Two Ways To Make Your Company A Happier (and Better) Place to Work
January 5, 2007 by admin
Filed under business ideas, change, management
Written by Kareem of reemer.com and HiddenMojo
Growing up, I was crazy about two things: sports and technology. So when I found a job posting to go work at ESPN.com, I stayed up for several weeks perfecting a website demonstrating why I was the perfect candidate for the job. Interviewing there was awesome–everybody had TVs at their desks with live feeds for all the games (I could tell you stories about how some on-air personalities during commercial breaks!), and the first question I was asked by all 8 people who interviewed me was about sports. What was my favorite sport? Favorite teams? Name the commissioners of all the leagues. What did I think of the upcoming NHL season, and what were my thoughts on the MLB strike (I interviewed on the day the MLB strike was averted in 2002), and a cheer went up in the newsroom at the players and league reached an agreement very close to the deadline.) It was only after making sure that I was as passionate about sports as everybody else there did the interviewers talk about the technical requirements for the job.
The message was clear: we only want to work with passionate sports fans, so if you want a job here, we’d better make damn sure you’ll fit in.
So I ended up taking a $17k pay cut to go work in Bristol, Connecticut (a hell-hole if there ever was one) with displaced sports fans from around the country. The first year working with passionate sports fans was awesome–there was a gym on campus, any game you wanted to watch available at your desk every night, ultimate, softball, basketball, and gatorball games during work hours, and tickets to NY-based teams floating around (although not as many as you’d think 
The work itself was also exciting and challenging. I spent 7 days a week from May to August building a new fantasy football system with other passionate people for what was, at the time, one of the coolest brands in the world.
Halfway through the summer, when I started burning out, I told myself it would be worth it in the end.
It wasn’t.
Come bonus time, I probably got less than what I spent on dinners during the summer months spent working late at the office. And my raise was the standard “you didn’t mess up, here’s 3%” raise that’s supposed to make you feel extra good about all that shareholder-value-building you did.
Now, what added to my sense of unfairness was that salary info came out into the open. It almost always does, which is why secret salaries are a baaaaaad idea. But what I–and many of my co-workers–learned was that our salaries were a function of how well we negotiated, and not how well we performed. This practice of paying people is unfortunately standard operating procedure in most big companies.
So what are the lessons here?
First, when an individual is intrinsically motivated–like when my co-workers and I were building the best freakin’ fantasy football system in the world–he or she will run through walls to make something happen, and will have fun doing it. The problem occurs when people start doing what they’re doing only for the money, like when I was burning out. As Alfie Kohn wrote in 1993, “About two dozen studies from the field of social psychology conclusively show that people who expect to receive a reward do not perform as well as those who expect nothing. This result, which holds for all sorts of rewards, people and tasks, is most dramatic when creativity is involved.” In other words, carrot-and-stick motivation is not effective.
And second, inequitable pay practices in corporate America contribute to much counter-productive wasted time, energy, and dissatisfaction. Kohn sums it up: “I recommend that employers pay workers well and fairly and then do everything possible to help them forget about money. A preoccupation with money distracts everyone — employers and employees — from the issues that really matter.”
Synthesizing the take-aways means that you should
- hire people who believe passionately in your company’s vision, and
- pay people equitably, and then take their minds off of money so they can continue to be excited about fulfilling your company’s vision
It’s not brain surgery, but it does take courage to change or establish a new way of doing things, especially when it comes to a sensitive topic like pay. But it can be done, and it will make your people happier and more productive, and your company better off and a more desirable place to work.
I’ll leave you with a success story that underscores the benefits of establishing a vision and paying equitably:
One of my favorite examples of a company that took this advice is Marshall Industries, a huge electronic components distributor based in southern California. Long locked into a pop-behaviorist sensibility, myopically concerning itself with the “dos and don’ts of financial incentives,” they finally realized that none of this advice seemed to help and that the problem was with the premises on which the use of any financial incentive was based. It was the very existence of sales commissions and other rewards that was preventing the company from moving forward. Only when this light bulb clicked on did things begin to change. After a full year of listening, reflecting, and “losing sleep,” CEO Rob Rodin and his associates first got rid of all contests and other practices that set employees against each other, then eliminated management incentives, and finally replaced sales commissions and everything else smacking of pay-for-performance with a base salary. [10] The result: turnover (one of the many hidden costs of reward systems) was reduced by 80%; morale soared; salespeople began coordinating their efforts more effectively; and sales, along with profitability, grew dramatically. About five years ago, when Marshall began its de-incentivizing process, its stock was about $8 and its annual sales were at $575 million; today, its stock trades in the $30-$40 range and annual sales have hit $1.3 billion.
