Rethinking Company Culture

It appears that the idea of a "company culture" and or hiring for "culture and fit" are all the rage among start up companies and it needs to be a more pressing  priority for most established companies.

But, we need to rethink, exactly what we mean when we use terms such as "culture" and "fit."

All companies have a "culture" and anytime people come together a "culture" will develop rather quickly.  Regardless of what is the stated company culture the reality is real company culture does not "trickle down" but rather bubbles up.

One of the greatest achievement of the United States was that we became a "melting pot" for a variety of different cultures of the individuals that migrated to this country; thus companies should be thinking about recreating the melting pot experience rather than trying to establish cultural ghettos.

Can your corporate culture accommodate this (courtesy of Emily Merkle):

“Here’s to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in the square holes… the ones who see things differently — they’re not fond of rules… You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them, but the only thing you can’t do is ignore them because they change things… they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world, are the ones who do.”

                                                                              - Steve Jobs

Wouldn't it be an awesome experience to manage and lead such a group of people?!

The reality is that using "culture and fit" as a guidepost in hiring really is nothing more than attempting to "clone" employees.  If one believes that their company is truly unique and that it takes a special kind of person to be successful in one's company then realistically you are not going to find "fit" but rather you will have to nurture it.  Management is about nurturing; its dealing with the unknowns of individuals and the disruption, or dynamics, of the work environment.

Our goal of building awesome companies and or organizations is to realize that we want to hire people who will have an impact on the company culture.  What would New York City look like if everyone "fit" the city culture; would it be as vibrant and dynamic?  Too much of an emphasis on "culture and fit" will not create the vibrancy and dynamics of a New York City but rather the staid and tradition bound culture of "Mayberry R.F.D." 

In regards to employees, we want to create a positive collective experience, we want employees to know that they can make a difference, regardless of their job duties, and that the concept of "empowering" naturally includes "diversity."  

If you catch yourself focusing on "culture and fit" you might find yourself eventually with a company and or organization that has  a "herd mentality."  All companies have "values" both stated and unstated.  The key is to ensure that that gap between what are the stated values and the unstated values is kept to a minimum; this can be measured by employee morale.

The Failure Of Human Resources

The idea that companies are resorting to requesting social media logins and passwords, and in some cases, logins and passwords for email accounts, as reported here seems almost a heartbeat away from some scene from George Orwell's "1984" or "Animal Farm."

But the reality is, setting aside the legal issues and social ramifications, human resources has failed.

With the ability to broadcast job opportunities via Careerbuilder, Monster, and now Indeed (which according to this article is at the top of the list for finding candidates) human resources is finding themselves overwhelmed with candidates for job opportunities and rather than develop better tools to evaluate candidates they find themselves coming up with nothing more than arbitrary means to winnow the potential candidates down to a more manageable level:  Relying on such things as not hiring anyone who has been unemployed for any length of time and or requesting logins and passwords to social media sites.

Exactly what benefit is derived from gaining access to an applicant's social media profile?  The reality is that anyone seriously looking for employment has already cleaned up their "act" and removed anything that might be questionable and or offensive.  As more and more employers rely on the internet to find candidates anyone who is seriously searching for employment will be a step a head of these employers.  In fact some employers, those who are on the cutting edge, have moved beyond the resume and are only interested in a candidate's internet presence!

The reality is employers have to learn how to use social media; they have to learn how to "approach" individuals on the web because of their social media presence about potential employment rather than using social media as an excuse not to hire someone.  The future belongs to those human resource professionals who learn to be proactive and connect with individuals via social media that they are interested in hiring rather than using the traditional avenues of advertising a job opening, solicit resumes, and then weed through the pile.

Is Employee Morale Overrated?

I noticed that someone searched for my blog with, "Is employee morale overrated..."  I had to stop and think about it!  I mean that is an odd question, but yet you have to think about it.

Employee morale?  If the searcher meant a definition of morale that signified happiness or satisfaction, then yes, it could be overrated.  If the term morale was used in the classical sense of the word, as ‘espirit de corps,’ then by no means and at no time can employee morale be overrated.

The concept of morale has always been primarily a military term, but militaries are nothing more than organizations with a goal, and as such the concept of ‘espirit de corps’ applies equally to all organizations.  Of course the history of war is full of examples of armies suffering from low pay or no pay, poor rations, and horrendous working conditions, but still with high spirits achieved unbelievable results; the American Revolutionary War is a classic example.

