This post draws together a handful of articles published in the same week between the 16th – 24th April 2014 that all challenge our existing organisation practices, and point the way to an already-here future.
In this post you will find ideas about how we might need to keep ideas, learning and communications in a much more open, free and constant flow into and out from our organisations;
the eleven qualities Google look for in recruiting their employees;
why the smartest organisations and their people are increasingly taking time off and unplugging from being always working;
a better way to think about motivating and energsing employees who appear to be lazy and incompetent;
and five steps for aligning your organizational culture to drive strategic development and change.
And I have taken its title from an article published in CNN Money by Gary Hamel, co-founder of the MIX (Management Innovation eXchange) and author of “The Future of Management” and “What Matters Now.” He’s a visiting professor at London Business School.
By Gary Hamel
Eventually, every firm will discover that it’s quite possible to manage without managers.
The web has delivered a dramatic shift in bargaining power from producers to consumers. What’s coming next is an equally dramatic and irreversible shift in power from institutions to individuals. BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) is just the beginning. If your organization is going to attract and engage the most creative individuals in the world, then you have to think about how you might help facilitate SYOG—Set Your Own Goals, DYOJ—Design Your Own Job, PYOC—Pick Your Own Colleagues, AYOE—Approve Your Own Expenses, or CYOB—Chose Your Own Boss.
More generally, you should ask yourself, “What sort of value could I create for my organization if I were as committed to reinventing my firm’s management model as I am to further optimizing the operating model or the business model? What would happen if my team fully exploited the revolutionary potential of big data, cloud services, mobile technology, and the social web to dismantle formal hierarchy and empower every associate and team member? And where would I start?”
Inevitably, more and more of the work of managing and leading – the work of setting priorities, devising strategy, reviewing performance, divvying up work and allocating rewards – is going to be distributed to the edges of the organization. Every firm will discover, as some already have, that it’s quite possible to manage without managers…
Human beings are resilient, inventive, and passionate, but our organizations mostly aren’t. Our bureaucracy-infused management models have left us with organizations that are less capable than the people who work within them. Therein lies the imperative and the opportunity: creating organizations that are fit for the future, by creating organizations that are fit for human beings.
Link to read Gary Hamel’s article in full
Drake Baer writes in Business Insider:
Google receives between 2.5 and 3.5 million job applications a year.
It only hires about 4,000 people.
Senior vice president of People Operations, Laszlo Bock presides over the ultra-selective process.
In interviews with The New York Times, the Economist, and students on Google+, the hiring boss sheds light on how the search giant evaluates candidates.
We sifted through those interviews for the most surprising takeaways.
Google doesn’t look for experts.
“We would rather hire smart, curious people than people who are deep, deep experts in one area or another,” he says, noting that people with strong learning ability can generally find the right answers to unfamiliar questions. “But somebody who’s been doing the same thing forever will typically just replicate what they’ve seen before.”
Google does want people with high “cognitive ability.”
“If you hire someone who is bright, and curious, and can learn, they’re more likely to come up with a new solution that the world hasn’t seen before,” Bock explained in a Google+ Q&A. “This looking for cognitive ability stems from wanting people who are going to reinvent the way their jobs are going to work rather than somebody who’s going to come in and do what everybody else does.”
Google seeks out people with “grit.”
As breakthrough research in education shows, grit — the ability to keep slogging through difficult work — is more important for success than raw IQ.
Google wants to know whether candidates can tackle difficult projects.
The company used to be famous for asking cranium-crashing brainteasers, like “what is the probability of breaking a stick into three pieces and forming a triangle?” But it found they weren’t that helpful, and have since moved on.
Now, Google’s interviews include questions about the candidate’s concrete experiences, starting with queries like “give me an example of a time when you solved an analytically difficult problem.”
By asking people to speak of their own experiences, Bock says, you get two kinds of information: “You get to see how they actually interacted in a real-world situation, and the valuable ‘meta’ information you get about the candidate is a sense of what they consider to be difficult.”