Like all valuable things in life, it takes work to establish, but the rewards (ironically) of implementing such a system are worth it!
Pay is always interesting. Every survey says it’s not as important as other things (e.g., taking a 17K pay cut to go work for something one is passionate about), but after a while, the pay is always balanced against the work being done.
I agree it needs to be fair, as in: not competitive, comparable pay for the same work (i.e., no negotiation as mentioned), and based upon some standard of performance.
But I think there is an underlying message here in the post that is being missed: passion for the work can only carry one for so long. After that, there is the balance of pay versus the effort.
If one is working full-time, supporting a family and living in a place where you don’t want to be, how far does passion for the work overcome working 18-hours a day for a 3% pay raise and mediocre bonus carry you?
Even if you are building the world’s best widget.
I had a cube-mate who was very clear that in a corporate environment (not your own business…), any hours you worked over forty constituted full benefit to the company and no benefit to you. Harsh. I don’t necessarily agree with that principle all the time. But working for passion and expecting a good reward is a tough nut to crack.
A good, thoughtful post. I’ll be interested to read other comments on it.
Scot
Thanks for the thoughtful comments, Scot. I wrote the post (forgot to byline it, oops).
In my case, there were a couple of non-compensation-related reasons that I became less passionate about the work, but I looked to financial rewards to rationalize my summertime effort as having been worthwhile. After all, that’s how we’re trained, right? If I work hard and sacrifice, I’ll be paid well, and it’ll have been worth it.
I believe that passion can sustain you for a long time if you perceive you’re being treated fairly (i.e. equal work for equal pay). In your scenario, you might leave your job to spend time with your family, but I’d argue that’s a reflection of stronger passion for your family than for your job. In other words, the trade-off isn’t passion at a job vs. comp at a job even if comp is low (remember, comp is equitable in this scenario). The trade-off is passion for your job vs. passion for your family. I honestly think it’d be a really tough choice to leave a job that you truly loved where you were treated fairly.
Thanks for the great comment!
“I honestly think it’d be a really tough choice to leave a job that you truly loved where you were treated fairly.”
I agree with this. From a corporate view, everyone’s definition as to what is “fair” is constantly in motion. So it is really a level of what one is willing to put up with for the pay that is the constant balancing act.
That changes with time, circumstances, and changing business conditions. It really means that each person has to have a clear understanding about what they are getting out of the job as compared to what is being provided by the environment (pay, benefits, passion, hours, etc.).
That’s the challenge, really: what is your framework for saying this job is a good one and one to keep?
Now there is a blog post! Or two!
This is a good subject area, Kareem. Lots of different points of view on passion and pay.
Thanks…Scot
Thanks for the post, Kareem!
Following are my reasons why people find value in working.
The Real Reasons ‘Why’
Preface: Executives use historic management styles to create nominal profits. The productiv-ity of employees is standard throughout because genetic needs are not being satisfied in the workplace. Before intelligent managers will change, they must clearly understand ‘why’ be-fore they should change styles.
We attempt here to qualify these statements. For millions of years, unremitting genes from our animal cousins and early pre-humans have helped the modern human progress and survive during ever-changing environmental conditions. Humans are products of what they inherit in the way of genes and instincts (nature), and what they see, feel, smell, hear and taste regardless of the environment (nurture).
