Take The Christmas Party Away From The Office

You can’t erase a memory because once that memory has been committed to … uh …memory, it’s there forever. And that includes the Christmas celebration drinks at the office and the consequences and responsibilities that follow.

If you want to toast with your co-workers, pick a neutral location away from the workplace. Do not, under any circumstances, allow alcohol to cross the threshold of your workplace.

In addition to being responsible for the behavior of your people under the influence, allowing alcohol into the office makes you responsible for virtually everything that your people do between the time they leave the office and actually arrive at home. That includes how they get home. But host an event in a bar or hotel ballroom, and then the responsibility is on the host facility to ensure their guests don’t get too drunk and disruptive.

Do not host a party in the workplace. Your workplace is for working. Bars are for drinking. If you want to have your people enter into a high-performance mindset when they walk through the doors each day, don’t allow them to come out of that mindset while they are in the office by creating a memory of drunken or lascivious behavior fueled by alcohol. Focus.

Build your culture of high-performance by keeping focused. Assess every activity (including the Christmas party) to ensure that you are not sending your people mixed messages. Doing so creates difficulty for managers and hurts your Culture.

If you want to celebrate with your people, take it outside.

How To Finish Christmas Shopping 10+ Days Early

I’m finished my Christmas shopping altogether. In fact, I finished 12 days early and it took me all of a few hours to get it all done. Every gift was well thought out, well planned and the day went virtually stress-free. Did I mention that I’m a man?

Each person on my list will get an appropriate gift and gifts that have meaning for them. How? They told me what they wanted.

I carry a Blackberry and over the course of a year, I have many interactions with the people on my Christmas gift list. In conversation, they will usually give up some piece of information about something they’ve seen, heard about or just gotta have. I simply enter that information in my Blackberry. Then, come Christmas shopping, I simply pull out the Blackberry and purchase a few items from their individual lists. Hey, it’s exactly how Santa does it. You know the “making a list and checking it twice” thing. At the heart of it all is a list. Make one and you take away your stress.

Look you can’t manage Christmas or your family but you can manage how you find the perfect gift - pay attention all year long. Write it down. Get it into a list or a database of some sort. Then, in a few hours, after you’ve mapped out your stores geographically, you are done in no time.

The busiest and most stressful time of the year are the 10 days leading up to Christmas at the malls. Why, if there were a better way, would you put yourself through the stress year after year? You get to enjoy quiet times at home while others are losing their minds at the mall.

Now give yourself a daily reminder on your Blackberry starting December 26 to pay attention to the conversations going on around you. Don’t worry, once you start entering things into your lists it will simply come naturally.

Meanwhile, good luck out there. I’m home with my cup of tea, feet up, stretched out on the leather sofa watching the original Miracle on 34th Street on the big screen. Yes Virginia, there really is an easy way to be Santa.

How Managers End Up With Average Staff

Take stock of your employees right now. You are about to separate your people into three categories.

1. Category 1: how many of your people could you consider to be the best in your industry - the high-performers?
2. Category 2: how many of your people would you consider to be at least average (competent) and do decent work?
3. Category 3: how many of your people would be considered below average?

I will bet that the largest number of your people end up in Category 2.

So why is that? Why are you hiring and managing only average people to turn out average work?

Most managers will make the excuse that 80% of workers are considered average - when in fact it is 1% of workers who are average (right on the mid-point) and 99% either above or below average. It is nothing more than an excuse because it lets managers off without having to try harder to coach their people to become higher-performers.

This is how managers end up with an average staff - they accept that this is the hand they have been dealt and then make excuses for not wanting to make it better - because it seems like a lot of work. But then those same managers complain that their staff members aren't engaged on the job. Huh. Imagine that.

It's not workers who have an attitude of "good enough," it's their managers who have it. Good enough lets you off the hook of having to coach better, communicate better and to take more of an active interest in their development.

Yes you do have the time. You just have poor priorities. You're not a paperworker or a meetinger. You're a manager. So manage - priority one. Make your people better and want to be better. You are the coach - they are the players. Are you going for an average season or are you going to attempt to win the championship.

