People

I’ve been holding off on this announcement until I finished the paper (mainly to make sure I actually finished it!).

I’ll be speaking at University of Texas at Dallas’ 2nd Annual Project Management Symposium on August 18-19 in Richardson, TX.  I’ll be presenting in the Project Management Methods - A (Track 3) on August 18 at 4:40 to 5:40 PM.  There are some other very interesting topics being presented…hope mine doesn’t get lost in the shuffle!

The presentation and paper is on an interesting topic (more on that in a few minutes).  My co-author, Chad Jordan, and I were able to get some interesting ideas down on paper and get it accepted for presentation at the symposium.  At some point I hope to be able to share the paper on this blog (or at least link to it).

The paper is titled “Project Management and the Stockholm Syndrome“.

The abstract is:

Project success in the world of client/vendor relationships hinges on two things: The ability of a project team to plan, manage and deliver results; and the ability to build and maintain relationships.  Most project teams understand the pitfalls of delivery but many do not realize that another pitfall is associated with building relationships. For example, what happens when project managers or other team members begin to associate more closely with the client or vendor then with their own organization?   This pitfall, which has the same characteristics as the Stockholm Syndrome, can be a significant risk for any project.

This paper addresses the topic of behaviors similar to the Stockholm Syndrome as applied to project managers and project teams. This is not an in-depth research study into the psychological effects of managing stressful projects and how these stresses might cause a ‘Stockholm Syndrome’ effect.  The purpose of the paper is to provide an overview on the syndrome and its associated behaviors and give some insights gathered from a real-world project where symptoms similar to the Stockholm Syndrome appeared and how these symptoms were recognized and overcome.

The idea for this paper came about one day when chatting with a former colleague, Gene De Libero.  Gene postulated that the affects of stress on project managers might be similar as stresses found in a hostage/captor environment.  We discussed the topic some more and decided to work on a research project. That project never really got underway, but Chad and I were able to grind out a paper on the topic.

This particular topic lends itself to future research, which is a good thing considering I’m working on a Doctorate degree

I asked the following question on LinkedIn earlier this week and received some very insightful responses:

What are the top challenges in IT organization’s today?

In reading the various magazines, blogs and websites out there (CIO.com, etc) on the subject, I’ve come to the conclusion that there are many many issues facing IT groups today. What are the top challenges that most IT organizations are facing today? What is keeping CIO’s up at night in today’s environment?

If you haven’t tried out LinkedIn yet, you should…there are some great folks over there as well as some excellent information available in the Questions / Answers Section.

I received some excellent responses…and most were on target with my own thoughts.  Prior to asking the question, I thought that the issues that were in the front of many IT leaders were:

• Find and Keeping Talent
• Business / IT Alignment
• IT Strategy
• Outsourcing

The responses received from other LinkedIn users seem to back up my original thoughts.  There were other issues listed (System integration, Merger and Acquisition Due Diligence, etc) that were very interesting to see as well.

It’s interesting to get the feedback from people in the field on what they see as huge issues.  An interesting point to note, none of the responses seemed to be from CIO’s of an organization…all were from people who seem to be at a more tactical level than strategic level.

Why is this important?  To me, it says that there are a lot of people in IT with the business savvy to see the challenges that is facing them and their organization.  Why then are these same IT folks being told that they aren’t “business savvy” and need to start speaking “like business people“?  It sounds to me like there are plenty of business savvy people in IT but very few people on the ‘business’ side of things that have really reached out to these folks to get their opinions.

Any additional challenges for IT groups that have been overlooked (either in my post or in the responses on LinkedIn)?

If you’re in business today (especially in the Information Technology space), you’ve no doubt heard of the need to ‘align IT to the business’ or something similar…you may have even heard me talk about it (see here and here). The majority of my time in my consulting practice revolves around the idea of alignment and that’s also what I’ve devoted this blog to (although I sometimes ramble on about other topics). I live and breath in the space of alignment of IT and business…..and I’m always perplexed by the lack of understanding of what it truly means to align the technology of an organization with the business goals and practices of an organization.

