According to an article by Liar's Poker author Michael Lewis, it was Meredith Whitney who on October 31, 2007 recognized that "Citigroup had so mismanaged its affairs that it would need to slash its dividend or go bust." This insight "shaved $369 billion off the value of financial firms in the market."
Whitney is a history grad and this reminds us why we should hire more liberal arts grads and fewer engineers, accountants and MBAs.
People in professional disciplines are taught a small set of powerful analytical tools. They are exposed to many problems in their education, but only those problems that can attacked with those tools. As a result they end up with a very narrow world view and are easily fooled. Why is it that some economists think heroin addiction is a rational choice and trying to discourage it would make people worse off? (see the soon to be published Free Market Madness by Peter Ubel) It's because they've been so highly indoctrinated in a specific analytical method they've lost the ability to think.
Those educated in the humanities/liberal arts are taught to inquire deeply about the nature of very complex and ambiguous things. These are the people you need on your staff.
Now, I'm an MBA so I have seen the dark side (although I went to an MBA school where we learned more about telling jokes and putting hockey sticks across conveyor belts than about obscure financial theory). However, somewhere in my informal education I picked up a fair bit about the humanities as do many engineers, lawyers and perhaps even some accountants.
If you think the future will be uncertain, complex and ambiguous then you want to hire people who through their formal or informal education have been taught to understand such things.
vendredi 21 novembre 2008
mercredi 29 octobre 2008
Taylorization in US Hotels
US hotels are strange places. The staff say all the right things but somehow the service feels second rate—at least compared to Asia. You look into the eyes of US service staff and you don’t really see a person there.
Asia's different. I remember complimenting a staff member at the Ritz-Carleton in Kuala Lumpur and he said, “Well, we see ourselves as ladies and gentlemen, serving ladies and gentlemen.” The way he said it made it sound like it was something he thought up himself, not a corporate slogan. And this reflects a common experience in Asian hotels—staff who seem completely committed to delivering on the hotel’s values.
In the US service quality is mixed but even when the actual service is fine it feels wooden. Someone looks at you, smiles (thinking, “Ok, that was step 1, now step 2”) “Welcome to X hotel, how can I help you today?” If you have a complaint or problem they are nice but it sounds like they’re reading from a script—probably because they are.
There is this idea that smart people in headquarters can study a job and then tell lowly workers how to perform it. That was Fredrick Taylor idea for manufacturing and it has made its way into the service industry. The idea is not without some merit, but there is subtle distinction between providing training to bring out the best in people and trying to turn people into machines.
Starbucks provides the counter-example in the US (and abroad). In Starbucks you get trained staff who offer good service, but you feel like you are dealing with a human following their own volition, not someone following a program.
Taylorization is not the right approach for a society. HR leaders need to make the subtle shifts in training and reward systems so that we don’t turn people into robots.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. In Europe it’s quite different. In European hotels the staff are your equals, not your servants. How you are treated depends on their mood and their opinion of you. This is not always a recipe for the best service but it is human through and through.
Asia's different. I remember complimenting a staff member at the Ritz-Carleton in Kuala Lumpur and he said, “Well, we see ourselves as ladies and gentlemen, serving ladies and gentlemen.” The way he said it made it sound like it was something he thought up himself, not a corporate slogan. And this reflects a common experience in Asian hotels—staff who seem completely committed to delivering on the hotel’s values.
In the US service quality is mixed but even when the actual service is fine it feels wooden. Someone looks at you, smiles (thinking, “Ok, that was step 1, now step 2”) “Welcome to X hotel, how can I help you today?” If you have a complaint or problem they are nice but it sounds like they’re reading from a script—probably because they are.
There is this idea that smart people in headquarters can study a job and then tell lowly workers how to perform it. That was Fredrick Taylor idea for manufacturing and it has made its way into the service industry. The idea is not without some merit, but there is subtle distinction between providing training to bring out the best in people and trying to turn people into machines.
Starbucks provides the counter-example in the US (and abroad). In Starbucks you get trained staff who offer good service, but you feel like you are dealing with a human following their own volition, not someone following a program.
