Blog Articles And Comments

An essential tool of leadership and motivation is to “catch someone doing something right.”  This single key principle allows us to achieve better results with corrective action and allows people their greatest level of hope, inspiration, buy-in and accomplishment.  While intrinsic motivation begins in childhood and can be difficult to change, extrinsic motivation is among the most volatile of variables in people.

So, why do we offer the exact opposite to our country in the face of economic crisis and election of new leadership?  Why do we allow negative campaigning that destroys hope and motivation, which in turn adversely impacts economic prosperity?  Why at the most visible and widespread level do we allow the opposite of desirable behavior?

Election propaganda, stereotyping and irresponsible journalism need to be called out and controlled.  Let’s catch our candidates doing something right.  Let’s catch our business leaders doing something right.  Let’s catch “Joe Six-Pack” doing something right.  “Joe Six-Pack”… really? Do we think calling our average American a lazy beer guzzling non-intellectual is upholding the right standard?  Joe should step away from the six-pack and produce some results.  Economic prosperity should be earned.  Results are to be rewarded and effort to be applauded.

Kindness, integrity, pride in a strong work ethic and the golden rule can go along away.  At the end of the day, how you feel when your head hits the pillow can be an indicator of personal success.  Hope creates success. Generation Y is mixed with regard to work ethic, partially because they’ve been raised with too much tragedy and negativity in their living room.  Some respond with conviction to overcome, while others are de-motivated by lack of hope. We de-motivate when we place bad news on page 1 and good news on page 36.  The media should get that.  Our political campaigners should get that. 

Let’s catch someone doing something right every day and make an example of that!  Let’s think things through before we automatically tear them down.  Let’s avoid dangerous stereotypes and look for positive exceptions.  Let’s stop creating fear of US businesses as a whole because of the greedy unethical actions of a few.  What I’m looking for in a candidate and political party is integrity and the ability to inspire.  Inspiration will have a positive impact on our economy.

Why should our country’s leadership be exempt from the rules of appropriate corporate leadership?  We call out inappropriate corporate leadership but we don’t enough call out inappropriate campaigning and inappropriate media behavior.  Both political parties talk of change, but I’m watching them use the same political tactics already.  Let’s enforce the standard to “catch someone doing something right!”

It is most certainly an organizational development question to determine the take home pay of top executives.  We can similarly discuss the high compensation for entertainment celebrities and sports athletes.  As CEOs can create jobs, impact work-life and stimulate the economy, we should safeguard salaries to CEOs proportionate to their results at such – as we need to attract top talent there!    
 

While CEO “greed” is certainly alive and well, it finds many exceptions and is not necessarily a direct fallout of tax breaks.  In fact, taxation needn’t have substantial impact on executive salaries at all.  Wherever you find a greedy CEO, you find a CEO who will take whatever s/he can regardless of net profit impact.  Compensation in any US company can be more a factor of supply, demand, job retention and market conditions than anything else. 

Tax breaks are intended to lure corporate behavior likely to create net positive impact on the economy.  These incentives are used to create jobs, stimulate economic spending and increase the many other taxation opportunities which fund our government.  Tax breaks to “big oil companies” could be considered in exchange for actions that heal the economy, such as the lowering of fuel costs to the public.  With proper structure and surrounding conditions, this tax break could provide a positive net economic impact.  Additional discussion on this point is well summarized at this CNN article.   While we need to avoid tax incentives as “currency” to special interest group and campaign fundraising, let’s keep the discussion focused on the “how” and “why” we propose tax breaks.  Let's also consider the individual taxes paid on salaries, personal spending and economic impact of the personal investments of CEOs.  Without that language, we haven’t enough information to comment. 

As a CEO who does not practice greed, I think and behave like many CEOs who think as shareholders, and I choose to protect company value, the supporting team/infrastructure and my future as the CEO.  CEOs are accountable to the shareholders.  These strategies are the subject of board meetings and MBA programs.  CEOs in large companies may have the shelf life of a pro football player, and if we want to attract top talent to these economy-driving opportunities, as a country we may choose to offer a large incentive package, again proportionate to results.  Where publicly traded companies may wish to empower a “celebrity” CEO to drive shareholder confidence, CEOs must be lured from one high paying opportunity to a higher paying opportunity.  Done well, this creates overall positive economic impact.

With the pyramid shape of a large company, competition abounds.  Power and high compensation are fragile here as many others are grooming and gunning for your spot.  If you don’t move up, you move out.  Once at the top, it’s far too easy to get pushed off that pedestal.  This may be career ending as experience isn’t entirely transferable and few companies wish to pay you for what you did for someone else.   