What does alignment really mean? It’s simple (not really…but…): it means that you look at every aspect of your business to ensure that you are taking on the IT projects that will bring you the most benefit. These projects must fit into your strategic goals and must deliver value to your organization. It’s not really that simple..there are always political agendas, pet projects and personal quirks as well as other issues that creep into the equation. which complicates things.  But…for the purpose of a definition, it’ll do.

So…what does any of this have to with Information Technology Leadership? Read on and see.

With proper leadership in IT groups, and proper leadership within the organization, the act of alignment can be made much simpler. Let me ’splain.

As part of the push to align business and IT, there’s been a lot of talk of bringing ‘business savvy’ people into IT groups. To do this, organizations are sending their IT staff to business classes and MBA programs and hiring technology savvy business professionals to run IT groups. This approach is a good one because it gets your IT staff closer to the business and helps IT understand the terminology and business ’speak’ as the rest of the organization.  This approach is flawed though as it lacks the two-way communication that is required to truly align business and IT.

Training your IT staff on the business lexicon is all well and good…but what about training your non-IT staff on what the IT group does and what it can do for the organization? The current approach is one-way. It turns ‘techies’ into business people….but what about putting the onus of responsibility on both sides? Make the non-IT staff truly understand what IT is, what its capabilities are, and what they can do for the organization and you might open up the communication channels even further.

Mike Schaffner had a great quote in a recent blog post (read it here):

I once had a CEO tell me that one of the things she wanted in IT was people that “talk like us” meaning they understand business issues and can explain things in business terms

It’s great that the CEO understands that she needed to have IT people that understood business principles and the business lexicon. Wouldn’t it be just as important for that CEO and the rest of the organization to understand basic IT principles and what technology can do for them? More importantly, doesn’t it make sense to take some time to understand the people that work in IT?

Rather than making “them” (IT) talk like “us” (business people), why aren’t we looking for more of a two-way communication medium? Rather than forcing IT professionals to change, why not look at the organization as a whole and change the way it operates. Integrate the Information Technology professional into the organization so they can be involved from the start on any new projects and can quickly provide input on the best way forward.

So…you might still be asking “what does this have to do with Information Technology Leadership”. Well…this is what should be at the forefront of every IT leader in the world. Scratch that. It should be at the forefront of every leader in the business world.

Before you make IT personnel ’speak business’, why not take the time to understand what drives them? Understand why they do what they do. Most times you’ll find that IT Professionals like to solve problems using technology….which is exactly what organizations need in abundance these days. Stop forcing ‘them’ to act and speak like ‘us’ and start working together to understand what IT can do for the organization and what the organization can do with IT.

In order to “lead IT”, organizations need to look for leaders on both the IT side and business side who can bridge the gap between the two worlds and help fold IT into every aspect of the business. Bring IT into the strategic planning sessions…heck….let your IT staff take a crack at leading your strategic planning sessions. You might be surprised to find that you’ve got some very savvy folks in IT today who haven’t been given an opportunity to show their true value.

If you truly want to align IT with business, you must first lead change within the organization.  Lead the organization into a new reality and help everyone understand that IT is more than a bunch of ‘techies’…the IT group can be one of your most important assets into today’s competitive environment.

Organizations need to ensure that the proper leadership is in place within both IT and the rest of the business.  These leaders need to understand that IT and IT personnel can be a competitive advantage.  Organizations need to pull IT into the organization and make it an everyday part of business life rather than a necessary evil. To truly align IT with the business, leaders to lead the change that makes people say “I’ve got a meeting with IT tomorrow and I’m excited about what they can do for me” rather than “I’ve got a meeting with IT tomorrow and I’m not looking forward to it.”

“Employee Engagement” is one of those ‘buzzwords’ that you hear thrown about quite a bit…but this is a buzzword that should be carefully thought about by every organization.

