The Villainous Drive-Through

Posted on October 25, 2011 by mattgorman

The drive-through was first pioneered in the United States in the 1930s according to Wikipedia.  Though the first deployment of the drive-through was at banks, they eventually became a staple of the layout for fast food restaurants.
We all have some experience with drive-through service.  With fast food, the drive-through seems to be commensurate with the notion of a quick transaction.  That is probably the case with banking as well.  I have seen signs at bank drive-up windows requesting patrons come inside if their transaction extends beyond a simple deposit or payment.
Where I feel the drive through is taking the notion of a “quick” out of the experience is with specialty food and beverage outlets like Starbuck’s as an example.  (I must declare that I am very much a fan of Starbucks and the “third place” experience that has become so popularized by Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz.)
I have many experiences while in line inside a Starbucks or other specialty food / beverage retailer and listening to an order being taken for a car in the drive-through lane. To my knowledge there is no formal protocol for restricting drive-though orders to the simple and mundane. If there were, very few orders would qualify for it.  In almost all cases, the car pulls up to the window and sits there while each drink of the order is custom prepared.  The cars behind can do nothing but wait – even if all the next person wants is a “quick” cup of coffee or tea.
The problem with drive-throughs in such an environment is that it fails to serve on the idea of being quick.  In the fast food business, nearly every item on the menu is prepared in advance and ready to go (with limited allowances for special orders) or the assembly line is so methodical that by the time you drive around to the pick-up window you order is bagged and ready for you with very little, if any, wait at all.  It is designed for convenience AND expediency.  With a specialty coffee house and the like, nothing is prepared before it is ordered and you sit in your car.  This raises the question of exactly what is it that drive-thoughs aim to achieve in these types of places if they do nothing to expedite the transaction?  The only thing I can think of is perceived convenience.  We now no longer need to get out of our vehicles. If we get stuck behind a car placing a complicated order when all we want is a cup of coffee, well, that happens inside the store too.  Here is where the villainous part comes in.
While sitting in a Starbucks the other day, I saw a small pick-up leave the drive-through window.  The driver was, (how can I be delicate?) noticeably obese.  I know there is no direct connection to drive-through use and obesity.  What did resonate with me is simply another element of our society that exists in support of sedentariness – and with that there is a correlation to obesity.
If I had one wish come true today it would be that we collectively re-evaluate our attachment to solutions we perceive as  more convenient without considering the behaviors such solutions evoke – especially when we realize that the alternative (such as walking 30 – 50 feet from our cars) is not really a huge inconvenience in the scheme of things.
As many of us often feel harried, I understand the desire to take time-saving steps thoughout the day.  And when we stop to notice what is saving us time and what is merely saving us from moving our bodies, we are best served to be wiser in our choices of when to use deployments of new design and when not to.
As always, thoughts and comments are welcome.
Thanks for reading. Have a Great Day!
Matt G.

Posted in Behavioral Influence, Design, Health | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

Should I be feeling at least a little guilty about this?

Posted on October 17, 2011 by mattgorman

I recently came to learn of two books that seemed interesting to me. One is “The Presentation Secrets of Steve Jobs” and the other is “The Innovation Secrets of Steve Jobs” – both by Carmine Gallo. I consume books from a multitude of sources: iPad (iBook, Kindle, and Nook apps); audio while driving; and actual old-fashion books. These two books came to my attention through an ad on my audible.com account so I put them on my wish list to refer back to later. I then figured, heck, I’ll just swing by Barnes & Noble and purchase the one on presentations since I figured there would be a very low probability that I would not enjoy it and I was very likely to make notes in it and save it for reference.
While in Barnes & Noble, I realized the hardcover retail price was higher than that of the audio version. So there in Barnes & Noble, on my iPad (which I had with me) I looked up Amazon’s Kindle version price. I found that I could get both books on the iPad Kindle app for the same price as the hardcover version of the book on presentations alone in Barnes & Noble.
So, standing in Barnes & Noble, while holding a book that I was a mere minutes away from purchasing, haven been assisted by their staff in locating the book, I downloaded both books onto my iPad from Amazon’s store – Kindle version – using the free WiFi in Barnes & Noble! Should I feel guilty about this? Well, perhaps I did a little so I at least did make one purchase during this visit – a cup of coffee from the in-store Starbucks cafe.
Such is the world of ubiquity in market and commerce.
As always, thoughts and comments are welcome.
Thanks for reading. Have a Great Day!
Matt G.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Job Roles Say Much More Than Job Titles

