Jerks on the Job

Is your workplace spoiled by a few narcissistic nabobs, haughty honchos, dysfunctional divas, shameless shysters or obnoxious opportunists? Is there a Miranda Priestly running your organization? A David Brent in the office down the hall? A Bill Lumbergh roaming the cubicles? A Vince Downey prowling the floor?

The personalities and interpersonal dynamics of the workplace are garnering more attention in the entertainment and news media, if not the executive suite, as the concept of "collaboration" among workers across different teams, businesses, and national cultures has emerged as the latest holy grail of business. But getting people with diverse views, experiences, styles and skills to work harmoniously together is no mean feat, even for the best of leaders. It requires not only the right blend of skills but a compatible group of individuals. A few misplaced jerks can spoil things for everyone - torpedoing teamwork, crippling collaboration and pauperizing productivity.

How Jerks Poison the Workplace

According to Professor Robert Sutton of Stanford University and author of the book, http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=g9a4tccab.0.0.wcqjsnbab.0&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FAsshole-Rule-Civilized-Workplace-Surviving%2Fdp%2F0446526568, what we will more politely refer to as "jerks" are a bane to the workplace. He defines them as nasty and demeaning people and asserts that they are a widespread problem. Sutton cites various studies to demonstrate how pervasive abuse and mistreatment is within the workplace. Some industries and professions such as health care are particularly bad. Apparently physicians are the most frequent abusers of their co- workers.

Before you start thinking this is all a bunch of cry-baby complaining suitable only for the group hug crowd, you should know that Sutton points out that jerks cause real economic damage to their organizations and that there is a strong business case to not employing them. They make it harder to recruit and retain the best and the brightest, cause higher turnover, increase client churn, damage the reputation of the business, diminish investor confidence, decrease innovation and creativity and impair collaboration and cooperation. Convinced yet?

In case you're not, Sutton even offers a way to calculate the "Total Cost of Jerks" to a business - using an extensive list of the direct costs and negative effects of jerks. In one example, management at a high tech company calculated that the extra costs generated by their star sales person who happened also to be a jerk totaled $160,000 for a single year.

So jerks can certainly hurt the bottom line of a business. But aren't we really talking about a few mean, nasty connivers? Surely, hard-driving competent people are a positive force in the business, aren't they? Well, according to another in-depth research study of workplace personality types, maybe not.

Likeability Trumps Competence

Research by professors Tiziana Casciaro of the Harvard Business School and Miguel Sousa Lobo of Duke University asserts that most people prefer to work with a "likeable fool" rather than with a "competent jerk". Not surprisingly, the most preferred co-workers are "likeable stars". But in situations where people can choose or influence whom they work with, they are more likely to pick someone who is likeable even if they are not the most competent rather than work with someone who may be extremely competent but is difficult to get along with.

Writing in "Compete nt Jerks, Lovable Fools, and the Formation of Social Networks", (Harvard Business Review, June 2005), the authors discuss the importance of informal networks in the workplace; how they take shape and how people choose those they work with. They assert that two criteria above all affect this choice - competence at the job and likeability. The authors collected data on more than 10000 work relationships and from this concluded that likeability more often determined who people picked to work with than competence. In the author's terms - people preferred to work with lovable fools (people who were easy for them to get along with who were not necessarily the most knowledgeable or able) rather than competent jerks (people who were difficult to get along with even though they were very knowledgeable and skilled).

This research suggests that people are more willing to accept or try to make up for deficiencies in the skills of people they can work well with than they are to deal with the unpleasant personality of an highly-skilled person who is a jerk. Thus, a little extra likeability goes a longer way than a little extra competence in making someone desirable to work with. But if likeability is a preferred trait, then why do there seem to be so many jerks in the workplace?

Blame it on the Overachievers

In their article, "Leadership Run Amok: The Destructive Potential of Overachievers", (Harvard Business Review, June 2006), a trio of Hay Group consultants argue that the plague of workplace jerks is a consequence of the achievement obsessed ethos of many large corporations and the people that populate them, especially those in leadership positions.