A recent survey, reported on by Management Issues, has some very interesting results pertaining to Employee Engagement. The article, titled “Getting to the Heart of the Disengagement Gap“, reports the following results:

A poll of 14,000 employees across 10 European countries by consultants Watson Wyatt has confirmed what a number of similar large-scale surveys have been suggesting over the past few years - namely that there is a vast reserve of untapped potential in the workplace in the form uncommitted or actively disgruntled staff.

It also revealed that more than four out of 10 are actively considering leaving their current employer.

But whereas a 2007 poll of almost 90,000 workers by workplace consultancy Towers Perrin found that just a fifth felt engaged with their work, Watson Wyatt found that only 13 per cent (fewer than one in seven) displayed both strong commitment as well as having a good understanding of the part they could play in making their organizations successful - an understanding Watson Wyatt term “line of sight”.

Only 13 percent of the workforce is fully engaged and trying to create value of organziations. What are the other 87% of the workforce up to? Are they lazy? Incompetent? I highly doubt it…its more likely that the organization has done a poor job of describing how each person’s contributions can affect the organization.

The lack of Employee engagement isn’t just the fault of an organization. There are people who are OK with doing ‘just enough’ to get by but an organization should do everything in its power to ensure that employees are happy and that they understand how valuable they are to the organization.

Whether you agree with the Towers Perrin study that found 20% engagement or Watson Wyatt’s 13% engagement, I think you’d have to agree that there is a problem. How many coworkers/employees do you know that are actively seeking employment elsewhere? How many are really doing the best job that they can do?

How can an organization engage employees? There’s no simple answer…it takes long-term effort by both the organization and the employee(s). I’m not an expert in this field (or any field!) but I will provide a few basic thoughts on how to get started engaging more employees.

• Hire right
• Don’t ask for (or expect) an employee to ‘live to work’ for you…respect their life outside of the office.
• Hold all employees accountable. If an employee notices that there are ’sacred cows’ that aren’t accountable for their actions, their level of effort and engagement will drop.
• Offer flexibility for work hours
• Offer job rotation opportunities - this would hold especially true to young/new employees….keep people interested and don’t let them get bored with their job.

Those are just a few thoughts…i’m sure there are many more. For a great follow-up article on the subject, read Wayne Turmel’s latest article titled “Employee Enagement has a ring to it” that discusses this topic…great article and worth reading.

Technorati Tags: Employee Engagement, Human Resources, Organizational Behavior

The last few years has seen the rise of Internet based social networking. Web sites like Facebook, Myspace, LinkedIn and others have done a lot for networking but it seems like a lot of people think that networking stops as soon as you ‘connect’ with someone.

Charles Green at the Trust Matters Blog had a great post on the topic titled “Larry David, Seinfeld and Social Networking“, with some excellent and insightful comments about social networking.

For example:

The technology of social networking is overrated. You still have to be able to communicate

Great advice…and that’s just the first two sentences of his post! The rest of the post is outstanding…to be able to weave the antics of Larry David (the co-creator of Seinfeld) and the Seinfeld show with social networking is genius.

My spin on Charles’ post is that in order to ‘do’ networking, you have to actually get out there and meet people face to face and even fall a few times. You won’t really gain the most value from your network unless you truly try to understand the other person and how you can really help them.

Oh yeah…you have to understand that networking isn’t about “how can they help me”….when you approach networking the right way, it’s about “how can I help them“

You have to see the human side of your ‘network’….regardless of how many times you email or call someone, the face to face meeting is still the best way to get to know your network.

If you want to take a look at other topics on networking you should check out Thom Singer’s “Some Assembly Required” blog, especially his “Tips for Better Networking“.

I wanted to take some time to simplify my discussion of Resource Diversity and Resource Immobility from my post titled “Competitive Advantage and the Resource Based View of the Firm.”

If you’ll recall, Resource Diversity:

pertains to whether a firm owns a resource or capability that is also owned by numerous other competing firms, then that resource cannot provide a competitive advantage.

and Resource Immobility is:

The concept that if a resource is easy to obtain by competitors because the cost of developing, acquiring or using that resource is relatively low, then that resource cannot provide a competitive advantage.