Posted on October 12, 2011 by mattgorman

I cannot help but notice the importance people place on titles within an organization. We seem to have a fixation on the use of titles.  Even in my own endeavors of employment searching I have been coached on asserting a title for myself in the opening headline of my resume.  This never sat right with me since I believe the value we contribute comes from the why or perhaps the how of our existence much more than the what.  I believe that focusing on Roles instead of Titles within organizations can vastly improve a sense of engagement with the organization.
I suspect this title-centricity unknowingly contributes to disappointment for many. Either we do not yet hold the title we feel we deserve or we have a title we worked hard for hoping to be on the receiving of some kind of glorification or realizing self-actualization that never materializes (beyond the company email announcing new promotions).  There are four reasons I believe this.

  1. Titles are aspired to for the level of respect that many assume come with them
  2. Titles do not effectively communicate what we do or how we add value for an organization
  3. Titles are not fluid
  4. Titles do not support our desires for autonomy and self-direction

The quest for respect
Titles have with them a sense of receiving something considered deserved. That something is often respect.  We often feel a new title earns us respect within the organization because it demonstrates that someone – of whom we have allowed ourselves to sit in judgment – has assessed us as being successful based on a measuring stick we likely had no part in creating.  And this may indicate some latent insecurity.  Are we doing our job for recognition’s sake alone?   Not entirely, but for many people it is unconsciously the biggest reason.  For some there is a sense of accomplishment, for some it’s all about the money, for most it’s a healthy combination of all three. Where the desire for recognition stands alone, there is potential for damage to self-esteem. (An interesting question would be does the strong desire for recognition stem from self-esteem issues or do self-esteem issue stem from a strong desire for recognition.)
Should we be at all surprised when earning the new title soon leaves us empty?  This, I supose, is at least partly due (and maybe mostly due) to the fact that it leads us not to more responsibility to different responsibility – most notably the responsibility for the productivity of others. We can’t assume that because we excelled in one area that we are best suited to oversee and take on responsibility for the work of others.  Such a transition can be successful but it is never automatic.  Being an effective manger is a discipline in it’s own right and a topic that runs deep and is beyond the scope of this post.
Non-communicative of how we add value
Beyond communicating where we reside within an organizational structure, titles do little to provide insight on how and where we add value.  Titles convey very little, if anything, about our specialties and they say nothing about our strengths.  Conversely, when we share what our roles are two things are likely to happen, the person(s) you are speaking with will have a better sense of what your experience of work is like and you will be more emotionally demonstrative in your response.  This says so much more about you than a simple title.  There are two bonuses offered by this approach: First, each time you hear yourself speak about your role, your own level of confidence and affinity for your job will increase.  (Example: Q: “What do you do?”  A1: “I am District Manager.” Vs. A2: “I lead a team of store managers in creating a positive experience for our customers.”) This example is simplistic but the point is there is more opportunity for an emotive and clearer response when focusing on the role and not the title. The second bonus is that in any given week or month you might feel your role is different than if asked last week or last month.  We are free to talk about whatever role is most prominent at that time which will also evoke more emotion in your response than a simple title.
Fluidity
Titles are bestowed upon us at specific intervals during our careers and within a company’s evolutionary process (re-orgs, etc.).  Once assigned, they remain static until another promotion or re-org.  At the tactical level, roles can change much more frequently and staying bogged down in titles can foster a sentiment that is lethal to collaboration – the “not my job” attitude.  The fluidity of roles also supports the notion of multiple concurrent roles.  Have you have known anyone who held two official titles within the same organization at the same time – and be successful at both?