They claim that "too intense a focus on achievement can demolish trust and undermine morale, measurably reducing workplace productivity and eroding confidence in management." There are simply too many leaders driven by a "results, results, results" mentality who are quick to rationalize the means used to achieve them.

Citing work of the Harvard psychologist David McClelland, the authors assert that achievement is one of three personal "social motives" that explain how people behave. The other two are affiliation and power. All three of these motives are present in people and drive their behavior.

According to the authors' empirical study of the motivations of over 40000 leaders and managers, achievement has been rising among these respondents since the 1990s compared to affiliation and power and is now the dominant motivator of corporate exeuctives.

On the positive side, measures of innovation and performance such as patents filed have been increasing steadily for two decades. On the negative side however, the obsession with achievement has pushed many to rationalize all manner of selfish and inappropriate behavior and pushing many to cheat and cut corners and to go after goals at all costs.

Jerk-Proofing the Workplace

It is an understatement to say that creating a jerk- proof workplace is not easy. It requires a commitment from the top and explicit measures and actions to enforce civilized behavior at all levels and from all staff. Sutton suggests making "No Jerks" an explicit rule and having leaders and managers adhere to it through what they say and do, including weaving the rule into hiring and firing policies. Interviewers look for and disqualify people who exhibit jerk tendencies. This behavior standard is also embedded into performance appraisals. Jerks that don't play by the rules are asked to reform or leave. Jerks unable to reform are shown the door. He recommends that the rule also apply to customers and clients. Equally helpful in Sutton's view is instilling a culture of "constructive confrontation" in which people can challenge policies, ideas and viewpoints in an open, non-personal and productive way - and managing the little moments - handling the small, subtle stuff before it escalates into big problems.

Casciaro and Sousa Lobo exhort leaders to "leverage the likeable" and "work on the jerks" Likeable people need to be identified and protected by leaders. Because likeable people get along with almost everyone, they can be used to bridge gaps between diverse groups of people that might not interact otherwise. The contribution of jerks should be reassessed in light of how their behavior affects the whole organization. They should be rewarded for good behavior but punished for bad behavior. It is also important to socialize and coach them. If these measures fail to reform a person that's too valuable to let go, then the authors suggest repositioning them to work independently to minimize their contacts with the rest of the organization.

The Hay Group consultants offer an "achievement-lite" formula that tempers the downsides of achievement focus while keeping the positives. Their research found that the most successful groups had a strong drive to achieve but were led by people who could work through others, create strong teams, provide coaching and focus on increasing the capability of the whole organization, not just their group or department.

All this advice is no doubt worthwhile, but none of it seems to address the most difficult obstacle that exists in many organizations - jerks at the top and in other key positions. How in the world do you jerk- proof an environment when the people in charge are the most egregious offenders? And when the Board of Directors overseeing the jerks leading your company is loaded with jerks from other organizations? Good luck. Short of a workplace revolution, perhaps the best that most of us can hope for is working in an environment led by a competent jerk. Or maybe you prefer a likeable fool?

Corporate Social Responsibility - Burden, Sham or Golden Opportunity?

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is an up- surging trend that has taken corporate boardrooms by storm. Government regulation in some countries along with pressure from myriad interest groups around the world is driving an increase in social responsibility initiatives and reporting. According to Professor Michael Porter of the Harvard Business School, in 2005, 360 different CSR-related shareholder resolutions were filed on issues ranging from labor conditions to global warming. And 64% of the 250 largest multi-national corporations published CSR reports, either within their annual report or in separate sustainability reports.

Is CSR a good or bad thing? Does it represent an opportunity to recognize the many ways that business and society are interdependent and to help make the world better while creating economic growth? Or does it place unfair and unrealistic obligations on corporations? Or is it a façade that businesses can hide behind to protect themselves while continuing to engage in activities that harm the environments and societies in which they operate?

These are important questions and some eloquent voices have emerged to debate them. Here we examine the key arguments of three distinct schools of thought about CSR.