Now…why do we need diversity and immobility? According to the Resource Based View (RBV) of the firm, achieving diversity and/or immobility allows an organization to create competitive advantage. The theory put forth by RBV is that if you can create an organization full of people, technologies and processes that can’t be reproduced elsewhere by assuring that your resources are diverse and immobile, you can create an advantage in the marketplace.

If you’ll remember from my posted titled “Competitive Advantage - The Human Capital approach” I talked about a football team owner trying to create a real competitive advantage. How would you, as the football team owner, create resource diversity and/or resource immobility?

As I’ve already mentioned here, you hire the best coaching staff and players that you can and then allow the coaches and players to build their game strategy to ensure that the strengths are accentuated and the weaknesses are hidden. You then create an environment that makes your players want to stay as part of your team for the long-run, which means that you have to find creative ways to keep your players and coaches engaged and interested in remaining a part of your team.

Let’s look at another example:

You are the owner of an IT consulting firm and you want to differentiate your firm from the hundreds of others out there. What do you do?

If you are like most people, you probably spend a considerable amount of time thinking about your ‘go-to-market’ strategy, building a marketing plan, building a business plan, etc etc. These are all good things and things that are relevant.

But…what about the delivery of services? How will you staff your projects? Which of the following will you do:

(a) hire the best people with the most experience and expertise.
(b) hire junior level staff with a few years experience and train them to do the job.
(c) call the local IT staffing company and bring in contractors

None of the answers are ‘wrong’ but there are better options from a competitive advantage standpoint. Let’s look at the three options:

• If you do option “a” and hire the best people and provide them with what they need to do their job and keep them engaged and interested in remaining a part of your organization, you are attempting to create resource diversity and resource immobility.
• If you do option “b” and hire junior level staff with some experience and then provide them with the training and tools to do their job, then you are also attempting to create resource diversity and resource immobility…but you have to be careful here. These junior level folks have to be good at what they do and training and tools don’t make people want to stay with you…there has to be something that makes these employees want to stay. You must find a way to keep them engaged.
• If you do option “c” and call the local staffing company and hire some contractors, I’d have to say you aren’t creating any advantage with your human capital. You can’t create advantage this way because you are drawing from the same talent pool as the rest of your competition. A contractor in your office today can easily walk away tomorrow and work for your competitor. You don’t create resource diversity or resource immobility using this option.

You’ll notice that of the three options given above, option “a” and option “b” will provide you with similar results if you approach them with the right strategy. Hiring the best and most experience will more than likely cost a lot of money while hiring more junior level folks will be a bit cheaper. Perhaps you pick from both options and hire people of both types and let the junior level folks learn from the senior level folks. Either way, you have to hire the best people you can and keep them engaged in the organization.

I’m sure there are some of you that are saying “wait a minute…what about…” and you might be right. There might be some options where you would want to use contractors for project-based work but you should expect anything more from them than what any of your competitors do.

If you are truly trying to differentiate your firm from your competitors you won’t do it by using contractors. You do it by having a distinct delivery strategy while finding and keeping the best people you can.

In order to truly create sustainable competitive advantage, an organization must have the right strategy, technology and people in place. In today’s world, it isn’t enough to have only one or two of these; an organization must obtain and maintain the mix of the right strategy, the right technology and the right people.

Using Resource Immobility and Resource Diversity concepts can help with attracting and keeping the right people…which will in turn help with crafting the right strategy and developing and deploying the right technology.

Technorati Tags: competitive advantage, organization, resource based view of the firm, technology, strategy, people

As a follow up to my previous post titled Competitive Advantage - The Human Capital Approach, I wanted to take a second to talk a little bit about the Resource Based View of the firm that I mentioned in the previous post

Most organizations don’t place a high enough focus on human capital management as a component of competitive advantage. In order for an organization to be successful in any market, they must create value for their clients. This value can be created using a new strategy, new technology or some other ‘gimmick’ but in order to sustain this value (and the competitive advantage it brings), organizations must develop and maintain an engaged, knowledgeable and creative workforce (Afiouni, 2007).