Autonomy and Self-Direction
This is the most powerful part of my argument for roles over titles.  Titles do little more than convey where in the organizational chart name resides.  Titles are assigned to us in accordance with the organization’s hierarchy whereas roles are often created with much, if not all, input from the person filling the role.  Because of this fact alone, as the person occupying the role, we are much more likely to excel due to our ability to have a say in the role(s) we fill.  Research continues to support the idea that autonomy and self-direction are two of three components of that which intrinsically inspires individual to excel.[i]  In his book, Primal Leadership: Learning to Lead with Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman points out: “Wherever people gravitate towards their work role indicates where their real pleasure lies. And that pleasure is itself motivating.”  He further asserts, “Although traditional incentives such as bonuses or recognition can prod people to better performance, no external motivators can get people to perform at their absolute best.”[ii]  (On this second remark, I will continue to share more in the future as it is at the core of the change I hope to impact on the world.)
I do not at all advocate the abolition of titles.  Titles do serve a critical role in defining reporting structure.  My belief is that in a world where trust in the workplace (and the world) has gone into deep deficit and collaboration is a must for our survival (as organizations for commerce and as a species), we must discontinue our hyper-emphasis on what we are in an organization and instead focus on the value we create.
Now, I wish to share with you a story of a colleague of mine for whom I was the reporting manager.  During our tenure working together, Craig’s title was a Government Programs Compliance Associate in the pharmaceuticals industry.  Those in the industry probably have an idea about what his primary tasks involve. But Craig added value in ways that went beyond that which is limited by what his title suggests.  And, his enthusiasm about this role was conspicuous.  I will let Craig share the story in his own words[iii].
“The roles I filled as a Government Pricing Analyst were fun. I got to be an expert in a field that did not have straightforward answers. Clients always had questions, and I always had research to do in order to provide them an answer. On top of the questions, there was a lot of crazy math involved to calculate the average retail price of drugs.
“With my primary role, which was implied by my title, my clients gave me their data and I churned out numbers in a system that was being built to my needs, as well as my other colleagues’ needs. As time went on, a new manager came in to the company with new, fresh ideas to help us handle the system and all of our tasks. Matt, my new manager, sought ways for me (and the rest of my colleagues) to grow beyond the title of Government Pricing Analyst.
“My appreciation and deep understanding of the system allowed me to flow right into the expanded role of being the individual to demo the company’s system. I loved it! The expansion of my role allowed me to show off my knowledge of the system and it allowed my personality to show in front of clients and companies. It made me feel like the big relief pitcher warming up in the bullpen. I was always on call and when I received the email/notification to demo, I would hop up to the mound and be able to pitch the system to some possible clients. Although my title was Government Pricing Analyst, I was able to extend into more than just calculating numbers and preaching compliance.”
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
I wish to give my most sincere thanks to Craig Kubicek for his contribution to this post.  It was truly a privilege for me to have the opportunity to serve as Craig’s reporting manager for eight months.  In that brief time I witnessed a young professional capitalize on a little bit of autonomy and develop the confidence to take ownership of presenting demonstrations of a proprietary client delivery solution. This was a professionally gratifying experience for me as his manager.
Your thoughts and comments are always welcome.
Thank you for reading, have a Great Day!
Matt G.