Killing the Goose That Laid the Golden Egg

Advocates of the minimalist view of corporate social responsibility argue that capitalism does enough for society by generating economic growth and creating jobs. They subscribe to the belief espoused by Nobel economist Milton Friedman that beyond playing by the legal and ethical rules of society, a business only needs to pursue and deliver profit to be a positive contributor to society. In their view, it is the role of government to make and implement social policy, not corporations.

Clive Crook, writing in The Economist Survey of Corporate Social Responsibility, provocatively states that most permutations of CSR are not worth the cost. He berates corporate philanthropy as "borrowed virtue" because managers are giving away shareholder's money. He asserts that most CSR is "probably delusional" - in that its private costs likely exceed the public benefits produced.

The main beef of the minimalist camp with CSR is that it seems to intimate that capitalism is fundamentally flawed. Crook nails this when he states: "the basic set of attitudes that it (CSR) represents undermines support for capitalism and enterprise and the prospects for further economic advance". He argues that profit serves the public good and demonizing it only jeopardizes the benefits it delivers to society. Nor he says is it smart to use CSR to "privatize public policy". Governments should be making and carrying out public policy using regulation and taxes, not corporations. He states, "public policy is the proper role of government, accountable to citizens through the ballot box, not of company bosses accountable to nobody but their shareholders and too often not even to them." Thus, CSR can unleash loose and dangerously uncoordinated cannons that will often do more harm than good.

A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

Proponents of this view argue that CSR is nothing more than public relations and warn all not to trust any CSR initiative, because in the end, all it represents is a ploy to distract attention away from otherwise rapacious behavior that is detrimental to society. Joel Bakan, a legal expert and author of the book, "The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power" asserts that businesses are legally required to do everything in their power to make money, and that more often than not, their financial interests will conflict with the broader interests of society, and they will always act in their own self- interest.

As a result, no one should be fooled by CSR, and deluded into thinking that business can be trusted to do what's right for society of its own accord. They won't, unless governments force them to. In this view, government has a substantial role to play in constraining and channeling the actions of the entity that it creates, namely the corporation, and holding it accountable. As environmentalist and writer Bill McKibben colorfully puts it, "Corporations are the infants of our society-they know very little except how to grow (though they're very good at that), and they howl when you set limits. Socializing them is the work of politics."

A Diamond in the Rough

In his Harvard Business Review article, "Strat egy and Society: The Link Between Competitive Advantage and Corporate Social Responsibility", Professor Michael Porter casts CSR as "an inescapable priority for business leaders in every country". That's an attention-grabbing statement, to say the least, considering that Porter is the man who literally wrote the book on competitive strategy.

He tells businesses that rather than avoid, fight or pay lip service to CSR, they should instead "analyze their prospects for social responsibility using the same frameworks that guide their core business choices. They will discover that CSR can be much more than a cost, a constraint, a charitable deed - it can be a source of opportunity, innovation and competitive advantage."

Porter asserts that a healthy society ultimately creates expanding demand for business, as more human needs are met and aspirations grow. Any business that pursues its own ends at the expense of the society in which it operates will find its success to be illusory and ultimately temporary. He argues that the mutual dependence of business and society implies that both business decisions and social policies must follow the principle of shared value - that is, that the choices made must benefit both sides. If either a business or a society pursues policies that benefit its interests at the expense of the other, it will find itself on a dangerous path.

For CSR to really work in Porter's view, it must be viewed from a strategic standpoint and rooted in a broader understanding of the inter-relationship between a corporation and society, while at the same time anchoring it in the strategies and activities of specific companies. The article presents an analytical framework for identifying what Porter calls the 'points of intersection' between business and societal interests. Two main categories are identified - inside- out linkages and outside-in linkages. Inside-out linkages involve how the company affects the society in which it operates through its operations in the normal course of business. Outside-in linkages involve the ways in which external social conditions influence corporations for better or for worse.

