:: Paul Rauseo ::

by

Money is a basic motivator! Read on!

Every person has different motivations for working. The
reasons for working are as individual as the person. But, we all work because
we obtain something that we need from work. The something we obtain from work
impacts our morale and motivation and the quality of our lives. Here is the
most recent thinking about motivation, what people want from work.

Work IS About the Money

Some
people work for love; others work for personal fulfillment. Others like to
accomplish goals and feel as if they are contributing to something larger than
themselves, something important. Some people have personal missions they
accomplish through meaningful work. Others truly love what they do or the
clients they serve. Some like the camaraderie and interaction with customers
and coworkers. Other people like to fill their time with activity. Some workers
like change, challenge, and diverse problems to solve. Motivation is individual
and diverse.

Whatever
your personal reasons for working, the bottom line, however, is that almost
everyone works for money. Whatever you call it: compensation, salary, bonuses,
benefits or remuneration, money pays the bills. Money provides housing, gives
children clothing and food, sends teens to college, and allows leisure
activities, and eventually, retirement. To underplay the importance of money
and benefits as motivation for people who work is a mistake.

Fair
benefits and pay are the cornerstone of a successful company that recruits and
retains committed workers. If you provide a living wage for your employees, you
can then work on additional motivation issues. Without the fair, living wage, however,
you risk losing your best people to a better-paying employer.

In
fact, recent research from Watson Wyatt Worldwide in The Human Capital Edge:
21 People Management Practices Your Company Must Implement (or Avoid) to
Maximize Shareholder Value, recommends, that to attract the best employees,
you need to pay more than your average-paying counterparts in the marketplace.
Money provides basic motivation.

Got Money? What’s Next for Motivation?

I’ve
read the surveys and studies dating back to the early 1980s that demonstrate
people want more from work than money. An early study of thousands of workers
and managers by the American Psychological Association clearly demonstrated this.
While managers predicted the most important motivational aspect of work for
people would be money, personal time and attention from the supervisor was
cited by workers as most rewarding and motivational for them at work.

In a
recent Workforce article, “The Ten Ironies of Motivation,”
reward and recognition guru, Bob Nelson, says, “More than anything else,
employees want to be valued for a job well done by those they hold in high
esteem.” He adds that people want to be treated as if they are adult human
beings.

While
what people want from work is situational, depending on the person, his needs
and the rewards that are meaningful to him, giving people what they want from
work is really quite straight forward. People want:

·        
Control
of their work inspires motivation:
including such components as the ability to impact decisions; setting clear and
measurable goals; clear responsibility for a complete, or at least defined,
task; job enrichment; tasks performed in the work itself; and recognition for
achievement.

 

·        
To
belong to the in-crowd creates motivation: including items such as receiving timely information and
communication; understanding management’s formulas for decision making; team
and meeting participation opportunities; and visual documentation and posting
of work progress and accomplishments.

·        
The
opportunity for growth and development is motivational: and includes education and training; career paths; team
participation; succession p[planning; cross-training; and field trips to
successful workplaces.

·        
Leadership
is key in motivation.
People want clear expectations that provide a picture of the outcomes desired
with goal setting and feedback and an appropriate structure or framework.

Recognition for Performance Creates Motivation

In The
Human Capital Edge, authors Bruce Pfau and Ira Kay say that people want
recognition for their individual performance with pay tied to their
performance. Employees want people who don’t perform fired; in fact, failure to
discipline and fire non-performers is one of the most demotivating actions an
organization can take – or fail to take. It ranks on the top of the list next
to paying poor performers the same wage as non-performers in deflating motivation.

Additionally,
the authors found that a disconnect continues to exist between what employers
think people want at work and what people say they want for motivation.
“Employers far underrate the importance to employees of such things as
flexible work schedules or opportunities for advancement in their decision to
join or leave a company.

“That
means that many companies are working very hard (and using scarce resources) on
the wrong tools,” say Pfau and Kay. (p. 32) People want employers to pay
them above market rates. They seek flexible work schedules. They want stock
options, a chance to learn, and the increased sharing of rationale behind
management decisions and direction.

What You Can Do for Motivation and Positive Morale

You have much information about what people want from
work. Key to creating a work environment that fosters motivation are the wants
and needs of the individual. I recommend that you ask your employees what they
want from work and whether they are getting it. With this information in hand,
I predict you’ll be surprised at how many simple and inexpensive opportunities
you have to create a motivational, desirable work environment. Pay attention to
what is important to the people you employ for high motivation and positive
morale. You’ll achieve awesome business success.