If you don’t believe the disconnect between corporate taxes and CEO salary, then spend a little time researching the high CEO salaries of the many giant companies who post annual fiscal losses – yielding no income taxes paid to the government. 

Anyone who has studied business in depth knows these principles to be true.  The United States needs first and foremost a President who inspires confidence.  It concerns me – no, disappoints me – that a political party would use lack of education as a weapon against the very sector of our population that it pledges to represent – and protect.  Less education can be a fallout of less financial resources – the people the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, professes to support.  So why make such wittingly false claims to the people you represent?  I love Democratic ideals and am a centrist at heart.  I tend to agree with Republican fiscal policies.  I tend to vote Republican because I believe in the foundation American principles of capitalism.  I believe the answer lies neither at extreme left nor extreme right.  I have specific ideals and blueprints for action.  I support the working people.  I support people who work as hard, and even not necessarily as hard, as I do.  I refuse to support those who don’t do their best and look for a payout due to some sense of entitlement.  There is no such entitlement.  If you don’t believe me, look up “free enterprise,” the backbone of US principles in business.

Suffering the adjudication of sometimes economically and ethically irresponsible state workers, it becomes more costly to appeal the wrongful award of benefits than to simply pay the wrongful benefits.  This in turn erodes not only employee work ethic but also employer confidence in the “system.”  A state neglectful in maintaining this confidence misses opportunities to attract and retain tax paying and job producing employers.  The unemployment rate simply needn’t be as high as it is, and our economy allows for more gainful employment than currently experienced.

When we fail to hold employees accountable for their choices and reward them for unacceptable work ethic, we behave unpatriotically and simply don’t uphold the free enterprise values of the “working American.”  When we award compensation to those who refuse to work, how do we simultaneously advocate that we support the working?

I can’t imagine a better cause than helping those who cannot help themselves.  There is nothing more frustrating than being forced to help those who refuse to help themselves.  We empower people who either cannot or will not make that distinction.   As we look to political platforms that promise “change,” let’s move this need for change to the forefront.  Society doesn’t seem to be getting smarter and doesn’t seem to be working harder.  While to “work smart” is the goal, we need to focus on both words in that key phrase.

The upshot of awarding unemployment to those who should not qualify is the de-motivation of employers to even attempt to follow guidelines and suggestions of the unemployment compensation adjudicators.  Employers understand the futility of attempting to work with standards that, if followed, would put them out of business or at a minimum, force the reduction of jobs offered.

The re-label from unemployment “compensation” to “insurance” is a complete misnomer.  Too many are being “compensated” for items completely within their control.   With 25 years of operations in the state of Wisconsin, I love my hometown state and have difficulty finding employers who do not support these statements.   As HRS continues to expand our bases in Arizona, other states and other countries, data pours in as to why employers choose specific locations, the politics and legislation considered. 

Growing up, I recall the joke “National welfare is a bus ticket to Milwaukee.”  As a businessperson with clients in many states and countries, I assert this problem is not unique to Wisconsin and goes to the political roots in every state.  Let’s please recognize that protecting jobs and protecting wages begins with protecting employers.  Let’s also please redefine what “working” means and hold “workers” accountable to their “work.”  

The greatest opportunities missed by individuals or businesses involve de-motivation.  In many instances, blame-shifting is replacing appropriate action.   While most people agree that motivation is a moving target,  “train the trainer” coaching activities are becoming increasingly more in demand.   While not always feasible, it is certain that motivation can be created.  Ample data exists, and we’ve successfully taught others to create and sustain employee motivation.  The business and personal rewards are too enormous to overlook.  The missed opportunities hurt the bottom line and morale. 

By definition, “motivation” is a willingness or reason to do something.  It stems from hope and/or confidence that effort or action will influence outcome.  To determine if motivation can be influenced, one must first determine if motivation, or lack thereof, is situational or core to the individual.  Proper coaching and motivation skills must be deployed at the very first interaction and sustained throughout.  

Motivation is typically situational, volatile, changeable and easily influenced.   The manager who instills hope and confidence can be rewarded with increased productivity and loyalty.  De-motivation occurs when employers send negative messages (or fail to send positive messages) about the outcomes of work effort, crushing hope or employee confidence.  De-motivation also occurs in stagnant or backsliding organizations.  De-motivation can in itself cause stagnation or backsliding.  Employers and members of management at all levels must take responsibility to build and sustain hope and confidence.  Without rewards and positive feedback, even top performers will lose their "drive."  

