Tag: corporate

Posted on by

Bosses, Get Out of Your Employees’ Way

It has been a while, but I have still been reading and collecting articles to post! It looks like my next couple will be from The Wall Street Journal, perhaps, which tends to require a subscription to read. But there are some great quotes and takeaways in this article. Really love it–every boss, manager, supervisor, etc, should read it. Because not everyone can read the article, and because the article is long, I will include a few more quotes/gems than usual. My favorite quote/gem is in red below!

Some of the gems:

First, bosses need to understand the damage they do by interfering when they ought to stand aside. Second, bosses need to know when getting out of the way is best and how to do it. And third, employees need to know how they can reduce the damage when a stubborn or clueless boss continues to engage in misguided meddling.

 

comprar casodex…even leaders who use the much-ballyhooed practice of management by walking around—known as MBWA—who devote big chunks of time to observing front-line work and asking employees to identify problems and solutions, may do more harm than good.

 

…when leaders used MBWA for complex and vexing problems (such as excessive lead times for lab test results), employees reported that chats and meetings with bosses interfered with their productive work and rarely solved the problems. On the contrary: These futile discussions had enduring negative repercussions because they drew attention to their leaders’ failings.

 

One boss in a nonprofit organization told me that she hones such self-awareness by seeking out and developing rapport with local critics and complainers—people who are quick to criticize her and spread bad news about her missteps…[T]hese grumpy employees provide her with more useful information. That includes tips about meetings she calls that ought to be eliminated or shortened, and about times when she is seen as a micromanager rather than helpful coach. She believes that these naysayers and critics make her a better boss.

 

 …too often bosses won’t dial down their scrutiny, advice and demands, even when it undermines progress and drives people crazy. It isn’t that they are being malicious, as was evident in Prof. Pfeffer’s experiments. Rather, they think interfering is what being a good boss is all about.

 

They elected to resist, ignore and undermine their bosses’ authority because they wanted to do what was best for their organizations, colleagues, and customers.

 

Bosses, Get Out of Your Employees’ Way

Posted on by

From Bankruptcy to $87 Million in Funding: How Tamara Mellon Saved Her Namesake Brand

Not the slightest bit interested in luxury shoes, or fashion. But this is an amazing article about an unshaken belief in a vision and doing things differently. This article also encapsulates all of my core business values–professionalism, innovation and diversity (PID).

Gems:

[Tamara Mellon] could do things the way they’d always been done, or she could blaze her own path, despite the discomfort that was sure to follow edlekarna.com/.

She chose her own path. “And that,” she says, “is how I ended up in Chapter 11.”

But it would be worth it.

 

She’d stop focusing on retailers and instead build an exclusively direct-to-consumer model. That way, she could finally release products as often as she wanted — while also cutting out the middleman, enabling her to slash prices.

Investors balked. They wanted her to follow retailers’ rules. She refused. “I knew the ultimate vision was right,” she says.

 

Soon after, a company-wide Slack channel dubbed “Crazy ideas” was introduced as a judgment-free zone; it’s produced some of their biggest hits. “Someone suggested letting customers return shoes whenever they want, with no time limit, and we rolled that out,” Mellon says. “Old luxury is intimidating; we want people to feel welcome.”

 

Today, Tamara Mellon is 42 people strong — 35 of whom are women. Tom Dean, CTO, is one of seven men. And it’s been an education.

“The ladies tell me when I’m being a dumb ass,” he says. “We were working on a damaged-product sample sale, and I said, ‘Ladies, don’t catfight.’ And [integrated marketing senior director] Caitlin Bray looked at me and said, ‘Don’t be a misogynistic dick.’ And I was like, ‘OK! Fair enough!’ ”

 

From Bankruptcy to $87 Million in Funding: How Tamara Mellon Saved Her Namesake Brand

Posted on by

Managers, You’re More Intimidating Than You Think

Such a great, necessary article. Managers, supervisors, directors and CEOs can come off as delusional people because many think they have and/or foster an open, honest environment and that they’re approachable or that any employee with something on his/her mind will say it/talk about it–simple. The truth is that there are clear power dynamics that generally prevent these things from being the case…no matter what they say or what they ask you. In most cases, if I speak my mind with someone in a leadership position at work, that means that I can accept possibly losing my job (and probably already have one foot out the door anyway). I’m talking about problem situations at work and those times when your ideas clash with what is already being done and/or what others want to hear https://impotenzastop.it/.