The job is "people-work not paperwork." Re-prioritize.

When Managers Interview Over Their Heads

It really isn't a tough concept to wrap your head around - the chance that a manager is at some point going to interview a job candidate who is clearly superior to the manager in every way: charisma, performance, communication skills, relationship-building skills, leadership qualities, knowledge, experience, etc. So what does a manager do when interviewing someone like this?

The truth is, most managers would be afraid that hiring someone who clearly outperforms them would be simply hiring their own replacement. And so, sadly, many really great people get passed over as "overqualified" because of a manager's own insecurities.

The truth is, a high-achiever might be just exactly what your organization needs - but here is the caveat - only if the Culture fit is right.

Hiring shouldn't always be the best person - but should be the best person for the company Culture. Having a highly-focused, customer-focused, high-achiever on staff might be just the ticket to get the rest of your people to build a new customer-focused Culture of high-performance.

But most times this doesn't happen because if a manager hasn't been able to build that Culture already, then he or she obviously doesn't know how to do it. That makes it unlikely that they could recognize good talent and Culture potential if it came along.

But nowhere is it written in the management handbook that a manager can not learn from an employee. Real good managers, employee-focused managers will do what is best for their employees and won't act out of fear of looking poorly or inept. But the moment you pass over a great potential employee because of insecurity is the moment you look incredibly inept.

3 Ways To Manage Procrastination

Joseph Ferrari, Ph.D., associate professor of psychology at De Paul University in Chicago, and Timothy Pychyl, Ph.D., associate professor of psychology at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada have identified traits of procrastinators:

• Twenty percent of people identify themselves as chronic procrastinators: they don't pay bills on time, they don't cash gift certificates or checks, they leave their Christmas shopping until Christmas eve.
• As a culture we don't take procrastination seriously as a problem. Because we are so nice; we don't call people on their excuses ("my grandmother died last week") even when we don't believe them.
• Procrastination is not a problem of time management or of planning. "Telling someone who procrastinates to buy a weekly planner (time management) is like telling someone with chronic depression to just cheer up," insists Dr. Ferrari.
• Procrastinators are made not born. Procrastination is learned. Managers may reinforce (and sometimes even create) procrastination because they tend to be tolerant of excuses.
• Procrastination predicts higher levels of consumption of alcohol among those people who drink - the effect of avoidant coping styles.
• Procrastinators lie to themselves such as, "I work best under pressure" or that time pressure makes them more creative. But in fact they do not work best under pressure nor do they turn out to be more creative; they only feel that way. They squander their resources.
• Some are thrill-seekers, who wait to the last minute for the euphoric rush. There are the avoiders, who may be avoiding fear of failure or even fear of success, but in either case are very concerned with what others think of them. They would rather have others think they lack effort than ability.

Here are 3 ways to manage procrastination (taken from my new program, Tweak™ - the Future of Management):

1. Eliminate long deadlines for project completion - in the same way that manufacturing ramps up daily production over a longer term (5000 more widgets over 25 days = 200 more widgets per day) you must break down projects into daily steps. This forces the procrastinator to engage NOW! Tomorrow is always the deadline. This way you don't get blindsided by being too far behind. You can correct immediately.
2. "Show me what you have so far" pop quiz in public - risks embarrassing the procrastinator. Knowing that you might ask at any time for status reports forces the procrastinator to have something prepared. Always ask for status. Inspect, don't expect. Procrastinators fear embarrassment. Use this to your advantage.
3. Deliver consequences and don't buy excuses - last-minute efforts produce mediocre results at best. If a procrastinator is not pulling his/her weight, take project responsibilities away from them and swap project responsibilities with a good worker. Give the procrastinator's project responsibilities to the good worker and give good worker's mundane tasks to procrastinators so that the good worker is not punished by having to pick up the slack.

What are your thoughts on procrastination? What has worked well for you? Leave me your comment below.

What Good Managers Know

Your own kid has probably played some sort of organized sport. You've probably already figured out that there are some very good coaches and some that are just awful. The problem with bad coaches is that they can instill some bad habits and behaviours early on which can make breaking them more difficult later on. A good coach will have to first undo what the bad coach has done.