[i] See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc for a video narrated by Daniel Pink. Author of A Whole New Mind and Drive
[iii] The views implied through the telling of this story belong solely to the authors and are not necessarily the views of any company, client, supplier or any other constituent of either of the two contributing authors, past or present.
Posted in Business Relationships, Leadership | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Job Roles Say Much More Than Job Titles

Mistakes are pathways to learning

Posted on September 23, 2011 by mattgorman

In my most recent post of a couple weeks ago I shared my views on the value of job candidates asking powerful questions during interviews to help them assess their own thoughts towards the relationships on which they would potentially embark.  As a follow-up to that, I want to share something that has been on my mind considerably and was substantiated recently while listening to “That Used To Be US[i]” by Thomas Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum.
We are living in (and arguably have been living in) an era where the mindset that stewarded the past few generations through their careers and lives is no longer sufficient – and is in many cases damaging – to professional growth and prosperity.  As it relates to the topic of my last post,  Powerful Interviewee Questions, I am moved by comments by Messrs. Friedman and Mandelbaum that suggest declaring our life learnings through mistakes can be – and will increasingly become more so – a very powerful strategy when it comes to employment seeking in world that demands collaboration and innovation.  The authors assert – and I could not agree more – that the craft of developing new professional relationships will be weakened by presenting oneself as having nothing but success in every challenge one has faced.  Selling yourself as being near perfect might have at a time been a wise tactical approach (though it never did sit right with me).  Today, and in the coming decades, the successful candidate will be the one who can speak very positively about the powerful lessons they have learned from the intelligent[ii] mistakes they have made.
In my last post, I shared that I would be less inclined to hire a candidate who “…did not demonstrate the interest and self-confidence to learn more about me and my working and management style.”  Likewise, if a candidate were to try to impress me by pointing only to their successes, I would be left wondering where their true-life lessons came from or are they even aware of them?
When and where I find myself in the other position (i.e. when being interviewed) I feel very uncomfortable sugar coating every experience as if I single handedly was the leading factor in my successes.  First, the environment and circumstances were critical factors and little of which I can claim sole credit.  Second, and more importantly,  of course I have made mistakes in my career – and will continue to do so in the future (it’s the only solid evidence I have that I am human).  And at each turn I am committed to assessing the situation as objectively as possible with input from others.  The two questions I seek to answer are, “What was my mistake?” and “What did I learn?”
Exploring the answers to these two questions, I believe, makes a person much stronger going forward.  Should I find myself in a conversation exploring future opportunities and my approach is viewed as negative or at least underselling myself, then it is best we not engage.  I value what I have learned and continue to learn through the mistakes I make.  And one of my most significant learnings of the recent past has taught me that for a new career to have any chance of success, there absolutely must be a reasonable degree of commonality in value systems between the employee and the company.
As a closing remark, I shall opine on what I feel is appropriate conversation for conducting interviews.  I suggest we engage candidates to share their learnings from life’s missteps.  We all have them and denying this is simply silly.  Let start with the ripe opportunity of the interview for a candidate to know that your organization is serious about innovation and collaboration which are nurtured in part by intelligent mistakes.
Your thoughts and comments are always welcome.
Thank you for reading, have a Great Day!
Matt G.

[i] I highly recommend this book to anyone who looks at the plight of our society today and like the authors, sees a massive elephant in the room.
[ii] The term intelligent mistake is oft used to characterize mistakes made with the best intent and the best information and/or resources available at the time – including one’s own limitations. Intelligent mistakes do not include those resulting from recklessness, negligence or other actions taken in the absence of careful thought and consideration.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on Mistakes are pathways to learning

Powerful Interviewee Questions

Posted on September 9, 2011 by mattgorman

I have been in more job interview discussions in my career than I care to count.  The vast majority of them are when I was the one interviewing the candidate.  I always invite the candidate to ask me questions either during the interview (or after by way of email if they wish).  I have also been on the candidate side of the table as well and I am accustomed to being asked if I have any questions.
It occurred to me recently that in nearly every case, the questions that come from candidates are weak by comparison against the questions asked of them during an interview.  Questions posed to candidates come in many flavors and go in many directions – all with the goal of learning as much about the individual as possible.  Makes sense.  The interviewer seeks to learn as much as they can about the person with whom a relationship they are considering investing.  The candidate also must make a decision as to whether the opportunity costs of forging other opportunities are worth the investment in this relationship.[i]  In contrast, questions posed by candidates are often focused on the interviewer’s views and experiences of the organization.  By asking such questions, the candidate does not, in my opinion, learn any real valuable insight about what will likely be a critical success factor for them if they are hired.  The relationship between the prospective employee and the reporting manager is essential to the success of both.  It is no less important for the candidate to learn as much about that person as is learned about them.
For example, common interviewer questions try to uncover how difficult situations have been managed in the past in the hopes of learning behavioral patterns of the candidate. I strongly feel that reciprocation is key to learning if you, as the candidate, will feel that you can be yourself and truly excel without undue stress and anxiety in this new relationship.[ii]  What follows are a few examples of what I believe are powerful and fair questions that can provide the candidate with insight necessary to astutely evaluate whether or not the professional relationship appears to be one that will support them in their pursuit to be optimally contributory.  Before I share my examples, please understand that I do not intend this list to be complete, inclusive or in any way used verbatim in all cases.  My aim is to broaden the candidate’s mindset and provide new thinking in ways that help them assess if the opportunity is really best for them.  I recognize this is indeed delicate – tact is key.  My point is to evoke a desire and willingness to reasonably learn about the person(s) whom the relationship with which, your success and happiness will depend. My advice: synthesis the sentiments below into words you feel comfortable using.

