Cosa Nostra

What is it about family firms? While they are ubiquitous in the economy of the US and internationally, only relatively recently have we seen an increase in research attention. In our own research we have examined family firms to try and see what makes them different, and in particular how family firms may be able to maintain an entrepreneurial orientation.

In the the first study, coauthored with Shaker Zahra (University of Minnesota) and Carlo Salvato (Bocconi University), we explored what it is about the cultures of family firms that is supportive of entrepreneurship. We found that a number of aspects of organizational culture were significantly associated with entrepreneurship in family firms and that these aspects of culture were generally more important for family than for non-family firms.
1. External orientation: an emphasis on learning from the external environment was positively associated with entrepreneurship in family firms.
2. Coordination & control - entrepreneurial family firms tend to have a decentralized approach to decision making.
3. Orientation to time - entrepreneurial firms tend to emphasize the long-run when allocating resources.
4. Regardless of family status, entrepreneurial firms are able to balance their emphasis on the individual versus the group. While individuals are an important source of ideas, the integration of the collective organization is essential to the exploitation of new opportunities.

In a second study, my colleagues (Gaylen Chandler, Utah State University and Dawn DeTienne, Colorado State University) and I examined how family firms differ from non family firms in the entrepreneurial processes that they use. We were particularly interested in the ways in which family firms identify opportunities and then the strategic decision making processes they use. We found two interesting differences for family firms.

1. Family firms tend to be less spontaneous and creative than non-family firms in their opportunity identification processes they prefer.
2. Perhaps as a result of the unique social networks surrounding family firms, the entrepreneurial opportunities they do identify tend to be less unique and innovative than those found by non-family firms.
3. When they are exploiting these new entrepreneurial opportunities, family firms tend to use a different decision making style. Non-family firms use a text-book approach to strategic decision making, starting from the goals they want to achieve, and working back towards the resources and capabilities needed to reach those goals. The family firms score less strongly on this approach to decision making. They may prefer the alternative model, where they start from the resources at hand and try to identify goals that may be achievable from this starting point.

Family firms tend to be characterized as more staid and less risk oriented - perhaps because a primary goal is the creation and preservation of family wealth. The decision styles and opportunity identification processes we have observed support this view. Interestingly, these preferences of family firms may inhibit them from being the next Google .

*Update: since this blog was first published last year, we have now begun investigating how family versus non family firms in China may differ, and in particular how this may influence their approach to HR and entrepreneurship. Please come back soon for the new results!

On the way up, or down?

A majority of adults don't know what social networking is, and a growing number of those who do are losing interest according to this survey reported on Mashable.com. So, is this a slowly bursting bubble? Is it a case of people not yet seeing the potential to leverage a technology in a way that has a low investment of time in exchange for positive returns?

There are clearly some folks who are leveraging these technologies to create value. Specialized social networks are springing up to support professional communities such as this one, and this one... Companies, consultants, and even academics are leveraging them.

So, is this 'fad' on the way up or on the way down?

Job Hunting 2.0?

OK This is a great story. Over at the blog 'One Day One Job' Willy Franzen is reporting on a cool experiment. They encouraged new graduates to advertise themselves to employers using Faceook. The results were pretty interesting.

This story reflects an updated version of what we learned in research by Mark Granovetter some 30 years ago: people find jobs from 'weak' ties rather than strong ties. Strong ties are close friends and family, people with whom you have frequent and repeated interactions. These kinds of ties are great for trust and friendship exchanges, however when it comes to finding out about unique opportunities, they are less useful. Why? Because these networks of strong ties are quite 'dense' - everyone has similar, and therefore redundant information. What you need for finding unique information (e.g. job opportunities) is connections to a diverse network. This means weaker connectioned to a broader range of unconnected people.

Facebook, linked-in and other similar social networks are exactly the sort of networks that can provide a broad range of 'weak' ties. What Willy Franzen has demonstrated with this experiment is how we can leverage these technologies to exploit a true fact about job hunting: the strength of weak ties!

