Posts belonging to Category corporate culture

Making her possibly the last person in the world to speak up on the subject, Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer has broken her two-month silence on the company’s decision to spike its work-from-home policy.

And she did it with a sense of humor, pausing during her closing keynote presentation at The Great Place to Work conference in Los Angeles on April 19th to address what she called “the elephant in the room.”

She was (sort of) speaking literally, as an image of a purple elephant with the letters WFH—for Work From Home—on its side suddenly appeared on projection screens throughout the Hyatt Regency Century City auditorium as she spoke.

Mayer—who had previously refused to comment since Yahoo brought remote workers back to the office in February—echoed a statement the company issued in the wake of the leaked memo announcing the change. Telecommuting is “not what’s right for Yahoo right now,” she said, adding that the move was “wrongly perceived as an industry narrative.”

However it was perceived, the announcement sent shockwaves far and wide, as media outlets everywhere wondered aloud if we would start to see more companies doing an about-face on telecommuting.

That hasn’t happened so far—with the well-publicized exception of Best Buy, which cancelled its Results Only Work Environment flexible-work initiative just one week after Yahoo’s announcement.

But the conversation around flexible-work arrangements is still spirited, with countless pundits, bloggers and publications, including our own, sizing up the pros and cons of the practice.

Arguments on both sides of the telecommuting debate have some compelling points. With regard to Yahoo, it’s too early to tell how (if at all) Mayer’s controversial move—just one of the changes she’s made since coming on board last July—will affect the organization’s fortunes going forward. But won’t it be interesting to see how the decision is viewed in hindsight if she is able to overhaul the troubled Internet giant?

Share on Facebook

No, this is not a post about the inner workings of Washington, D.C. Instead, it’s about a study published earlier this year in the Journal of Management Studies titled “A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organisations,” in which researchers at Sweden’s Lund University found that “functional stupidity” can increase efficiency.

Essentially, they write, although “critical reflection and shrewdness” were net positives, when too many smart people in the workplace offered their opinions or ask “disquieting questions about decisions and structures,” it slows work down. “We see functional stupidity as the absence of critical reflection. It is a state of unity and consensus that makes employees in an organization avoid questioning decisions, structures and visions,” writes Mats Alvesson, professor of organization studies at Lund and one of the co-authors. “Paradoxically, this sometimes helps to raise productivity in an organization.”

In other words, when everyone joins together and simply focuses on the immediate task on hand, then productivity, consensus and engagement levels go up. Mission accomplished! This approach is not without its risks, of course, writes Alvesson. Problems may arise when people don’t pose critical questions about what they’re doing, leading them to ignore risks and warning signs.

“Short-term use of intellectual resources, consensus and an absence of disquieting questions about decisions and structures may oil the organizational machinery and contribute to harmony and increased productivity in a company,” he writes. “However, it may also be its downfall.” In other words, don’t be too hard on those nitpicky malcontents in your organization (annoying though they may be). They may slow things down a bit but they could also end up saving your bacon.

Share on Facebook

It’s been well reported that CEO Ron Johnson is out at J.C. Penney Co., following the company’s dismal performance since he took over. (Since joining JCP, shares have plummeted more than 50 percent.)

So what does this mean for JCP’s chief talent officer, Dan Walker, who previously served as CTO at Apple during Johnson’s tenure there? Today’s Wall Street Journal is reporting sources as saying that “other Apple veterans at the top of Penney are likely to follow Mr. Johnson out the door.”

Among those “most vulnerable,” the article says, are COO Mike Kramer and Walker. (The Journal reports Kramer and Walker didn’t respond to requests for comment.)

The article also reports:

Many longtime Penney’s employees said they felt that new hires [from Apple] judged them or felt that they weren’t smart. Apple references were constant.”

In Johnson’s case, he’s not going to be leaving with the typical seven-figure package.  “Johnson opted not to enter into a termination pay agreement, according to the company’s latest proxy, which says the former CEO would be entitled only to any unpaid salary and $143,924 from a savings plan and the value of unused vacation,” according to the Journal.

Walker, however, would apparently do a bit better. Forbes reports that the CTO would see about $4 million were he to lose his job without cause.

Some of you may recall Walker topped our HR Elite list last year, with a total comp package of around $20 million.

Share on Facebook

Agility was mentioned more than a few times during the opening day of i4cp’s 2013 Annual Conference in Scottsdale, Ariz.

Take yesterday morning’s session featuring Choice Hotels’ CEO Steve Joyce and CHRO Patrick Cimerola. (For fans of the TV show Undercover Boss, you may remember Joyce from the 2010 segment, in which he worked up a sweat changing bed sheets, and cleaning toilets and swimming pools.)