I also must point out that 95% of the time when I’ve spoken to someone in a leadership position at work about anything, I’ve experienced some form of dismissal–even if the leader did ultimately try to do something positive/helpful as a result of the conversation.

I could quote several gems from this article, but let’s go with the following:

If employees are afraid to speak up, engagement suffers, learning moments go unrecognized, misconduct goes unquestioned, and innovations go unrealized.

 

…you can be friendly and well-meaning, but certain labels you carry with you can override those characteristics and define that relationship for others.

Those labels might be job titles, such as “boss,” “head of HR,” or “CEO.”…Even as organizations pride themselves on being nonhierarchical, these social strata persist.

 

Reacting negatively to being challenged — with overt anger, dismissal, or disinterest — means that you’ll be challenged less often in the future.

 

Managers, You’re More Intimidating Than You Think

Posted on by

Hiring: It’s About Cultural Contribution, Not Cultural Fit

Been meaning to post this one for a while now.

Frankly, I am generally disgusted by the whole idea of “culture” in hiring and workplaces. I think [in the US] we have gotten too far away from understanding/acknowledging why people really work and why people really come to work and what most people really want from their jobs at the end of the day (especially since–let’s face it–the idea of “culture” in the workplace is really more about and for the benefit of the employer). And it has become a huge no-no to point out these ridiculously obvious realities and accept them for what they are without being viewed negatively or even having your job–or ability to get a job–threatened.

Still, when it all is said and done, you can do whatever you want and have whatever “culture” and “relationships” you want–no one is showing up to work and no one is doing anything for your company if you stop paying them. So, requiring a “cultural fit” or whatever and throwing that on top of the already-lengthy list of job requirements and hiring requirements just makes everything that much harder–for the person hiring and the leaders in a company and the employees and job candidates–when it still is, always was and always will be really and truly about a paycheck.

So, I would love for companies and employers to stop kidding themselves.

All of that said…if you’re going to talk about basing a work culture on mostly professionalism, innovation and/or diversity (I guess if we’re going to come up with acronyms, then I’d call my “cultural” values PID and wouldn’t want to just pay lip service to them like most companies do)…then I can get on board. They’re pretty easy values to which to fit candidates, actually, in my opinion, and they aren’t as taxing, problematic, alienating and/or unrealistic as the values the average company with a cultural ideal has. Which is probably why I struggle to tolerate any other types of cultural workplace beliefs.

This post discusses the benefits of, and the connection between, diversity and innovation in organizations.

Some gems:

…most hiring processes focus on “cultural fit” and lead to the opposite of diversity. Why? Because when we hire based on how well someone will fit in today, we tend to choose people similar to those already around us.

 

I try to choose candidates who could make a positive contribution to the future of our culture, even if they don’t feel like today’s mainstream employee. I don’t optimize for fit with our existing culture, because over time that will lead to uniformity and irrelevancy. Instead, I try to envision a future where this person’s unique point of view has shifted how we work and what we value.

 

…even more importantly, hiring for cultural contribution forces managers to think critically about their existing culture: What’s lacking? Where do we want to go? Acknowledging that our culture needn’t be static helps us have serious conversations about what we want and how the world works. Doing so helps us develop a confident awareness of what makes our culture thrive.

 

I also love this comment from Koney Hoi, who has an impressive background as a leader:

Cultural fit is just a convenient excuse to reject someone. Michael Jordan did not get along with his teammates but they won 6 championships together. Why? Agree to disagree and march together towards a common goal.

 

Hiring: It’s About Cultural Contribution, Not Cultural Fit

Posted on by

Annual Performance Reviews Vs Continuous Feedback Infographic

Common sense strikes again. I concur with all of this, except one part–the word “feedback.”

