Team Building - how not to do it

I came across an excellent post over at Positive Sharing this morning which really captures the essence of how not to develop a team i.e. by running a competitive team building event. How many times have you gone to one of these events and found that the objective is to beat everyone not in "your team" by completing some contrived exercises? Great, that will you be fixed then you have beaten everyone and and ridiculed the loosers.

So what to do if you really want to improve your teams performance? Here are a few tips:

First of all decide if you want to be a team - no common goals? Then you are a group not a team. Just give them all a day off and they will be happy.
Decide and agree what your goals are - all of you - make sure the Personal Assistants are in the room as let's face it they probably run your company anyway.
Ask the team to actually build something together - if you are a food company go and feed some people in need, a legal or consulting business - go out and provide some pro bono services etc.
Take some time out to reflect on what you did and most importantly how you felt during the process - what could you do to make everyday feel so productive?

All seems a bit obvious but as with many such things it appears to be so obvious that people just do not see it.

Law of attraction in action - Pecha Kucha

I was staying overnight in a rather depressing hotel last night when I quite literally stumbled upon a Pech Kucha night in a pub not far from London's King's Cross.

Pecha Kucha (ペチャクチャ), usually pronounced in three syllables like "pe-chak-cha", is a presentation format in which content can be easily, efficiently and informally shown, usually at a public event designed for that purpose. Under the format, a presenter shows 20 images for 20 seconds apiece, for a total time of 6 minutes, 40 seconds. This represents one of my favorite "beside the box" thinking methods which encourages clarity and innovation both in thinking and in presentation technique.

The result, in the hands of masters of the form, combines business meeting and poetry slam to transform corporate cliché into surprisingly compelling beat-the-clock performance art (Wired 2007)

Last nights speakers covered everything from architecture, U2 and art-fashion. I really enjoyed the experience both as a spectacle and as a networking opportunity. I had the pleasure of meeting one of the creators of this presentation format, Mark Dytham, who really inspired me to take my use of this technique further both personally and with my clients.

Other links (interesting people from the London event):
Conjoin:me
Azhar Architecture

The week that was!

Whilst no economist, I am starting to see an upturn in the economy, if the number of requests I am receiving to design, facilitate and MC corporate events is anything to go by. Having just spent 2 weeks delivering events both large (>400) and small (<15 delegates), and being in the midst of designing another 6 events to take place in the next few days, I'm pretty convinced that the economy is on the rise.

What is interesting is that these events are all very focused on creating and then delivering the future. I have seen a large IT services company state publicly that it is "reinventing" itself, another French based organisation committed to "glocalization" and yet another looking at how its high technology payments service can be used in "non-traditional" ways to improve business performance. All of these organisations have chosen to use large scale event techniques as the best way to help them drive towards a better future. Such methods as open space, appreciative inquiry and group facilitation are in my opinion some of the sharpest tools available to organisations undergoing business transformation - in the current climate where pace is essential, for me they are simply indispensable.

Gender Discrimination Still a Factor in Modern Organizations

“Gender Fatigue” Hampers Productive Language to Address Inequality

The World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Report states, “No country in the world has yet managed to eliminate the gender gap.” In the U.S., the Bureau of Labor Statistics cites women working 41 to 44 hours per week earn 84.6% of what men working similar hours earn; women working more than 60 hours per week earn only 78.3% of what men in the same time category earn. The disparity between men and women in the workplace is the subject of a recent study by King’s College London.

The researcher (Dr. Kelan) found that workers acknowledge gender discrimination is possible in modern organizations, but at the same time maintain their workplaces to be gender neutral. The author notes, “gender fatigue” as the cause for workers not acknowledging that bias against women can occur.

The study included 26 men and women from two Swiss information communication technology companies. The companies were given assumed names for this study—“Redtech,” a local 50-person Swiss company and “Bluetech,” a subsidiary of a multinational enterprise, employing 3000 staff in Switzerland. At Redtech 11 men and 4 women participated in interviews and at Bluetech 6 women and 5 men were interviewed; 16 individuals were also followed on the job for several hours. The interviewees, ranging in age from 24-54, were asked about their views on gender discrimination as well as other issues.

Employees from both companies claimed their organizations were gender neutral and that employees were evaluated based on merit. With further questioning, men and women interviewed could describe past situations where gender bias occurred against women, but limited it to happening 10 to 20 years ago, from contacts outside their own organizations (i.e. customer contacts), or to an isolated male colleague from an “older” generation. “Instead of denying gender discrimination, workers acknowledge it can happen but construct it as singular events that happened in the past, placing the onus on women to overcome such obstacles...”.