Joyce, who joined Choice five years ago just as the economy was about to tank, has led Choice’s transition into the “distribution” business. (Choice claims to be the first hotel chain to launch an iPhone app.)

“Change happens very fast,” Cimerola explained, “so we have to be agile” and “move quickly” as an organization. In light of that, hiring people who have that ability is a top priority at the company, a franchiser with more than 6,200 hotels around the globe.

At Choice, Cimerola said, everyone, from the top on down, is responsible for finding great talent.

“We hire people with a purpose,” he said. If employees are standing by the elevator at five o’clock, he explained, “I would tell them to get out of the way.”

Cimerola added that leaders at Choice are assessed for and held accountable for the people they hire.

Besides agility, Cimerola said the company also looks for people who embody two other core competencies: collaboration and accountability.

In speaking to potential talent, Joyce pointed out that management emphasizes the “kind of impact that they can have.”

This especially resonates with IT professionals, who are key to the company’s transformation into a distribution business, Joyce said. Those in IT want to work at a company with an eye to the future; a company doing “exciting things,” he said.

Among other things, Choice’s growth roadmap includes significant expansion into Europe, where it has already made some inroads.

Share on Facebook

When we regularly ask HR executives to list what keeps them up at night, keeping talent engaged is almost always at (or near) the top of the list.  So you’d think it would be in employers’ self-interests to do more about those behaviors that prevent that from happening, right?

Well, at least in the area of civility (or lack of it), it appears many employers aren’t doing nearly enough.

Of course, it’s no surprise incivility exists in today’s workplace. I’m sure you’ve personally crossed paths with it on more than a few occasions. But a just released study by Professors Christine Porath of Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business and Christine Pearson of Thunderbird School of Global Management suggests such behaviors may be a lot more  prevalent than you might think.

Indeed, Porath and Pearson, who authored an article on their findings in the Jan.-Feb. edition of the Harvard Business Review, found that nearly half of the 800 managers and employees polled report they were treated rudely at least once per week, up from a quarter of those polled in 1998.

“We heard of one boss who was so routinely abusive that employees and suppliers had a code for alerting one another to his impending arrival (‘The eagle has landed’),” they write.

But what’s even more disturbing than the rise in rude behavior is the price employers appear to be paying.

Of those surveyed, 48 percent intentionally decreased their work effort as a result of uncivil behavior, 47 percent intentionally decreased the time spent at work, 38 percent intentionally decreased the quality of their work and 12 percent left their jobs.

So what should leaders be doing about it?

Here are a few of the suggestions Porath and Pearson put to paper in their HBR
piece:

• Manage yourself.  “If employees see that those who have climbed the corporate ladder tolerate or embrace uncivil behavior, they’re likely to follow suit,” they write, noting that 25 percent of managers who admitted to having behaved badly said they were uncivil because their leaders—their own role models—were rude.

• Manage the organization, including the way you hire. “Avoid bringing incivility into the workplace to begin with,” they write, pointing out that companies like Southwest Airlines and Four Seasons put civility at the fore of their interview processes.

• Teach civility. “One quarter of the offenders we surveyed said that they didn’t recognize their behavior as uncivil,” they say.

• Reward good behavior and penalize bad behavior.

I have no idea whether these steps—and others offered by Porath and Pearson—are enough to reverse the trend. But the data suggests leaders better try something.

Share on Facebook

Just when you think you’ve come across every kind of challenging employee …

In a new book, British psychologist, journalist, best-selling author and broadcaster Oliver James has identified three types of dysfunctional personalities commonly found in white-collar work environments: the psychopath, the Machiavellian and the narcissist. These personality types, he writes, often seem to possess an innate knack for climbing the corporate ladder, and many organizations seem to actually reward their ruthless behavior.

Here’s the even scarier part. In Office Politics: How to Thrive in a World of Lying, Backstabbing and Dirty Tricks, James introduces a fourth dysfunctional type or “triadic person” that combines the traits of these three personality types to form some type of self-involved, psychopathic, scheming super-beast ready to run roughshod over the workplace.

James describes how these “triadics” have a “dangerous, yet effective mix of a lack of empathy, self-centeredness, deviousness and self-regard” that can propel them to the top of organizations. He offers up fictitious examples such as Sopranos skipper Tony Soprano and Gordon Gekko, the corporate raider, antagonist and symbol of unfettered greed in Oliver Stone’s Wall Street. He also provides some real-life, albeit anonymous illustrations of calculating, cunning or just plain cruel behavior displayed by those in leadership positions. For instance, he writes of an advertising and film executive who once introduced a female colleague by saying, “The last time I saw Suzy she was stark naked,” and referred to a respected academic as having “little capacity for original thought,” but “a great talent for acquiring and taking credit for others’ ideas.”