Susan M. Heathfield

by

Managing Multidimensional Organizations

Professional businesses today are structurally complex organizations with
many senior people overburdened by time-consuming and often conflicting roles.
Professional businesses often have some combination of
  • Business unit
  • Geographic markets or offices
  • Division or department
  • Product line/service offering
  • Industry group
  • Key account team
  • Committees (recruitment, training)
  • Task force or project team (service innovation, new offerings)
    Each of these organizational groupings can, and does, intersect with
    duplicated missions, overlapping membership, and common resource pools to draw
    upon.
    We frequently hear comments like this from members of management:
    “It’s not at all clear what each of these groupings should be responsible for
    and how their activities should be coordinated and evaluated. If you are a key
    player in this organization, you can spend an inordinate amount of time in
    meetings. There has got to be a better way to organize for effective
    operations!”
    There is a better way, but the way professional businesses organize
    and manage has not kept up with their increasing complexity. Eventually — we
    think sooner rather than later — this will significantly impede their continuing
    success.
    Not only do modern companies have more “types” of organizational groupings
    than in the past, but these groups now have broader responsibilities than the
    simple “generate and serve clients” goals of the past. To survive and flourish,
    individual groups within today’s organizations must be accountable for client
    loyalty, knowledge transfer, development of their people (junior and senior),
    and many other “balanced scorecard” items.
    To make it all worse, many of these groups are composed of people who,
    because of geographic dispersion, do not see each other regularly face-to-face.
    They have to operate as members of a “virtual” organization. Many would not even
    recognize some of the people in their own operating groups, with whom they have
    to interact regularly.
    As Marcel Goldstein, of the global public relations firm Ogilvy, wrote to
    us:
    “The modern-day professional business lacks much formal structure, at least
    when compared with manufacturers, government agencies, and other organizations.
    This is a great asset, as it allows the flexibility, creativity, and autonomy
    necessary to adapt to client needs. It can have a darker side though:
    inefficiency, confusion, and process breakdowns.
    “In many professions, clients are demanding cross-practice cooperation. But
    do we have the right structures and personal skill sets to successfully manage
    the integration of specialty expertise?
    “The highly matrixed professional business turns downright chaotic during
    times of great change: acquisitions/mergers; technology disruptions; and
    transitions to integrated, cross-functional service delivery.
    “Many professional businesses engage in acquisitions of great fanfare, only
    to have their value left unrealized by political undermining. In my experience,
    traditional manufacturers with structured, hierarchical management execute
    acquisitions with far less confusion and resulting paralysis.
    “We need structures that don’t squash flexibility and creativity but minimize
    inefficiency and confusion. We need help building the personal skill sets needed
    to manage ourselves and each other in these environments, especially during
    times of great change.”
    We certainly would not profess to have answers to all these complex issues.
    However, we believe that there are five perspectives that must guide any review
    of a firm’s or company’s structure.

    Imperative 1: Examine Structure, Process, and People

    The solution for an individual firm must always address three perspectives in
    any organizational review:
    1. structure (how we are formally organized);
    2. processes (how different types of decisions are to be made
      and how conflicts and trade-offs are to be resolved);
  1. and people (appointing the right individuals to play the
    complex roles that will make it all work).

    No one dimension will solve the problem: all three must be examined. However,
    we suspect that the importance of these three elements in the solution may be
    first, people; then processes; then structure.

    Imperative 2: Choose the Right Group Leaders

    Many organizations believe, as we do, that selecting the right leaders (and
    having enough of them) is more important than structure or process.
    Peter Kalis, managing partner of law firm Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, states
    the view forcefully:
    “Structure and process — while as essential to a law firm as a skeleton and a
    nervous system are to a human — are prone to ossification and thus are
    fundamentally at war with the dynamism of the marketplace. People, on the other
    hand, are not. We try to elevate the empowerment of our people over the
    organizational niceties of structure and process except to the extent that those
    structural and process features work to empower our people.”
    Choosing the right people for leadership positions was always important, but
    is even more critical in complex organizations. Consider just some of the (newly
    important?) skills that today’s group leader probably must have:
    • The ability (and interest) to motivate and influence people they never see
      in person
    • The ability to delegate and trust others to manage important relationships
    • The ability to play a “linking-pin” role, simultaneously thinking about the
      overall good of the firm while taking care of the needs of the units they are
      responsible for
  • The ability to manage people who have core disciplines other than the one in
    which the leader was specifically trained