According to Drucker, once the primary needs of food, shelter and clothing are filled, hu-mans need to fill secondary needs; to feel safe and cared about; the freedom to think creatively; to grow and progress; and, to maintain a sense of self-respect and dignity. Employees eagerly follow respected ethical leaders without question because they satisfy genetic needs that urge them to do so and…it has been this way for millions of years. Genetic driven survival needs urge us think continuously; to grow and improve ourselves. This influence is relentless and is carried forward through heirs. All of us have negative thoughts when thinking and growth is restricted. Regardless of how we manage to survive, our million of year old genetic driven ’survival souls go marching on’. Today, we attempt to fulfill genetic drives in the home, in the workplace and to a greater or lesser extent at both locations.
The human genome changes so slowly that major changes in their drives that thousands of years and minor changes go unnoticed. Progress is natural and happens regardless of where you were born, your religion or culture. Restricting growth not only reduces company reve-nue, but it is a crime against nature.
Employees respond positively to those who smile, praise exception effort, and encourage thinking and growth. When their innate drives are satisfied, employees work for the account of the company. When unfilled, they work for themselves. Managers who satisfy employee genetic needs become leaders and profits increase without changing workplace procedures or adding costs. When the will of the leader to move forward is combined with the intelligence and diverse experiences of all employees, progress happens – naturally.
PART 1 – A Review of what we know About Mankind: Each time one of your cells divides it must copy about 6,000 million DNA code letters. We are told that most mutations errors occur as the cell divides or when they mix with other or-ganisms. Over a 20-25 million year period, mutated genes developed a primitive brain in pre-humans. Two million years ago, a miscopied error, or a minor variation occurred in a single inherited gene which increased the size of the cranial area. Over the years errors created six other subordinate sections. It is important to note that genes constantly guide survival mes-sages to sections in the mind that are best equipped to keep us alive.
The human body contains trillions of cells. In each, 3 billion rejected, subdued and usable ‘genes’ are waiting in the wings to be used if needed. Approximately 25,000 comprise to-day’s genome and are they are continuously active on a split second schedule. They commu-nicate by sending electric/chemical impulses to the mind through nerve channels that regulate body functions and provide survival guidelines.
According the latest theory by scientists, human genes are 99.9% the same because sixty to seventy thousand years a couple of catastrophic events or an event occurred that killed all but a few thousand pre-humans on a mountain top somewhere in Africa. Since major changes in the human genome takes many thousands of generations to develop, all but one-tenth of a percent of our genes were inherited from of this group have been carried forward. Survival genes that evolved a billion of years ago are still active in today’s modern 21st Century workplace.
Ten thousand or so years ago, hunter-gathering clans determined they could improve their survival potential by farming and domesticating animals. Villages evolved into cities. Clan leadership skills were all but eliminated when self-serving tyrants introduced a variety of so-cial programs (i.e., slavery, serfdom and fascism) that restricted freedoms. Humans have per-sistently fought whenever and wherever to be free. Democracy/freedom is nothing more than another social experiment. Over the past 230 years in the US, thousand of lives have been lost, and many more will die before we regain all the freedoms that humans and pre-humans enjoyed over millions of years. The freedom of thought is the root of all other freedoms. Thus, genetic drives will insure a continuous battle – even in workplaces to utilize the know-ledge concentrated in our minds. Such is genetic makeup of mankind.
Scientists learned enough about human behavior over the past 100 years to confirm that to-day’s management style, a hold over from the past, lacks wholesomeness. Legislators delibe-rately passed laws to regain freedoms that thousands of years ago were every clan member’s inalienable right, but stopped short when they did not obligate employers to encourage the freedom to think and grow in the workplace.
Psychologist Abraham Maslow observed - and my on-the-job experiences confirm that when employees are encouraged to think and grow, and information stored in the mind becomes useful, employee’s works harder and smarter. The difference between profit and exceptional profit depends on whether or not the diverse intelligence and experiences of all employees are used. When encouraged to think and grow on the job, productivity doubled and profits triple. They always have for me.
Genes urge the mind to think creatively and grow. When unable, frustrations set in and or-ganizations not only lose the benefits of employee knowledge, but they also lose maximum productive drive. Management’s failure to utilize this untapped human resource costs this nation billions of dollars annually in tax revenue.
