Who Will Win The Battle To Redefine The Workplace?

There is a largely unseen battle now raging in the workplace. It pits incumbent powers against emerging upstarts. On the one side are managers who covet the traditional employment deal – money, career progression and status - in return for a total commitment to playing the organizational game by traditional rules, e.g., long hours in the office, grueling travel, and an otherwise unquestioning willingness to do whatever the business requires. Only Type A's need apply.

On the other side is an emerging group of workers who are also highly ambitious but they are seeking a new kind of workplace deal that combines opportunities to perform at high levels, grow their careers and achieve financial rewards with an extensive array of flexible working and non-traditional employment arrangements.

The winner of this battle will determine whether the rules and mores of the workplace change dramatically or remain largely the same.

How is this battle currently unfolding? A newly released study, “Manifesto for the New Agile Workplace” describes the players in this fierce fight to define the workplace rules of engagement. It provides new insights into what different groups of knowledge workers think about their current “employment deals” and the changes in their working and employment arrangements that they seek most.

Drawing on research conducted by an international team of experts from Career Innovation, a think tank based in Oxford, United Kingdom, and Next Generation Workplace, the study findings turn some of the conventional wisdom about knowledge workers on its head.

The executive summary of the report is available free. The full report, written by yours truly and Jonathan Winter, Managing Director of Career Innovation can be purchased for US$110.

The report findings draw on several streams of research including an online survey entitled ‘Redesigning Work’ that attracted responses from more than 2,000 ‘knowledge workers’ – employed, self-employed and not currently working – across 32 countries. Unlike many previous studies of flexible working, this survey asked respondents to indicate not only their preferred and ideal ways of working but the trade-offs and compromises they would be willing to make in order to achieve this.

Unhappy to Be Here

The Redesigning Work survey revealed shocking levels of dissatisfaction among the knowledge workers polled. Over fifty percent were dissatisfied with their ability to achieve work/life balance (56%), their sense of achievement from their work (55%), the way their skills are being used (54%) and their ability to gain new experiences (52%).

Not surprisingly, many of these frustrated knowledge workers see significant changes in their employment situations as the only hope of fulfilling their unrealized expectations. In total 55% rated a complete change of direction attractive, with “working for yourself” universally the most popular employment option.

These survey findings are startling, given the fact that the respondents are knowledge workers, many of whom are managers and/or working in a professional capacity. But there's more. When we ran regression analysis of the survey responses, five distinct groups of knowledge workers emerged, defined by their shared expectations about work and preferences for flexible and non-traditional working arrangements. Among these groups are the key players in the battle to redefine the workplace. These segments of the workforce also represent more precise targets for organizations to engage in developing more effective talent management strategies and devising new kinds of employment deals.

Traditionalists – Rulers of the Roost

Representing 20% of the survey sample, Traditionalists are the most willing to meet employers’ expectations of how they should work - they are highly motivated and many of them work long hours. Bucking somewhat the conventional wisdom that younger workers are not attracted by traditional corporate environments and employment deals, 57% of these individuals are under 40 yearsold and 23% are under 30. Traditionalists have high drive and ambition and have little need for flexible work options. They also have low interest in alternative employment options. Not surprisingly – Traditionalists are predominately male, mid-career managers. They are also the group most likely to stay with their current employer.

Careerists – Opportunists in Traditionalist Clothing

Another 20% chunk of the survey population is what we call Careerists. These individuals have moderate to high drive and ambition for their careers, but are not nearly as keen to meet their employer's expectations as their Traditionalist colleagues. They too are not attracted by flexible work options and even less to alternative employment options. Careerists appear to a large extent to be pursuing their own career agendas, typically within a large corporate context.

Flexers – Desperately Seeking Balance

As is apparent from their name, Flexers are highly attracted to flexible working and work-life balance. Representing one-fifth of the survey population, individuals in this group covet flexible work options and look favorably on alternative employment options as well. But they demonstrate a lack of willingness to meet employer expectations. Flexers have low to moderate levels of drive and ambition. Overall, this group is not happy - 36% are planning to leave their employers within the next twelve months.

Agile Performers – Role Models But The Most Likely To Leave

Agile Performers represent the biggest cluster of survey respondents (25%). This group is highly attracted to flexible working and alternative employment options. Agile Performers have very high drive and ambition and are very willing to meet employer’s expectations yet they are the most likely to leave their employers (43%). And contrary to the popular perception of older workers lacking ambition and willingness to change – 43% of agile performers are over 40 years old.