In the typical business, each of these categories can provide numerous opportunities for socially- responsible actions. The challenge for businesses is to choose which social issues to address, and Porter advocates that they select the issues that intersect with their own particular business. "The essential test that should guide CSR is not whether a cause is worthy but whether it presents an opportunity to create shared value - that is, a meaningful benefit to society that is also valuable to the business."

Sparking Change in Corporate Values and Culture

While all three schools of thought about CSR make valid points, I ultimately come down in Porter's camp. His 'enlightened interdependence' view of CSR recognises that business and society have a huge amount of shared interest that managers with foresight will recognize can be developed in a long- term and mutually beneficial way.

CSR represents a set of societal values that companies ignore at their peril. Society has a right to set expectations of businesses but these don't necessarily have to kill economic growth and jobs. There is no reason why business can't be socially responsible and commercially successful. Just go into any Whole Foods Market to experience this concept in action.

But few organizations have embedded CSR so deeply into their cultures - in most instances, it's merely an initiative to be run on the side of the business, or bolted on to it at best. Truly integrating social responsibility into the business will likely demand a radical transformation of the culture, values and operating systems of most large corporations. This level of change doesn't happen overnight and will require that all stakeholders, including employees, push for open dialogue on what CSR means and should be in their organization.

A practical step forward lies with Porter's framework for focusing on the interdependencies between business and society. It is a tool that can help companies redefine and more completely understand value - a concept at the heart of free market capitalism - by identifying opportunities to provide more valuable (with value defined by their customers) products and services. As a result, they will profit and so will society overall - because the greater good is not being compromised and may in fact be enhanced. With some work, society and corporations can live together in harmony - they don't have to be at odds or engaged in self-defeating behavior.

Media-Savvy Workers: A New Front in the War for Talent

A new front in the War for Talent is opening up. Tens of millions of people adept at using interactive technology and media are set to join, or are already in, the workforce - bringing expectations, skills and ways of working that will revolutionize the workplace. Those organizations that can inspire the passion and harness the skills of these "media-savvy" workers will have an edge over their competitors. Here's why.

Until recently, workers of all levels could gain access to the most powerful computers, the fastest network connections, and the most sophisticated applications of information technology only at work.

No more.

Now, a large and growing number of people across the age, gender and socio-economic spectrum own or have access to all manner of gadgets, gizmos and Internet services that far exceeds, in variety and sophistication, much of the technology they use at work. Increasingly, it is these experiences using technology outside of work - e.g., playing online games, engaging in social networking, collaborating on projects - that are shaping the standards of what workers expect to use on the job.

The good news is that the knowledge and skills that workers are gaining outside of work can be put to good use on the job. The bad news is few organizations yet recognize or are doing anything to engage and leverage the skills of media-savvy workers.

Research recently conducted by a team of researchers and thought leaders brought together by QuestG suggests that the emergence of the media- savvy workforce may be a golden opportunity to transform organizational culture and performance that many companies seem to be missing so far.

Ready or Not, Here They Are

QuestG has just published the findings of a year-long research study - called the Media-Savvy Workforce and Learning Project. It links together two often discussed but rarely associated trends - the changing demographics of the workforce and the growing proliferation and use of interactive media such as social networking services like MySpace and Facebook and on-line role playing platforms like World of Warcraft and Second Life.

The study collected comprehensive data on the workplace expectations, learning habits and personal technology usage of close to 3000 workers. Analysis of this data strongly suggests that the combination of dramatic differences in the attitudes and technology skills of these workers and their exploding use of interactive media are together creating the conditions for the transformation of business and work as we know it.

"Media-savvy" individuals were identified from this global respondent base by measuring how frequently they used over thirty different personal technologies and Internet applications. A majority demonstrated at least moderate media-savvy (regularly using 11-15 different technologies and applications), with almost a third high media-savvy (regularly using 16 or more different technologies and applications).