However, where core motivation doesn’t exist, it may be a costly and inappropriate investment for an employer.  De-motivation may occur during childhood when parents or other circumstances fail to build hope, inspiration and confidence.  Conversely, some individuals pull through the same circumstances with heightened determination, relentlessly seeking approval, survival and/or betterment.  These core motivations can be more solid and less easily influenced by management or training technique.  It is a manager’s responsibility to distinguish between situational or core motivation.   In a labor intensive environment, it is in the employer’s best interest to ensure managers have the resources to make this distinction.

By NO means do I take the responsibility off of employees.  People need to “suck it up” and do some work.  Whining is never an acceptable solution.  I found gainful employment at the age of 8 and have never stopped working.  Motivation is perpetuated by simply working hard until you achieve results.  Those results will feed more motivation.  If not, the desperation should motivate.  It’s simple survival skills… life skills!  Employees must always understand that demonstration of motivation through results is the only way to sustain gainful employment and get ahead.  Employees must take responsibility for the results of their work and be accountable, always willing to improve and be challenged.

In the mix of this, managers should not be overinflating employees or bribing them to do their jobs.  Overconfident people present problems, personally and professionally.  Employees don’t need mixed messages.  Rewards come in for the "above and beyond."  Simply doing your job at best yields the right to potentially keep your job and avoid negative consequences; unless someone else steps up to do it more effectively, cheaper, reliably or with a better attitude and potential to advance.

There is nothing more rewarding, both personally and professionally, than instilling hope and motivation into another human being … and watching that person convert new motivation into productivity, results and teamwork toward collaborative gain!   I’ve seen this happen many times and it continues to inspire!  Any disbelievers simply aren’t doing it right and need additional training… maybe they can’t lead by example because they are “unmotivated.”  To motivate, you must yourself be motivated.   Look to the “why” and the answers shall unfold.

Born 1980 to 1994, they’ve been called “pampered,” “nurtured” and even “spoiled.”   Raised with astounding conveniences and immediate electronic feedback, they’ve been simultaneously disheartened by negative impacts to trust coming right into their living rooms in an age of overextending media and never-ending awareness of world tragedy, terrorism and economic disaster.  Coddled by parents wanting their kids to have everything they didn’t have, they sometimes set their work thresholds low.  As a proud parent to a couple of these high functioning “millennials,” I understand their perspective and see an opportunity to mentor.

As a Baby Boomer, I firmly understand that my generation hasn’t exactly “gotten it right,” and while I’m proud of personal accomplishments and the accomplishments of my generation on the whole, I certainly recognize the opportunity for improvement.  To improve from one generation to the next is the very definition of progress.  It is not only the right but also the responsibility of each generation to improve upon the previous generation.  So, who are we to tell Gen Y they are wrong?

Should the entire generation stand united with determination to work less and tolerate less stress, maybe change can be effected.  I can already tell you, however, that several young members of this group are stepping up impressively.  In my generation, if you don’t work relentlessly, someone else will step up and steal the opportunity.  It’s simple competition and free enterprise.  In my generation, I don’t know how to serve my family, serve my community and serve my sense of pride and accomplishment without hard work and high stress tolerance.   These are essential survival and self-esteem skills I deem critical.   Wellness experts argue we need lower stress tolerance.  A hopeless workaholic myself, I believe the answer lies in balance.  Often multi-tasking, Gen Y's tasks are not always work related.

Regularly invited to speak to CEO’s, HR/OD professionals, corporate teams and media reporters on this topic, I guarantee this is an issue of popular concern.  As always, we must remember that each generation is comprised of individuals, individuals who are exceptions to the baseline rule of any generation.   Nonetheless, we must measure each generation by the median characteristics.

I think back to a sitcom which quoted “We were so busy giving our kids what we didn’t have, we forgot to give them what we did have.”  Determined to do things differently than our parents, we Boomers applied different concepts to parenting.  Is Gen Y reversing the process?  We are now pummeled with media discussing the low tolerance, impatience and neglectful parenting skills of Gen Y as they begin to raise kids.  We hear stories of child abuse.  Programs like “The Baby Borrowers” mock this generation’s ability to parent, albeit these couples are very young.  Has my generation created monsters?

I think not.  I believe we simply need to step up and transfer knowledge without crushing their idealism and determination to lead a healthier, more well-balanced life.  We simply need to mentor this generation and help them learn lessons, if at all possible, without forcing them to attend the same “school of hard knocks” we did. Yes… I know “that which doesn’t kill you makes you stronger.”  (Quite frankly, I’m a testament to that old adage.)  However, if they can learn a few things more quickly than we did through our patience and mentoring, hopefully this new generation can keep the progress rolling forward.  Once we transfer the knowledge, I’m quite certain they’ll still run into a whole new set of challenges, but it just might be the “college of hard knocks” with advanced learning to benefit us all.