  • How do you handle situations when one of your direct reports has communicated a challenge in meeting a specific expectation? (This question aims to learn how disappointment is managed.)
  • When such challenges arise, how do you prefer the news to be communicated to you?
  • How do you communicate expectations? Do you drive for clarity or do you prefer ambiguity? If ambiguity, how have you managed in the past when deliverables were not completely in alignment with your preconceptions? (This tries to uncover how much autonomy is granted.)
  • Do you consider coaching and/or mentoring as part of your job? (Some candidate’s might not value this. My experience has taught me that managers that do engage in these activities have better overall team performance.)
  • Can you provide examples when you have gone the extra mile to come to the aide of a direct report or the aide of the entire team to help raise the team performance?  (This addresses servant leadership.) 
  • When you give feedback, do you focus the conversation on the person or the issue.  (Honestly, I’d love to ask for copies of past evaluations – sanitized to protect everyone’s anonymity of course – but that might be pushing things.  The point of this question is to assess if feedback is delivered in way that is constructive or is used manipulatively or to assert power.)
  • If you could change one thing about this organization, what would it be? (The interviewer might well hold back on his or her most honest answer. Nonetheless, question seeks to learn just a little more about the the interviewer’s values.)

The first two suggested questions might evoke a response along the lines of “…deadlines are simply not to missed…!” or “… never disappoint the boss…!”  May I politely request we pull our heads from the sand?  Sh…t happens and constituents need to be informed. Success relies not on what happens but rather on what happens next.  I  am merely trying to learn an individual’s preferred style of being informed.
As I mentioned in the beginning of this post, I have been the interviewer far more often than I have been the interviewee.  And I honestly will say I would embrace each and every one of these questions with openness so long as the candidate asked them in an honestly inquisitive manner.  Moreover, I might tend to be somewhat reserved about a candidate who did not demonstrate the interest and self-confidence to learn more about me and my working and management style.
One final note: we cannot ask about family status or situation (or any other personal information over liability concerns about discrimination.)  I understand the logic, yet it is unfortunate to some extent because awareness of common bonds can accelerate the formation of a terrific working relationship.  That level of sharing only happens (if at all) after the candidate has been accepted for the position.
In closing, I share a story that a friend of mine experienced when being interviewed by a large consulting firm. He was dutifully rich with inquiry to learn as much as possible about the relationships into which he would enter if hired.  By his account, the collective response from those who interviewed him were something along the lines of, “..well, if you are asking these questions, you obviously don’t get how much of an honor it is for you that we are considering you as a candidate…”  They saw his inquiry not as wisdom or interest, but as a lack of gratitude for the great opportunity in front of him.  That is woefully egotistical and no other interview experience would convince me more that management, at least the representative group selected for conducting this interview, is quite insecure by their defensive response to thoughtful questions.
The next time you are conducting an interview with a candidate and they ask you insightful questions about your management style, please do not be put off, but rather, embrace the fact that you have in front of you a candidate who truly cares about and appreciates the importance of workplace relationships and is being both diligent and conscientious.
Your thoughts and comments are always welcome.
Thank you for reading, have a Great Day!
Matt G.

[i] Even if the candidate is only presently pursuing or is shortlisted for a single opportunity, there are still unseen future opportunity costs.
[ii] Stress in episodic manageable doses is indeed healthy and good for developing self-confidence. The undue stress I speak of here is that which results from continuous misunderstanding of the intention of others.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Powerful Interviewee Questions

The Value of the Devil's Advocate

Posted on September 7, 2011 by mattgorman

In his latest book, “That Used to Be Us” released yesterday, September 6, Thomas Friedman, author of “The World is Flat” and “Hot, Flat and Crowded“, speaks to the degradation in the way our two political parties approach one another in negations.  That our elected officials cannot become unstuck from arguing over positions rather than trying to solve anything is an annoyance shared by just about every thoughtful[i] U.S. citizen and perhaps all global citizens that look to us for leadership (which, in spite of ourselves, is still just about everybody).
Mr. Friedman points to a time when our two political parties were much more heterogeneous in that some high powered conservatives did reside within the ranks of the Democratic Party and people of great wealth with liberal views were among the Republicans.  What this engendered was the ability for parties to have meaningful conversations amongst themselves where issues were viewed from more than one angle.  So, by the time they had come to negotiate or argue their points, both parties were each more likely to have a deeper understanding and appreciation for their opponents view point.
Today, according to Mr. Friedman, our two political parties are very homogeneous. This leads to each side having very little, if any, sensitivities to the opposing points a view.  We are then left with stalemate and complete breakdown in progress, and a structural destabilization of ours society.
In my view, this is exactly why the devil’s advocate view is always a vital component to formulating a proposed solution where constituent buy-in is necessary for successful adoption and deployment or execution.  The next time someone in your group appears to be sabotaging some grand plan that seems like a no-brainer to the majority of the group or in some other way appears less enthused about a celebrated solution, we might do ourselves good by raising inquiry and supporting an environment where the voice of the devil’s advocate can be heard and respected.  There need not be any action taken on the remarks of the devil’s advocate.  Just diligently listening to their remarks raises awareness of potential points of contention and that will only better prepare us for negotiations or other message delivery efforts upon which we are about to embark.
In closing, I also share with you this article (CLICK HERE) at the bottom of which there is a 72 minute interview of Thomas Friedman by Walter Isaacson.  Quite thought moving in my opinion. Enjoy!
As always, I welcome and encourage comments and feedback.
Thanks for reading and have a Great Day!
Matt G.