In the workplace the key drivers of employee morale are:

• Job Security
• Management Style
• Staff feeling that their contribution is valued by their employer
• Realistic opportunities for merit-based promotion
• The perceived social or economic value of the work being done by the organization as a whole
• The perceived status of the work being done by the organization as a whole
• Team composition
• The work culture

One cannot buy morale or ‘espirt de corps’ with wages, benefits, and cafeterias with free food, or lattes at will; morale is instilled from within an organization and an individual employee.  Being a “cool” place to work is not morale, nor should weekly pizza parties be viewed as an example of team building.

 I spent three days at a printing facility recently where the plant employees work 12 hour shifts doing work that is hard physically and mentally tedious.  Were the employees ‘happy?” or were they “satisfied?”  One couldn’t really tell because there was very little communication among the employees, realistically the work was very unfulfilling and of low esteem.  But, the ‘espirit de corps’ was sky high!  They had jobs to do, tasks that had to be accomplished, and there was little to no floor management. 

Not one employee missed work or reported late.  Every employee gets a five minute break every hour, a ten minute break every two hours, and a twenty minute lunch, which are all paid and not once did anyone leave early or return late. 

Wives and husbands were actually hired together for the same shifts but not allowed to work the same lines, and that was a brilliant going against the grain in the traditional human resources management bible. 

Extraordinary effort on the part of average individuals is the true example of employee morale and it can never be overrated.

Hiring: Do You Really Know What You Are Looking For?

I have been doing a lot of research in regards to jobs and hiring methods.  I notice that there is a big focus on keywords and applicant tracking software such as Jobvite, Jobscore, to name a just a few.  These are awesome tools, but in regards to the concept of "social hiring" and or whatever promises made in regards to isolating the ideal candidate for a position, that is absurd; that is where our faith in technology can blind us.

The best manager of customer service I ever had the honor of working with was a lady whom I originally interviewed for the position of Daycare Director.  She had never worked in an office, had never worked in a manufacturing environment, and had little to no computer skills whatsoever.  But, she had supervised people and obviously had worked with the public, and I cannot imagine a more demanding public than parents who are entrusting you with their child/children.

I would never have found her focusing on just keywords, nor would she have been even remotely considered if I had focused on direct experience; if you just focus on the 'tasks' of a job rather than the 'skills' inherent in the tasks, or the job titles of the "previous experience" section of a resume you are going to miss the potential that great people represent because you are focusing on experience rather than potential.

I guess this would be called a career change but the reality was while the job description did change the skills necessary for success did not.

Once I interviewed an accountant for a position that she was very overqualified for, and I told her that she was overqualified but that I would save her resume and contact her when we had an opening better suited for her qualifications:  Yes, I actually did save her resume!  In fact less than six months later I did call her and offer her a job.  She brought a degree of professionalism to part of our administration that was in need of it.  The only issue was that she had always worked in small offices where she was in charge and now she found herself in a position where she was in charge of a department that was one of many departments; and she always had issues working with other people as a team; and I told her on her first day on the job that would be her "Achilles heel....".

I once hired a young college student to work part time, on 2nd shift, in our payroll department; after a short interview I realized that he had the perfect thought process to be in IT.  He was majoring in Philosophy of all things, but every single question I asked he broke it down and responded with answers that were like bullet points.  Within a year he was our tech support and with Microsoft and IBM training he basically took over the IT department and replaced the existing staff of two.  To this day I still have not found anyone, even among the local companies that provide IT services as a business that could match the ability of this young man.

The best production clerk I ever saw I met in a truck stop where she was a waitress!  It was a hectic fast paced environment where you had to think on your feet and watching her coordinate the efforts of the kitchen with the demands of the customers was quite a sight!  Twenty-five years later she is still putting out fires and coordinating activities that change constantly.

How exactly do you match skill sets and personalities to jobs?  Some people have built careers, that look impressive on a resume, but what if that career was built not on a conscious decision of what they enjoy and or are good at but rather because it was the first job they could find?

The whole concept of "keywords" just really gives you insight into what a person has done, not what they are good at, and it definitely tells you nothing about how good of a fit the candidate will be for the position that you are trying to fill.