PART 2 – Today’s Workplace: A seemingly insurmountable psychological gap exists between the genetic forces in em-ployees, and the need for power, greed and selfishness in the corporate boardroom and beyond. Books that provide solutions abound in the scientific section libraries and books-tores. Many set idly on shelves behind us and they offer solutions on how, when, what and where to solve problems. It is my contention that without knowing ‘why,’ few managers will comply.
This article is just one of thousands that support freedoms in the workplace. Few will deny that using everyone’s mind to solve everyday problems is intelligent and healthy. Regardless of your core belief on how we arrived in the 21st Century, humans excel over animals because we are able to store and use past experiences. We seldom rely on instincts anymore. This thinking process is omnipresent and if employees are not occupied with thoughts about solving company goals; their minds become occupied with personal matters. When it wanders outside the four walls of the business, mistakes are likely to increase. The intelligent choice is to use the mind for the account of the organization because it pays for this stored knowledge and those who chose so will live brighter healthier lives. The sooner the mind is liberated, the quicker managers will benefit from the mass of free diverse intelligence that lay presently lay dormant.
While liberating human knowledge is the wave of the future, many CEO’s and general man-agers are not emotionally equipped, knowledgeable or caring enough to bring out the latent productive qualities in employees. It has been stated that planning, organizing, controlling and leading/motivating are the four most touted responsibilities of management. The time leading/motivating is wasted if they do not understand human nature. Instead of encouraging the positive acts of employees, their actions discourage them. Instead of creating positive re-sults using traditional management styles, they work hard causing losses.
Over a twenty-five year period, I worked in non-English speaking countries had few oppor-tunities to research management skills. Today, there are thousands of consulting companies who will teach you will fine points on leading. I survived using the very basic leadership principles and the axiom “to treat employees as I would like to be treated,” and it worked. Leader/humanizers are generally jacks of all trades are able to move from one technology to another seamlessly because they understand the common needs of employees. Human needs are the same whether the organization the organization they work for makes steel, sells insur-ance or flies passengers around the world.
The sooner boards of directors replace CEO’s with people leader/humanizers, the quicker the bottom line will improve. The title CEO is a misnomer unless the person who leads portrays empathy and human knowledge. Instead of creating workplace rules, job descriptions, nego-tiating salaries and benefits when managers manager, HR professionals should spend their time providing mangers with evidence on ‘why employees react the way they do’.
PART 3 – My Experiences: I turned around businesses in the US and in13 different countries without knowing about any of the hundreds of turnaround schemes that you can find on the web today. This hints that we are all the same internally (i.e., genes) regardless of where we were born, climate, religion, culture or politics. I satisfied – without knowing, employees drives and so happy to perform as genes intended that they willingly – without prodding, increased performance. Employees had no time for personality clashes, petty jealousies or demeaning gossip. They were free to cooperate with one other and….produced mentally as well as physically. Workplace com-plexities that many managers find unpleasant seldom occurred under my stewardship.
Turning a company around is as easy as asking oneself “What would my needs be if condi-tions were reversed?” “Is the freedom to think about how to improve one’s efficiency harm-ful? Will improving one’s knowledge ultimately benefit the company? Does laughter reduce productivity? Once I created the kind of culture I would have enjoyed, employees did the rest. My job became easier and profits rose. Superiors back in the states called it luck. I knew it was not luck, even though I did not fully understand ‘why’ until a few years ago. These questions and similar ones relate to human traits. Our genes are 99% the same, so the feelings of employees are the same as yours. Just remember employees are humans too!
Management schemes that do not encourage employees to think and grow on the job, cost this nations economy billions of dollars annually. Even the worst jobs can create pleasure. Women who make up beds and clean toilets in motels are proud of their jobs in a caring at-mosphere. Uncaring managers retard humanity’s growth and defeat life’s purpose. The very least management can do, is to work with these employees who work at monotonous jobs and entertain their thoughts about how working conditions can be improved.
