The Business Sensei

The Challenges of Hiring Slow

In an upcoming Journal of Corporate Recruiting Leadership I talk about the perils of “hiring slow” and “firing fast.” As I’ve been doing, I wanted to give you just a taste of the “hiring slow” part here.

A company can hire slow for two major reasons: because they know exactly who they’re looking for and are willing to wait for the right people to apply, or because they don’t know who they’re looking for and believe they’ll know when the right person applies.

The first is more useful. If you’ve done your homework and figured out the characteristics of the employees you’re looking for, and if you’ve trained your interviewers to recognize those people, then by all means hire slow. Take your time and wait for the right people or, better yet, go out and attract them to the company.

Read the rest at ERE.Net

Reverse the Polarity of the Neutron Flow: The Magic of Neuroscience

I was recently quoted in an article called “Brain Training.” The article is on applying neuroscience to the workplace, and all the great benefits this would bring about.

I was skeptical. My comment was this:

“While it’s certainly possible to gain some improvement in decision making abilities by better understanding how our brains work, I question how significant the improvement will be “in the field.” It strikes me as rather like trying to learn jujitsu or tennis through a detailed study of body mechanics. Will it help? To some degree, but ultimately, if you want to become skilled in those sports you have to get out and practice under the supervision of a good coach.

To the extend that brain sciences can help us develop better training programs, they are a big plus. But they cannot replace practice.”

The author didn’t quite use all of this, but he kept the general point.

Today, I read about a study out of Harvard that found that simply referring to neuroscience as the explanation for a phenomenon increases the likelihood that people will believe the explanation, even when the explanation has no inherent meaning: “the effect is due to frontal lobe circuitry.”

In its own way, it is no more meaningful than the famous line from Doctor Who: “Reverse the polarity of the neutron flow!” which Jon Pertwee famously made up after he forgot his technobabble.

And yet, it works. Businesses are spending tons of money using neuroscience to explain employee behavior instead of looking at what’s happening in front of their eyes!

Why are they so convinced that neuroscience will find the answer, and that the answer will then be easy to apply in the office? Must be due to frontal lobe circuitry.

Chutes and Ladders (Airplane edition)

For some reason, I’m having trouble getting out of my head the image of a game of Chutes and Ladders played with pictures of airplanes and flight attendants.

I was asked to comment recently on whether stress  might have played a part in the story of Steven Slater, the JetBlue flight attendant who slid down the emergency chute, beer in hand. The beer part might not be a good addition to the kid’s game, even if mild alcohol consumption is supposed to reduce stress. Here’s what I wrote:

There is no question but that the current economic situation has increased the stress level for everyone. Unfortunately, one of the places where showing this is considered socially acceptable in on an airplane, where flight attendants are often not viewed as the professionals that they are. Furthermore, the struggle over overhead bin space seems to have only increased as more and more airlines charge to check bags; this, of course, increases the stress level of the passengers.

Why is this story getting such play? As Americans, we appreciate noble gestures: there is a huge difference between going postal with a gun and doing something dramatic to make a point. Slater’s actions hurt no one (which is not to say they were without risk; at the superficial level, though, it appeals on a very visceral level), which puts it into the second category. When we see someone act in such a dramatic fashion, we are reminded of our own stress and frustration at work, and admire someone who is willing to stand up to authority.

However, that doesn’t mean that Slater’s actions were a good long-term career move! It really depends on how JetBlue and other airlines might react. The standard, stodgy, reaction is to refuse to give him his job back. A more daring airline might choose to play up the adventure/daring angle of his actions and build a marketing campaign around it: “At XYZ Airlines you won’t need to do this!”

Of course, if you want to avoid situations like this, it’s important to pay attention to what’s going on in your company. Are employees excited about working there or just showing up because they have nowhere else to go? Is the CEO out in front of the employees demonstrating her excitement over the future of the company, or is he sitting in an office somewhere issuing vague directives? Do employees look for reasons to not come to work? What is the company doing to help manage stress: providing sufficient time off? Exercise facilities? Quiet space? Opportunities to have fun on the job?

At a very broad level, I’d also have to wonder how this fits with JetBlue’s image, or brand, as a fun airline? When you think about JetBlue’s advertisements, they try to present an image of flying, sorry, jetting, being a fun activity. In an odd sort of way, this incident can either reinforce that image or damage it, depending on how JetBlue handles things going forward. No, it’s not entirely rational: after all, when flying we want to get safely to our destination; at the same time, the idea of the trip being fun is appealing.

If this story fades out, then probably nothing happens to JetBlue’s image. But if the story hangs around, the focus can potentially make or break JetBlue’s brand: pressure cooker work environment or fun place to be. The answer will affect how travelers view the airline, and that influence, subtle though it may be, will affect whether or not people fly JetBlue.