I love the term, "overqualified"  I mean think about it, why wouldn't you want to get the most for your money?  Is it that a candidate is overqualified or are you just over awed?  Now, if you believe that the individual would be bored or not challenged by a job then you might want to review your job description and figure out what made that position attractive to someone who you deem "overqualified" you might have dramatically overstated the position.

In regards to the concept of "social hiring" or the idea that everyone within an organization has input in the hiring decision for a position.  I always looked to hire people who challenged me, you forced me to be better, but I cannot see a group having the same desire, because they are looking for someone that "fits in;" group decision making is more apt to create mental inbreeding, and conformity, rather than diversity and growth.

When companies define their work environment as "competitive and challenging" and then leave hiring to a popularity contest via social hiring, then you have a contradiction; group decisions are always protective and no one in a group is going to say, "...lets hire this person because they are going to really challenge us and make us achieve more...."

I cannot help but realize that what we attempt to do when hiring a person for a position is to really avoid a hard decision!  We do not want to hire anyone over 50 because......well, because that puts a limit on the applicant pool.  We do not want to consider anyone who is unemployed because....well, because that puts a limit on the applicant pool.  We use keywords today, for no other reason than it allows a software to scan through resumes.....well, just to cut down on the applicant pool.  Only look for those applicants with industry experience, or who have prior job titles that match.  Or, lord forbid, didn't major in the right subject matter in college, or forgot to seek some particular certification so to have the right "codes" after their name.

If we could devise a software that would pick that one resume, that one applicant out of hundreds, and then flash "THIS ONE" across our computer screen, then we could escape from having to make a decision in regards to people and hide forever from the fact that maybe we really don't have a clue what the "ideal" candidate for a job actually is because job descriptions define a static relationship, or the engineering of an organization, and the interaction of people is dynamic which in turns changes anything static.

Hint, for those of you who are developing this applicant tracking software, why not include a simple personality test, or have some questions drawn up that would give the applicant a chance to give answers to questions that would give readers a glimpse of the social aspect of the applicant.  It would assist companies to relate to applicants and you could add an additional fee for these additional screening tools!

I also think that College2Startup is a great concept and I think every college should create a website for their seniors and recent graduates that would allow employers to surf this pool of talent; lots of jobs are "created" this way and with the unemployment rate being what it is, we are going to be in a "buyers" market for talent for quite sometime. 

Never Let Your Employees Down

At the age of 23 I found myself at a construction camp of over 15,000 multi national inhabitants outside of Ras Tanuara, Saudi Arabia.  My superior was a 72 year old retired Marine Corp General and I worked with three other Americans who were all a minimum of 25 years older than I was; thus I was "the kid." 

We were reponsible for providing construction workers with healthcare, food, recreation, living and housekeeping accomodations, shopping, utilities, infrastructure, and of course security which we did with a work force of 600 third world nationals.

One time, and rather by surprise, I found myself in charge with our camp Engineer as support.  With a vacation schedule of two weeks every three months, there was always someone going on and or returning from a vacation out of country, there had been times when two of us were on vacation at the same time, but never had their been three and never had the other two ever taken a vacation at the same time as the camp manager.

So, I found myself behind the desk of a retired Marine Corp General; heady times for a kid!  The first thing I found on the taped to the desk and displayed under a piece of glass was a quote:  "Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill" and the next thing I found was a pile of memos from headquarters that I had to follow up on.

There I found a bombshell;  due to the fall in oil prices I had to terminate 150 employees and it would have to be accomplished before the three amigos returned!  Well, that explains why the three were in such a hurry to get out of country!

Basically, I was the one who was going to have to select 150 people out of a pool of Indian's, Pakistani's, Bangladeshi's, Sri Lankan's, Thai's, and Filipino's, people who had had to pay bribes to get the jobs they currently had and in some cases continued to pay bribes to keep the jobs they had, but I was sending them back to their homelands;  places where they would most likely never have a job again.  These employees were not only supporting their family with their wages that they sent home regularly but in some cases they were supporting entire villages; and that was coming to an end.

To fire an employee is hard, but to reduce grown men to tears, to pleading, to bribing, to throwing themselves at your feet in desparation to not be fired is an experience one never forgets.  After that experience I promised myself that I would never hire an employee unless I was for certain that I could commit to them a promise of long term employment; thus I have learned to justify a position before seeking applicants.  Everytime a position opens up I will analyze the tasks and responsibilities of the position and see if they are really necessary; we hire for the future not for the past, so any hiring decision should always be based upon a review of current practices and future business rather than an organizational chart of prior operations. 