Participants in the study displayed, what the author calls, “gender fatigue” where individuals tire of acting upon gender discrimination in spite of the fact that incidents of gender bias either occurred at one time within their organization or could occur again. “The problem with gender fatigue is that it prohibits productive discussion regarding inequalities between men and women, making gender bias difficult to address,”. “Future studies should explore what happens to gender fatigue over time and whether practical strategies can be developed to shape the way in which people in organizations speak about gender.”

Article: “Gender Fatigue: The Ideological Dilemma of Gender Neutrality and Discrimination in Organizations.” Elisabeth K. Kelan. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences; Published Online here

Some advice on storytelling

Being able to tell a good story is the critical element in any conversation where you want to make a point, gain support or influence someone. However, how to actually tell a story isn't as obvious as it sounds. Prevailing wisdom tells us that a story should have a point and that a story becomes a story when it is time bound. The actual art of storytelling is something that I have long been interested in and something that I haven't always excelled at. Weather it is pitch, pace, length, context or language there is no doubt that storytelling can be a challenge.

In this great YouTube clip which I found over at the excellent Anecdote site we are given a few tips on how to tell a compelling story.

I really like Scott Simon's delivery style - the pace is perfect, his voice just makes you want to listen and his manner is very open.

Just a few words

Found this over at Presentation Zen - I just love it.

"HR? I know all about that" - CEO

A question posted over at Dear Workforce has reminded me of one of the most frustrating things experienced by HR professionals - the fact that everyone (and I mean everyone) has an opinion on all matters HR. This is not entirely a surprise as HR issues are often about people, however, this it really can be an issue if the person claiming to know it all is your CEO.

So why is this the case? Ulrich provides a partial explanation in the form of a question he asks of HR professionals:

What is the biggest challenge you face in your job today?

What often follows are challenges related to doing HR practices better (recruitment, training, leadership development etc), having a seat at the top table or the personal challenges of working in HR.

....when we say there answers are wrong. Silence ensues.

The answer to the question is actually - how will HR rise to the challenge of helping their organisation succeed.

So now put yourself in the shoes of the CEO. She has probably spent years listening to HR tell her how diversity policies and pension strategies add value. No wonder she eventually thinks she knows all the HR answers. If on the other hand perhaps if HR starts to focus on business goals it will increasingly be seen as an effective business partner.

Reference: HR Transformation - Dave Ulrich et al

Meaningful roles mean better business

I was asked the other day by a senior colleague of mine how we could improve morale in one of our client organisations. The answer was easy - make them happier. There is a very simple secret to long-term employee loyalty and retention which isn't money, perks, stock options or even expense accounts (unless you are a British MP that is). It's giving them meaningful roles.

This is no idealistic notion rather a basic condition of human behavior and psychology that many leaders often forget: people are driven as much or more by intrinsic meaning as they are by extrinsic rewards.
Look around your social circle and you will notice that some of your brightest friends are earning a fraction of what they could be earning in a different job. If you are a rant reader it is unlikely that your friends are just stupid rather they are in those roles because they provide fulfillment and a sense of meaning beyond the job. Another great example? Go to an Pret store for your lunch and just and talk to a member of staff. Now compare that to the average employee at 95 percent of other "fast food" establishments. Enough said. In life, people make the "love or money" trade-off all the time.

What can businesses do to minimize this trade-off? It comes down to balancing the intrinsic with the extrinsic rewards. The former is the heart and soul of an organization and a person's reason for working there. The latter is the practical mind and wallet. Here are four ideas (after Anthony Tjan) designed to unlock the secret of long-term employee loyalty:

Help create a meaningful roles. Ask in an interview what they would be doing if they had all the money they needed; explain and remind the employee why the role is critical and how it fits into the bigger picture. This is the foundation and most critical component of long-term retention;

Give feedback. Do so regularly, with both honesty and thoughtfulness;

Offer and deliver professional development. Keep their larger career path in mind; ask what they want most to learn. People want to know where they are heading and that you care in helping them get there;

Say thank you. This means both intrinsic and extrinsic recognition — that is, reaffirm your appreciation for their role (a simple hand-written note or verbal thanks from time to time goes a long way) and pay them fairly.