Playing for a bad coach can hurt motivation and the Culture of the team to the point that the players simply don't want to perform anymore. Hey, you've seen it in pro sports too.

Some coaches play to win - others play not to lose. Two very different philosophies that become readily evident in the performance of the team: one team offensively makes things happen regardless of what their opponent may be doing and the other team plays completely in defensive mode, their play dictated by what the other guys do.

Just like sports, the poor performance of an employee is a perfect reflection of the manager's ability to coach that employee to a better performance. Every employee can be coached but not every manager can (or will) coach. If you can't (or won't) coach, you, the manager, are in the way and are solely responsible for hurting the performance of your department. Don't blame your staff - they are working with no direction.

Oh, and trying to look superior isn't coaching. Come to think of it, it has absolutely nothing to do with management either.

Good managers know that the manager of the future (the future starts now) is a coach first, manager second. If you don't know much about coaching then you know little about managing. If you won't improve your game, why should your employees improve theirs? Lead by example.

21 Management and Culture Contradictions

What organizations say they want and what they do is in complete opposition:

1. you say you want your people to become leaders and independent thinkers but you send them to cookie-cutter leadership schools making them followers of someone else's doctrine.
2. you say you want to attract people with strong skill-sets but advertise titles and job descriptions and base who gets an interview on looking simply at a resume.
3. you say you want to attract, hire and retain the best but you take out mediocre ads just like everyone else and post the same "Now Hiring" signs as everyone else - attracting the available, not the best.
4. you say you want to have a strong Culture of Excellence in your organizations but at the first sign of financial crisis, you cut, slash and burn budgets that would help build morale.
5. you say you want to have strong managers capable of handling issues but you force them into pointless meetings and force them to fill out reports no one looks at.
6. you say you want to have your front-line staff be more engaged in their work but you don't empower them to make decisions.
7. you say you offer an innovative place to work but institute blanket policies and refuse to be flexible with work hours, job duties and telecommuting.
8. you say every person is important but don't encourage senior executives to get out of their ivory towers and press-the-flesh with front-liners.
9. you say you have open-door policies but won't say the hard things that need because your fear of offending or hurting is greater than your need to be honest.
10. you say everyone in the company is equal yet senior management act like they're members of an exclusive club of perks and benefits.
11. you say you encourage ideas and free flow of thoughts but rarely implement employee's ideas or even respond to many of them.
12. you say every employee is important but you only give awards to and reward your salespeople.
13. you say you offer superior customer service but when polled, only 8% of customers agree.
14. you say you want more sales built on your value proposition but at the first sign of competition, you crumble on your value cut the price.
15. you say you want fewer meetings but you keep on meeting to find ways to reduce the number of meetings.
16. you say you have the best staff but you put hiring in the hands of old-school HR departments who, by their very results to date, have proven incapable of finding that staff.
17. you say you want high-performers but don`t arm middle-managers with the skills to coach high-performers.
18. you say you want to grow but aren't prepared to make a major investment in that growth without absolute certainty.
19. you say that you want to be the best but compare yourselves to mediocre and low-performing competitors.
20. you say that you really care about being better than you are but no one is prepared to take the risks and make the moves that elevate the organization for fear of personally looking foolish.
21. you say that you want loyalty from your employees but slash their jobs when shareholder profits are in jeopardy.

You say a lot of things. But the measure of organizational success isn't in what you say - it's in what you do. So what will you do today?

Who Would Want To Steal Your Crappy Managers?

What would you do if 25% of your managers, salespeople and IT people handed in their notice within the next six months? Are you prepared to roll over that many of your key people? Do you have a plan?

Well you had better get one. Survey results today show that's exactly what is happening: 27% of Canadian workers are looking to change companies within the next 6 months. But if your organization has a wage-freeze on right now, that number jumps to 34%.

“Organizations caught in a tight race for survival can ill-afford wide-spread desertions, especially if the people who are lured away are their best performers,” notes Greg Leach, Senior Vice President and study author. “While the sudden departure of any single group would derail any organization, it appears that the greatest threat may be the potential loss of managerial talent. This could lead to a domino effect that could bring the organization to its knees”.