I believe employers should have monthly “check-ins” with employees, if not check-ins that occur more often. And words such as “feedback” and “reviews” make it seem one-sided when it shouldn’t be. The “feedback” should go both ways. Really, it should be a discussion or a conversation, so that you, as an employer, can gather a lot of valuable information from an employee about problems that need to be addressed, needs that need to be met, etc.

Annual Performance Reviews Vs Continuous Feedback Infographic

Gems:

>50% reacted to an annual performance review by looking for a new job.

 

64% of employees that quit their jobs say they did it because they didn’t feel recognized for their job. – U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 

Companies that set quarterly performance goals to generate 31% greater returns than those that review goals annually, and those that do it monthly get even better results.

 

I do have to note one thing about “performance goals”–I have worked at a company where quarterly performance goals was a thing, and I perceived them as somewhat arbitrary and meaningless…at least at this company. If you’re going to require performance goals–which I think is kind of ridiculous–make sure they’re tied to necessities. It shouldn’t be coming up with 3 or 4 goals just to have 3 or 4 goals, especially if you’re tying these pointless goals to bonuses and/or raises. This leads to wasted time for employees on pointless goals when there are more important–even critical–places to focus attention, time and effort. If there’s one big thing that it’d be truly helpful or necessary to have completed within 3 or so months, then that one thing should be the performance goal–not 1 semi-important thing (i.e https://osterreichische-apotheke.com/k../. important but not critical in the next 3 months), 1-2 impossible as fuck things and 1-2 totally unimportant things, as was the case where I worked.

Annual Performance Reviews Vs Continuous Feedback Infographic

Posted on by

Which Type of Entrepreneur Are You: Bedrock or High-Risk?

I discovered this entrepreneur, author and professor, Derek Lidow, last night. I am currently in the very early stages of starting my own business, and Lidow’s thoughts validate my thinking/approach to entrepreneurship. He calls it the “bedrock mindset” and has written a book about it.

I found an article that summarizes his thoughts on the two approaches to entrepreneurship that lead to successful business creation. Here are some gems from it:

Estée Lauder started as a teenager…It took her decades of making small profits to find out how to do it well enough to make the large profits that finally allowed her to live the life she wanted. Sam Walton, too, was a bedrock entrepreneur. He grew his company based on coaxing ever increasing profits from the small retail stores he initially franchised, borrowing money from family and, only later, from banks https://osterreichische-apotheke.com/k../. Such entrepreneurs must necessarily be patient about the growth of their companies since it will be limited by the profits they generate.

 

Contrary to a commonly held perception, the majority of enterprises are founded by a single person, not by a team. Over half of the entrepreneurs in the U.S. work on their own and want to keep it that way. They recognize that giving significant ownership to partners or co-founders increases the risk that the company will break up over differences of aims, strategy and even personality.

 

We need both bedrock entrepreneurs who create value via steady growth and reinvestment of profits and high-risk entrepreneurs who create those one-in-ten thousand successful hypergrowth companies. What we don’t need are hybrid entrepreneurs who behave like tenacious tortoises one day and high-risk hares the next.

 

Which Type of Entrepreneur Are You: Bedrock or High-Risk?

Posted on by

I’m Sick Of Our Culture’s Bias Against Introverts — And I’m Ashamed To Admit I Share In It

It’s a shame that it usually takes being very close to someone who has different challenges in life than you do before you begin to even notice, care about and/or see what’s wrong with having those different challenges. But we’ll take progress however we can get it.

The gems:

…as she began researching introversion as a personality trait, she learned that what many people perceive as a weakness is in reality a strength — one that most Americans (including business managers, leaders, teachers, etc https://impotenzastop.it/.) fail to appreciate.

 

I also began focusing more intently on my own biases against introversion, and saw that they were rampant. Where I used to see staff members or colleagues as “not able to think on their feet,” or “so quiet that it hurts them,” I now see the keen power of minds, their intense creativity and brilliant ideas, along with their ability to comfortably share power with others rather than needing to put their mark on other people’s ideas.