Google wants candidates with analytical skills.
“Analytical training gives you a skill set that differentiates you from most people in the labor market,” he says.
Google expects people to meet ridiculously high standards.
“We don’t compromise our hiring bar, ever,” Bock says. Because of this, job listings stay open longer at Google than you’d expect, he says — they have to kiss a lot of frogs before finding The One.
But Google doesn’t care about test scores.
While in school, people are trained to give specific answers. “It’s much more interesting to solve problems where there isn’t an obvious answer,” Bock says. “You want people who like figuring out stuff where there is no obvious answer.”
Google wants to know how much candidates have accomplished compared to their peers.
When Bock was explaining how to write resumes to Thomas Friedman at The Times, he said that most people miss that the formula for writing quality resumes is simple: “I accomplished X, relative to Y, by doing Z.”
For example, Bock explained that a lot of people would just write, “I wrote editorials for The New York Times.”
But a stand-out resume would be more specific about their accomplishments and how they compared to others. Bock gives a better example: “Had 50 op-eds published compared to average of 6 by most op-ed [writers] as a result of providing deep insight into the following area for three years.”
Google looks for employees who know when to step up and take a leadership role.
“What we care about is, when faced with a problem and you’re a member of a team, do you, at the appropriate time, step in and lead. And just as critically, do you step back and stop leading, do you let someone else? Because what’s critical to be an effective leader in this environment is you have to be willing to relinquish power.”
Google wants to see people who take ownership of projects.
With that sense of ownership, you’ll feel responsible for the fate of a project, making you ready to solve any problem. But you also need to defer when other people have better ideas: “Your end goal,” explained Bock, “is what can we do together to problem-solve. I’ve contributed my piece, and then I step back.”
Google wants to see humility, too.
You need “intellectual humility” to succeed at Google, he says. “Without humility, you are unable to learn.”
Success can become an obstacle, Bock says, since successful, Google-bound folks don’t often experience failure. So they don’t know how to learn from failure.
Instead of having an opportunity to learn, they blame others. Bock explains:
“They, instead, commit the fundamental attribution error, which is if something good happens, it’s because I’m a genius. If something bad happens, it’s because someone’s an idiot or I didn’t get the resources or the market moved. …
What we’ve seen is that the people who are the most successful here, who we want to hire, will have a fierce position. They’ll argue like hell. They’ll be zealots about their point of view. But then you say, ‘here’s a new fact,’ and they’ll go, ‘Oh, well, that changes things; you’re right.’
Link to read this article in full
metaphor for organisations and their people
by Kim Farbota
The idea that working less could actually advance our careers is gaining traction.
In her recent New York Times No. 1 best-seller, Thrive: The Third Metric to Redefining Success and Creating a Life of Well-Being, Wisdom, and Wonder, The Huffington Post President and Editor-in-Chief, Arianna Huffington, describes a definition of success that goes beyond money and power to include a “Third Metric” that embraces self-nurturing, connectedness and attention to the elements of our lives we most value. The book points out the importance of sleeping more, setting technology limits and taking time to step back and reflect.
These things don’t just make people happier, they are associated with longer, more fulfilling careers and more profitable companies.
But there is a sense of fierce competition in the current market, and an antiquated cultural ethos suggests true success is reserved for those willing to sacrifice the most. Furthermore, there is a fear that young pioneers of a Third Metric approach will be penalized in the workplace. One “Strive Meets Thrive” attendee described it as a prisoner’s dilemma: If we all agree to take Sundays off and not check our email after 8 p.m., the promotion will go to whomever cheats.
This might be true if the only difference between two employees is a willingness to stay plugged in 24/7. But this is flawed logic; regularly unplugging to get a restful night’s sleep is correlated with improved decision-making, better focus and higher quality work product. Over time, the employee respecting the limits will likely outshine her always-on-call counterpart.
Being a top performer without sacrificing wellness requires discipline.