Asking your people to keep on doing more work for the same or less money is creating a Culture crash. Your people have had enough of same pay, lousy work-life balance and you asking them to show loyalty to you while you show a disregard for them.

Worse yet? 31% of managers are looking. Sorry, but that's going to collapse your Culture if you lose 3 in every ten managers. It is true that an employee doesn't quit the company - they quit their manager. But the converse is true as well: good managers keep good employees. You will likely only lose your good managers. Hey, who wants your crappy managers? Your competitors don't want your lousy managers. They want the good ones so you will just lose the good ones others want. When that happens you will suffer the domino effect of employees leaving right after their managers do.

What's your plan now?

Why Divorcees Make Lousy Managers

"How you do one thing is how you do everything."

That's the same principle you hire people by: their past performance being the prime indicator of their future performance. You ask people the stupidest questions during interviews that have nothing to do with their ability to do the job and base their candidacy on the answers to meaningless questions like:

• Tell me about yourself.
• Tell me about a situation when your work was criticized.
• What makes you angry?
• Tell me about the most boring job you’ve ever had.
• What changes would you make if you come on board?
• How could you have improved your career progress?
• Where could you see some improvement in you?
• What do you worry about?

By the way, these questions were taken from an HR LinkedIn group discussing the "best" questions to ask in interviews. Judge for yourself but if these are the "best" questions to ask in interviews, I think HR is in trouble.

Applying the same logic as used in job interviews, if a potential manager were divorced, it could be argued they can't communicate well or work towards solutions or negotiate settlements. That logic would say that divorcees make lousy managers. But stupid HR questions are overlooked when it comes time to being considered for manager aren't they? Of course, because the best indicator of an employees capabilities are hands-on experience - not their past personal lives.

So, in order to overcome the ridiculousness of inane questions that are meant to take up time in an interview, why not change your Culture to consider "test-driving" employees for a few days - even up to a week. Pay them for their time to job-shadow, integrate with other employees, study their on-the-job abilities and base their suitability on what they do present-day instead of asking them what they worry about.

Who cares if they're good at rehearsing smart answers for dumb questions and instead consider the "training camp" philosophy of sports teams. They show up to camp and their on-the-job abilities are judged for suitability. I'll bet you find a better crop of good future-managers this way. And it won't matter what their past looks like will it?

Shoot For The Middle Of The Pack

Sports teams invest heavily in their people: the best training equipment and expertise, the best coaches and assistants and finally, that competitive edge, sports psychologists. Because sometimes, even the best athletes need a little mental advantage to help them reach a new performance level.

So what do you do to invest heavily in your people? Do you have the best trainers, equipment and expertise? How about the best coaches and managers? Even your best managers will come to a point where the student outperforms the teacher. What's your plan then?

How are you going to get your people to be the best in your industry? Or are you OK with establishing a Culture of Mediocrity?

Maybe it's just easier to do nothing special. Maybe it's easier finishing near the bottom of the league every year. How many teams do you think shoot for finishing near the bottom every year? Maybe it is easier to not even try to create a Culture of Performance. After all, if you try then you have to do something about it. Maybe it's better that you play it safe and shoot for the middle of the pack. There's no effort required in being ordinary.

When Employees Shop Online At Work

A new study shows a 52% increase in online shopping during work hours and a whopping 75% increase on Wednesdays between 9 and 4. That means that your people are shopping online when you think they should be working.

But you've blurred the lines of work by giving your people Blackberrys, by sending text messages and emails at all hours of the day and night, by calling them on cell while they're on vacation and by interrupting family get-togethers on weekends. Your business doesn't stop asking your people to work at 5 o'clock. Why should they not be able to do personal stuff on company time if they're getting company stuff done on personal time?

But that's good for the people who never seem to leave the work behind. What about those who only have to perform work between 9 and 5?

There's a old notion that says a person compulsive shopping is an attempt to fill a void in their soul. If your people are shopping online during business hours, then they're probably just filling a void left by not having meaningful work, something they can be proud of. They are disengaged employees because you, as a manager, aren't engaging them.

