When Staff Complain About Bonuses

Seven hundred employees make submissions for ways to cut inefficiencies in the organization. Of the seven hundred submissions, six are chosen. The CEO personally pays prize money to each winning submitter of up to $500 from his own pocket.

This is the same CEO who achieved at least $500 million in annualized cost savings, including reducing executive compensation by $12.4 million by slashing the number of vice-presidents from 144 to 79. But the organization still lost money. That's why the bonuses to staff were paid from the CEO's pocket.

The furor over staff getting bonuses are coming from outside of the public organization (it is government run) who fear that staff are being paid a pittance in bonuses while generating ideas which will bring the CEO more money in performance bonuses for himself.

But the fact still remains, and what the opposers seem to not fully understand, is that there were seven hundred submissions from staff. Seven hundred staff knew of ways to streamline the organization. That's a lot of staff who are willing to help their organization get better.

Disengaged staff rarely offer ways to improve. They simply complain. Engaged staff will find inefficiencies. Offering a bonus as a thank you for paying attention on the job helps the organization. (Offering bonuses as an incentive to work, however, will actually create more problems - these bonuses were not an incentive but a "thank you" after-the-fact for their ideas).

Have you ever noticed that it's the staff members who would never do enough to become eligible for bonuses who are usually the first to complain when others are bonused?

Old-School Training Are Like Cold-Meds

Why are the newest and weakest people in the organization tasked with the most important job in the organization: customer service? Why are not the CEOs, Veeps and Supervisors, the veterans of the organization, not serving the revenue stream to the organization – the customer?

At the end of the day, senior management is responsible ultimately for the financial success of the organization. So why then is the most important responsibility - the maintaining and development of revenue streams - left to the minions who are simply treating it like a job?

Corporate America needs an attitude adjustment. If the customer is king and without them the organization ceases to be, why are customers not being served directly by the kings? What consumers are experiencing today is service by dimwits - people who take a dim view of their work and do not use their wits in service of the customer. The solution from above is, "let's send our front-line people to another customer service seminar to improve our service."

So they hire trainers who are desperately clinging to last year's model of business service and are leaving the responsibility for improving their internal performance with a bunch of outside contractors. In essence, you've just said to your people, "Take this course and do it better OK?"

Corporate America may know how to make a profit but it sure doesn't know much about people. And it's people who make the thing run. As long as your people treat their jobs like a job, service will never improve. It can't. It's impossible to build any solid relationship-creating culture on a foundation of "Is it 5 o'clock yet?"

• Time management training to someone without self-discipline is a waste of time.
• Sales Training to someone lacking self-confidence is wasting your money.
• Teamwork training to someone without self-esteem creates a weaker link.

Customer Service, Time Management, Sales and Teamwork training are like taking cold meds for your flu symptoms: you mask the symptoms but don't really address the root problem. You're still sick inside even though you may look healthy outside.

ATTITUDE ADJUSTMENT: The workforce is changing. Workplace values are changing. The people in the workplace are changing. So why are you still trying to run your business using ancient business models that are dying?

If people can talk to Presidents and Prime Ministers on social networking sites, your customers ought to be able to talk to the CEO. The old business model of "top-down - keep your customers at arms length - blanket policies" is not going to sustain your organization in the future. People around the world are creating conversations with people who matter. Why can't your customers talk to the people who make the decisions in your organization?

Your business model is sick and risks dying soon. Stop feeding it cold-meds and simply hoping it gets better.

The Customer Is Rarely Right

Imagine for a moment, as you serve one of your customers, that the customer begins to become belligerent and abusive towards you despite all of your best attempts to please the customer. Even though you are doing your best to diffuse this tenuous situation, the customer is just being an ass and is rejecting your offers of service. This customer just, it seems, wants to be abusive.

Now, also imagine your boss walking in on the conversation as the customer increases his abusiveness towards you and your boss sides with the customer. How would you feel? Would you feel like the rug was just pulled out from under you? Would you feel your value decreased? Would you pledge your undying loyalty to the company from that point forward? Would you give a damn about the customer anymore?

The sad truth is that this is happening all too often. Bosses, in their mistaken belief that “the customer is always right” will sometimes do whatever is necessary for the sake of keeping a customer (and his or her money) – even if that customer abuses one of his or her employees.

The customer is NOT always right. In fact, it could be argued that the customer is “rarely” right. Sometimes the customer is a jerk. Does being a jerk make a person right?

If you want to keep, not just your good people - but all of your people, working for you, then fire the customers who are insensitive, rude to or abuse your staff members - regardless of who that staff member is. Tell the customer that they are no longer welcome in your business. Refuse to take any further orders from them. Stand up for your people (hey, you trained them, paid for that training and have coached them all the way along – don’t let them down now).