PART 4 – The Alternative: If organizations do not understand that secondary needs are real, it may take employees un-ions to force laws that will increase profits while making employees happy. When the sleep-ing giant wakes and it will, employees will carry their inalienable rights to extremes and managers will lose all their power. Once legislators learn that corporation’s can easily triple profits when managed by leaders look out. They will force companies to elect employees to the board, obligate thinking ‘time outs’ periods, pay for worker schooling and to boost self-respect give out awards to every require supervisors to praise, and force them to say thank you at least one a day employee. If you think this is absurd, think back one-hundred years. No one dreamed that legislators would force organizations to provide health care and pensions, limit work hours to 40 per week and pay overtime and other benefits.
Leaders create changes. Mangers follow. Why not be in first in line and enjoy triple profits with half the effort? If you changed, the best employees will assemble around your organiza-tion like bees on honey and growth will take you and your company beyond your wildest dreams.
PART 5 – Must we Legislate Leadership Skills?: What causes men and women, who oth-erwise live happy lives and receive salaries and benefits from employers to commit sabotage, show up late, slough off, take unnecessary sick leave and generally become pests – even thought genetic drives urge them to progress? Why would they do such a thing? Based on what I have studied, human behaviors are generally more positive than negative and dissatis-faction sets in when it doesn’t happen, genes urge solutions. In many cases, employees are still dependant on those who create their jobs. They are reluctance to do anything up front that would cost them their jobs, so they silently protest unnoticed whenever and wherever opportunities arise.
According to Edward Deming, low productivity is caused by failing leadership. He estimated that 98% of all managers have some trouble dealing with employees.
Steven Covey’s believes that the most effective leaders are the first models of what he calls principle-centered leadership. He postulates’ that all humans are subjects to natural laws or governing principles, which operate regardless of our awareness of them. Their effectiveness is predicated on alignment with these inviolable principles - natural laws in humans dimension that are just as real, just as unchanging, as laws such as gravity are in physical dimensions. These principles are woven into the fabric of every civilized society and constitute the roots of every organization.
Peter Drucker suggests that the chief object of leadership is the creation of a human commu-nity held together by the work bond for a common purpose.
Warren Bennis contends that organizations and their leaders inevitably deal with the nature of man that is why values, commitments, convictions, even passions are basic elements in any organization. Since leaders deal with people, not things, leadership without these values can only be inhuman and harmful.”
The workplace has never been about profit, it’s about survival. True some have used em-ployees as tools for their own gain, but the majority of citizens work to survive, period. Capi-talism/democracy is just another societal system that so far has bested all others. Even so, it has only filled the majority of mankind’s primary needs. Secondary needs go wanting. Think of what would happen if we could convince a few thousand managers to add leadership to skills? Employees would go home with smiles on their faces, profits would triple, the econ-omy would go off the chart and the lives of three hundred million US citizens would im-prove. Pessimism would change society’s negative trend to positive. Divorce rates, homi-cides, school dropouts and drug use would be reduced. This should be management’s goal. Legislators and shareholders should encourage it. The workplace is a perfect medium for this to occur.
Employee satisfaction is too large a profit factor to ignore. To repair this error in judgment I suggest that a relative inexpensive monthly anonymous questionnaire be sent out to all em-ployees. They would be asked to grade CEO and supervisors on leadership skills. This would give decision makers an idea of where they must improve themselves. We commonly use tests to determine the value of a prospective employee before we hire them. Frederick Taylor invented the “scientific management theory” which states as its premises that a company can measure its production rate, standardize jobs, discipline/reward em-ployees, and reap great financial benefits using scientific principles. If this is possible, surly we can measure leadership skills of managers and place a value on their worth using the same rationalization. Understanding ‘why’ employees’ act the way they do and satisfying their needs is directly proportional to leadership’s value in a company. Think about what would happen to management’s attitude if a report on their leadership skills were included in each financial statement? Mailing out questionnaires to employees and asking them to rate their supervisors as to their leadership skills will do more to pick up productivity than any force available to managers.
Is forcing leadership skills on corporate moguls who devote the majority of their time to ta-keovers, bribing lobbyist, faking income tax reports and layoffs, asking too much? Filing the secondary needs of employees is more valuable than all of the lobbied benefits legislators given companies over the past forty years. I suggest that greed prevents managers from be-coming leaders. Managers have a bird in the hand is worth more than two in a bush, syn-drome. Must we shove a system that triples corporate profits, power, wealth and prestige with half the effort down the throats of managers?