But then there is the Gen Y worker who, we are told, are great multi-taskers. No they are not. Gen Y has simply always had many things going on at one time. They find it easier to concentrate on several tasks at once because doing just one thing is boring - so they jump from task to task to task. So they could be shopping as a release from the boredom of putting together your latest D-U-L-L PowerPoint presentation - which will just be riveting at the next (far too lengthy) staff meeting. (Oh, and stop thinking that PowerPoint is engaging. It's no more engaging than overhead projector slides.)

People shop when they are bored or when you take their personal life away. Don't blame them. It's a response to boring work from boring managers.

The Secret To Enagaging Generation Y

Everything in a Gen Y's life has involved "menus." Computer menus, web site menus, cell phone menus, Facebook menus and YouTube menus. For Gen Y, there have always been choices for what to do next - always.

Wherever there is a choice, there is a menu. Understanding this brutally important fact can transform your Culture in a very short time - which will be very usefull in attracting and retaining new talent.

The Gen Y world includes menus. The same rules applied growing up:

• would you like to play soccer, baseball or football? Menu.
• what do you want for your lunch tomorrow: sandwich, soup or money to go out for lunch? Menu.
• where do you want to work this summer - for your father, at DQ like last year or are you going to find something new? Menu.
• what university are you going to apply to: UBC, McGill or do you want to go to school in the US? Menu.

So for the poor Baby Boomers who can't quite figure out why Gen Y seems to have no initiative, it has nothing to do with initiative at all. If your Gen Y workers don't seem to be doing much it's because they don't have a menu of choices of what to do next. You're attempting to manage your Gen Y's like you would Gen X or Boomers and that's a huge mistake. You need to make sure your new workers have choices or at least a list of tasks that they can choose in which order they will accomplish them. That is, unless your Culture sucks - at which point it won't matter what kind of choices you offer - if the work sucks then really, what's the point?

But you can build a strong Culture of Accomplishment in your workplace by recognizing how your new workers think - they think by menu choices. Don't just expect all age-groups of workers to know what to do next. Give them choices and the work will get done. The new manager also needs to be a task-master driving collaboration and innovation. Don't just expect that your people to know what to do next. Given a menu choice of looking for something to do and doing nothing, most will choose doing nothing.

You don't have to develop menus for each person. One giant shared menu for workers will foster, better communication, better collaboration in accomplishing the tasks and develop a more engaged workplace delivering higher-quality results.

Generation Y has a good work ethic when given choices for what to do next and they will get the work done and in record time. Just don't leave them without a menu of choices. That's like the computer breaking down and the X-Box and their cell phone too, leaving them just one choice: to go back to bed. And that too, is a Menu.

When Managers Fear Their Employees

Here's how mediocrity takes a deep-rooted hold in organizations: managers become afraid of their employees.

I think managers are afraid of their employees more than employees are afraid of their managers and that's why instituting change initiatives are so difficult. Managers want to be liked more than they want to be respected. They don't want to be the first to try anything for fear it falls flat. They don't want to be the target of a union grievance. They don't want to be reported to upper management for shaking things up a bit.

When managers take a "don't do anything to draw attention" position, then it becomes apparent that they are only interested in their own well-being and not the well-being of their company or their employees.

Most managers don't want to initiate Cultural change programs, initiatives and opportunities to innovate because of a possible push-back from their employees that may make them look dumb. So, managers do just enough to get the job done without rocking the boat. Make no waves, attract no attention, create no problems. Just get through this day and they are one day closer to collecting that pension. Sorry, but that philosophy is a prison sentence and trust me, it is reflected in the Culture of the organization.

If you're going to manage, then manage. Manage what is in the best interests of the employees and the organization as a whole. Doing nothing so as to avoid difficulty is not a strong position that attracts the best workers and the best opportunities. Avoiding difficulty is selfish and does nothing to improve the performance of your people, their performance or the company as a whole. And it creates a Culture of walking on egg-shells. Now doesn't that sound like a great place to work?