Taylorization is not the right approach for a society. HR leaders need to make the subtle shifts in training and reward systems so that we don’t turn people into robots.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. In Europe it’s quite different. In European hotels the staff are your equals, not your servants. How you are treated depends on their mood and their opinion of you. This is not always a recipe for the best service but it is human through and through.
mardi 16 septembre 2008
Naivety vs. Experience
We all like to hear stories about how an outsider was successful with an innovative idea and they claim "I was too naive to know my idea couldn't work - ha ha". These stories are common mainly because we like them, but also because they really do happen. Experienced people learn the accepted way of doing things and are hesitant to innovate, in particular they are hesitant to take on wild ideas that will probably fail. So there is value bringing outsiders into projects who can see possibilities experienced people dismiss--and which outsiders can pursue them without ruining an established reputation.
However, let's not be too quick to lionize the outsider. What I see more often than great out-of-the-box ideas is outsiders inventing a mundane approach that experienced people know won't have impact. An outsider is more likely to re-invent an old mediocre idea than a fresh excellent one.
The trick is drawing on the strengths of both insiders and outsiders. For example, getting the experienced people to kill ideas if they are mediocre already-in-the-box ideas and not toss out wild, improbably out-of-the-box ideas that might actually work.
However, let's not be too quick to lionize the outsider. What I see more often than great out-of-the-box ideas is outsiders inventing a mundane approach that experienced people know won't have impact. An outsider is more likely to re-invent an old mediocre idea than a fresh excellent one.
The trick is drawing on the strengths of both insiders and outsiders. For example, getting the experienced people to kill ideas if they are mediocre already-in-the-box ideas and not toss out wild, improbably out-of-the-box ideas that might actually work.
lundi 15 septembre 2008
Valuing Questions
Many people have noted that asking the right questions is often a more critical skill than coming up with the right answers. For example, if back in the 1990s Kodak was asking "How do we build our market share in the film business?" then that question wouldn't have been nearly as useful as "What is digital photography going to do to this industry?"
However, the value of questions goes beyond that. There are questions with no firm answers like "What is the right balance between rewarding the team and rewarding the individuals on the team?" The value of the question is that it keeps this polarity or predicament clear in our mind so that we continue to manage it.
Peter Block probably goes further than even this in valuing questions for their own sake. He likes the question "How valuable an experience do you plan for this to be?" Here it is not so much about the answer or even keeping an important predicament in mind, it's about changing the relationship between presenter and participant. It is a kind of speech act that has force rather than just conveying information. It puts the onus of creating value on the participant not just the presenter.
So there we have 3 different ways questions can be of more importance than answers, perhaps you can think of more.
However, the value of questions goes beyond that. There are questions with no firm answers like "What is the right balance between rewarding the team and rewarding the individuals on the team?" The value of the question is that it keeps this polarity or predicament clear in our mind so that we continue to manage it.
Peter Block probably goes further than even this in valuing questions for their own sake. He likes the question "How valuable an experience do you plan for this to be?" Here it is not so much about the answer or even keeping an important predicament in mind, it's about changing the relationship between presenter and participant. It is a kind of speech act that has force rather than just conveying information. It puts the onus of creating value on the participant not just the presenter.
So there we have 3 different ways questions can be of more importance than answers, perhaps you can think of more.
mercredi 3 septembre 2008
Carat Blunder
If you've ever made a dumb HR mistake you'll feel better after reading what Carat's Chief People Officer did. She accidentally sent out news of an impending layoff to all the agency's employees.
Ad Age Story
It's a mess-up but perhaps the outcome will not be bad. There is no good way to announce layoffs. After employees get over the initial shock they may be in no worse a mood than if the communication had unrolled as planned.
Ad Age Story
It's a mess-up but perhaps the outcome will not be bad. There is no good way to announce layoffs. After employees get over the initial shock they may be in no worse a mood than if the communication had unrolled as planned.
dimanche 6 juillet 2008
Intangibles / Social Economics
I wanted to say to someone "I'll discuss the economics of this later". I hesitated because most of the 'economics' of the matter was in improving public relations, networking, and self-development. There was a good deal of value being discussed, but largely intangible. To frame the topic as a discussion about economics would send us down the unhelpful path of treating the deal as accountants not businessmen.
So I changed the phrase to "I'll discuss the social economics of this later."