    It has always been true that effective management required a complex mix of
    social, interpersonal, psychological, political, and emotional skills on top of
    the high intelligence and technical skills necessary to rise to the top. We
    believe that as organizations become more complex, possession (and development)
    of these so-called soft skills must play an ever-more-important role in
    influencing who is selected to perform managerial or leadership roles.
    Unfortunately, such considerations do not always play a dominant role in
    selecting group leaders. It is a common syndrome that all initiatives (client
    team, industry, geographic, functional, etc.) are seen as important, so the same
    senior people always end up on all the committees, often based on considerations
    other than managerial aptitude or even orientation.
    As a result, it is somewhat hit-and-miss as to whether the right people get
    selected for these roles, their mandate is clear, their performance as leaders
    gets discussed and evaluated, and whether they receive any assistance or
    guidance in learning how to perform their roles.
    Not only does this hurt the organization by (possibly) leading to less
    effective team leadership, but it’s not clear that it is wise to consume the
    limited time of valuable people by asking them to manage and/or get involved in
    everything. This is simple economics — a valuable resource should always be
    focused on its highest and best use.

    Imperative 3: Establish Mandates for Each Group

    Even if you have an ideal structure, there will always be problems with
    coordinating cross-boundary resources and dealing with conflicting priorities.
    You cannot make all cross-boundary issues go away by simply redesigning the
    boundaries.
    Beyond structure, companies must ensure that each group has a clear mission
    (or mandate) that is understood by those inside and outside the group.
    In our experience, many firms launch new business units, various committees,
    or project teams with ambiguous charters and then leave it to powerful (or
    not-so-powerful) group leaders to determine through negotiations over time
    precisely how the groups will interact.
    The case for doing this rests on the idea that internal competition
    is the inevitable result of shifting external market forces influencing each of
    the organization’s groups differently and that a flexible approach to the
    responsibilities and interactions of groups is an efficient way of responding to
    these external market forces.
    However, we believe that failing to discuss and resolve the issues of group
    responsibilities (and how groups will interact and resolve conflicts and
    trade-offs) rarely results in optimal outcomes.
    Under such an approach, power rather than principle determines group goals
    and how groups will interact, and this leads to lesser performance. Resolution
    of conflicting goals and clear, agreed-upon guidelines for decision making over
    trade-off situations must be determined in advance.
    We also believe that organizations must stop treating all groups alike, which
    many unfortunately do, for administrative convenience. It is possible to use
    different types of groups for different things: lots of little teams for
    client-level relationships or one large central group for financial and
    administrative services.
    A large, growing, and complex firm doesn’t have to be (in fact, can’t be)
    made up of units that have similar roles, look alike, have the same targets, and
    are managed in the same way. We discussed specific procedures for setting group
    goals and mandates in our book First Among
    Equals     (Free Press, 2002).
    In making all this work, it is almost better to stop thinking of permanent or
    semi-permanent “departments” and to begin to use the language of “teams.” There
    is a great deal of evidence that organizations work better when people feel that
    they are volunteers self-selected to small mission-oriented teams.
    This is not just a matter of making people “feel good.” It has always been
    true that winning professional service firms succeed most by designing their
    organizations from the bottom up — through the voluntary enthusiasm of
    individuals. You’ll be better off with a messy set of teams filled with
    enthusiasts than you will with a logically correct set of groups filled with
    good citizens.
    As Ben Johnson of law firm Alston & Bird remarked:
    “One problem is that too many ‘leaders’ are afraid to create more energy than
    they can control. I tell people I’d rather have created more energy than I could
    control than not created any energy at all. Here’s to structural complexity!
    Here’s to dispersed leadership!”
    On the other hand, it is also important that firms clarify the roles and
    responsibilities of group leaders and avoid the balkanization of the
    organization that can come from letting group leaders think that they are
    responsible only for their groups.
    Peter Friedes, the former CEO of human-resources consulting firm Hewitt
    Associates, had this to say:
    “I had 15 or so managers reporting to me. So I needed them to not be pulling
    the firm in different directions. One practice I had was to remind all those who
    reported to me that part of their role was to have my CEO perspective in
    managing their group. They were not to just be an advocate for their group or
    their people. They had to have a ‘whole entity’ view.”