Whilst not the whole answer nor a particularly new concept recognising the importance of creating a positive workplace remains important. Striving to create a clear connection between the values and aspirations of both business and employee is as good a starting point as any in changing organisational performance for the better.

Source material and other reading: Making employees happier, Good Jobs for Good People (Pret) and The meaning of meaning (excellent article on the representation of experience)
Image: Delta 7

Values based strategy - P&G show the way

Rosabeth Moss Kanter writes on her Harvard blog that Procter & Gamble, the world's largest consumer products company, has announced a groundbreaking new business strategy to jump-start growth.


It begins in an almost counterintuitive (to some) way — with company values and sense of purpose. Invoke the heart and care about human needs, the strategy seems to say, and the money will follow. I can see droves of accountants clutching their chests as I type!

Kanter refers to CEO Bob McDonald promoting P&G's "purpose-inspired growth" strategy of "touching and improving more consumers' lives in more parts of the world... more completely." McDonald explained the financial implications of this focus. It's simple arithmetic. If 7 billion consumers currently spend an average of $14 a year on P&G products, then finding ways to meet their needs that would increase that spending over 5 years by $2 a year (an affordable target), would create a growth spurt for the business.

P&G invests heavily in innovation, outspends the competition in R&D, and targets emerging markets with growth potential. But to execute, P&G is redoubling emphasis on its culture and values.

McDonald calls P&G's purpose the most consistent factor in a 171-year history of growth. "We will provide branded products of superior quality and value that improve the lives of the world's consumers, now and for generations to come. As a result, consumers will reward us with leadership sales, profit and value creations, allowing our people, our shareholders, and the communities in which we live and work to prosper."

For me, this is a great example of how not falling for the business delusion and actually thinking about creating meaning for customers (and employees) can improve business performance in a breakthrough way.

Kanter also suggests that any business can adopt a variation of this strategy if leaders understand the rising importance of values. Leading with values is important for the new generation of employees, for finding innovations in underserved markets, and for getting respect from the public and favorable treatment from government. Here are lessons for everyone:

Inspire employees to add their hearts to their heads. An executive at another large company who describes herself as a mercenary plunged into a project to build an energy-saving technology ready to focus on just the financials, but found herself a true believer when other team members talked about their desire to change the world. People cared more and worked harder because values were tapped.

Add a third P to performance measurement: potential for impact. Measure how well you're doing not just by the past (better or worse than last year) or by peers (ahead or behind competition), but by potential. Which audiences, customers, clients, recipients are not being reached? What are the unsolved problems and unmet needs? Seeing untapped potential raises aspirations.

If purpose-inspired opportunities and commercial considerations seem to conflict, find another way. P&G struggled with a profitable market for water purification powder but kept it alive by establishing a non-profit organization with government and NGO partners to take it on. The values were enhanced, not diluted.

Finally, to lead by values requires having them in the first place. So pay attention all you bankers! Kanter continues to be one of the best thinkers in this challenging area and I firmly believe that organisations should follow P&G's lead and progress in a values-focused way.

Just a Friday thought for ranters - My next life

Facebook Makes You Smarter, Twitter Makes You Dumber

Twitter and Facebook are very different beasts when it comes to improving your “working memory“, which relates to “the structures and processes used for temporarily storing and manipulating information in short-term memory.”

Scottish researchers have developed a working memory training programme for slow-learning children aged 11 to 14 and found out that Facebook did wonders for working memory, improving the kids’ IQ scores, while YouTube and Twitters steady stream of information was not healthy for working memory. Also, playing video games, especially those that involve planning and strategy, can also be beneficial

Mashable suggests that as with any such study, one needs to take the results with a grain of salt. Without going into the benefits of training working memory for improving your IQ results, it’s obvious that Facebook and Twitter are hard to compare. Facebook is extremely versatile: you can play games there, chat with your friends, view photos and videos; you can even take IQ tests.

Twitter is a much simpler, more streamlined service. Does that fact alone makes it detrimental to your working memory? The research claims: “On Twitter you receive an endless stream of information, but it’s also very succinct. You don’t have to process that information. Your attention span is being reduced and you’re not engaging your brain and improving nerve connections.”