To create a workforce that provides sustainable competitive advantage and value creation, an organization must create an environment that allows their human capital to grow, much like money sitting in an interest bearing account does. This growth, expressed within people as increased knowledge, increased motivation, increased engagement, etc can be used to create competitive advantage that would be very difficult for competitors to imitate (Afiouni, 2007; Agarwal & Ferratt, 2001; Luftman & Kempaiah, 2007).

Out of the many theories of organizational behavior, one aligns itself well with the human capital view of people within an organization. This theory, called the Resource Based View (RBV), suggests that the method in which resources are applied within a firm can create a competitive advantage (Barney, 1991; Mata, Fuerst, & Barney, 1995; Peteraf, 1993; Wernerfert, 1984). The resource based view of firms is based on two main assumptions: resource diversity and resource immobility (Barney, 1991; Mata et al., 1995). According to Mata et al. (1995), these assumptions are defined as:

• Resource diversity (also called resource heterogeneity) pertains to whether a firm owns a resource or capability that is also owned by numerous other competing firms, then that resource cannot provide a competitive advantage.
  • As an example of resource diversity, consider the following: a firm is trying to decide whether to implement a new IT product. This new product might provide a competitive advantage to the firm if no other competitors have the same functionality. If competing firms have similar functionality, then this new IT product doesn’t pass the ‘resource diversity’ test and therefore doesn’t provide a competitive advantage.
• Resource immobility refers to a resource that is difficult to obtain by competitors because the cost of developing, acquiring or using that resource is too high.
  • As an example of resource immobility, consider the following: a firm is trying to decide whether they should buy an ‘off-the-shelf’ inventory control system or have one built specifically for their needs. If they buy an off-the-shelf system, they will have no competitive advantage over others in the market because their competition can implement the same system. If they pay for a customized solution that provides specific functionality that only they implement, then they will have a competitive advantage, assuming the same functionality isn’t available in other products.

These two assumptions can be used to determine whether an organization is able to create a sustainable competitive advantage by providing a framework for determining whether a process or technology provides a real advantage over the marketplace.

The resource based view of the firm suggests that an organization’s human capital management practices can contribute significantly to sustaining competitive advantage by creating specific knowledge, skills and culture within the firm that are difficult to imitate (Afiouni, 2007; Mata et al., 1995). In other words, by creating resource diversity (increasing knowledge and skills) and/or resource immobility (a culture that people want to work in), sustainable competitive advantage can be created and maintained.

In order to create human capital resource diversity and immobility, an organization must have adequate human capital management practices, organizational processes, knowledge management practices and systems, educational opportunity (both formal and informal) and social interaction (i.e., community building) practices in place (Afiouni, 2007; Barney, 1991; Mata et al., 1995; Schafer, 2004).

NOTE: I am finishing up a White paper on the topic of Competitive Advantage & Human Capital and hope to have it available within the next week or so…check back soon.

References

• Afiouni, F. (2007). Human Resource Management and Knowledge Management: A Road Map Toward Improving Organizational Performance. Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge, 11(2), 124.
• Agarwal, R., & Ferratt, T. W. (2001). Crafting an HR strategy to meet the need for IT workers. Association for Computing Machinery. Communications of the ACM, 44(7), 58.
• Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of Management, 17(1), 99-120.
• Luftman, J., & Kempaiah, R. M. (2007). The IS Organization of the Future: The IT Talent Challenge. Information Systems Management, 24(2), 129.
• Mata, F. J., Fuerst, W. L., & Barney, J. B. (1995). Information technology and sustained competitive advantage: A resource-based analysis. MIS Quarterly, 19(4), 487.
• Peteraf, M. (1993). The cornerstones of competitive advantage: A resource-based view. Strategic Management Journal, 14, 179-191.
• Schafer, M. (2004). Why Workforce Management Is Back In Style. Optimize, 67.
• Wernerfert, B. (1984). A resource based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 171-180.