You can’t afford to keep customers who make your staff look like idiots. Money in a wallet doesn’t give a person the right to act like a jerk. And as a staff member, don’t allow yourself to be belittled in the name of job-security.

Bosses, imagine that one of your top performers witnesses a lesser performer getting dumped on by a customer and you, as a boss, do nothing to stop this from happening. You will not only likely lose the loyalty of your lesser performer but your top performer as well.

In a situation like that, everyone, regardless of the performance abilities, will see exactly what kind of company he/she works for. Jumping to the defense of a top performer in the same situation and not jumping to the defense of a poor performer shows complete insincerity. You will not keep any performers if you are not genuinely dedicated to your staff.

Managers serve their employees - not the other way around. Staff serves customers; manager serves employees; the CEO serves managers, employees and shareholders. Every one serves someone. Employee loyalty is far more important than customer loyalty. If you are going to charge your employees with serving the customer, you had better make sure they feel that you (as a manager) are loyal to them if you want them to be loyal to the customer and in turn, make the customer loyal to your business.

Attitude Adjustment: The days of dumping all over your people and the fairy-tale belief that "the customer is always right" is dead. You will never have a relationship with your customers if you don't have a manager to employee relationship that works first. Think long and hard on this one. Customer loyalty is only as strong as employee loyalty. Serve your employees well so that they may serve your customers in the same way. If you, as a boss, don’t stand up for your people, you will probably end up serving the customer directly - you’ll be the only one left in the workplace willing to work with you.

Boss Tip #5 - Lunch Menu Leadership Test

There have been a lot of questions this past week on what the Lunch Menu Leadership Test is all about. No one, it seems, is able to find any reference to it on-line anywhere. That’s because it’s MY test. So stop looking. This is the only place you will find that information.

So whom is the test meant for? The test is applicable if ever you are in the position, or even on a selection committee, to hire for any of the following positions: CEO, CO, Mr. Big, VIP, administration, administrator, baron, big brother, big cheese, big man, big wheel, boss, brass, businessman, chief, commander, director, directorate, don, entrepreneur, exec, godfather, government, governor, head, head honcho, head man, heavyweight, hierarchy, high priest, higher-up, industrialist, key player, kingfish, kingpin, leader, leadership dude, management, manager, meal ticket, number one, officer, official, point man, skipper, supervisor, top, top brass, tycoon or any other position in the upstairs upper echelon.

The test is relatively simple. Hey, it would have to be. I thought of it.

Take your management/leadership candidate for lunch, nothing really fancy just a place where the menu wouldn’t be too foreign to an average Joe. Once seated, either your host/hostess or a server will swing by with menus and say something like this: “Good afternoon and welcome to the Monkey Bar & Grill. My name is Peter and I will be your server today. Can I start you folks with a couple of beverages before I tell you about our fantastic luncheon specials today?”

(Jeez, did you order a story? I don’t remember ordering a story.)

Anyway, back to the test. Once Peter drops the menus on the table and rattles off the luncheon specials for the day, once he turns his back and runs to fetch your beverages, start the clock and say nothing more. Simply open your menu, pretend you’re looking at it and observe what transpires next. This IS the test.

If the candidate closes his/her menu in under sixty seconds with a decision made for lunch, you have a winner. Here’s my thinking, if someone about to be moved into a leadership position can not make a decision for themselves in under sixty seconds, a simple decision about what to eat, then how in the world would they be able to make far more important decisions affecting the entire organization?

The key to the Lunch Menu Leadership Test is the following philosophy: How we do one thing is how we do everything.

If the candidate can make quick decisions on unimportant stuff, then he/she can likely make quick decisions on important stuff.

If the candidate takes more than sixty seconds with a simple luncheon menu, you’re going to have problems with him/her.

If the candidate says, “I’ve never eaten here before, what’s good?” I hear, “I’m not comfortable with new surroundings. I might be able to become comfortable with a little help from someone who’s experienced this before, but right now, I don’t know what to do (have).”

“Hmm, I’m not sure what to have. What are you having?” means I will be making the vast majority of my decisions based on consensus. That means I will be polling people so I can decide what I should do next.

Studying the menu and flipping pages back and forth several times means they can’t decide. They are indecisive.

During the meal if I hear “Maybe I should have ordered what you did,” he/she spends too much time on second guessing their decisions. Likely, direction will change like the wind.

There are many more things that can be translated from the test but the key here is if you are going to place someone in a position of leadership, they had better be able to stand on their own two feet, accepting the results of their decisions and not afraid to make them.

This test never fails, unless the candidate knows about the test in advance and knew where they were going to be eating.

Want to find out what your boss is really like? Take them for lunch. You’ll see what I mean.