Comrade, we meant pies

After reading the recent articles in the NY Times about the Russian spy ring and listening to news reports on it, I’m left wondering just what the point was. It sounds mostly like an episode of Get Smart, complete with over the top recognition phrases and really bad brush passes (in one example, the spy holds out his backpack so that the passing Russian government official can place a bag into it).

Perhaps these 11 people misunderstood their instructions. Instead of being spies, maybe they were supposed to make pies.

The biggest question I’ve having with this story is just what the expected goals were. Why did someone decide on a long-term, expensive, potentially embarrassing operation? It seems odd that so much effort would be expended trying to obtain information that can be readily obtained through the news, Facebook, and Google.

No, I don’t think there’s some deeper, hidden plan here (were I writing an espionage serious game, I would, of course, have a different view… 🙂 ). Rather, I believe this is an amazing example of astoundingly poor planning. This is a project that seems to have been given the same level of critical thought and review as a plan that involves evacuating walruses from the Gulf of Mexico and not thinking about hurricanes.

In this case, I wonder if the Russians figured that they needed information about American life and at least knew they didn’t know much about it. Their assumptions, though, about how to get that information only serve to illustrate just how much they didn’t know about what they were investigating. It’s a wonderful example of how cultural beliefs and assumptions can get in the way of actually accomplishing your goals.

Sometimes the toughest part of learning something is figuring out just how much you don’t know. If the Russians had realized just how trivial this information was, they wouldn’t have needed to go to such lengths to get it. How often do businesses make the same mistakes? Sometimes the information isn’t that hard to get or the product isn’t that hard to build, but our assumptions based on a lack of knowledge cause us to make the whole thing much more difficult.

That can be extremely expensive. It can also lead to the Keystone Kspies.

Pardon me, I think my shoe is ringing.

Why Barnes & Noble was Amazoned

When I speak about innovation, one my favorite examples is how B&N was beaten in their primary market, selling books, by upstart Amazon.com.

Even now, B&N doesn’t quite get it.

Case in point: my book appeared on Amazon.com for pre-order over a week ago. It finally showed up on B&N, and there are few small errors. Nothing major, but it makes it look unprofessional: screwing up the formatting of the title, which is, I grant, minor.

Far more amusing is who they’ve listed as the author: Honore de Balzac.

This may come as a surprise to the folks at Barnes & Noble, but Honore has been dead for a while.

Okay, this isn’t a major issue, but it illustrates a point: when the primary image people have of your “bookstore” is virtual, it pays to get the relevant details right.

On the other hand, if you want to get a brand new book by Honore de Balzac, I guess now’s your chance… 🙂

Demonstration please!

A couple of weeks ago, I was in Omaha giving a talk on leadership. The room was packed (in fact, the best attended talk at the conference!), and the response was enthusiastic. The one slightly odd comment that I got afterward was that the talk should have included group exercises.

This was an hour talk and there were at least 100 people in the room. A group exercise? I figured it was a joke. Then I found out that some of the other speakers had received similar comments, quite possibly from the same person. I’m wondering now if the commenter actually listened to any of the talks.  One of my points was that a good leader takes the time to understand what can reasonably done in a certain amount of time, and that trying to cram too much in is a recipe for disaster. At least one other speaker made similar points.

Apparently this unknown commenter was either not listening, didn’t believe it, or simply has no concept of what he (or she) is asking for. That, in turn, makes me wonder about how this person does as a manager. I have to wonder if they’re busy pushing their team to attempt more and more in less and less time with no sense of whether or not it makes sense to do that amount of work in that amount of time.

Realistically, part of being a successful leader is recognizing what people can and cannot do in the time available. The goal is not to drive people harder and faster, but to use the time well. Complex projects take time to complete; driving people too hard at the beginning makes it much less likely that you’ll get to the end. Rather, what actually works is to start slowly and pick up speed; to choose your targets and focus your energies; and not to throw in something if it would detract from the overall experience rather than adding to it.

Of steaks and lions

There’s an old saying about throwing steaks to lions in the hopes that they’ll become vegetarians. Apparently, if you do it long enough, the lion eventually grows old, loses his teeth, and gums the steak to death. But they’ll at least consider vegetables at that point.

The current political dance in the Senate is a rather interesting example of lions and steaks. We have a minority party that has found that the best way to succeed is to do everything possible to prevent the majority from accomplishing anything. The majority keeps throwing them steaks and hopes that they’ll become vegetarians. Why? Well, let’s look at this as if it were a corporate boardroom and see what lessons can be learned.