Fringers – Stuck Outside the Mainstream

About 15% of the survey respondents showed low interest in work and a distinct lack of career-orientation. We refer to these individuals as Fringers. They are neither attracted by flexible work or alternative employment options. Fringers have low to moderate willingness to meet employer expectations and low drive and ambition.

Will An Agile Workplace Emerge?

Despite all the rhetoric about continuous change and the dismantling of corporate hierarchy, traditionalist ideology still predominates the workplace cultures of many organizations. But almost half of the respondents to our survey can be characterized as part of what we call the emerging agile workforce – highly attracted to non-traditional working arrangements. These individuals are also the most dissatisfied with traditional employment deals and the most likely to leave their employers. This presents a potentially damaging situation for employers. Many of these workers, particularly the Agile Performers, exhibit a healthy mix of ambition and agility that is precisely what many companies desperately need to thrive in today’s highly volatile business environment. However, this situation also represents a tremendous opportunity because many of these workers would stay and become more engaged if they were allowed to work in a more agile manner. In fact, 48% of Agile Performers and 46% of Flexers say they would be willing to give up some of their pay to achieve their most desired flexible employment option.

Can a way be found to create more attractive deals for Agile Performers and Flexers while keeping more traditional high performers happy? That’s the challenge that corporate leaders and emerging agile workers must meet head on. It can only be tackled successfully through honest dialogue, good faith negotiations and willingness to experiment with new kinds of employment deals that trade off commitments to increased performance in return for greater worker flexibility and freedom.

Those organizations and individuals savvy enough to do these things will lead the way in creating tomorrow's high-performing workplaces. Businesses win by retaining a greater number of motivated, diverse and high performing agile workers. These same workers win by attaining the employment deals they desire most to pursue their career and personal aspirations.

Retraining After Layoffs - Does It Work?

The New York Times ran this article a few weeks back - Retraining Laid-Off Workers, but for What? - by Louis Utichelle who has just written a book on layoffs.

Retraining is touted as the cure-all for the downside of globalization and industry restructuring that is rife today. But this article sheds some light on just how difficult it may be to 'repurpose' people who have spent most of their lives doing one thing to learn something completely different.

Despite the difficulties, retraining must be undertaken and supported by government. It represents an investment in human capital that smart societies must make.

Colgate Acquires Tom's of Maine - Sell Out or Smart Deal?

A couple weeks ago, Tom's of Maine announced it was being acquired by health and beauty products giant Colgate.

Tom's, a private company owned by Tom and Kate Chappell, reportedly fetched $100 million.

Why did the couple with it's decidedly uncorporate mission and style sell itself to a big conglomerate?

According to Tom Chappell, teaming up with Colgate enhances Tom's growth potential by pushing its products through Colgate's national and global distribution channels. It also ensures that Tom's business and the staff that have helped to build it will have their futures better secured by entering the Colgate family.

But will this really be better for Tom's workers and customers? Despite the announced intention that Tom's will run as a standalone business within Colgate, precedent shows that when giant companies swallow up little ones they eventually digest them completely. It will be very hard for Tom's to "preserve" it's unique culture and autonomy in the long run.

In the end, what Colgate may be buying is a brand and a set of patented product formulations. Hopefully, the employees of Tom's will serve a longer term purpose than a momentary gargling of natural ingredients within the gaping corporate maw of Colgate, only to be spit down the drain after a brief rinse.

Are Science and Engineering Enough For Innovation?

Americans are worried about falling behind other countries in math and science and afraid that this will hurt us economically in the future. This is a real issue and there has been much debate about it. Often cited is how many more engineers and computer scientists India and China are producing compared to the U.S.

While this situation should be cause for concern, my sense is that it's a bit overblown. Today, Tom Friedman, NYTimes columnist and author of the best-selling book, "The World is Flat" provides an interesting point of view in his op-ed column, entitled "Worried About India and China's Boom? So Are They".

The piece points out the innovation requires a blend of art and science and that the Indians and Chinese are concerned that they may have mastered rote learning and are producing legions of left-brained programmers and engineers at the cost of art, literature, music and the humanities. They fear that this is the reason they have not yet mastered innovation, as evidenced by the absence of new products and services emerging out of these countries.