After a long day of work, it’s hard to go straight to bed without taking time to unwind. But journaling or meditating for 30 minutes before going to sleep at a reasonable hour will make for a better next day than binge watching House of Cards. Even staying up to work more hampers efficiency, emotional intelligence and constructive thinking skills.
There is a lingering and mistaken acceptance that tough choices must be made between success and happiness. Yet the science is here, and the revolution of well-being is already underway. Leaders across the world in the public and private sector alike are implementing email limits, reducing hours and promoting employee health.
We as individuals can invest in our careers by investing in ourselves. By identifying and prioritizing the things that keep us healthy, grounded and fulfilled we ensure consistent, long-term achievement and a life of success.
Link to read this article in full
by Sam McNerney
In Switch, Dan and Chip Health discuss the research of James March, a professor of political science at Stanford University. According to March, we rely on one of two models when we decide: the consequences model and the identity model. The consequences model is what you use at the grocery story. It’s analytical. As we stroll down the aisle we weigh the costs and benefits of each item. The identity model is more existential. It revolves around three questions: Who am I? What kind of situation is this? What would someone like me do in this situation?
Generally, the identity model runs the show, which explains why we gravitate towards certain brands even when they are not cost-effective.
March’s distinction could be a helpful tool in terms of motivating employees…
Motivation is usually an identity problem.
We underperform not necessarily because we’re lazy or incompetent but because we don’t feel a tight connection between work and identity.
If turnover (or performance) is a problem, try showing people that their work matters and that it affects other people. Threats and pressure might be ineffective because they don’t connect the dots.
We’re at our best when we’re shown that what we do aligns with who we are…
Link to read this article in full
metaphor for organisations and people fitting in
Culture eats strategy… strategy trumps culture… on which side of the culture/strategy divide do you fall?
I tend to side with culture – primarily because culture drives the behaviors of individuals who are the one that achieve your strategy (or not). But culture is the driving force.
Regardless of where you stand, it’s undeniable culture and strategy are deeply intertwined in organizations large and small, global or local, public or private, for-profit or non-profit.
Towers Watson defines culture as “the shared beliefs (either explicit or implicit) that exist within a company and drive behaviors. They write, ”The real question we should be asking is: “How do we understand, manipulate, redirect or recreate the shared beliefs in such a way to drive the real behaviors we need to succeed?”
5 steps to a strategy/culture connection
I recommend a five-step process (using the “Customer Service” strategy as an example):
- Redefine the culture attributes into actionable core values. (Information Sharing, Teamwork, Customer Focus, Leadership, Decision Making, Taking Action)
- Define behaviors associated with each of those core values. (Teamwork behaviors: Committed to common goals, active participation and leadership, open communication up and down the chain, willing sharing of resources)
- Frequently and very specifically recognize any and all employees who demonstrate those behaviors by calling out clearly the core value demonstrated and explaining how those behaviors impacted you, the team, the customer or the company for the better. (Sam, you really lived our value of Teamwork when you went out of your way to locate the necessary research materials needed to move the Juno project forward. You didn’t have the information yourself, but you knew who did and how to get that information in the right hands. By doing so quickly and without prompting or direction, you helped us beat project deadlines, thrilling our client and making them a partner for years to come.)
- Share that recognition across the organization so it can serve as training for otherson what desirable “Teamwork” behaviors look like in the daily work, encouraging others to demonstrate similar actions.
- Closely monitor, measure and report on areas where values are being more or less recognized to intervene where necessary with additional training or resources to ensure all employees both understand and are committed to achieving the company’s strategy – in their own work, every day.
What is the primary strategic goal for your organization?
How are you aligning your culture (and the associated daily behaviors of employees) to achieve your strategy?
Link to read this article in full
metaphor for organisations and people working together
You will find all of these stories in this weeks new Happiness At Work edition £93 collection, along with several more that explore ideas from whether procrastination is genetically inherited, to a report that single parented children and just as happy as their two parented peers, to the new science that explains why chocolate and being by the the ocean is very good for us.
I hope you find things here to use and enjoy…