Performance Reviews: Why Scrapping Them Makes Sense

I am of mixed emotion on Performance Reviews because first and foremost, I do NOT believe in formal employee performance reviews as a whole. I think that if a manager is engaging his/her people daily, there is no need for a formal review quarterly or annually. Many employees view the annual review as a legal requirement for the organization to defend itself should need be. That stresses the employee.

Too many managers are lazy in speaking regularly with their employees and they depend on a few sheets of paper once per year to be the one time that their is any meaningful dialogue between manager and employee. The truth is that an employee's performance review is more indicative a manager's effectiveness at communication and coaching. The only upside to formal reviews is that it forces "absent" managers to communicate with their people - which, on the downside, can create animosity based on a poor review because of poor management.

Employees will engage only as well as managers engage the employee. If the manager is engaged with the employee, performance can be guided daily so that any need for a formal review becomes obsolete. A manager should have a conversation with his/her individual team members daily, no excuses, to hand out an "atta-boy," something to work on or just even having a heart-to-heart - but something that touches the real person inside.

Rarely do you see a document handed to a new employee which clearly states the metrics in which they are to be measured over the next year. In all fairness to employees, having a document that they can post at their desks which outlines the very things they are being measured on makes it easier for the employee to work toward achieving a good score. In other words, "tell me what I am going to be measured on and I will do only that."

But the most crucial part of a performance review, if you're going to do them, should be the employee's review of their immediate supervisor. This is far more important than the review of the employee. The employee is only ever going to perform as well as his/her manager. That's a given. Rarely do you find the magnanimous manager who encourages the employee to perform beyond the manager's ability to coach. So the most important document becomes the review of the manager by the employee and NOT the other way around.

Look, people don't leave their jobs. They leave their bad managers. So, it would stand to reason, purely by the numbers, that the department with the highest staff turnover and lowest performing employees would have the worst manager running it. Conversely, the department with the lowest turnover and highest performing employees would likely be run by the most engaging manager.

Employees are only ever going to perform as well as their managers allow. Poor employee reviews all coming from one department are more indicative of the manager than the employees. And it is for this reason that employee reviews should be scrapped. If you have a lousy manager, you will have unhappy, disengaged, poorly performing employees who get a poor review as a byproduct of their bad manager. Mediocre managers = mediocre employees. Managers who engage with their staff fully will likely have staff who are fully engaged - more productive, higher achieving and more fulfilled in their work.

Making the employee the sole person responsible for performance creates a lose-lose scenario and hurts performance Culture. You cannot review the employee until you have fully engaging, openly communicating, strong managers who are able to derive high-performance from their employees. You don't need a formal review if you have daily interactions and conversations one-on-one with your employees.

Annual Reviews were designed by Baby Boomers who, at the time, believed in only communicating with employees if and when something needed to be addressed. So, why do them? Organizations do them because it's what they've always done - which certainly doesn't make it right. It just makes it old. With all of the advancements in gadget technology, we're still using old, outdated HR technology in trying to get people to perform better.

Performance Reviews are old-school. They are the equivalent of a high-school report card - which, unless you had all "A"s, you were afraid to show your parents. Same rules still apply. Everyone wants to get an "A" but it's hard to get if the teacher sucks. But the best teachers, and the best managers, are the ones who encourage high-performance and equip their people with the tools to do it for themselves. That doesn't happen in a formal environment annually. That happens by engaging every single day.

Do Checklists Actually Work?

Checklists work for people who either need or like checklists. My wife is a great checklist person on those little, teeny scraps of paper. It's a system that works for her. My system involves only big items (appointments, proposals, meetings, etc) on my Blackberry. I make priorities first and then squeeze all the other little stuff to less-productive times of the day. The little stuff gets done after the big stuff is accomplished. I guess I'm more of a "rocks in the jar" kind of guy.

But some people are convinced that every little thing needs to be written down. And I suppose that's true if you're forgetful or you need to pat yourself on the back for feeling like you got a lot of things accomplished in a single day.