The key to innovation is nuturing creativity in people. Math and science tend to encourage rigorous and structured thinking and compliance to logically designed processes. This is valuable but not necessarily the kind of thing that sparks innovation and creativity.

What I take away from Friedman's piece is that the most important task for educators - whether in India, China, here or elsewhere - is educating the population in a balanced and well-rounded way. What good are brilliant engineers and programmers if they can't communicate or envision anything beyond their algorithims? What value are philosophers, artists and political scientists if they can't think rigorously and logically when necessary?

Is it Women or the Workplace?

A couple weeks ago an interesting article appeared in the Sunday New York Times yesterday, "Why do so few women reach the top in law firms?".

The article provides various points of view as to why so few women achieve partner status in law firms. And of course, there is the broader question of why women are underrepresented at the top echelons of most organizations.

I wrote about this from a different perspective last summer (Why Corporate Culture Counts) and called attention to an excellent paper by Lauren Stiller Rikleen, a Boston-based lawyer. She led a Boston Bar Association task force tasked to study why flexible working wasn't working in the legal profession. Put simply, what she found is that the legal profession is a crucible that demands 'total commitment' to get to the top. This includes complete and utter subjugation of one's personal life to the needs of the firm. Rikleen pointed her finger directly at the 'billable hours' mentality as one of the chief drivers of the legal profession's dysfunctional culture.

In a telling excerpt from the Time's article she elaborates further on this:

"ONE of the main bugaboos in this debate — and one that analysts says is increasingly cropping up as an issue for male lawyers as well — is the billable hours regime. Billing by the hour requires lawyers to work on a stopwatch so their productivity can be tracked minute by minute — and so clients can be charged accordingly. Over the last two decades, as law firms have devoted themselves more keenly to the bottom line, depression and dissatisfaction rates among both female and male lawyers has grown, analysts say; many lawyers of both genders have found their schedules and the nature of their work to be dispiriting.

'I see a lot of people who are distressed about where the profession has gone,' Ms. Rikleen says. 'They don't like being part of a billable-hour production unit. They want more meaning out of their lives than that.'"

Regrettably most industries with their emphasis on 'process management' and 'performance based management' are heading in the same direction as the legal profession - i.e., becoming all-consumed by the same individual measurement logic. Unfortunately we can expect and are indeed already seeing the same negative consequences, not only for women, but for anyone not happy to embrace 'total commitment'.

What Makes A Best Place to Work?

What makes a great place to work? There are many ways to assess a workplace but in my opinion, a great place to work is one that inspires the passion of workers and unleashes their talent. Emotional hot buttons are pushed. Workers are turned on by what they do and who they work for or with. They work in a job or an organization for more than the usual reasons - for something deeper and more meaningful than a good salary and generous benefits. While engendering passion and emotion are of course vital, a great place to work is also a place where people are able to apply their talent to the fullest. Where they can grow, nurture and apply their skills and knowledge in ways that enable them to consistently produce excellence. Every day. And in every way.

That’s a great place to work.

Last summer, Madison Magazine asked me to help them to identify the best places to work in Madison based on these criteria. Our methodology had three components: an employee survey, open-ended essay questions, and interviews with top leadership. Using the Next Generation Workplace framework, we created a set of questions to determine what employees valued most along six key dimensions of their workplace experience and the extent to which they experienced these coveted aspects of the job and working environment.

We developed six awards to honor organizations that excelled at delivering these key dimensions of the workplace experience:

Most Enriching

This award went to the organization that provided employees with the best opportunities for achievement and learning. Many people value learning and development above any other aspect of work. Companies that provide rich environments for workers to grow their skills and knowledge, not only perform better but keep their people because they don’t have to leave to progress their careers.

Deforest Area Middle School edged out some tough competition to win the Most Enriching Workplace award. Its teachers are supercharged about their jobs, their students and their mission to make the school an outstanding learning environment for everyone. Their dedication is so strong that teachers are not afraid to take risks or try new things in pursuit of learning.

Most Rewarding

This award was given to the organization that did the best job of making employees feel valued through the types of rewards and recognition they receive.

The tendency of most awards competitions is to pick a winner based strictly on the amount of financial rewards it offers its workers. But showing appreciation involves more than paying bonus checks. It also demands leaders that communicate up close and personal with their staff. We focused on all the ways companies conveyed how they valued their workers – with an emphasis on recognition as well as reward.