Is this tidbit worth sharing? I'm not sure. But it seems an easy turn of phrase to build into our existing business language. Imagine you are making a business case for new HR software. If you say, "And now let's talk about the social economics..." or have a part of the written business case titled "Social Economics", then it firmly puts intangibles right in the discussion on par with accounting.
In these discussions make sure you keep all the usual accounting stuff, but have it in the context of all the intangible value being created.
So I changed the phrase to "I'll discuss the social economics of this later."
Is this tidbit worth sharing? I'm not sure. But it seems an easy turn of phrase to build into our existing business language. Imagine you are making a business case for new HR software. If you say, "And now let's talk about the social economics..." or have a part of the written business case titled "Social Economics", then it firmly puts intangibles right in the discussion on par with accounting.
In these discussions make sure you keep all the usual accounting stuff, but have it in the context of all the intangible value being created.
dimanche 29 juin 2008
Un Transformational Leadership
I once assisted Nancy Nazer on an article about untranformational leadership. It included, or at least implied, the rather obvious observation that transformational leadership programs were a rather unlikely thing. What is the chance that you are going to take a manager, put them through a one or two day program, and have them come out transformed?
Nancy went on to talk about the design of a saner, longer term approach to leadership development, but I want to go in a different direction here. I wonder why the rather strange notion of transformational leadership would develop at all. I used to attribute it solely to the demands of marketing—someone offering transformation would have a better chance of selling their program than someone promising that their course might lead to modest improvements. However, on reading Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age I notice something new.
Unlike the established Catholic orders of Europe where one would simply be born into the church and the church would universally be the bedrock of society, there is, particularly in the United States, a Protestant approach which encourages transformation. The sinner, quite possibly a man spending too much time at the tavern gambling with his buddies, would find salvation through a transformational experience and become a sober family man and disciplined citizen. This can happen because they really do want to change and because there really are two reasonably distinct modes of life.
Thus, transformational leadership courses may find some of their acceptance because a society has already bought into this idea of transformation. It would be interesting to see whether established Catholic or Buddhist countries would be as eager to embrace transformational leadership courses as Americans are.
People generally hate it when you take what to them is a simple idea, “Please take my leadership course”, and embed it in a historical-social context. But if one ever wondered why a certain business practice seems normal one place and absurd another then it is precisely in these historical-social factors that you find the answers.
On a more practical level if, as a business person, you find the idea of transformational leadership appealing you need to ask whether that appeal comes from a sober judgement of the effectiveness of this sort of program or from a more general attraction to the idea of transformation.
Most of business thinking is focused on straightforward facts immediately at hand but one can’t help but hope that thinking grounded in the great sweep of history would at least on occasion provide robust insights otherwise unavailable.
Nancy went on to talk about the design of a saner, longer term approach to leadership development, but I want to go in a different direction here. I wonder why the rather strange notion of transformational leadership would develop at all. I used to attribute it solely to the demands of marketing—someone offering transformation would have a better chance of selling their program than someone promising that their course might lead to modest improvements. However, on reading Charles Taylor’s A Secular Age I notice something new.
Unlike the established Catholic orders of Europe where one would simply be born into the church and the church would universally be the bedrock of society, there is, particularly in the United States, a Protestant approach which encourages transformation. The sinner, quite possibly a man spending too much time at the tavern gambling with his buddies, would find salvation through a transformational experience and become a sober family man and disciplined citizen. This can happen because they really do want to change and because there really are two reasonably distinct modes of life.
Thus, transformational leadership courses may find some of their acceptance because a society has already bought into this idea of transformation. It would be interesting to see whether established Catholic or Buddhist countries would be as eager to embrace transformational leadership courses as Americans are.
People generally hate it when you take what to them is a simple idea, “Please take my leadership course”, and embed it in a historical-social context. But if one ever wondered why a certain business practice seems normal one place and absurd another then it is precisely in these historical-social factors that you find the answers.
On a more practical level if, as a business person, you find the idea of transformational leadership appealing you need to ask whether that appeal comes from a sober judgement of the effectiveness of this sort of program or from a more general attraction to the idea of transformation.
Most of business thinking is focused on straightforward facts immediately at hand but one can’t help but hope that thinking grounded in the great sweep of history would at least on occasion provide robust insights otherwise unavailable.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
