group in 2004, following an article by barrister Richard Colbey in the Guardian money section. Here's details of one of the first cases with Stephen Hone, one of the original group members. Though it was, of course, the likes of Martin Lewis at Money Expert who turned it into a compaign involving millions.
There has been much press debate about whether the charges are fair, with some arguing that it is quite right that those who go overdrawn should subsidise the more well behaved account holders. But the argument ahs never been about fairness but about the law. What Colbey pointed out was that, under well establihsed UK law, it was illegal to levy penalty charges that were greater than the cost incurred.
In the early days the banks argued that the charges did reflect their costs. I was one of the first to go to court, in 2005, and NatWest won that one because their barrister persuaded the magistrate that the £35 charge per bounced cheque reflected their actual costs.
In fact it later emerged, from internal bank leaks, that the true cost was closer to £2. A penalty charge so out of proportion to the cost was clearly illegal and so the banks changed their argument, claiming that it wasn't a penalty but a charge for a service provided.
In reality we all know they are penalty charges, and they used to be referred to as such. And we all know, as Peter McNamara - ex Head of Personal Banking at Lloyds - acknowledged on the Today programme this morning, they are used to cross subsidise other personal accounts - an act that would be illegal if they were recognised as penalties.
It is sad that the OFT has chosen to withdraw from the battle to get the banks to obey the law of the land, which could have benefitted millions. So the banks will be able to continue, as John Humphreys put it this morning, to "rip us off".
Thursday, 10 December 2009
Believe the Best ... and Get Paid
A key part of the Happy philosophy is "Believe the Best". The idea is that, however somebody asks, to assume always the best intentions. To assume that, given their experience and the information they have, that they are doing the best they can.
My colleague Diye Wareibi, whose Digibridge company provides our technical support, gave a great example of how this worked for him with a debtor. In fact he changed his debt collecting strategy after borrowing a copy of "How to win friends and influence people" from our bookshelf.
This classic book, written by Dale Carnegie in the 1930s, encourages you to understand the people you work with and to 'walk in their shoes'."I had been chasing this debt for weeks", explains Diye "and it was getting increasingly antagonistic. I had threatened court action and he had responded with 'see you in court'.
"After reading the book I took a different approach. I knew he had been having a difficult time and there had been health problems in his family. So I emailed him and then we talked on the phone. I expressed my concern and my understanding that he had been having a difficult time and to ask if there was any way I could help.
"We had a really good talk and I think that meant something to him because I know others have been giving him a really hard time. I didn't mention the debt at all. But, you know what - within a few days I got a cheque for £1,000 in the post. And, just today, I got a second one paying the debt off in full. Treating him as a friend and trying to understand where he was coming from resulted in my bill getting paid. And hopefully we will continue to do business together for many years."
My colleague Diye Wareibi, whose Digibridge company provides our technical support, gave a great example of how this worked for him with a debtor. In fact he changed his debt collecting strategy after borrowing a copy of "How to win friends and influence people" from our bookshelf.
This classic book, written by Dale Carnegie in the 1930s, encourages you to understand the people you work with and to 'walk in their shoes'."I had been chasing this debt for weeks", explains Diye "and it was getting increasingly antagonistic. I had threatened court action and he had responded with 'see you in court'.
"After reading the book I took a different approach. I knew he had been having a difficult time and there had been health problems in his family. So I emailed him and then we talked on the phone. I expressed my concern and my understanding that he had been having a difficult time and to ask if there was any way I could help.
"We had a really good talk and I think that meant something to him because I know others have been giving him a really hard time. I didn't mention the debt at all. But, you know what - within a few days I got a cheque for £1,000 in the post. And, just today, I got a second one paying the debt off in full. Treating him as a friend and trying to understand where he was coming from resulted in my bill getting paid. And hopefully we will continue to do business together for many years."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