Brownhouse Designs took this award because of its leadership’s strong and consistent communication with employees regarding their value to the organization and its performance. In the wordsof Laurel McManus Brown, owner of Brownhouse Designs, "I really feel that people instinctively want to feel valued. I think people want to be appreciated in very simple ways, like very sincere acknowledgements and very sincere thank you’s, a pat on the back, recognition in front of their peers. You can see what that does to somebody just by looking into their eyes."

Most Participative

This award was given to the organization that went the furthest in giving staff a say in key decisions related to their work, jobs and careers as well as involving them in the governance and management of the organization.

Many executives talk about concepts like ‘empowerment’ but few back them up by giving employees real decision authority in their jobs. Nor do many organizations share vital performance information with all of their workers. And the overwhelming majority of companies are run as autocracies, even if they are benevolent ones. Yet, many workers want a say in their career and financial destinies, and when they are given it, they reciprocate with high levels of commitment and performance.

The winning organization was M3: Mortenson, Matzelle & Meldrum, an insurance solutions business. It took an extraordinary step toward becoming a participative workplace. When it was facing a critical business restructuring decision, it reached out to involve ALL staff in the decision rather than hatch a plan with far-reaching impacts on everyone behind closed doors without consultation with the rest the organization.

Most Socially-Cohesive

This award was given to the organization that did the best job in the eyes of its employees of building morale, camaraderie and social capital. Many organizations have outstanding work teams, but they are often islands in an corporate sea of distrust and contention. More rare is an enterprise wide feeling of community and affinity with each other.

The winner, First Choice Dental is a text book example of social cohesion in the workplace. Its workers are ùnfailingly upbeat and enthusiastic about their employer. They consider each other family and thrive in an egalitarian culture and management style. Everyone is treated as an equal. Most telling say staff is that the doctors do not act as if they are superior or more important than anybody else.

Most Meaningful

This award went to the organization with a purpose and mission that resonated strongly with employee beliefs and values.

Corporate social responsibility is taken very seriously today in many companies. But in most cases, being a good corporate citizen is an adjunct to the core business. This award however honored organizations whose mission and purpose fused both a commercial and a broader societal or individual purpose that reflected deeply held principles and values of employees.

Madison Environmental Group and Community Car won this award because of how well it melds its business mission and purpose with a bigger social and environmental agenda that connects deeply with the personal values and ideals of its workers. Everyone in the organization feels strongly about its mission to bring people together by helping them to realize that they have a common interest in and shared caring about their community and environment. Says CEO, Sonya Newenhouse, "It's not just ideas on a piece of paper. You're making a connection."

Most Balanced

This award was given to the organization that best provided employees with the flexibility, programs and support to achieve sustainable work-life balance and quality. The AIDS Network provides its workers with a harmonious physical workspace and lots of flexibility to work the hours and locations that fit each staff member’s lifestyle, and most importantly, an workplace environment that allows workers to meld their personal and professional pursuits and priorities in ways that make them mutually reinforcing.

For the full stories of each of these outstanding organizations, be sure to check out Madison Magazine's coverage of the awards winners or view video reports.

Every Organization Can Become A Great Place to Work

The city of Madison is a great place in many ways, but it has one more thing to be proud of – some incredible human-centered places to work. Each one sends the message and acts as an example for other organizations regardless of their industry, business or size – that any employer can be a great place to work if it develops the same attributes as the Madison Magazine Best Places to Work Awards winners. Creating a great place to work is worth the effort - it shows in your employees, your customers and your business results.

What Color is Your CEO’s Parachute?

Okay, before I get all lathered up about the latest outrages in the CEO suite, let me assure you that I recognize completely that the majority of top executives are honest and good people trying their best to lead their organizations to success. And that the CEO's I will be talking about represent the extreme of executive limit pushing. Still, these are people who work the system to their great benefit and represent a type of leader that can easily lead even the most successful company to ruin.

These executives are not criminals, nor are their employment deals considered unethical by regulators (at least not yet). But make no mistake - to the average Joe and Jane toiling throughout corporate America, they are jerks with a capital ‘J’.

At least four kinds of "Jerks" can be observed prowling about the CEO suite:

The Slick Messiah

These are leaders with superb platform and elocution skills who are so charismatic that they mesmerize their boards and employees and have Wall Street and the media eating out of their hands. But at some point their mystique wears off.