Technorati Tags: competitive advantage, technology, resource based view of the firm, human capital, organization

I was asked recently to describe how an organization can use its human capital to create competitive advantage.

I fell into the trap of using Porter’s descriptions and other schemes of describing what it is and how to achieve it and while I was talking I saw eyes glazing over and people losing interest very quickly. I had to find another way to describe competitive advantage and quickly.

The ‘usual’ definition of competitive advantage goes something like this (from QuickMBA):

When a firm sustains profits that exceed the average for its industry, the firm is said to possess a competitive advantage over its rivals. The goal of much of business strategy is to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage.

Michael Porter identified two basic types of competitive advantage:

• cost advantage
• differentiation advantage

A competitive advantage exists when the firm is able to deliver the same benefits as competitors but at a lower cost (cost advantage), or deliver benefits that exceed those of competing products (differentiation advantage). Thus, a competitive advantage enables the firm to create superior value for its customers and superior profits for itself.

That’s an awful lot of big words that really don’t provide a lot of actionable information, especially if you are trying to understand how to use people to create sustainable competitive advantage.

I hit upon the following definition and example and these seemed to stick fairly well…these aren’t mind-blowing but they were effective. My definition:

In order to gain competitive advantage, you must do something different than your competitors in such a way as to make it difficult (hopefully impossible) to imitate.

The above definition was easier for the audience to understand but they still wanted an example to help clarify and solidify what it really means to gain competitive advantage.

After thinking for a few minutes, I came up with the following example….maybe its not the best but it definitely helped the audience get a good grasp of how to use their human capital to create sustainable competitive advantage.

Suppose you’re the owner of an American football team and you’re trying to find a way to ensure that your team wins. What do you do?

Do you…

• Spend millions on the best technology?
• Spend millions on a new stadium?
• Move your team to a new city and hope it works out?

These things might help attract a larger fan base and perhaps bring you more revenue but will they help you win? In football, the superfluous things such as technology,stadiums, etc mean nothing if the team is a losing every game. People won’t pay to see your team play if they lose. So what do you do?

You hire the best coaching staff and players that you can. Your coaching staff spends months (years?) ‘training’ and coaching these players to create a cohesive team that works well together. The coaching staff understands the strengths and weaknesses of the individual players and develops offensive and defensive schemes to take advantage of the strengths and hide the weaknesses.

Now…any other team can imitate the plays that your coaches develop. They can try to imitate the coaching style and the players…but they will fail. Unless they take your players/coaches from you, they will never be able to fully imitate your team.

Your competitors can always try to hire better people and develop better schemes but if you are doing your job as the owner of the football team you should be constantly evaluating your team to ensure that you have the right people with the right training in the right places to ensure success.

The ability to create a unique team is one of the most cost-effective ways to create real sustainable advantage in the marketplace (and in my opinion, the only way).

You can try to use technology, marketing or other approaches but unless you develop those approaches internally they will not provide sustainable advantage because your competitors can use the same approaches to match your every move.

Using the people within your organization to create advantage is one of the most overlooked methods in business today. In most organizations I’ve been a part of, the organization try to mold people to fit the organization rather than create an organizational model that fits the strengths and weaknesses of its people.

I’m planning on expanding on this topic a bit more in later posts by discussing a theory called the Resource Based View of the Firm. This theory states that by creating resource immobility and resource diversity, a firm can create sustainable competitive advantage. Check back for more.

Technorati Tags: Resource Based View of the firm, Competitive Advantage, Human Capital, organization, HR, people, strategy

Its amazing to see what passion can do to a person….and an organization.

My wife Tracie and a business partner (Marcy) officially launched their photography business recently (and I couldn’t be prouder of them). The business, named Jordan Brown Photography (you can view their website @ http://jordanbrownphotography.com), and the pictures that they’ve taken have already started to bring in some business. Not a lot of money mind you…but a little bit.

Both partners still have their ‘day jobs’ and run the photography business in the evenings and on the weekends. Naturally, this has kept them both very busy….but it seems that even though extremely busy, Tracie is extremely happy (and I think Marcy is too). When we talk about the business and photography, I can tell Tracie has a passion for it and really loves taking pictures and learning more about all aspects of photography.