Management 2.0?

An interesting post by Richard Denison suggesting that in the so-called 2.0 environment, management must change it's ways. In particular, he notes:

It strikes me, that to be a successful 2.0 manager, you need to:

• know when to sit and watch
• know when to let things run their course and for how long
• know when to intervene (or engage) and how to do that without alienating everyone
• realise that management and control are not the same thing … relinquishing control can be a good management technique … and …
• be humble enough to accept that there may be more than one way to get things done and our way might not suit everyone’s needs.

Well, this is rather interesting. As noted by one commentor, these rules seem to reflect coaching, and also leadership, versus management. After all, in a world where the employee knows more than the 'boss' about customers/processes/opportunities, we have to find ways to support and encourage sharing and cooperation - shotgun weddings don't work here!

What can we learn from web2.0 and social networking? Learning how to build relationships, nurture conversations and grow communities online can also spill over into 'real life' where the manager.as.coach can do a better job of providing resources, feedback, goals and constructive advice, and standing back when necessary.

Estimating the R as well as the I

Great post over at Fistful of Talent (again) by Kris Dunn. (yes, it does seem to be FOT week this week). The crux is, you can have your food fast, good, or cheap. In fact, you can get two out of three, but you won't get all three in the same meal. OK, so maybe it's strange to talk about recruiting as a food analogy. The point is a great one. Except, we can add something...

None of this really matters unless you also have a good handle on the returns you can expect from your talent investments. If you have no insight as to the value that is created or destroyed by the right and wrong hires, how can you determine if you need your food fast, or good, or just cheap?

When I am hiring someone to iron my shirts, I can afford to take some risks. Fast and cheap may work ok for this recruitment process. I can quickly detect a mistake, and one or two mistakes don't cause my life to fall apart. On the other hand, I cannot afford to do a poor job on my next research assistant. I will be stuck with this person for a while, and the difference between a good RA and an average RA can amount to significant differences in my productivity.

So my business is easy to understand. But in most organizations, the question of how recruiting leads to value creation is something that you must map out quite carefully. Where are the A-positions (value creators) and which are the dispensible positions? What do those positions do, and importantly, what is the monetary value of hiring someone who is above average, as opposed to simply average (or worse!). These are the key questions to help in deciding WHICH of those metrics (fast, cheap, or good) you need to apply to evaluating recruitment.

Do you hear chuckling when you tweet?

A great post over at Fistful Of Talent (FOT) today made me think. I was recently at a meeting of colleagues in the HR teaching/research game. We were discussing ways to build a community of practice around improving our teaching in HRM. I mentioned a couple of possible technologies, including Twitter and Ning, which may be useful in building and maintaining a social network around this focus. We use both of these for developing and maintaining our social network: www.HRMtheJournal.com

Anyway, the response was consistent with that identified by the survey by Third Age/JWT Boom and discussed by Kris Dunn at FOT: Snort... why would we be interested in that... kid's stuff... what the xxxx is Tweeter (sic)... etc etc. Some of you may recall similar responses when trying to get colleagues, family members, or god forbid bosses (!) to use email about 15 years ago. The chart tells the story:

So what's the harm? Can't we just leave it to the young-un's? Well sure, you might do that. The problem is, you will be slower, less well informed, and less capable of communicating with your future peers (as those young-uns race up the hierarchy and eventually out-pace you in promotions!).

For us Academics/Writers/Researchers/Consultants the need is no less powerful. Staying abreast of the latest tech is what separates the winners from the losers in a world of freelancing, independent, long-tail livin' knowledge peeps... Just ask the guys at FOT!

Of course, perhaps blogging about the need to be tech savvy no matter what your generation is a little like heading to Salt Lake City, Utah and recruiting for the Church of the Latter Day Saints. (disclosure: I spent 3 years living in Utah before making my escape)

Your Employees Touch Your Customers

In case you were not sure, it is official. ALL of your employees can enhance or diminish your reputation. They do this from their desk, at lunch, and as consumers (ask how many GM employees are currently buying GM cars!).