The key to avoiding downsizing is actually not to oversize in the first place.

Remember, a business, a company, an organization, is a team; regardless of everything else, no task is ever achieved, no success is ever realized, without people working together.  Now, you can focus on finding the candidates who have the best fit inregards to skill set, or keywords, or who has the experience that best matches the position being filled but the reality is if you do not look at the whole person, and or if you do not analyze the needs of an organization beyond the tasks accomplished by a position; if you look at a job as a cog, a wheel, or an organization as a machine, then you are going to find yourself hosting seminars and or providing training in an attempt to bring your organization together. 

You may find yourself hiring the ideal candidate but the wrong person.  Sometimes you need to hire someone who is "overqualified" because it never hurts to challenge the others in an organization to improve their skills.  Sometimes an organization needs an older person or a younger person.  Sometimes an organization needs the perspective of someone who has been unemployed a while; the success of an organization is not only determined by what the individuals do at their desks but also what is done in the breakroom or discussed around the water cooler.  Sometimes its attitude and perspective that make a difference; sometimes you have to hire someone from outside your industry to improve an organization.

Organizations are not just the sum of keywords, or skill sets and neither are individuals.

"Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill"  

Don't confuse old age and treachery with wisdom and or expertise nor should youth and skill be confused with innovation.

Basketball and Human Resources

I didn't watch much of the NBA championship because it was obvious to me that Dallas was going to win it:  The were the better team!

Now, growing up I played basketball literally everyday and I was fortunate enough to go to college on a basketball scholarship and to enjoy a few seasons of playing in Europe.  I admit, I have a totally different way of watching the game; I am impressed by defense, team work, and the mid court area, or how well a team transitions.

Teams are much more than the sum of their parts; its a balance between individual talent and role playing.  A team made up of extremely talented individuals will ensure that you totally overwhelm less talented teams of individuals but a true team will allow you to win games against superior opponents.

All the plays, all the "X's" and "O's", all the backslapping and or in your face antics on the side of the court does not make things happen on the court, the reality is a game has its own natural rhythm, and every individual on a team is unique.  The individuals have to adapt to the rhythm and to each other on a game by game basis.

A team has to be made of individuals who know their roles and the roles of each of their team members.  Most importantly they have to respect the roles that each plays on the team.  A coach has to know what makes each individual on the team click; what motivates one player may just be the worst thing in the world for another.  Motivation is always an energy that must be individually focused at the same time group focused; and most importantly, its an energy that flows between and among the individuals.

I read so much about hiring the "right" or the "best" person for a position; and that would be fine, if a position is that of an independent contractor, but the reality is positions are within departments, organizations, and or companies.  I cannot help but wonder if sometimes we search for candidates with certain skills when it fact we should be searching for individuals with certain personalities!

I have also seen companies that had some extremely intelligent talent and they could accomplish absolutely nothing.    I have also seen companies go out and search for a position as if it was nothing more than a cog in a machine and then turn around and bring in consultants to find ways to create a less structured and hierarchical organization!

On a daily basis we read news stories about how companies are not hiring candidates over 50, or how the new workplace is one of constant turnover, but the reality is that balance makes great teams!

"Job-hopping statistics get a lot of attention. For example, the average baby boomer held an average of 11 jobs between the ages of 18 and 44. Lost in statistics is the fact most people don't leave for more money; most leave a job because of a poor relationship with a boss. Don't assume high employee turnover is a fact of employment life. Find out why employees want to leave and address those issues. Employees don't start checking employment ads unless you give them reasons. Few people look forward to the upheaval and stress of starting a new job unless the old job -- and old employer -- was terrible."

I read the article this morning, and I couldn't help but be shocked!  Looks to me like quite a few teams need to focus their attention on their management team and less on their human resource process!  Mark Cuban did a fine job building the Dallas team over the last few years and his team beat a team that thought it could trade its way to a championship.

The true test for Dallas comes next year!

Seeing Yourself As Employees See You

I was reading an article about Walmart's new "Walmart Express" concept stores that they are developing to compete against Dollar General and the article ended with, "We have to look through the consumers' eyes…”

I couldn't but think, I wonder what employees see when they look at the company they work for?