Sending Up the Stereotypes

Our research identified some significant and rather counter-intuitive findings about media-savvy workers:

It's not only the young that are media- savvy. Nearly half of respondents under 30 years old were high media-savvy - no surprise there. But here's the shocker - one third of respondents 30-45 years old and one fifth of those over 45 placed in the same high category. This is a very significant finding because it challenges the conventional wisdom that only the young are adept at using the new technology. And it means that a substantial number of media- savvy workers are already in the workplace.

Media-savvy workers are more learning- oriented. Media-savvy workers spend up to 80% more time than their low media-savvy co-workers on different types of learning activities in and outside of work; and up to three times as many find electronically-enabled ways of learning like Internet searches, computer simulations and on-line courses valuable. They are also more likely to want their learning to be fun and entertaining, to choose what, when and where they learn, and to favor learning through experimentation.

Interactive games are setting a higher standard for corporate e-learning experiences. The study showed strong parallels between what people say the characteristics of their best learning experiences at work are, and what they value most from playing online role playing games. These included interaction with others to share experiences, interactive content, engaging challenges, immediate feedback, learning from peers, learning by doing, and immersion into an environment via role playing.

Corporate learning executives have a huge opportunity to harness the power of interactive media and the unconventional learning styles of media- savvy. This means making e-learning offerings as engaging and interactive as electronic games. Standard e-learning approaches are a total turnoff for this group.

Media-savvy workers are the least happy with the IT they use to do their jobs. Depending on age, they are up to three times more likely to believe their job performance is inhibited due to a lack of suitable technology, with the youngest the most dissatisfied with the IT they use at work. Many also believe their technology at home is superior and they often work there to circumvent hardware, software and security restrictions.

This finding suggests that IT departments need to rethink their IT design, provisioning and access policies. Does this mean letting workers use and do whatever they want? Of course not - but many IT executives and staff need to stop viewing media-savvy users as nuisances, and even enemies, and start proactively forging close working relationships with them. The media-savvy represent a core group of "lead users" that can be a valuable resource in identifying innovative and productive ways of using new interactive technology for the benefit of the entire business.

The media-savvy are also some of the organization's best performers and most learning-oriented workers. Understanding how technology can be used to enhance their productivity stands to reap large bottom line benefits and can pave the way for more effective uses of IT to increase the productivity of the whole organization. Improving knowledge worker performance is now critical in the current business cycle where the productivity of high value intangible assets - especially people - is a key business performance measure and success factor.

Senior Leaders Take Note

The double whammy of increasingly powerful and pervasive interactive media and changing workforce skills and attitudes challenges corporate leaders to adopt new business and management models that harness the power of the new technology and the advanced capabilities of workers. The responsibility for dealing with these changes goes beyond just IT and learning organizations.

Victory in this new theater of the talent war requires a total organizational commitment. HR leaders will need to direct the redesign of the entire work experience to better match the workplace preferences, learning styles and performance needs of media-savvy workers. And business unit heads and CEOs will need to champion the transformation of their business and organizational models to attract, leverage and retain this high performing, motivated and skilled segment of the workforce.

Is Technology Making Us Anti-social?

This short article on silicom.com makes me wonder about this question. It suggests that people are spending so much time using computers that their interpersonal skills are beginning to suffer. This has long been suspected of programmer, IT support staff and other geek-types who seem so much more comfortable dealing with objects governed by binary logic than human beings governed by complex emotions. But the article suggests that the diminution in social skills caused by computers is affecting all workers, not just techies.

Sometimes things are given names that get to the heart of what they really are. "Personal Computer" is one such spot on designation. What makes it really interesting is how long it took before many people, certainly business people and especially IT managers, began appreciating how personal computers, and increasingly other electronic gadgets really are to people.

Computers are not just tools of self-expression, they are themselves a form of self-expression and identity. Look how people customize them. What they do with them. And as we are seeing with other electronic gadgets like cell phones and i-Pods, they can be fashion statements and vital pieces of one's identity. So is it really surprising that people are relying too much on technology to communicate with each other? Or that it may be having an adverse effect on our interpersonal skills?

If It's Broke, Fix It

We may have reached a subtle turning point in the debate about the health care system in America.