The most recent high-profile example of this type of CEO is Carly Fiorina the ex-head of Hewlett-Packard. Carly was a controversial figure within HP throughout her reign, er...I mean tenure, who achieved rock star status with the media and apparently other executives. According to a Boston Globe article published last February:

“When Fiorina, for example, joined HP as chief executive in 1999, she knew she had to re-energize the old computer company or lose ground to nimble competitors. She engineered the 2002 acquisition of Compaq Computer Corp. for $24 billion but it backfired. Said Judy George, chief executive and founder of home furnishings retailer Domain, who sits on several boards: 'She knew the game, and I loved that she took the risk. I love that she walked away with $21 million.'"

Excuse me – did you say risk? What risk? That her ‘bet-the-ranch’ deal would fail and she would have egg on her face and lose her job? Twenty-one million (plus pension and other perks) is one hell of a safety net and goes a long way in the wound licking department as well.

The Sell-Out Swami

In the interest of gender equal time - Mike Capellas, the former CEO of Compaq who co-engineered the ill-fated HP-Compaq merger was less charismatic than Carly but just as loose in taking high stakes risks that lined his pockets but left scores in unemployment lines. He left the combined firm with a overstuffed packet well before the post-merger integration was completed to join Worldcom (for a hefty salary) as CEO to clean up the mess made by Bernie Ebbers. Slick Mike immediately changed the company's name to MCI and then sold it to Verizon a few years later, raking in a couple more piles of gold in the process.

But Carly and Mike are small time operators compared to Jim (King) Kilts who orchestrated the sale of Gillette to P&G last year. Kilts stands to walk away with $150 million plus as his payoff for doing the deal. Even if P&G's stock price takes a huge hit, he is still likely to make over $100 million. Not bad, huh?

And just this week, it was announced that Wachovia’s vice chairman Wallace D. Malone Jr. is stepping down just 15 months after selling SunTrust Bank (where he was CEO) to Wachovia. His platinum parachute is reported to total a Kilts-like $135 million. Combining Gillette's products with P&G's global marketing and distribution system or SunTrust’s customers and operations with Wachovia’s may be compelling strategies to Wall Street wonks, but Kilt’s and Malone’s platinum parachutes are suspiciously difficult to ignore as a drivers of these sell-outs, er...I mean deals.

The Mahogany Machiavelli

The Phil Purcell soap opera that played out at Morgan Stanley in 2005 was as ugly as it gets. Following the merger of Morgan Stanley and Dean Witter in 1997, Purcell angled himself into the CEO role and ruled like a corporate version of Kim Jong Il, obstinately pursuing a failing synergy strategy as the company lagged and fell behind its rivals. Rather than admit a mistake and change course, Purcell instead engaged in inside power politics – stonewalling his critics, stroking his board cronies and pushing all opposition out the door. Amazingly, Purcell forced so much high-profile talent to leave the firm that shareholder and media pressure ultimately made him walk a gold-inlaid plank to the tune of $44 million.

The Bankruptcy Bloodsucker

Glenn Tilton of UAL Corporation, parent of United Airlines was recruited from the oil industry allegedly to save the company. He took it into Chapter 11 bankruptcy three years ago, and has slashed and burned pay, benefits, pensions and people ever since. A reorganized UAL is expected to emerge soon from bankruptcy with a new stock offering. The bankruptcy court is allowing company management to receive about an 8% of the newly floated shares. Tilton’s cut is estimated to be worth about $40 million (this does not include the millions he’s already received in salary). Not exactly chump change for destroying a company in order to save it.

Who's At The Controls?

Each of these situations is disturbing enough in its own right, but when we think of the challenges that global competition pose to the American economy and workforce, it's hard to feel any sense of comfort in knowing that these sorts of leaders may be making critical decisions that affect us all. Can they be trusted for example to invest in this country's human capital and the communities in which they do business? Or will they instead maneuver, wheel and deal, stonewall, sell out and seek only short term gains (for themselves)?

There is a world of difference between leaders who are deal-makers and operators and those that are stewards of the total asset and representatives of the interests of all stakeholders. The former, fly by the seat of their pants, confident in the knowledge that regardless of the outcomes of their decisions, they can gently glide to their next gig or a country-club retirement hanging from a golden or platinum parachute. The latter however, wear the same flimsy white parachutes as everybody else.

What color is your CEO’s parachute? If it's gold or platinum, maybe you should bail out first before they do.