Fortune magazine reveals that the two most admired companies in the US are Apple and Google. Both are innovative and inspirational businesses, with great workplaces and great products.
But the most admired company in the UK, chosen from a survey of executives, directors and analysts, is apparently none other than British American Tobacco (BAT). I couldn't believe that when I first read it. The most admired company in the UK in the corporate world is a business whose products create addiction and kill its customers.
The choice was limited to large businesses but even then there are many UK businesses doing great things: Waitrose and the John Lewis Partnership; Marks and Spencers; Co-operative Bank would all be on my list.
Now BAT has tried to clean up its image. But doing odd bits for the community or the environment cannot make up for the deadly effect of its cigarettes - and the fact it continues to seek to increase sales of and addiction to that product, especially in the third world.
Around twelve years ago, when British American Tobacco was first trying to improve its image, it approached one of the big 5 UK consultancies about employing them to help BAT with its corporate social responsibility. That consultancy responded that it would be delighted to help, provided BAT dropped its main product. They of course weren't prepared to do that and the consultancy, to its eternal credit, showed them the door. If only the whole of the corporate world, and the social responsibility movement, had the same attitude.
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
Monday, 15 February 2010
Let People Choose their Managers
The role of managers is to help people perform at their best. Their job is to support, coach and challenge. We all know from personal experience that some managers are great at this, and that others aren't.
Bad management undermines morale, creates stress, reduces productivity and causes companies to lose some of their best people. A massive problem but there is a simple solution: Let people choose their managers. If they don't like the one they've got now, let them decide who they want instead.
Check out some of the research: There is the recent study from CMI that found that 47% of respondents left their last role because they were badly managed. There is the recent US survey that found that employees spend 19 hours a week (13 at work, 6 at home) worrying about "what a boss says or does". And there is the CIPD Employee Outlook report that found employee satisfaction in the UK at an all time low.
People see their manager as very important to them. The CMI study found that 49% would be prepared to take a pay cut if it meant working with a better manager.
Choose Your Manager
At some of the best companies to work for, that simply isn't necessary. At Gore (makers of Gore-Tex) staff (or partners as they call themselves) can choose their manager from anybody in the company. At my company, Happy, you can choose your 'co-ordinator' and change them if you would prefer somebody else.
When, at a recent awards ceremony, the host mentioned that at Happy people chose their managers the audience interrupted into a spontaneous round of applause. People know it makes sense. People can see that it would make their lives better, and more productive, if they could choose the right manager for them.
To put this into practice, there may need to be some changes in organisation. Most managers play a dual role. On the one hand they are responsible for strategy and decision-making. On the other they provide the support and challenge to people. Split those two roles (because they need very different skill-sets) and it becomes possible to let people choose their manager.
Please don't read this and forget it. Spread the idea. Let's end the archaic idea that the company knows what's best for you and should decide who manages you. Let people decide for themselves.
Watch this space. I will be blogging with more ideas, more explanations and more examples of this in practice.
Bad management undermines morale, creates stress, reduces productivity and causes companies to lose some of their best people. A massive problem but there is a simple solution: Let people choose their managers. If they don't like the one they've got now, let them decide who they want instead.
Check out some of the research: There is the recent study from CMI that found that 47% of respondents left their last role because they were badly managed. There is the recent US survey that found that employees spend 19 hours a week (13 at work, 6 at home) worrying about "what a boss says or does". And there is the CIPD Employee Outlook report that found employee satisfaction in the UK at an all time low.
People see their manager as very important to them. The CMI study found that 49% would be prepared to take a pay cut if it meant working with a better manager.
Choose Your Manager
At some of the best companies to work for, that simply isn't necessary. At Gore (makers of Gore-Tex) staff (or partners as they call themselves) can choose their manager from anybody in the company. At my company, Happy, you can choose your 'co-ordinator' and change them if you would prefer somebody else.
When, at a recent awards ceremony, the host mentioned that at Happy people chose their managers the audience interrupted into a spontaneous round of applause. People know it makes sense. People can see that it would make their lives better, and more productive, if they could choose the right manager for them.
To put this into practice, there may need to be some changes in organisation. Most managers play a dual role. On the one hand they are responsible for strategy and decision-making. On the other they provide the support and challenge to people. Split those two roles (because they need very different skill-sets) and it becomes possible to let people choose their manager.
Please don't read this and forget it. Spread the idea. Let's end the archaic idea that the company knows what's best for you and should decide who manages you. Let people decide for themselves.
Watch this space. I will be blogging with more ideas, more explanations and more examples of this in practice.
Sunday, 14 February 2010
Promise less than you can deliver
I was reminded of this important principle as my son was taken into surgery to have his appendix removed this week. I noticed a woman getting annoyed with the hospital staff and chatted to her about what was wrong. She had been told her husband's operaton would only take 30 minutes and it had been 90 minutes now. She was very worried.
We've had four surgeries in our family in the last three years. All have gone well but, in each case, it has been a lot longer than we were told before the person returns from the operation. Every time we've worried that something has gone wrong.
I think two things are happening. First, we are given a best case estimate because the surgeon wants to reassure us now. Second we are given the time from the surgeon's perspective, not that of the customer - we have to wait for the patient to come round from the anaesthetic before we see them.
Make them feel good after the service, not now
We are all tempted to do it: "It will only take 5 minutes", "We will have the report with you by the end of the day". But reassurance now leads to frustration later, if we can't deliver on it. It is always best to under-promise.
If you are in an aeroplane waiting to take off and the pilot tells you it will be a 45 minutes wait, but it turns out to be 35 minutes - you feel pleased, and you feel the pilot has delivered on his promise. But if she says 15 minutes and it turns out to be 25, you feel frustrated and let down.
I changed the local taxi firm we used when I found one that would actually you how long the taxi would be, instead of always saying "Its just round the corner". And I again remind myself to do the same, to make a promise I can take a delight in beating.
My son is doing fine by the way, touch wood (though he was late, of course, back from the operation). And the Royal London (an NHS hospital in East London) is just marvellous - friendly, helpful, responsive, informed.
We've had four surgeries in our family in the last three years. All have gone well but, in each case, it has been a lot longer than we were told before the person returns from the operation. Every time we've worried that something has gone wrong.
I think two things are happening. First, we are given a best case estimate because the surgeon wants to reassure us now. Second we are given the time from the surgeon's perspective, not that of the customer - we have to wait for the patient to come round from the anaesthetic before we see them.
Make them feel good after the service, not now
We are all tempted to do it: "It will only take 5 minutes", "We will have the report with you by the end of the day". But reassurance now leads to frustration later, if we can't deliver on it. It is always best to under-promise.
If you are in an aeroplane waiting to take off and the pilot tells you it will be a 45 minutes wait, but it turns out to be 35 minutes - you feel pleased, and you feel the pilot has delivered on his promise. But if she says 15 minutes and it turns out to be 25, you feel frustrated and let down.
I changed the local taxi firm we used when I found one that would actually you how long the taxi would be, instead of always saying "Its just round the corner". And I again remind myself to do the same, to make a promise I can take a delight in beating.
My son is doing fine by the way, touch wood (though he was late, of course, back from the operation). And the Royal London (an NHS hospital in East London) is just marvellous - friendly, helpful, responsive, informed.
Friday, 12 February 2010
Recent Press on Happy
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
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
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