Here's the problem with list-building though: it doesn't overcome procrastination and lack of motivation. Having a list doesn't mean you'll get get off your fat butt and get it done. The motivation to get started is an attitude. The decision to procrastinate is also an attitude. Dealing with underlying attitudes is the part missing from most training - the "why do it now" especially when you don't want to.

It's why there is no universal Time Management course that works. If there were a Time Management course that worked for every person every time, there would be no need for any more Time Management courses because everyone would be doing it already - having already taken the course.

There are no universal communications courses because everyone has their own communication style. There are no universal team-building courses because each person's contribution and attitude towards their workplace is different.

If universal learning courses worked, there would be only one Time Management course, one Interpersonal Communications course, one Team Building course, one Supervisory Management course, one Sales course and, well, you get the idea. There would be one course only because it works and anything else would be a foolish waste of time and money - having found one that worked all of the time for all people.

So before you embark on investing in a new list-building program, ask yourself if you really want to do the job in the first place? If not, no list-building is ever going to work for you - or your staff. Address the "attitude" part of productivity first before you throw money and time at it. The illusion of taking some sort of action still doesn't solve the underlying problem. There's no single solution to each problem. Each employee is managed a bit differently if you're trying to get maximum performance out of each person.

Protect Your Culture From Bad Speakers

You've finally decided on a strategy to develop and improve your Corporate Culture. Of course, the purpose for doing this was to ensure that you were able to hang onto your really good people (as the market is about to experience a mass exodus of workers looking for something new and challenging - don't forget this very important point) and to be able to attract and recruit some of the best performers in your industry segment. One of the key considerations when building a strong Culture is a consistent effort in the area of ongoing learning for your employees. Keeping the employees ahead of the market curve makes your an enviable workplace because you're not following the market, you're leading it.

I read on one of the message boards last week about a "speaker" who has difficulty getting Play-doh and wire Slinkys through airport security. Are you kidding me? What sort of organization would be hiring a speaker to fly across the country carrying Slinkys and Play-doh and expecting their people to take their jobs and training seriously? Would you be lining up to work for that organization?

It is paramount that your people get good training, ideas and opportunities to stretch themselves but you've got to ensure that their learning is in alignment with your Culture initiatives. DO NOT hire workshop facilitators that work with Slinkys or Play-doh or cutting pictures out of magazines to create a dream collage - unless you run a daycare center. Never, ever let elementary school teachers as speakers talk to your people. High-performers will derive zero value from waste-of-time training and go in search of "professional" learning.

If you're going to create a new Culture, then everything you've done in the past may need to be re-evaluated. And that especially includes what your learning programs look like. Do not put "kindergarten teachers" in front of your people and expect them to be better prepared to respond quickly to market changes, customers demands and innovative thinking.

Once you've assembled your excellent team, do not jeopardize it with "cutesy" sessions. Protect your people from bad ideas, outdated learning and sessions that treat your people like children - if you want them to be market leaders.

3 Business Questions To Ask Right Now

It's summer and for most businesses, it's a little slow - except for companies like road construction, golf courses, air conditioner repair and sales. You get the idea. If your workplace is a little less hectic at this time of the year, why not start some conversations to generate some new ideas and give your organization an honest rating of how you are doing?

Here three questions every organization should be asking itself. All of your people should be involved in the conversations - they are part of the problem and solution:

1. Are we serving our customers the very best that we can or are we taking the "easy" way (identify what the easy way is)?
2. Are we talking to each other enough and creating that Culture of teamwork (identify what you should be talking to each other about)?
3. Are we actively finding the very best talent to join us or being lazy and just accepting those who apply (are you getting the best or the leftovers - this should identify where you stand in your industry)?

The difference between mediocrity and greatness is in the answers to those three questions. Why not start some of the conversations today.

How To Stop Workplace Pettiness

If you ran a retail business in a shopping mall, you would notice a huge difference in the amount of staff required during the month of December versus the month of January.

Now take a look at your own organization, and ask yourself where there are peaks and valleys of performance required. January might be slow in retail but it is an extremely busy time with, say, snow removal. Snow removal business is dead from April through November but pretty good for golf courses.