Now, to be fair, most businesses don’t have 100 vice-presidents. However, they have enough. I regularly hear tales of businesses (sorry, I can’t name names) with small coalitions competing with or refusing to cooperate with the majority. In each case, the minority players are working to make the majority look bad. Why? To gain the favor of the CEO, and hence to accrue more personal power to themselves. It seems more than a little silly, since it doesn’t do the company any good: even if the minority is right in their ideas, the cost of the infighting does more to hurt the company than any benefit that the minority’s policies would have brought. And when the minority’s policies are wrong, the damage is even greater.

Unfortunately, what has happened is that the minority coalition has lost track of the goals of the company: they are focused on their own goals, which usually involve succession to the CEO position, a larger scope of authority, bigger pay packages, and so forth. The reasons are as varied as the companies. Sometimes the minority coalition fails and is fired by the CEO or the Board. Sometimes they succeed, and the majority is fired.

What determines the result of the struggle is how the majority handles the competition. If they try to be nice and refuse to compete back, the minority is only encouraged. If they are so afraid of looking bad that they refuse to compete, they just end up looking bad.  It’s only when the  majority demonstrates that they are willing to play the same game, and compete as viciously as the minority that the game changes. Quite simply, in every group in which competition arises, the only way to end that competition is for the majority to demonstrate that the cost of competition is greater than the cost of cooperation and the rewards of cooperation are greater than the rewards for competition.

It doesn’t much matter if we’re talking about IBM or the US Senate. So long as we’re dealing with people, the dynamics are the same. Only the scenery changes.

Of Mice and Turkeys

Imagine for a moment that you’re sitting down to your Thanksgiving dinner when suddenly the roof of your house swings back and you find yourself looking up into something huge and incomprehensible: the eye of a hurricane perhaps, which I suspect is a lot less comprehensible close up than it is on TV.

I was unexpectedly encouraged to think about this today when I went out this morning to start smoking the Thanksgiving turkey. I flipped open the top of my grill and what should I find inside but a mouse nest. Needless to say, the mice were not at all thrilled at having the roof of their house flipped up, but I’m guessing that these mice thought they were getting a pretty good deal on the place and didn’t imagine that their house came with a detachable roof. Let’s not even talk about the central heating…

To make a long story very short, the mice booked out of there and we cleaned out the grill. Half an hour at 500+ degrees did the rest. I figure that any bacteria that can survive that treatment is going to take over the world anyway so I’m not going to worry about it.

Meanwhile, back to the mice. Much to the annoyance of our cats, who sat at the window watching, we let the mice scurry off. Their odds of survival are pretty good, even if their next home is likely to be a real hole in the ground.

Someone recently told me that he was former biology teacher and thus believed strongly in the survival of the fittest. The mice got me thinking: what does that mean? Drop a human in the forest at the end of November and their odds of survival aren’t all that good. The mice, though, will do just fine. Who is more fit to survive, the mouse or the human? Granted, the mice aren’t likely to find any other mice that will take them in or help them, but mice are individualists. They won’t even remember being a family before too long. They’ll survive, or they won’t, on their own.

One untrained person alone in the forest is in trouble. Put several people together, though, and their odds suddenly get much better assuming they can cooperate. Granted, that can be a big assumption sometimes, but it’s vital if you want to survive in the forest or in business.

I once read the statement that, “Teamwork was invented by the weak in order to beat the strong.” I’ve also heard some form of  that argument put forth many times, usually by the person who is trying to make sure that no one can compete with him. Let’s face it, the biggest, strongest person has a vested interest in convincing everyone else not to form a team. The fastest, most skillful programmer might well see a real short-term benefit in a fractious and divisive team. In the short-term, there is a real benefit for some in keeping people divided: remember, it’s “divide, then conquer.” The results for the business, though, of such a dynamic may not be quite so good.

Over the long term, being able to work as part of a team confers a distinct advantage on the entire group. Members of the group can support one another, assist one another, and watch out for one another. New members can be taught the skills and accumulated knowledge of the group, so that they don’t spend their time reinventing the wheel. Over time, a cohesive group can outperform any individual or collection of individuals.

Mice don’t form teams. They don’t even have the concept. When disaster strikes, they’re on their own. They don’t help one another. They think only about themselves.

People are capable of forming teams, forming what Ed Schein calls “networks of mutual helping.” We don’t always manage it, but we’re stronger when we do. Whether we’re talking about business challenges or about responding to the next Katrina, our ability to form teams is our greatest advantage if we choose to use it, if we choose to reach out and help others and let others help us.

So here’s my Thanksgiving question: are you a man or a mouse?

Ethics? Not pragmatic.