This may well be the case, and while looking religiously at Twitter all day is probably bad for you, if you mix it up with other online activities – such as Facebook – I'm not so sure that there would be any negative effects

Further reading: The social brain

Don’t sack the manager…

Researchers suggest that Premier League clubs (English football) who have long-term managers are more successful than those who change their managers on a frequent basis

As a consequence of the rewards for success and the penalties for failure in the English premier league there is immense pressure on managers to succeed, with poor results typically resulting in a scapegoating reaction by sacking the manager. Scapegoating theory holds that changing managers will not affect performance and is simply a ritual to apportion blame.

The researchers suggest that ‘Vicious circle theory’ posits that changing managers can lead to a decline in performance, because change disrupts well-established processes and brings instabilities and tensions which can have a detrimental effect on results.
Key findings indicate ‘illusion effects’, where the illusion of a short-term reprieve — when results typically improve following an appointment of a new manager — makes managers and owners believe that things are improving at the club (which sounds like similar to what is commonly know as the Hawthorne effect) . However, underlying weaknesses and strategic problems, which have not typically been addressed, dictate that performance typically drops to previous standards until problems have been resolved.

The studies suggest that the ‘scapegoating approach’ of sacking managers early and replacing them in the hope of improved performance is a fallacy, claiming that manager change may take longer than one year to effect strategic change.

Managers should therefore be given time to improve the club, team and address underlying weaknesses, before any decision to sack them is made. Decisions to sack a manager should be based on their ability to correct weaknesses and thus improve long-term performance, rather than analysing the ratio of wins against results.

Clearly this research could point a way forward for the business world. It strikes me that this is the footballing equivalent of the halo effect often afforded to new members of staff. In such circumstances the new start can do no wrong and can seemingly gain support, and often funding, for their "revolutionary" ideas. 6 months later the halo is passed on to the latest new start.

Source: Don't sack the manager - The University of Nottingham and Loughborough University

Flying cats

I had a meeting with the CIO of one the the UK's largest airport groups yesterday. We had a great discussion about how we could help them become even more successful than they already are. However, what really struck me on the day was the airport cat. There it was curled up in its purpose build house snoozing as jets, buses and cars buzzed all around. Fantastic.


On entering the building I asked about the cat - smiles all round "oh yes Olivia is our pet cat she has been here for years we all love her to bits".

Who needs complex engagement strategies - morale problems in your business? Then get a cat!

Rant back in action

After a few weeks absence I'm back in blogging action. My absence has been due to security issues with my employer and the use of company laptops.

This has been really annoying but given some of the recent issues with information going missing from laptops and memory sticks I guess I get it. I am now the proud owner of a net book and boy do my fingers need to get typing.

Thanks for your continued support "Ranters", cheers Scott

Seth's law of the little shovel

I found this nice little law on Seth Godin's blog about how to approach Sales and Marketing. If you want to dig a big hole, you need to stay in one place.

If you walk around town with a little shovel, you'll just end up digging thousands of little holes, not one big one.

Call on one person ten times and you might make the sale. Call on ten people once each and you will likely get ten rejections.

The important thing to remember, says Seth, is that separate events are often separate. If you use the same ineffective approach on one thousand people, it's not going to start working better just because you use it more often.

Connected events, on the other hand, often benefit from frequency and trust.

Which leads to two viable strategies:

1. If you can stay still, stay still. Earn the trust, earn the sale by repeatedly demonstrating value and authority.

2. If you can't stay still, get a bigger shovel. Your marketing and your sales pitch has to be so refined and focused that it works the first time, because you don't get a second time.

In difficult times for service providers and in my case business consultants I found this little reminder very helpful. I'm off to buy a shovel.

Employee engagement critical to recession survival

Better employee engagement could do more for the success of UK businesses “than almost anything else” according to a new report by David MacLeod.



MacLeod writes that harnessing the full potential of employees would be crucial for surviving the recession and making the most of the upturn and that engagement was not simply about a survey, as many employers thought, but a “way of managing and thinking about people as human beings, not just human resources”.

According to CIPD research, only a third of British workers are fully engaged at work. The institute’s director of HR capability, Stephanie Bird, backed the report’s recommendations. “This report puts engagement where it properly belongs: at the heart of business performance. HR professionals will see this report as an endorsement of what many of them are already doing, as well as a stimulus to do more,”.

Well what a shock folks, happy employees = performing employees. I welcome this report as it gets people issues back in the news. However, I do find the endless regurgitation of this type of thing really annoying. Of course organisations want engaged people - so get on with it.