Over the course of 20 years with a company that grew from 150 to well over 900 from both growth of the core business and through acquisitions I have had to wonder numerous times about how to deal with a company of employees who were now being "integrated" into a totally new system.

We would spend quite a bit of time reviewing their pay structure and benefits, we would also begin reorganizing and restructuring, and of course we were also moving them to our computer system and our vendors/suppliers.  All of this would be done with little or no input from the employees of the acquired company.

Its kind of like Zynga, which is relocating its headquarters and building a dog run on the roof of its new headquarters.  As a company that employs mostly young people, or "Millennials," as they are referred to I am sure that the idea is not all that novel.  But, the reality is the company is named after the founders dog and the dog is part of the logo.

From the outside looking in, one can find this an interesting 'benefit' provided to employess, but there is a possibility that the employees see it as nothing more than the heavy handed attempt by the founder to make everyone love dogs the way that he does.

The headquarters is 270,000 square feet so there has to be quite a few employees and imagine if all of them have dogs?  What happens if someone's Great Dane decides that my Pekingese annoyed it?  Would the company be liable for damages?

I remember when we were constructing a new manufacturing facility in 1990; we set aside space for expansion and the first "expansion" that management thought of was a gym for management!  As our work force was 85% female and our management was 100% male, a gym for management would have sent all the wrong signals!  The reality was if we were going to "expand" then we needed to do so in a way that provided a value to our operations; we needed something that would attract employees and keep employees once they were hired.  

Thus, our options were basically either a daycare or a auto repair facility because the two major reasons employees could not come to work was either that they could not locate a babysitter and or they did not have reliable transportation.


That was how Stepping Stones Learning Center, Inc., was formed, a not for profit daycare facility that was open to the public.  A daycare that actually lost the vote against the gym for managers!  


We opened the daycare to the public for two reasons; one, was because we knew that the employers would always suspect the quality of service if it was just opened to our employees and two, even though a not for profit we still wanted it to run as a business, separate from our business.


We eventually had two daycares, which served a total of 300 children most of the time!  These daycares allowed us to compete for employees and to remain a domestic manufacturer long after all of our competitors had flocked overseas with the passage of NAFTA in 1994.


The daycares paid rent and were profitable; today, one of them is still in operation long after we ceased operations because the local chamber used the daycare to attract businesses to their community!


I am not real sure how employees see a dog run on the roof of corporate headquarters?  I am not real sure how that attracts and retains employees; but do hope that they have carpeted their offices with carpet squares!   

Lifestyle, Branding, and Location

So much of our time is spent making decisions today that will dramatically impact our future based upon our experiences from the past; that not only sounds counter productive but it might actually be counter productive!

We are currently reorganizing and repositioning our company, a company that produces goods in Central America while also screen printing goods domestically which we distribute, both B2B and B2C, throughout the world.  Currently, we are located in Bowling Green, Kentucky which is ideally located, from a logistics perspective; along the I-65/I-40 corridor and some what centered both east to west and north to south.  Then, there is also Western Kentucky University; which graduates some very talented young people!

As a manufacturer and distributor, location of our operations is critical considering the market that we serve.  But, our anticipated future growth, which will be primarily in the area of product development, web development, and marketing, makes location less relevant.

With the internet and various other communications development why do all of ones operations have to be located together?  Does location matter and what is the future of location?

We do represent an established brand and we will build upon that foundation but why be just a brand when you can also be a lifestyle?  Would L. L. Bean be what they are if they were not located in Maine?  What were the benefits for Nike to be located in Oregon?  Can you imagine Jimmy Buffett without Margaritaville?  Imagine Ralph Lauren without polo, yachts, or the cowboy….

What if we moved certain aspects of our operations to…..Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin?

It’s definitely a great place to live with sense of lifestyle that is all its own.  Small town, beautiful natural scenery, and an active year round schedule of activities.  Door County offers all sorts of potential for adding a sense of ‘lifestyle’ to a brand.

Now I realize that 'lifestyle' can be created very easily by any half way decent advertising or marketing firm, but that doesn't make it real.  To be real it has to become part of a corporate culture; the whole 'outward' facing aspect of the corporation has to become part of that lifestyle; for one simple example we can turn to Patagonia. 

What about employees? 

Does location play a role in the choice of jobs employees make?  Wouldn't lifestyle be a great fringe benefit to an employee?