 

The introverted corporate professionals I’ve worked with have felt unappreciated, undervalued, and misunderstood. While I haven’t researched this fully yet, I believe it’s possible that their introversion (and the lack of acceptance of introverts in our country’s culture) plays an important part in their disengagement and dissatisfaction with their work and careers.

 

I’m Sick Of Our Culture’s Bias Against Introverts — And I’m Ashamed To Admit I Share In It

Posted on by

Two Blatant Ways Big U.S. Companies Are Hurting Employees And Their Careers

With this one, I’ve gotta start with some quotes from the article:

When you enter the career section of Goldman Sachs, the preeminent investment bank based in downtown New York City, you’re immediately shown a montage of happy, attractive-looking employees in their early 20s, while not so subtle highlighting its homage to diversity and inclusion.

 

I suggest you visit any corporation’s career site and you’ll get the same feeling—we want younger people.

Actually–and please note, I am not “young”–I’ll give him what he’s saying about Goldman Sachs (because their career site is hilarious after reading this article)…but, honestly, when I go to the career sites of most corporations, the “feeling” I still get is they mostly want men and white people (i.e. white men, basically). At the most, “diversity” seems to mean gays and lesbians, and white women, in far too many cases–sometimes an Asian or two or some white-looking Hispanics who can only be identified as Hispanics by their surnames. Cherry picking acceptable types of diversity is not true inclusion, whether it’s age, sex/gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation and so on…but it seems like the vast majority of employers do exactly that and still expect a pat on the back.

Nevertheless, I do have to agree with this:

It’s not that [corporations] love younger people, it’s that they know they come cheaper.

This article is very interesting–I just don’t know how much of it I do agree with overall. I have been the recent graduate struggling to get a job twice–once after college, and then again after graduate school. It has seemed pretty clear to me that most employers care more about work experience than snatching up cheaper young labor, but maybe things are changing because I see more and more older people asking why don’t employers want to hire them…and I have recently worked for a company where being young seemed to be the norm.

Maybe employers don’t actually want to hire anybody?!?! I really wouldn’t doubt it.

Two Blatant Ways Big U.S. Companies Are Hurting Employees And Their Careers

Posted on by

Tips for creating an introvert-friendly workplace

Every employer should read this article and really think about its content.

viagra prodaja

Some of the gems:

…the nature of the modern office — with open environments and cubicles instead of offices — can often work against an introvert’s nature, leaving them mentally and emotionally exhausted by the end of the work day. However, an extravert might thrive on this type of environment where they can get regular feedback from coworkers, all the while, unintentionally exhausting their introvert neighbors.

 

Whatever your company culture is, no one should feels as though they’re being judged for not participating in non-work related activities. Or even for performing their job in a way that suits them best, but isn’t how everyone else is getting work done.

 

“…The cornerstone of our philosophy is we can only have a truly creative work environment if we build appreciation for different approaches,” says Arvai.

 

Tips for creating an introvert-friendly workplace

Posted on by

Is Your Corporate Culture Cultish?

I don’t agree with everything in this article (I’m admittedly unsure of why everyone seems to think it’s “important” for work environments to be “fun”–we get paid to work for a reason), but I find the overall topic and some of the points made in this article to be important–not to mention severely lacking attention. This is so not only in the business world for employers, but also for job candidates who can end up in poor work environments for themselves by not getting a sense of what the culture is before accepting a job (been there, done that).

The gems:

Any time there’s a potential for people to feel excluded for how they think or feel, the organization has entered cult territory. And ultimately that will be bad for business. The rigidity of cult behavior stifles innovation, thereby endangering the company’s future.

 

Ask yourself: Do employees believe in the company’s vision because they understand and agree with it or because that’s what they’re supposed to do? Does the company encourage them to have personal lives? Most importantly, does it encourage the individuality and non-conformism that drive breakthroughs?

 

a great culture…is equally about healthy debate – in which people can debate certain values and norms and differ in their opinions. When a culture ceases to embrace diversity and dissent, it becomes a cult.

 

Is Your Corporate Culture Cultish?