[i] By using the word “thoughtful” I intend to describe any and all persons full of capacity for thought and not as someone who is viewed as kind and courteous as is usually the common definition of the word
Posted in Business Communication, Business Relationships, Leadership | Tagged | Comments Off on The Value of the Devil's Advocate

Make Feedback Immediate, Public, and Nonjudgmental

Posted on August 23, 2011 by mattgorman

Photo source: Traffic Calming Flickr Photoset


The June 2011 issue of Wired Magazine had a terrific article on the power of feedback loops[i].  As the key example, the author, Thomas Goetz, pointed to the use of the “Your Speed” signs that have been around since about 2003.  These are the signs on roads and highways that tell you how fast you are going.  These devices have consistently had a powerful impact on reducing speeds and influencing compliance to posted speed limits – without the resource demands that dishing out citations require.
One might expect that after a while (say at least eight years) there might be some tendency for the effectiveness to wane as these devices become more obscure blurring into the background scenery.  However, this has not at all been the case.  What is going on here that is making these devices sustainably effective?  After all, every car has a (presumably functional) speedometer.  Why is a sign posted out in the open more effective than our speedometers?
I have a three-part hypothesis supported by what I have had the privilege and pleasure to read on these topics thus far.  First, these signs provide us with immediate feedback so we are given the opportunity to self-correct on the spot.  In contrast, the red-flashing lights in the rear-view mirror (or what is becoming more common, the citation that simply arrives in the mail with a photo of your car and clocked speed you were traveling vis-à-vis the posted speed limit) are a delayed mechanism where you are “called-out” for your offense after the fact. (When mailed to you, it’s long after the fact.)  This breeds ill feelings on the part of the offender and does not reliably influence or modify behaviors, which, I presume, is the intended purpose of any enacted enforcement mechanism.  (Any error in presumption is addressed in the last two paragraphs.)
Why is the speedometer ineffective as the source of immediate feedback?  This leads us to the second part of my hypothesis – public awareness.  Unlike speedometers, the “Your Speed” signs remind us that we are not the only ones aware of how fast we are going. It is on display for all to see.  And, in harmony with the vast sociological and anthropological research[ii] that provides compelling evidence that we, as social beings, are evolutionarily wired to cooperate, we do not want to be seen as the “bad guy”.  We are motivated to self-adjust by slowing down.  This might perhaps explain why our speedometers are not as effective because the information is perceived as private and we believe our fellow motorists are unaware of our speed.
The third and perhaps most important component of my hypothesis is that the feedback from the “Your Speed” sign is not delivered in a judgmental way nor is it delivered comparatively to the speeds of others.  It is merely a report back of what is our current speed compared to the posted speed limit.  This is psychologically different from being pulled over because when that happens we are sitting in judgment of another individual and the consequences are completely at their discretion.  Police officers are granted a socially recognized status of public authority. That does not diminish the psychological affect of having outcomes consequential to us at the sole discretion of another.
Now, let’s draw this out to performance feedback in the workplace.  From my experience, performance reviews are a joyous activity for absolutely no one. And, far more often than not, they do little to sustainably improve performance. They merely facilitate the dehumanizing task of ranking people and distributing consequences (raises and promotions or performance notices and warnings).
What do the “Your Speed” signs teach us about the power of effective feedback?  What if we were to model the performance reporting process with similar properties: 1) the feedback is immediate (not year-end) and the employee is given the opportunity to self-adjust; 2) the feedback is in the public domain (not necessarily advertised but not concealed) so the employee is encouraged to self-adjust; and 3) the feedback is non-judgmental and not in comparison to others.  It is only in comparison to the documented objectives.  I invite organizations to consider “Your Speed” sign approach to performance management for greater effectiveness and improved performance.
Anecdotally, my cynicism leads me slightly to contemplate a municipality’s goal when deploying a speed control strategy.  If revenue through citations is prioritized over long-term driver safety, then hide the officer behind the barricade or put up the cameras and have at it.  The problem will never go away and neither will the risk of traffic accidents and fatalities.
Likewise, if your organization’s goals are to rank and yank employees before they even have the chance to realize their full potential, then stick with the status quo.  If, however, you want your organization to be a place where people do grow, develop and prosper, thus growing your business to new levels of posterity, try the “Your Speed” sign.  Both evidence and evolutionary science strongly suggest such a paradigm in performance management is far more advantageous in the longer term.