As this article in today's NY Times shows, the debate is no longer about whether there is a problem, or even whether employers should be the main provider of health insurance in America.

There seems to be a growing recognition that employer-based insurance alone isn't working - for example, according to the article the vast majority of the approximately 40 plus million people in this country without health insurance are working.

So the question now is what to replace our current system with - i.e., what mix of private and public programs and initiatives will increase coverage, keep up quality and manage costs?

In the private sector, people from different ends of the idealogical spectrum such the service workers union and big companies like GM and Wal-mart are joining forces to push for change.

When will the politicians at the Federal level get off their butts and take the lead? This is one problem that demands a holistic, national solution. And everyone needs to assume their fair share of the burden - no more of the cost shifting mentality that permeates the current system.

Shades of Gray – Working Out the Business Impacts of the Aging Workforce

Up in the sky. It’s a bird. It’s a plane. It’s super hype – able to leap tall buildings of apathy and denial in a single bound. Indeed, lately the media has been saturated with stories about the coming skills shortages that are sure to result from the mass exodus of Baby Boomers from the workforce.

Many of these press accounts would lead one to believe that this trend and its impacts on businesses are black and white. But the reality is gray (pun intended). Population statistics leave little doubt that the workforce is aging and reports of skills shortages and the difficulties companies are having recruiting replacements for retiring workers are increasing. But not every industry or company is being affected equally. Nor is every organization moving at the same rate to identify and address how these trends will be impacting their businesses.

Things Are Graying All Over

It’s not your imagination - the number of “older” people is increasing. According to projections based on the US census, an average of 4.6 adults will turn 65 each minute this year. By 2025, an average of 8 adults will turn 65. The workplace is no different. According to research published in the Monthly Labor Review, the share of 55 and older age group will increase from 14.3% (2002) to 19.1% (2050) of the labor force and the percentage of workers 55-64 and over 65 will grow by 48% and 40% respectively between 2002 and 2012.

And it’s not just the US that is experiencing the graying workforce. Some countries in Europe are already feeling the effects. Recent media reports assert that a shortage of workers with technical skills is becoming acute. Germany’s Siemens for example, has been struggling to fill 2500 open positions and has begun bringing employees out of retirement to work on specific projects.

Even China, seen by many as an endless source of cheap (and young) labor is starting to feel the effects of an aging population. According to one account, the country is experiencing an aging workforce problem that is predicted to become acute in the near term. In Shanghai for example, twenty percent of the city's people are at least 60, the common retirement age for men in China, and retirees are the fastest growing segment of the population. According to a study by the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, 100,000 new seniors are being added to the rolls each year and from 2010 to 2020, the number of people 60 or older is projected to grow by 170,000 a year.

In aggregate, this data suggests that the aging of the workforce is only just beginning and will be with us for decades to come. Are companies aware of, and prepared for, this impending sea change in the makeup of their employee base? Apparently not enough, according to the findings of a couple of research studies issued by two leading think tanks.

A Delayed Reaction

Despite the aging trend and the increasing signs of its impact on different countries and industries, many organizations have been slow to respond. The just- released National Study of Business Strategy and Workforce Development, a survey of 578 organizations of varying industries in the United States conducted by the Boston College Center on Aging and Work, found that 56% of respondents had only analyzed their workforce demographics to a limited extent or not at all. It also found that a mere third of respondents had made projections about the retirement rates of their workers to a moderate or great extent.

Sixty-one percent of the 53 global employers participating in a soon-to-be released benchmarking study conducted by UK think tank Career Innovation said that the quality of the workforce planning data in their organizations provided to business managers was poor to fair. (In the interest of full disclosure I led this study). Furthermore, many respondents said they were anticipating a significant negative impact on their businesses – almost 65% indicated that the aging workforce would have a great or dramatic impact on their businesses or is already a problem.