PART – The Solution: Leader/humanizers support human nature’s urge to progress. Most managers today only pay this hypothesis lip service. To increase this change, those of us who understand the problem must:
1. Use every available resource to relay the message to those who do not.
2. List major workplace genes and describe beneficial results;
3. Convey examples of successes to those who use traditional management styles;
4. Encourage stakeholders and board members to hire people leaders.
The success or failure of any organization depends on workplace cultures created by decision makers. The workplace is where job satisfaction occurs, where workers help co-workers, where hidden skills evolve or are learned, and where citizenship can be improved. If the lea-dership style, mostly caring, that served ancient leaders were commonplace in America’s workplaces, no other country could ever match its economy.
Scientists claim that one-half to two thirds of employee potential is being wasted match my experiences. Within four months after replacing bosses, productivity began to increase and profits appeared out of nowhere. It is important to note that all I did was create an atmos-phere that satisfied the genetic urgings of employees. They did the rest. I completely trusted hundreds of strangers around the world to perform and was never disappointed. Once they were encouraged to think, grow and contribute they performed admirably – even in Arab countries, small villages and on remote Pacific Island. Employee needs are not readily appar-ent to most managers. Those who limit thinking and growth may not be selfish; only unin-formed.
Kelleher of Southwest Airways recognized the value of using the minds of cooperating em-ployees. I discussed his management style with a Southwest employee and he gleamed with pride. Kelleher served as an example, encouraged employee participation and praised those who contributed. To flourish and create exceptional profits, hidden skills and talent in the workplace must be allowed to blossom. Incidentally, both sexes react similarly.
Leaders make changes to create new environments. They continually look into the future, teach new methods and serve as good citizen examples to employees. Once primary needs are satisfied, benefits and salary raises are not an issue. Money can not fill secondary needs. As many managers have learned, these extras only last a short time. It’s like trying to fill a bottomless pit. Employees are not bamboozled into accepting benefits in exchange for digni-ty, lack of caring, restricted growth and unethical behaviors and will forever protest these ab-sent needs. Employees who are financially secure, frequently seek employment with compa-nies where self-actualizing is the order of the day.
If employees are given the opportunity to help describe company purpose, they become an integral force in the company’s growth. In this atmosphere, management and labor tend to become a single identity.
Based on experience, axioms and scientific theories, we propose that:
1. dedicated to increase company profits. We will send to each employee a monthly anonymous questionnaire (copy enclosed) that reflects the leadership skills of the CEO and each employee’s immediate supervisor.
2. We will combine employee grades on each question and send results to their supervi-sors. When these decision makers read their scores, we are confident they will attempt to improve themselves, particularly in areas where they receive the lowest score.
3. We believe that leadership scores reflect dollar gains and losses and should be incor-porated in each P&L statement. This information can be used in the future as a guide-line for hiring leaders.
I am no Deming or Drucker. I have no Phd, did not attend an Ivy League university nor conducted scholarly research. I am a veteran middle manager who has witnessed the evolution of business culture over the past thirty years. Here is my observation:
Employees come to work with an implicit trust that their managers are always working for the best interest of the company and its employees. That trust should not and cannot ever be taken for granted. Look what is happening today. It is no longer “What’s good for the company is good for the manager.” It has become “What’s good for the manager is good for the company.” Top executives have totally lost sight of this phenomenon and are allowing managers to run amok for their own personal agendas.
Several years ago I wrote a book on the subject of workplace culture and employee morale. It is as relevant today as it was then. Employee morale is directly linked to the interaction of employees with line managers who are charged with executing the policies and strategies of companies. Unfortunately, many of these managers subvert the good intentions of the organization to meet their own personal goals and agendas at the expense of their peers and subordinates. This management subculture is the result of a corporate culture of ignorance, indifference and excuse. Better corporate level leadership is the key. Read more in “160 Degrees of Deviation: The Case for the Corporate Cynic.”
Jerome Alexander
You can advise as to receive Individual Health Insurance and also as Compare health insurance quotes WBR LeoP