[i] “The Feedback Loop” by Thomas Goetz. Wired Magazine, June 2011
[ii] “The Unselfish Gene” by Yochai Benkler.  Harvard Business Review, July-August 2011; & “Welcome Stranger” The Economist, July 30th 2011.

Thank you for reading! As always comments are welcome. I wish you a pleasant day.
Matt G.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Advisor / Evaluator. An ineffective combination.

Posted on August 3, 2011 by mattgorman

I spent eleven years of my career with an esteemed global audit and advisory firm.  Those two words, audit and advisory make terrible bed fellows even just conceptually.  (Before I continue, I am very grateful for my experiences and accomplishments with this organization and my remarks are in no way a reflection of my opinions of the firm but rather of the notion of performing audit and consulting work for the same entity.)  When I began in the mid 90’s, providing business consulting services to a client whose books you audited was more commonplace than not.  Though once I began getting in-tuned with the work in which I was engaged (I was quite green when I started) there was an up tick in the rhetoric around the conflict of interest of consulting for audit clients.  (Enron reminds us that indeed in some places it was just rhetoric.)  The short and sweet is that if you are tasked to assess, you cannot impartially counsel and vice versa.  Many try and it is simply impossible to excel completely at both simultaneously for the same entity.
This leads us to the notion of people management in many companies.  If you work for an organization that assigns a person’s manager as their mentor they may be a bit misguided about mentoring programs.  It is no different than having a company being audited by the same firm that advised them on their business strategies.  If you are serious about mentoring in your organizations, you must grant employees the opportunity to select there own mentors.  Not all people are cut out to be mentors (just as many people are not cut out to be mangers no matter how hard to we seem to try to resist this fact).  This will take a little longer than simply assigning them.  In the end however, a stronger bond will form organically between mentor and mentee and that is a the single most important key to success in any mentoring relationship.  Otherwise, if the mentor and performance manager are the same person, the mentee will likely be deprived of the counsel in managing a challenge that is especially common among younger employees at the early stages of their career – the upward relationship with their manager.  Moreover, the manager will invariably have an agenda that will be of consequence to the employee.
On the heels of the above, I will refer to Samuel Colbert’s book, “Get Rid of the Performance Review”.  Here, Mr. Colbert shares with us that the best way to grow our own career is to be in service to those for whom we have performance responsibility. He sees (and I advocate) managers and their direct reports approach their relationship as more of a partnership.  Perhaps here manager can serve a limited mentoring role.  Though for larger career – and I believe life – issues, an independent mentor is still optimal.
Thanks for reading.  Comments are, as always, welcome. Have a Great Day!
Matt G.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Advisor / Evaluator. An ineffective combination.

What are grades really for?

Posted on July 27, 2011 by mattgorman

There was once a study done where a large group of school-aged children were given an examination.  Those whose grades were in the top 50th percentile where commended on their high grades.  Those whose grades were in the bottom 50th percentile where commended for their efforts.
Then both groups (the above and below the 50th percentile) were asked to select between two tests for the second round of the experiment.  Those who were commended for their results selected the easier of the two tests. Those who were commended for their efforts selected the more difficult test.
This is eerily similar to how adults would behave in similar situations.  Only instead of accolades for results, there is usually remunerations involved.  But if no money is involved, then it is if to say, “Well, if we are not going to be given anything for our efforts, we might as well learn something.” It is rather odd – indeed paradoxical – that we inhibit learning and the desire for learning by bestowing praise and/or reward upon people for their results.
We all want to learn. We are born curious as all get out. Just watch any infant for a few minutes.  Something breaks down along the way and seeking approval becomes more important. That is damaging in my opinion and many sociologists agree.  I am eager to explore, why do we give grades when by doing so we are discouraging curiosity which is nature’s fuel for learning?  Learning is not successful when it is performance based. In the current issue of Harvard Business Review, Herminia Ibarra and Marten Hansen state:

“When performance goals dominate an environment, people are motivated to show others that they have a valued attribute such as intelligence or leadership. When learning goals dominate, they are motivated to develop the attribute.”

As suggested above, extrapolation of this into the workplace is simple and obvious.  Should we be surprised that we must continually provide incentives to get people to produce?  We have created the need for the incentives merely by using them.  We have depleted ourselves of our inborn  tendencies to learn and contribute by dangling extrinsic motivators.  In some cases, this is so much so that many intrinsic desires have atrophied.
So back to my question. If grades produce a reduction in the desire to make mistakes and learn, why do we give them.   Might it have more to do with gauging how successfully the one called ‘teacher’ is influencing (dare I say manipulating) the mind of the one called ‘student’?
In a not-too-distant future post, I hope to share some thoughts on how to re-invigorate intrinsic drivers.  It is intrinsic drivers and motivators that have begotten just about every significant advancement experienced by the human race.
In closing, I wish to thank three noteworthy authors for their work which has become, and will continue to be, a great inspiration for me: Alfie Kohn, Paul Marciano, and Dan Pink.
Thanks for reading. As always, comments are welcome. Have a great day!
Matt G.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on What are grades really for?

The cost-benefit ratio of exercise

Posted on July 26, 2011 by mattgorman

Many people find it quite challenging to stay fit and indeed, those who are overweight can easily become discouraged at the prospects of recapturing being “fit”.  Perhaps if we look at this through a cost:benefit lens, the problem will appear less insurmountable.  Let us consider the idea of what is expended in exercising (the cost) and what is the gain or the benefit.  The cost is the expenditure of energy along with the some discomfort as we push ourselves physically. Someone who is already somewhat fit will likely be accustomed to the rigors of exercise so the relative cost is reasonable and the benefit (feeling and looking healthy) are apparent with out much delay. The result is a low cost to benefit ratio.
Now, let’s imagine an  individual who is quite a bit out of shape.  They admirably embark on a regiment of rigorous exercise and by doing so they feel they are paying a high “cost” for getting in shape.  They are likely not accustomed to the self-imposed physical demands and the efforts required to expend vast amounts of energy in a short period of time.  On the benefit side, their is little gain at first in the way of physical appearance but it is likely that they might feel a little better after a day or two of strenuous exercise.  Given society’s emphasis on appearance, it is unfortunate that the slow to materialize change in appearance will often negatively counteract the positiveness of feeling better.  In this scenario, we have here great costs paid in exercising but the net benefit does not seem to be worth the investment.  We have a high cost to benefit ratio.
Now let’s explore this notion.  Let’s assume the benefit is what it is, at least early on – we shouldn’t expect miracles.  So what can we do to influence the other component of this ratio – the cost.  If we could start by keeping the cost down (i.e. less rigorous, lower energy expenditure, etc) maybe the lower benefit early on does seem like such a crappy investment and thus we begin to feel better about making the investment more frequently and voilà, a habit is formed!  What follows is a lifestyle.
So how can we keep these costs low to start?  Simple. Walk!  At least every other day – ideally every day – for one half hour – go for a brisk walk.  Maybe before work in the morning, maybe after dinner (best in my opinion).  By doing this you will realize very small returns in the beginning but they will be commensurate with your small investments.  And more importantly, you WILL begin to feel better about yourself – which IS the end goal.  Eventually the benefit will increase as we begin notice improvements in our appearance.  Just as added interest, dividends and positive returns in an investment give us more to work with, the improvements felt AND seen will provide more encouragement to ramp up the vigor in our exercise programs.  That’s when the benefit begins to really impact the cost-benefit ratio of exercise.
Good Luck and Happy Healthy!
Thanks for reading. As always, comments are welcome. Have a great day!
Matt G.

Posted in Exercise, Fitness, Health | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The cost-benefit ratio of exercise