What are employers doing to identify and mitigate these impacts on their businesses? According to these two studies not a lot, at least yet. The BC study found that only about ¼ of respondents had established formal programs and policies to hire back retirees and only about 1/3 had adopted strategies to encourage late career employees to continue to work past retirement age. The Career Innovation benchmarking study showed that the aging workforce is not yet high on the executive agenda. It found that less than 15% of senior managers and less than 25% of HR managers were making large investments in time and resources to address this issue.

This finding is particularly troubling since replacing people with extensive know how, rich organizational knowledge and critical skills can’t be accomplished over night. That’s why companies getting a head start on identifying the specific skills areas in which they will be impacted most will have an advantage over others competing for scarce replacement talent. Many organizations are racing to do this, but for some it may already be too late.

Why Workforce Planning Matters

Until recently, few organizations seem to have had the foresight to look ahead at the impending risks they face as a result of the aging workforce. One such forward-looking company was Valero Energy Corporation, a Fortune 500 company based in San Antonio, Texas. Valero operates in the capital- intensive oil refining business, an industry in which convincing corporate leadership to pay attention to recruiting and people issues is extremely difficult. Yet, trends in its workforce, particularly the impending retirement of significant numbers of talent with critical skills, portended a potentially huge negative impact on its future growth and financial performance.

Employing a mix of workforce planning capabilities to gather and analyze data, Valero’s HR group conducted a predictive “needs” analysis that mapped yearly labor needs by location, department, position, and skill set, projected out up to seven years forward. Trend line analysis was used to help the operating officers of refineries and other business units identify the potential impact of upcoming high-volume retirements. This allowed managers to identify future vacancies for both replacement purposes and knowledge capture before retirement.

According to the company’s head of staffing, Dan Hilbert, “We have lived through 1% to 5% rates of retirement, but we're now looking at 20% for an entire industry. When our executives saw the impact, they were stunned”. So much so, they immediately approved the necessary programs and improvements to start retaining key talent and training replacements ahead of when they would be needed.

Doing Something Before Time Runs Out

Big employers don’t have much time to gauge and start responding to the potential consequences of the aging workforce on their businesses. First, relevant workforce planning data will need to be collected and then productive conversations started with business leaders about when and how their operations will be affected. Areas of the operation and job groups that are at risk of losing key staff due to retirements will need to be identified and their impacts assessed as specifically as possible. Actions will then have to be quickly agreed and started.

A mix of two basic strategies – replacement and retention – will likely be needed. Replacing large numbers of skilled workers will neither be quick nor easy. Recruiting and training programs will have to be focused at key skills groups most at risk. This is why the second strategy of retention will need to be carried out in parallel. Employers will have to work hard to understand what kinds of ‘employment deals’ that older workers need and want to stay working full time or on a part-time or contingent basis. Many companies will likely be forced to make substantial changes to their workplace and HR policies to accommodate older workers.

In a future article, we will discuss more research findings on how the aging work force will impact businesses and what actions employers can take mitigate the risks and negative effects on their organizations.

Great Companies Don't Treat Workers Like Disposable Objects

How ironic. And sad. Circuit City, one of eleven "Good-to-Great" cases cited in Jim Collin's mega-influential book, "Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap and Others Don't...", announced yesterday that it would be firing 3400 store workers and replacing them with lower-paid new hires.

The company asserts that these people were "earning well above the market-based salary range for their role." According to news reports these workers average about $10-$11 per hour while their replacements will be paid about $8 per hour.

Sadly, Circuit City is doing the same as many other companies in replacing cheap labor with cheaper labor. What's unusual is how open and euphemism-free they are about the rationale for the moves. I suspect a gaggle of class action suit lawyers is already on its way to Richmond as I write this.

Many would argue its good business. Wall Street seems to like it - Circuit City's stock price rose almost 2% after the announcement.

Only time will tell whether this turns out to be a painful, but necessary financial restructuring of the company or a shortsighted tactical attempt to fix problems caused by management mistakes.

In the meantime, Jim Collin's might want to think about dropping them from his list or maybe putting them on a new one - "From Good to Great to Goofed" along with some of his other "great" companies like scandal-ridden Fannie Mae and sell out Gillette.