James also recalls partners from what he describes as an “elite” law firm, who possessed social skills “akin to someone with Asperger’s syndrome, so unaware were they of the thoughts and feelings of others.”

Or, consider the investment banker who got his position by fooling an interview panel into believing he was an expert on a product he knew nothing about, and further duped his new boss into thinking he came from an exceedingly wealthy background.

Finally, and not surprisingly, James predicts this new breed of superslime in our midst will cause colossal headaches for their employees, and offers a word of caution for the companies employing them.

“This dark triad of characteristics is very likely to be present in that person in your office who causes you so much trouble … ” he writes.

The likelihood of your daily working life being sacrificed by a person who is some mixture of psychopathic, Machiavellian and narcissistic is high. If you do not develop the skills to deal with them, they will eat you for breakfast.”

Share on Facebook

Guess I’m not the only one who is a bit surprised to see Facebook land the No. 1 spot on Glassdoor’s 2013 Top 50 Best Places to Work list, released earlier today. You can include Glassdoor CEO Robert Hohman in that group, too.

As I’m sure you already know, Facebook has had some tough sledding since going public in May. Yesterday, FB closed around $27.87, more than $10 below its opening IPO price. It’s no secret that many on Wall Street have questioned whether founder, CEO and Chairman Mark Zuckerberg has what it takes to lead the now publicly traded company.

So it wouldn’t be a stretch to think that might get in the way of Facebook’s repeat of its 2011 achievement, when it topped the Glassdoor list for the first time. Right? Well, not so fast.

Evidently, Facebook employees, despite the company’s troubles, are more satisfied with their employer, and its leader, than ever.

When I asked Hohman for his thoughts on the reasons behind Facebook’s strong ratings, he posited that Zuckerberg has used the company’s Wall Street troubles to “galvanize the internal troops.” Today, he says, they have more faith in Zuckerberg than ever. In fact, Glassdoor reports that Zuckerberg’s approval ratings jumped from 90 percent to 99 percent over the past year.

“I think he [Zuckerberg] deserves a lot of credit for turning this external pressure into motivation for the workforce,” he says.

In addition to their trust in their CEO, Facebook employees also commented favorably on their ability to impact a billion people, the company’s continued commitment to its unique culture, and the great perks and benefits that enable them to balance work and their personal lives. No doubt some of these have a hand as to why tech companies tend to dominate the list, with this year 20 out of the 50 coming from that sector.

(For more on Facebook’s practices, check out the following video feature Facebook Vice President of People and HR Lori Goler.)

In case you’re wondering, McKinsey & Co., Riverbed Technology, Bain & Co. and MD Anderson Cancer Center filled out the list’s top five.

It’s also worth noting that, for the first time ever, a fast-food restaurant chain not only made the list, but cracked the top 10 at No. 9. And perhaps not coincidentally, it just so happened to be one of my few favorites: In-N-Out Burger (based in the west and Southwest). Among other things, Hohman says, employees at In-N-Out have great things to say about the company’s flexible work hours, fair pay (compared to others in that sector) and, yes, the free food they’re entitled to.

Share on Facebook

It appears agreeing on a proposal to require company boards in the European Union to be made up of at least 40 percent women is a bit dicier than some thought.

At least that’s what’s implied by Viviane Reding’s comments in this New York Times report about the European Commission postponing its decision on the proposal due to tough opposition and concerns over its legality. The proposal was initially scheduled for a ruling Oct. 23 and will now come up for discussion again on Nov. 14. (Here’s an earlier Times story that provides more background on the proposal.)

As Reding, the European commissioner for justice, said in the Oct. 23 piece, the figure being considered ”is still 40 percent. But the way to arrive there has been looked at in a different way.”

The debate ”was very intense,” she said, explaining that the discussion on the legality of any quota was one reason the meeting that day in Strasbourg, France took the several hours that it did. No doubt other reasons included Reding’s proposed penalities and sanctions that companies and organizations would face if they failed to improve their boards’ female representation.

According to the story, the issue has divided the European Union, with Britain leading the countries that regard the proposed rule as counterproductive and unworkable. Other countries taking that view include The Netherlands, Malta, the Czech Republic, Latvia and Bulgaria.

I went searching for the latest rundown on where all countries — including the United States — stand on female representation on boards of directors. Not a whole lot out there, but I did find this paper (free download included) by University of Pittsburgh School of Law professor Douglas M. Branson, An Australian Perspective on a Global Phenomenon: Initiatives to Place Women on Corporate Boards of Directors. According to his report on research he did:

The statistics indicating the representation of women on corporate boards vary widely from country to country. Norway, which passed its controversial quota law in 2003, in effect mandates that 40 percent of a public company’s directors be women by 2008, a goal which has been achieved.