    Imperative 4: Clarify Agreements Within the Groups

    Whether you are managing a division, a key client team, or a limited-scope
    task force, every group needs to have a very clear understanding of what “team
    membership” implies. As a matter of practicality (although not, alas, reality in
    some firms) there also needs to be a limit on the number of teams one person can
    join (and the number of roles one person can play).
    For teams to work, there need to be clear, explicit guidelines (even rules of
    engagement) that team members have agreed to observe. Clarifying team members’
    rights and obligations can go a long way toward becoming more efficient and
    effective. (Even as simple a rule as “You must do what you said you were going
    to do” would transform some organizations and save a lot of wasted meeting and
    planning time.)
    The need for such agreements, while always wise, has become ever more
    critical in a virtual world. As Harry Truehart, chairman of law firm Nixon
    Peabody, observed, “Getting people and procedures that facilitate effective
    ‘management at a distance’ is the biggest challenge in making groups work.”
    We believe that if far-flung groups made up of many autonomous individuals
    are to make cohesive decisions over time, then it is necessary that the group
    members agree in advance the principles on which they will base their decisions
    — the guidelines the group members agree to follow. Only with such an agreement
    in place can a decentralized organization make consistent decisions.
    Part of the solution, may involve thinking of (and formalizing) different
    levels of team membership. For example, levels of “team membership” might
    include (i) full decision rights — possible called Team Leadership, or (ii)
    right to be consulted — called team membership or (iii) right to be kept
    informed — called team affiliation. (These are examples only.)

    Imperative 5: Recognize Shifting Priorities in Structural Design

    Structural changes alone will not resolve conflicting priorities and
    competing demands for resources, but structure does nevertheless matter. The
    evolution of professional-service firms over time suggests that some structural
    approaches do work better than others. Most successful global firms, in a broad
    array of professions, have tilted the importance of their different
    organizational “axes.”
    For some time, there has been a general trend to make the target client
    industry the most important (and organizationally powerful) grouping. This has
    been driven by clients repeatedly telling their vendors and providers that they
    had better get to know and understand the client’s business.
    Next in authority and emphasis comes the specifically targeted client (or key
    account) team. Well-orchestrated client teams are the only answer to making
    seamless service across geography and product/service offerings a reality. Don
    Lents of law firm Bryan, Cave notes, “It is my sense that there is a growing
    focus on client teams and the need for such teams to be front and center in the
    thinking of firms.”
    Third, and with increasingly less power and responsibility inside most
    organizations, are the traditional product or service-line groups built around a
    focused technical specialty or discipline. Companies need to have highly focused
    and skilled technical people, but few are still primarily organized that way.
    Finally (and this is a huge revolution from the past), the trend has been to
    make geography the least important and powerful dimension of the complex matrix.
    In the past, the office head (or country head in mega firms) was the source
    of all resources and the arbiter of last resort. Today, in many organizations, a
    geographic head may preside over a location whose people all belong to groups
    headed and “controlled” by a powerful leader located elsewhere.
    This is not meant to denigrate the role of the geographic leader. As Bob Dell
    of law firm Latham & Watkins points out:
    “Having the right leader in an office can be extremely effective in
    facilitating the success of all the other groups therein. There seems to be
    something about physical presence combined with a leader who is perceived as
    less biased toward any group that can be very powerful in resolving competing
    demands.”

    Moving Forward

    We believe that there is a distinct process that firms need to go through to
    find their own customized solutions to managing a complex organization.
    The steps are these:
    First, assess the perception of “pain and difficulties” felt by the current
    organization, to determine people’s appetite for considering changes. This will
    usually require a process of interviewing key players across the firm. No change
    can be made unless there is a keenly felt sense of either pressure or
    opportunity.
    Next, it will be necessary to collect and assess the evidence as to how well
    the organization and its components are currently performing and interacting. In
    a recent issue of The McKinsey Quarterly (2006, number 3), Cross,
    Martin, and Weiss described a detailed and powerful methodology for “mapping the
    value of … collaboration.”
    Even if the approach is not this thorough, there will need to be an
    investigation of current organizational functioning, including not only an
    in-depth view of financials, analyzed according to numerous perspectives, but
    also an analysis of external evidence (including, perhaps, input from selected
    clients) and internal structural frustrations and performance inhibitors.
    It will be necessary to examine whether reward systems are in line with
    organizational objectives and whether profit-center accounting systems are
    contributing to a balkanization of the organization.
    At the other extreme, it would be worth examining whether the organization is
    currently being held together and energized by sharing in what is sometimes
    referred to as an “overarching purpose” or shared values. This is an approach to
    organization that is often fervently preached but rarely achieved.
    Next, in any organizational review, would be the need to design and implement
    a process to generate commitment to re-examine organizational structures and
    processes and explore the major alternatives (including possibly re-constituting
    key groups). Any redesign, must, of course, ensure continuity of strategy
    formulation and implementation through the organization.
    Finally, it will be necessary to examine, consider, and implement methods for
    the development of special managerial skills and competencies as well as new
    metrics that may give better indications of the organization’s functioning and
    response to external forces or internal pressures.
    It may also be necessary to design a process to get the organization to
    recommit to a clarified sense of purpose, values, and “rules of membership”: —
    the principles and practices that people must follow to remain members in good
    standing of the organization.
    Of course, to make any of this work, there is a need for key players to be
    willing to let other people decide some things even when they’re not there — a
    situation which does not exist in many companies and firms!
    We do not mean this to be a throwaway line. To effect real change,
    organizations must not try to establish “theoretically correct” structures and
    processes but must have honest discussions among powerful players about the
    types and nature of the firm’s group processes that would, in fact, be
    honored.
    We have seen too many firms go through the motions of putting in place what
    appear to be sensible organizations, when everyone knows that certain key
    players will not adhere to the policies that have been adopted.
    We’re not idealists here — we recognize the realities of the need to
    accommodate personalities and special situations. But we also do not believe
    that progress is made by pretending or obtaining “false consent.” That is why
    organizational solutions must be custom-designed for each firm and need to be
    the result of a comprehensive review, not, as is so frequently the case, the net
    result of an accumulation of a series of incremental changes driven by short-run
    pressures.