For more information on the report and for some thoughts on how to engage employees I suggest Jon Ingham's article on the subject. The report itself and some video of the author can be found here.

Keeping Top Employees in an Economic Downturn

While few average performing employees will consider leaving during a recession, new research shows that top performers can and will if they feel they are not being valued. The very strategy that some businesses employ to get through these hard times may to be blame, treating employees more like costs to be pared down than valuable assets to be held on to.

For the average employee, hanging on to a job will be top priority. This isn’t the case for those who are among the best and brightest at an organization. For them, many struggling companies simply don’t offer the challenges and the rewards that they need to feel valuable and successful. They also have the skills and ability to be highly desired elsewhere so there is less of a risk of winding up unemployed.

So is there anything you can do to keep these employees even if your business is struggling? After all, they may be pretty hard to replace if they do decide to leave. While in the end you can’t make the decision for them, you can give them fewer reasons to consider leaving at all by creating a workplace that helps them continue to develop their career, values their assistance in the decision-making process and recognizes them for work that is done well.

You also may benefit from being up front and honest and addressing any of their concerns when it comes to cutbacks, compensation and the company’s potential. Those workers who are truly invested in their jobs may see the struggle as a challenge that can help them cement their position in the company. Whatever you choose to do, make sure you’re not ignoring your best employees while watching out in for the bottom line as it could come back to hurt you later on.

This post was contributed by Megan Jones, who writes about the distance learning mba. She welcomes your feedback at Meg.Jones0310@gmail.com

HR Software Show - slow but there is hope

I attended the CIPD HR Software show on London this week. The event set out to help HR professionals "discover how technology can transform your people management processes. Packed with innovative solutions and leading suppliers it’s the ideal place to get tailored advice and industry updates.".....not a bad objective. The show was well supported by suppliers many of whom had really gone out to impress with impressive stands and sales people.

Unfortunately, much of what was on offer looked like jazzed up spreadsheets and much of the technology just merged into a blur of boring screens. However there was hope. It was apparent that many of the suppliers (and even some of the attendees) were keen to talk Web 2.0 and how it could be used to help the profession - especially in the recruitment space. The CIPD even had their Web 2.0 paper proudly displayed. This all bodes well for HR 2.0. More on the event to come including the good, the bad and the ugly.

TUBE workers action - the end of trade unionism?

Working in London this week has been nothing short of a nightmare as a result of the industrial action taken by members of the Tube Workers Union (RMT). It is estimated that their failure to turn up for work cost the City more than £100M not to mention the resulting chaos and disappointment for 3 million people trying to get to work, events, hospital etc.

Transport for London (TfL) said instead of engaging in "meaningful talks" about pay the RMT had submitted "a wildly unrealistic claim". RMT general secretary Bob Crow responded by saying: "This is a magnificent result which underlines the anger that has been provoked by management in their confrontational approach on pay and job security. If TfL want to avoid confrontation they should withdraw their plans to slash jobs and guarantee there will be no forced redundancies, start talking seriously about pay and call off the bully managers."

TfL said the RMT had demanded an "unrealistic" 5% percent pay rise and was against cutting back office jobs that had been duplicated as a result of maintenance firm Metronet being taken over by London Underground.

This annual confrontation between the parties is really disappointing and it pains me to say that the comments made by the Trade Union and especially by Rob Crow and simply horrid and should no longer acceptable in a civilised nation. It is one thing to negotiate and consult on important matters but bringing misery to the public is simply out of order. So for me it is time for:

TfL - impose a no strike clause

RMT - I'm afraid you have forgotten your heritage and the efforts of your predecessors, get back under your stone where you belong.

Workers on the London underground - please reassert yourself as the decent people I know you are - allowing Crow to influence you like this is embarrassing and VERY bad for you, your families and your great city.

Is there anything new in Leadership?

I was working with the CIO and his leadership team from a major government agency this week where we were considering their strategy for the next few years. I have run many such events over the years and as seems often to be the case, getting people to agree what they are actually there to do is a challenge and one that often ends with pages of sentences full of jargon.

With some effort we did however manage to agree on some simple principles for the team which included Secure, Affordable, Standardised and Agile. All pretty noble principles. However, one of the chaps then asked "OK these make sense but could they not be used as part of any CIO's strategy? ". The debate really got going at this point and the group concluded that whilst the principles they had come up with could be seen as generic the process they went through to get to them and what they actually do with them would be the key to success. Makes sense to me.