According to Catalyst Inc. [a New York-based organization promoting inclusive workplaces], in the United States, the proportion of women on boards of large, publicly held companies stands at 16.1 percent, but with the proportion stagnant from 2004 onward. Portugal has the fewest females on corporate boards of publicly held corporations, accounting for just 6 percent.

Overall, the 2010 European average was 11.7 percent but, again, the numbers varied widely. After Norway, the highest five were: Sweden (28.2 percent), Finland (26 percent), Netherlands (20.9 percent), Denmark (14 percent), and the United Kingdom (11.5 percent). Besides Portugal, the laggards included Italy (3.6 percent), Luxembourg (6 percent) and Germany (7 percent).

Two years [2010 to 2012] have seen significant change, to between 13 percent and 14 percent. France, which adopted a quota law early in 2011, is thought to be responsible for half or more of the EU increase, with the percentage of women directors increasing from 12 percent to 24 percent in 14 months.

On the Pacific Rim, Australia leads among the countries from which statistics are available, with 13.8 percent. New Zealand follows with approximately 10 percent. Others in the queue include Hong Kong (8.9 percent) and Peoples Republic of China (7.2 percent). The caboose is Japan (1.4 percent).

Not sure where I stand on all this. Not sure quotas ever really improve the overall makeups of organizations or countries. My guess, though – having not been invited to that fiery Oct. 23 meeting – is that the lower-scoring entities “may protest [the most], methinks,” to (sort of) quote Shakespeare.

Share on Facebook

Goldman Sach’s office tower looms over the Hudson River.

When former Goldman Sachs trader Greg Smith penned a bitter farewell to his employer last March that was published in the New York Times, it left quite an impression. In his essay, Smith decried what he said was a “toxic” culture at Goldman, one in which bankers referred to clients as “muppets” and profit-making routinely came at the expense of ethics. Yesterday marked the official release of Smith’s new book, Why I Left Goldman Sachs: A Wall Street Story, an account of his years at the huge investment bank and what he believes is the decline in its corporate culture.

Now, Goldman Sachs is firing back, and leading the charge is Edith Cooper, the bank’s global head of human capital management. Yesterday Cooper was interviewed on Bloomberg TV and said of Smith’s new book: “Nothing that Greg suggested rang true to me … I believe our culture is stronger than it’s ever been.”

“As we looked into [Greg's] claims, I was very pleased to see there wasn’t merit,” Cooper told Bloomberg TV. “My biggest disappointment is that [he] didn’t come forward and speak to us.”

Last year, Cooper was ranked No. 25 in Crain’s New York Business list of the “50 Most Powerful Women in New York.” The profile noted that she was one of only four women on Goldman’s 32-member management committee. Cooper joined Goldman in 1996 to grow its energy sales group, became a managing director in 1998, made partner in 2000 and became global HR chief in 2008.

Share on Facebook

It’s fair to say that Google has a reputation as a world-beater in the employee perks department. Free fitness classes, an on-site medical staff, a subsidized massage program, foosball tables and video games, free haircuts and dry cleaning services are just a few of the benefits enjoyed by employees at the corporation’s Mountain View, Calif. headquarters. And, it seems the company’s generosity extends to workers’ families as well, and continues long after Google employees have passed away.

As reported by Forbes, spouses or domestic partners of U.S.-based Google employees who die while under the employ of the company will receive a check for 50 percent of the deceased employee’s salary for 10 years. The surviving spouse or partner also acquires vested stock benefits, and their children receive $1,000 a month until the age of 19; perhaps longer if the child is still a full-time student.

What’s the catch, you may ask? There isn’t one, according to Google. A company spokesperson confirms that there’s no tenure requirement to receive this benefit, which means that most of the Internet search giant’s 34,000 employees are eligible.

One of the things we realized recently was that one of the harshest but most reliable facts of life is that at some point most of us will be confronted with the death of our partners,” Google Chief People Officer Laszlo Bock told Forbes. “And it’s a horrible, difficult time no matter what, and every time we went through this as a company we tried to find ways to help the surviving spouse of the Googler who passed away.”

Death benefits were formally implemented at Google in 2011, according to Bock. While “there’s no benefit” to the organization from an economic or productivity standpoint, “it’s important to the company to help our families through this horrific if inevitable life event,” Bock says.

The newest addition to the long and varied list of Google employee perks is indeed a generous one, and certainly won’t hurt the company’s reputation for offering unique benefits to its people. But will this kick off a trend? Will more large companies begin offering similar benefits to their employees? And should they?

Share on Facebook