What's new? (You should always have a good answer)

I attended a family reunion five years ago and found myself constantly answering the question, "What's new?" My extended family is pretty big (I have 34 first cousins), so I had to answer that question a lot. Unfortunately, my answer was "Not much." Not exactly a scintillating conversation starter! It was during this reunion that I decided I wanted to always have a great answer to "What's new?", so I vowed to start my own business.

As a business owner, it's still a great idea to have some irons in the fire. If I were to ask you "What's new?" what answer would you give? Do you have something cooking that I should know about? Can you tell me something more exciting than a tale about treading water in the grim economy? A good answer can breed curiousity which leads to a good conversation which may result in opportunity.

The answer to the "What's new?" question might be different depending on who is asking. Here are some of my answers. Next, I want to know yours.

• I might tell my friends in human resources that I'm launching an HR Management Certificate program on July 22 in partnership with Nonprofit Management Solutions. I love that "What's New" is a part of the URL for this program.
• I might tell my friends in customer service that I'm hosting a webinar on July 22 on How to build a service culture. I'd probably even send them a link where they could register for free.
• My friends who are business owners might hear about the webinar I'm hosting on July 29 called "Maximizing Employee Engagement". Again, I'd probably send them a link where they could register for free. (I'm a really good friend.)

So, what's new with you?

How standards can stifle performance

The movie Office Space does a great job of highlighting how workplace rules and procedures can lead to poor performance. For some of us, the movie gets even better because some of the scenes resemble our own work experiences.  

Here’s one of my favorite scenes.  (I don’t know if the poster has authority to post it, so please email me if the clip disappears.  Also, please go buy a copy of the movie Office Space so everyone stays happy.)

I love this scene because Stan (the manager) wants better performance from Joanna but he doesn’t know how to describe it.  The conversation quickly becomes frustrating for both Stan and Joanna and there’s no real resolution at the end.  It’s a great example of what happens when we focus on a somewhat arbitrary standard rather than our true intent. 

Here are some more examples:

• A call center rep may earn a 100% call monitoring score, but doesn’t solve the customer’s problem. 
• A front desk agent at a hotel may hit all the brand standards at check-in, but sounds like a robot and doesn’t make the guest feel welcome. 
• A salesperson may follow the sales script but fail to make the sale because she didn't listen carefully to the customer's answers.

Tasks vs. Outcomes

Many of the things we do at work resist being standardized in the same way you would standardize a widget production procedure in a factory.  A clear, step-by-step process makes sense for widgets since you want each one to be just like the others.  The problem we run into in a service environment is human interaction resists standardization.

I’m not an opponent of standardization, but we need to standardize human interaction in the right way.  If you call tech support to get help with a computer problem and tell the rep you have already rebooted your computer, why should he be required to ask you to reboot the computer?  The standard could be re-written so it asks the tech support rep to explore some basic fixes (like re-booting) before trying more complicated solutions. This gives him the flexibility to adapt to the situation and makes it more likely he helps you with your ultimate goal - getting your computer to work again.

Let’s go back to the video.  What does Stan really want Joanna to do?  He wants her to deliver on the Tchotchke’s promise of atmosphere and attitude.  How would he know if Joanna was doing this?  A good indicator might be if her guests are laughing and smiling.  Perhaps Stan should have discussed ways Joanna could better engage with her guests so they are smiling and laughing.

If you are an Office Space fan, I know what you are thinking. Joanna just wasn't cut out for working at Tchotchke's. In that case, at least Stan could have addressed her performance without getting hung up on a technicality like she was wearing the required pieces of flair!

The curious case of the fired (and rehired) mascot

What's worse?

Getting a slew of negative publicity for firing an employee who made disparaging comments your organization on Facebook or having to hire him back after his manager doesn't follow proper procedures for employee terminations?

Baseball fans have already heard this story since it was widely reported last week that the Pittsburgh Pirates had hired back Andew Kurtz, after firing him the previous week. Kurtz performs in mascot races between innings at Pirates home games, running while dressed as a giant pierogi. Here's a link to a good overview in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette if you want to read more.