Yesterday, I wrote a post and also posted on Facebook a link to the NYT article about a six year old cub scout being suspended for 45 days because he brought a “weapon” to school: a combination spoon, fork, and knife. The presence of this obviously deadly weapon triggered the school’s Zero Tolerance policy. One of the responses to my post was rather interesting:

“Steve, this issue isn’t really about what’s ethically/morally correct when you’re in the school “trenches”.”

The poster explained that these policies exist to protect the school against lawsuits for discrimination, and added, “sometimes pragmatism gets the nod over the idealism we’d prefer.”

First of all, this is a textbook example of the process of moral disengagement: in other words, people justify unreasonable or unethical behavior by saying that it’s necessary to protect themselves or others. In this case, the argument is that, “We have to do this to protect ourselves from lawsuits.”

But I also have to wonder just how seriously a district takes ethical and moral behavior when the attitude is that ethics can be disposed of if they’re not convenient. In what other areas will they cut corners?

On a deeper level, what I see here is an organization that has forgotten what its mission is. Schools need to educate in a safe, supportive environment. Zero Tolerance doesn’t do that on several levels.

The American Psychological Association, the Department of Education, and the US Secret Service (!) have all found that ZT policies do not improve student safety. ZT is nothing more than a CYA for administrators who want to look like they’re doing something. While they are focusing on imaginary threats, they are not dealing with the real threats, the ones that the Secret Service (for example) found actually do turn into real violence. They are also creating an atmosphere of distrust and fear.

Indeed, the very idea that a well-behaved six year old can be sent to reform school for 45 days for an innocent, childish mistake is profoundly unsettling. How can one possibly feel safe in an environment when having a pocket knife dropped in your lap is grounds for expulsion? No, I’m not exaggerating. That’s happened too: ZT says that if it’s in your lap, it’s yours. How can parents trust a school district when they know that the school is perfectly willing to do serious psychological damage to their children in the name of Zero Tolerance? Let’s face it, sending a well-behaved child to reform school for a quarter of the school year is going to be psychologically and probably physically traumatic.

For a business to work well, it needs to build a sense of autonomy and competence amongst its employees. ZT destroys that. It turns administrators and teachers into robots and creates an atmosphere of fear. When you create an atmosphere of fear, people look for threats and they look for people to strike out against in order to reduce their fear. The schools are striking out against the students, and the parents naturally look for ways to strike back against the schools.

In a for-profit business, you’d see increasing amounts of fighting between teams and within teams. A for-profit business would be in serious danger of going under just from the deterioration of its products and services. Something to think about.

And, by the way, the last thing we need children learning is that ethics should be disposed of whenever they are “not pragmatic.”

Cosmic Stupid Rays from Outer Space

I believe it was Dilbert (or more likely Dogbert) who commented that “stupidity is like radiation. You don’t want to get it on your clothes.”

When writing games, we used to joke about the cosmic stupid ray problem: the tendency of inexperienced writers to create a story in which people acted in ways that simply could not be explained by any other means. Unfortunately, it seems that cosmic stupid rays are not a product of the imagination, as I can’t really find any other explanation for this article from the NY Times:

It’s a Spoon, It’s a Fork, It’s a… Weapon?

The article tells the story of a six year old who was suspended and sent to reform school for 45 days because he brought a Spork to school. A spork is one of those all-in-one utensils. The kid received it at that bastion of violence, the Cub Scouts. As we all know, Cub Scouts are trained to use sporks as deadly weapons in order to take down entire armies equipped with modern weaponry. However, a Cub Scout with a spork (or lightspork, as they are known to cognoscenti, due to the fact that they are almost always made from plastic) can bat bullets from the air with the tines, and catch missiles in the spoon bowl and fling them back. As for the knife edge, best not to think about that, but let me just say that if you happen to be made of soft butter, you’re in trouble.

I could go on, but I think I’ve made the point.

What is even more amazing in the article is the argument by school officials that they must have ZT because otherwise they might make unfair or discriminatory decisions. Instead, they will guarantee that they will make unfair and stupid decisions.

If you’re worried that your employees will not make good decisions, the answer is not to take away all decision making power, and hence all requirement to actually *think*, but to train people in sensible decision making.

In typical bad management fashion that is fully worthy of Dilbert, the response from the president of school board was this: “There is no parent who wants to get a phone call where they hear that their child no longer has two good seeing eyes because there was a scuffle and someone pulled out a knife,” said George Evans, the president of the Christina district’s school board.

This is known as a straw man argument and is being used only to scare people. Rather than attempt to lead, the incompetent manager seeks to coerce obedience through fear: “You can’t question us because something terrible will happen.”

They are right: something terrible might happen if ZT goes away. School officials might have to learn to think, to do their jobs competently instead of copping out, and the ones who can’t might just get the boot.