Powerful or Grateful?

What kind of an employer are you?

For the last few weeks I have been reading and watching the new Microsoft advertising asking you whether yours is a people ready business. Very thought provoking, if you pause for a couple of minutes and reflect. While Microsoft finally wants us to buy its software, I would like to thank it for bringing a rather intriguing and burning issue to the fore.

The introduction to the campaign is really smart. I quote verbatim from the Microsoft website.

‘A people-ready business is a business that knows people are its most important asset. ‘

‘A people-ready business believes that people, more than processes, systems, machines, location, or outside consultants, are the ultimate drivers of business success.’

Almost everywhere I go these days, from almost everyone I meet, I hear sounds of optimism about business. Double digit growth, diversification, new launches, new markets, exports, outsourcing, insourcing, being recognized by overseas partners and parents, winning accolades by prestigious newspapers and magazines, parent company’s head honcho’s visiting our market, wining big deals. We are passing through exciting times indeed.

I also hear a litany of complaints and frustration. Mostly about people, human resource, talent. Mostly about youngsters. Lack of commitment, no sense of loyalty, flexible views on integrity, openly flirtatious behaviour, excessive ambition, money mindedness, undisciplined, scant respect for experience and seniority, gossipy, impatient, attitude problems. We are passing through exciting times indeed.

All of us know that talent is no longer an easy issue. The challenge is large enough everywhere, perhaps the most acute in service businesses, where talent is all that we have. In service businesses, talent is not just human resource. As we say at Starcom MediaVest Group; it’s our raw material.

Almost all businesses face difficulty these days of finding, attracting, and retaining top talent. It’s not as if people are in short supply. In fact, people with great academic degrees are not difficult to find either. Why do managers complain then?

As I reflect on the manager’s dilemma, it appears to me that a lot of us are trying to solve a 21^st century issue with tools that were useful a couple of decades ago. No wonder, we get frustrated so easily.

Should we redefine employment?

With the exception of dot coms, and other new age companies, most other firms are run by CEOs who started working a decade or two ago. In those days, there were more qualified people than good jobs. Result: many people applied to dozens of companies with the hope of getting a favorable response from at least one. Many of us were fortunate to get a decent job and unsurprisingly, stayed in that job for a long time. Problem of plenty was faced by some lucky ones who got into one of the few business schools or professional courses.

Those less fortunate were to wait longer to get a job. Some tried using recommendations. Some went to employment bureaus. Most were underemployed.

The equation was simple. Your parents managed to get you educated and you got a degree. You needed to find gainful employment. When you got employed, you felt loyal and paid back to the company over a period. The company, your employer, was the powerful benefactor and you were the grateful beneficiary.

My guess is, most of us who grew up in that old world forget that it’s a very different world today. The drives, aspirations, patience, risk appetite of today’s young people are fundamentally different from what we had.

As far as really qualified talent goes, we might be better off turning this whole employer-employee argument on its head. Perhaps we should think of the people as the benefactors and the firm as the beneficiary. Instead of expecting gratitude from our people for having given them a job, we should perhaps be grateful that they have decided to work with us. More than ever before, today’s young people are agents of their free choice. Perhaps we should explore ways of making ourselves attractive to them. It’s not that firms didn’t try to make themselves attractive to prospective employees in the past; they did. In my view, what we didn’t do was to keep ourselves attractive to the people who have already chosen to work with us. That’s something we need to do now.

Who should be loyal to whom?

Many people talk about employee loyalty and do all kinds of things, mostly little monetary incentives, to keep employees loyal. How many of us have given a serious thought to being loyal to our people? Beyond uttering platitudes, what do companies really do to communicate their loyalty? Do our militaristic, top-down structures allow two way loyalty to foster? How many of us hide behind policies to stifle the innate innovativeness of our people? How many of us truly empower our front line people? The old time lalaji employers are reputed to get personally involved in the lives of their people, they knew their employee’s family, and stood by during stormy weather. How many of us new age employers care enough to do that kind of stuff? Or is there so much of b-school in us, that we must make the work place and our relationship with our people, dehumanized, un-emotional and ‘professional’?

Why train someone who will leave soon in any case?

This is a popular grouse I hear. Training costs money and many managers don’t want to waste it behind people, who they know, will leave. I empathise with these managers. They are only trying to save their company precious financial resources. My question is: how do you know who will leave when? Are training and growth not a few of the things people leave to get elsewhere? By not investing enough behind training and skills development, do we not pretty much push our people away and make our own prophesies come true?

What do we look for when hiring?

Experience? Skills? Talent? I know the answer to such a leading question. But how many of us truly look for talent when hiring people? How many companies train their recruiters, often line managers, in spotting talent? Or do we take comfort in the safety of the prospect’s experience and skills? The truth is that the only thing we cannot teach within the organization is talent. Should we not invest a whole lot of managerial time and energy in looking for talent? We must. But we often don’t. Because it’s more difficult. And riskier. And most of us don’t want to go wrong. It’s so expensive. But can we ever avoid going wrong with people? I don’t think we can. That’s the beauty with people. We have to take chances with them. That’s what professional coaches are supposed to do with players. And their whole reputation depends on them. And even they know that unless they play enough prospects, they wont find a player.

Do we hire people around whom we feel comfortable?

Let’s admit it; that’s what we really do. Very few of us managers hire people who genuinely challenge our views. Whose work style might contrast with ours. Who make us uncomfortable, a little nervous perhaps. Exactly the kind of people we should be hiring to be effective in a world in which we did not build our early careers. People who can put some seeds of doubt into our heads. Who won’t hesitate looking us in the eye and disagree, when we are not right.

Do you hear that sound coming from the stomach? If you do, it’s a good sign.

[Published in the Financial Express on July 20, 2006]