This past weekend, they had a photo shoot for a client on Saturday afternoon and she spent a good portion of the day on Sunday working with the photos in photoshop and working on their website. Not once did she complain that her day was being ‘wasted’ or that she wished she was doing something else. She was truly happy to be doing what she was doing.

I started thinking about the last time I saw passion like that in an organization and I had to think pretty hard to come up with an example.

I sometimes wonder what happens to those bright eyed young people who are passionate about life and their ’causes’ while in high school or college and then somehow, things change. The passion is lost…or at least fades…and those bright eyes dull a bit. I wonder if this dulling happens after leaving college and entering ‘the real world’? I’ve seen a lot of once passionate people enter an organization and very quickly turn into an automaton that ‘goes through the motions’ of corporate life where they do ‘just enough’ to get by.

Could it be that organizations don’t provide an outlet for a person’s passions?  Or…could it be that organizations do so much to require uniformity that they snuff out any passion a person might have had for their job?

I have to wonder how many people in this world are lucky enough to be able to hold on to that passion and do what they truly love doing. Those folks that wake up every day and love to ‘go to work’ have really beat the odds.

How about you? Do you love your job? Do you love commuting ‘x’ hours a day to go to work? Do you work long hours because you love what you do or because you know that your boss expects you to?

If you aren’t passionate about your job, what would you do differently? Change jobs? Change organizations? Would your feelings toward your job change if you were allowed to make your own schedule, spend some of your ‘work life’ engaged in activities that you’re passionate about, work from home or just have a little fun at the office?

There are passionate people within many organizations and there are many organizations that embrace and try to maintain passionate employees but I don’t think this is the majority of people and organizations. There seems to be a movement these days within organizations to find ways to create ‘happiness at work’, but I fear that this is either a fad or that the majority of organizations will try to implement a ‘happiness process’ that will try to force happiness on their employees much like they try to force ‘teamwork’ on them through ‘team building exercise’.

Anyone know of any organizations who are going out of their way to help people remain passionate about their jobs/careers? I’d love to hear of some examples.

As a follow up to my previous post titled “Dress Codes at Work“, I wanted to present the following hypothetical question to my readers.

You work for a company that has a formal dress code that requires a tie to be worn everyday to work. You have the chance to hire the world’s foremost expert in “________” (fill in the blank). This person tells you that they aren’t going to wear a tie and want to be able to wear jeans and a polo shirt every day to work when not interacting with clients.

What would you do?

Assume that the financial decision isn’t of concern (in the real world, we know it would be…this person would probably be very expensive).

Do you hire this person and allow them to follow their own dress code or do you pass and allow them to go to work elsewhere (perhaps your competition)? Would your company even allow you to hire this person because of their request to not follow the dress code?

My answer: I’d like to hire this person….but I have a few caveats to that.Would I want to hire someone that immediately starts asking that they be treated ’special’? Maybe…maybe not…it depends on how the person approached the subject of not following the dress code.

Could I hire this person? Maybe…maybe not…I know a few organizations that would flat out refuse to hire this person because they wouldn’t ‘play the game’ and dress like everyone else.

Would you want to be a part of an organization that would so easily toss aside a potential superstar just because they won’t wear a tie? What does it say about an organization who holds a dress code in higher regard than a person.

In my opinion, dress codes exist to create uniformity. Do you really want uniformity in your organization? Can innovation and creativity grow out of uniformity? I don’t think it can but perhaps someone can prove me wrong.

I do believe in wearing a tie…and even a suit now and then. I just don’t want to be told that I have to wear them every day in order to ‘fit in’. If I’m visiting a new client I ’suit up’ if its appropriate.

PS - make sure you look at my picture on my blog. You’ll see Mr Uniformity That picture will be changing soon…I had already decided to change it prior to this post but now I know I have to change it.

Technorati Tags: organization, Innovation, Leadership, Human Resources, people