Every organization has busy times and slow times. So what's happening in your workplace right now? Are there a few empty spaces from bodies who are on vacation? Is the work still getting done? So what then, is a full staff and how many do you actually need?

Perhaps you've convinced yourself that you need a certain number of staff for a full 12 months of the year, when in fact, you might be able to suffice with skeleton staff for six months and add staff during peak times.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating mass layoffs. There's a reason that I bring up the discussion of potential over-staffing: when employees are not challenged in their work, they get bored. When they get bored, they disengage from their work. Employees are also much quicker to find fault with their workplace, have internal conflicts with each other about petty things and will contribute to reducing the quality of Corporate Culture in your organization.

If you want to stop pettiness, finger-pointing and boredom, keep your people busy - but not to the point where you're burning them out. If you want to ensure your Culture remains one of high-performance, don't give your people opportunity to just sit around waiting for something to do. Nothing will contribute to lower morale more than unproductive time to be bored. Your organization will pay the price.

Don't simply assume that the way you've always staffed has been the right way. Study every part of your business because each part of your business contributes to your Culture.

60% Of Workers On The Hunt

According to CareerBuilder Canada's mid-year job forecast, 60% of Canadian workers, who have jobs now, are going to chuck their jobs and go in search of something new.

Why? Well, according to the report, "When asked why they wanted to leave their current jobs, one-quarter of workers said they felt over-worked, their work environment changed during the recession and they had resentment about other workers being laid off. One-third of workers said they felt overqualified for their current jobs, while 43 per cent said that a lack of interesting work was the main motivator for changing employers." (Source: Calgary Herald)

31% of Canadian workers are actively looking now and expect to jump to a new job within the next 12 months while an additional 29% will do so once the economy improves again.

Meanwhile, 58 per cent of Canadian employers said they plan to hire in the second half of the year focusing on IT, customer service, sales, administrative, business development and accounting/ finance.

According to the survey, forty-six per cent of hiring managers said they fear their top talent will leave their organizations as the labor market improves. Top talent doesn't leave a job when they're happy. They leave when they are unhappy with the job, the company, and more specifically, their immediate manager.

I've been harping on this a while but NOW is the time to get to work on transforming your Corporate Culture. Because once the high-performers go, there's not much left to attract new high-performers. Get to work. Clock's ticking.

8 Reasons To Understaff

A 2:30 in the afternoon, after most of the restaurant staff had been dismissed until supper hour, one cook, one waitress, the assistant manager and the owner's wife were able to seat, serve and feed 45 senior citizens whose bus tour stopped at the restaurant without warning. What you may not know is that the cook LOVED his job, the waitress made it her mission to serve her best, the assistant manager had cooking experience and the owner's wife wasn't going to let excuses get in the way of a big payday.

The waitress and the owner's wife served the customers. The cook and the assistant manager worked as a team, split the duties and didn't miss on a single meal. There was not a single complaint. Everyone was served their meal in under twenty-five minutes. Compliments abounded. Deservedly, the skeleton staff gave each other a high-five at the end of the hour.

Later that night, with a full complement of staff available and not more than twenty patrons in the restaurant, food quality was inconsistent, waitresses argued over tables, customers complained and kitchen and wait staff blamed each other.

So which would you rather manage:

1. a seriously understaffed group of highly engaged employees with a heavy workload risking burnout, or
2. a full complement of staff including a mixture of engaged, disengaged and actively-disengaged employees with a light workload

Give me the understaffed, highly-engaged group any time. Here's why:

• the risk of burnout is low when people love their work and engage highly into it
• there is no time for excuses when it's busy
• people only become territorial and disruptive when they think they are better than others (entitlement)
• actively-disengaged is like a cancer in an organization that needs to be removed before it spreads
• other engaged people are attracted to exciting and vibrant workplaces of high-productivity
• people complain when they are bored so the point is to keep fewer people busier and make the work mean something
• waiting for the "right" employee is smarter than settling for the "right now" employee
• it's far easier to build a strong Culture when there are no actively-disengaged employees fighting you

Look around your department right now and figure out whether this is the team that will win you a championship when you need to or is it a team that is likely to miss the playoffs? Then make your decisions from there.