by

Retail Management: Engagement Tools to Ensure Employee Productivity

For some retail managers, the most difficult part of their job is the people part.

The same leaders who can easily manage their inventory, manage their facilities, manage their books, and manage their profit margins, are often the same ones who find themselves at a loss when it comes to managing the behavior and performance of their employees. “Why can’t they just do what I tell them to do?” is the management cry heard around the retail world.

Let’s remove the mystery about employee engagement once and for all. If your employees aren’t performing with excellence in every way, every day, with no exceptions, there are only two reasons why:

1) They can’t.

2) They don’t want to.

There’s no mystery really, no psychological complexities, and no complicated management theories. There are just two simple root causes. Either your employees lack something essential which prevents them from performing with excellence, or they don’t achieve excellence because they simply don’t want to.

Managers need to think of these two root causes as separate disorders which require accurate diagnosis and appropriate treatment. Just as band-aids won’t fix a broken bone, a how-to training class won’t fix a broken spirit. Successful retail leadership requires more doctoring and less managing in order to keep the people part of the operation healthy.

Employees Don’t Because They Can’t

No matter how much you request, demand, cajole or beg your employees for a certain level of performance, sometimes they don’t give it to you because they can’t. If you’ve been a manager for more than a week, you know there are some employees who put no creativity into their work except when it comes to excuse-making. These are the masters of “can’t.”

It is a huge mistake, though, to assume that every “can’t” you hear is nothing more than a justification for laziness. There are some (usually many) legitimate barriers in every operation that make it difficult or impossible for employees to complete their tasks, make their deadlines, and generally meet your expectations.

Identify Barriers to Excellence

You can separate legitimate barriers from unfounded whining by asking your employees one simple question: “What makes it difficult or impossible for you to do your job with excellence every day, in every way, with no exceptions?” The legitimate barriers that your employees identify will fall into four categories:

•Physical Barriers

•Time Barriers

•Wherewithal Barriers

•Know-how Barriers

Identifying these barriers is an extremely easy task. Your employees think about them, get frustrated with them, and talk about them behind your back quite frequently! If given the opportunity to communicate without fear of recrimination, your employees will help you compile an extensive barriers list with ease.

Eliminate Barriers to Excellence

Eliminating “can’t” excuses from your operation is then simply a matter of eliminating the legitimate barriers. This is usually a much easier undertaking than most managers would expect. Why? Because your employees have already formulated solutions in their heads which usually sound something like, “If I was running this place I would…” Ask your employees for their ideas, and empower them to implement the solutions. Give them a second chance if the solution fails, and praise them in public when they succeed.

Some Employees Just Don’t Want To

The best thing about supporting excellence by eliminating barriers is that it leaves nothing for the slackers to hide behind. When you remove the “can’ts,” all that’s left in your operation are employees who excel and employees who obviously need to be replaced.

Replacing employees is not a pleasant task, but don’t procrastinate. High-performing employees have no tolerance for just-get-by co-workers and neither should you. Cutting slackers loose is a necessary part of managing excellence. It raises the bar of performance for everyone, and it’s a surprisingly tangible way to reward those who have been picking up the slack for the slackers.

Supporting Success is Managing Excellence

The people part of a retail operation is not as puzzling as it sometimes seems. When you set your employees up for success by listening to their challenges and eliminating their barriers, the work you receive from them in return will take away most of the mystery of human resources management.                                                                                      bfarfan