This story captured a lot of a media attention but there are many instances when managers create additional liability for their organizations by failing to follow procedures. It's a particular challenge with human resources issues because managers are paid to make decisions, but you don't want them acting unilaterally without careful consideration or help from an HR professional.

A few of our clients have asked us to help them educate their managers on when to contact HR, so we've put together an interactive workshop called Managing Within the Law. It uses a lot of scenario-based learning and the line managers who participate are often surprised that the common sense response is often the wrong move.

Have a good story to share? Drop a comment on my blog -- I always enjoy an interesting HR adventure!

Baseball stats we should use in business

One of the things I love about baseball is there is a statistic for almost everything. Some of them are actually useful. A few would even be good for the business world.

Many organizations are still using the same boring categories on performance evaluations. Does a subjective evaluation of an employee's job knowledge, teamwork, or dependability really tell us what someone is adding to the bottom line?

I'd like to see us evolve a bit and borrow a few stats from baseball. The following comparisons make a pretty good argument, I think. Some of you may accuse me of being biased towards my favorite players and teams. Fortunately, I have stats to back me up!

Experience (Job Knowledge)

A lot of long-term employees get a free pass when we evaluate their talent because they've been with the organization so long. If baseball players were evaluated solely on experience, Philadelphia Phillies pitcher Jamie Moyer would be the best. He has 23 years of Major League experience and is still pitching competitively at age 47.

But what if we used a more objective criteria, such as Earned Run Average or ERA? ERA is a measure of how many runs a pitcher allows per game, based on factors he can control. Giving up home runs, doubles, and walks will hurt a pitcher's ERA. A run that scores because someone else on the team made an error doesn't count against the pitcher's ERA. The better the ERA, the more likely it is the team will win. In the business world, we might translate that into productivity.

This season, Jamie Moyer a 4.43 ERA. That's pretty good, but San Francisco Giants pitcher Tim Lincecum has an ERA of only 2.86. Despite having only 4 years of experience to Moyer's 23, Lincecum has won the last two National League Cy Young Awards, given annually to the best pitcher in the league. That's two more Cy Young Awards than Jamie Moyer has won in his career. Lincecum's $9,000,000 salary in 2010 is also similar to Moyer's $8,000,000 salary. Moyer is a good pitcher, but Lincecum is clearly better.

Teamwork

We want our employees to be likeable and supportive of other members of the team, but this isn't the best gauge of what someone adds to the organization. If we evaluated baseball players solely on teamwork, we might pick New York Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter as the best player. He is universally regarded as the consumate teammate. Jeter even won the 2009 Roberto Clemente Award, which is given to the player who best demonstrates commitment to their community and performance on the field.

What if we evaluated an employee's contributions to the team based on more objective criteria? In baseball, a new stat has emerged called "Ultimate Zone Rating". This judges the number of runs a defensive player prevents from scoring compared to the typical person at his position. Shortstop is primarily a defensive position, so you'd naturally want a shortstop who helped his team by being really good at preventing runs from scoring. In the business world, we might translate this into a measure of quality.

Derek Jeter's current Ultimate Zone Rating is -.2, which means he is allowing .2 more runs to score than the average shortstop. Jeter's 2010 salary of $22,600,000 might be okay for the consumate team player, but it's hard to justify for someone whose work is of such poor quality. Especially compared to Boston Red Sox shortstop Marco Scutaro. Scutaro's 3.8 Ultimate Zone Rating means that he prevents 4 more runs over a season than Derek Jeter. And, Scutaro's practically a bargain at only $5,500,000 in annual salary.

Dependability

Showing up on a regular basis and getting your work done on time should be a minimum standard, not a criteria for evaluating outstanding employees. Milwaukee Brewer's firstbaseman Prince Fielder is currently the most dependable player in baseball. He has played in more than 250 consecutive games. That's the business world equivalent of coming to work every day for two years without calling in sick or taking a vacation day.

What if we instead evaluated employees based on their contributions compared to what the average employee on the job market could do? In baseball, this is called Value Over Replacement Player, or VORP. This statistic measures how many wins a player contributes to his team per season compared to the average player at his position. The business equivalent would be asking, "Is this employee the best we can get at this rate of pay?" Or, "Could we get a much better employee for less money?"

Prince Fielder's current VORP is 1.7. Not bad, but not nearly as good as San Diego Padres firstbaseman Adrian Gonzalez, whose VORP of 3.5 is among the best in the league. This means that the Milwaukee Brewers would win two more games this year if Gonzalez was their firstbaseman, not Prince Fielder. That could mean the difference between making the playoffs or an early end to the season. Gonzalez is also a bargain at a 2010 salary of $4,875,000 compared to Fielder's salary of $11,000,000.

Conclusions

Experience, teamwork, and dependability didn't yield terrible players in my baseball example. They were all good, albeit a bit expensive. My argument is productivity, quality, and value over replacement employee will generally give you a better idea of what employees are contributing.  Over the long run, this means a better team at a more reasonable rate of pay.

What baseball stats would you like to see in the business world? How about from other sports?

Less whining, more doing

Is it my imagination, or is the excuse-o-meter registering all-time highs? The headlines are full of easy targets, such as Boston Celtics head coach Doc Rivers whining about player injuries as he tried to explain his team's failure to close out the NBA championship after taking a 3-2 lead over the Los Angeles Lakers. Could it be that the Lakers are just the better team, Doc?

No, I'll leave that alone and focus on the excuses I've been hearing for not getting essential things done at work.

Excuses, excuses, excuses

I worked with someone a few weeks ago who was interviewing me for a podcast to promote one of my speaking engagements. She was ill-prepared for the interview and didn't get the podcast created in time. Here were just a few of the many excuses she gave:

Tired. Sick. Family member was sick. Flight delay. Equipment failure. Bad cell phone reception. Had to be in New York City. (??) Paid for wi-fi access, but it was spotty. Distracted by noise at the convention center. Distracted by noise at the airport. Sick again. Different family member sick. Unexpected family gathering. Got busy on another project.

Really?!!! I wish I was making all this up, but that was an actual list of excuses I heard from this person. I might add one more: too busy making up new excuses!

If I could re-write her story, here's how it would go:

"I knew I had six weeks to complete a two hour task, but I immediatly scheduled the interview to get it on the calendar. After the interview, I gave myself plenty of time to produce a podcast and submit it well before the deadline."

Nobody wants to volunteer

I was recently asked to chair a committee for a local professional organization I work with. The committee reports to a Board member who was very relieved to have me help out. "I just haven't been able to get any volunteers," she told me.

A week later I had filled all of the positions on the committee with a group of talented and passionate volunteers. So much for nobody's interested!

My big secret?

I spent more time on action than excuse concocting or hand-wringing. First, I outlined a simple recruiting plan that identified the types of volunteers that would do well on the committee. Next, I created a list of benefits volunteers could gain in return for their participation. Finally, I called and emailed a handful of colleagues I thought would be great members of the team and made my pitch. My success rate was 75% and the people that declined did so only because of scheduling conflicts.

I didn't do the pre-work. You shoulda given us pre-work!

I like to give pre-work whenever I facilitate employee training. It helps participants come to class better prepared and it also allows me to tailor the program to their specific needs.

This week, I had a few participants that didn't complete the pre-work for classes they attended. In each case, they came to the workshop unprepared to exercise their brains. One person actually said she didn't bother to do the pre-work. A few minutes later, the same person complained that the exercises we were doing would be easier if there had been some pre-work. Huh? Was that the pre-work you said you couldn't be bothered doing? If you didn't get a chance to do it, fine, but accept responsibility and make the most of it.

Am I whining?

I didn't write this blog post to suggest that none of us should ever whine. Just don't let it get in the way of accomplishing what needs to be done. My email inbox is empty (thanks to David Allen's Getting Things Done) and I've accomplished all my priority items for the day.