This young lady recently reached out across the globe and 'touched' a consumer (markm49uk in the UK). You see, she assembles iPhones at the Foxconn factory in Shenzhen. Looks like she (or perhaps a coworker) failed to erase a test photo on a newly assembled phone. No harm done, latest reports are that she has not lost her job.

What is interesting here is the power of the
interwebs to make these stories connect. After all, only now could we possibly imagine that we could so easily identify who this was, who was affected, where the 'prank' occurred, and what the outcome is for those involved. In this case, no real harm. However, as we increasingly network and connect at all levels of life, the power of your employees and your customers to connect (bypassing official channels) is also increasing. What does it mean for your corporate reputation?

An important conclusion is that to manage your corporate reputation, you must also watch out for the relationship that you have built with your employees. Do you care about them, and value their contributions; do they know it; will they reciprocate and care for the organization and its customers? Without sufficiently strong relational bonds between the organization and employees, you cannot expect there to be mutually beneficial, supportive behaviors (and vice versa - without these mutually supportive behaviors, there will not be strong bonds!).

First place to look to see if you have good relationships? Supervisors are perhaps the most important driver.

What are you doing to monitor and manage employee-organization relationships?

Open Source Management Text

Sitting here with hundreds of my new friends and colleagues in the Managing Through Collaboration (MTC)* project meeting. Here is a revolutionary approach to writing a text. It leverages the notion of wikinomics, including multiple (1,000+) voluntary contributors, and web 2.0 tools (Facebook, Twitter, wikispaces). The idea is that we develop a truly global book about management, with an emphasis on collaboration, and that we practice what we preach...

Yes, that's right, we (academic researchers, teachers and authors) will work together as a largely virtual and global team, to produce an entire textbook (to be published by Routledge in 2010). How will this work? Can it work? In large part, this may be seen as an experiment. However, there are some precedents to this kind of organization in the 'scholarly arts'.

For example, the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) program, has successfully brought together dozens, if not hundreds of scholars to measure, analyze and evaluate the progress of entrepreneurship in 42 developed and developing countries around the worlds. This collaborative project has been a tremendous contribution to our understanding of entrepreneurship and economic development in recent years. However, GEM is not producing a textbook, it is 'only' producing research and reports (no mean feat).

Is it possible to write a book using collaborative principles? We have bounced around words like 'open source', 'wikinomics', 'web 2.0', but how far can this project really take these ideas and survive (or at least be completed by deadline!). First, what are the principles?

1. Open source means just that - anyone may contribute, although their contributions must stand-up in the community, that is, they must be deemed to be of high quality by the community

2. The community will police itself - once a structure is in place to allow the contributions to be submitted, shared, edited, revised etc. then the community will actively separate the wheat from the chaff, reward the valued contributors, and sanction those who stray too far from the community goals.

3. The strength of the model lies in its egalitarian approach. You are what you contribute, regardless of geographic location, pedigree, formal education, politics or any other personal differences. Whether you are a community college professor, PhD student, Academic Dean, Emeritus Professor, Consultant, Business Leader, each has the opportunity to join the project and contribute.

4. We are our own market. If we do a good job, then we will also consume the product ourselves.

Can these principles really be upheld in the context of a textbook for undergraduate students in the field of management?

First, management texts must generally conform to some fairly standard contents or 'core knowledge'. The commonly adopted framework these days is Plan, Organize, Lead and Control. Within these four categories you will find a variety of topics/chapters on motivation, leadership, organizational structure, information systems, communications etc etc. And, within these subtopics, you will find it important to cite the most significant and well established research findings. This substantially reduces your degrees of freedom in terms of content.

Second, because the book will be produced in a text format first (followed by digital/web versions later) you have significant space and time constraints. Space constraint, because you must cram all of this information into 6-700 pages of a standard management text book sold to undergraduates (at least in the US). Time constraint, because between project conception and birth of the book will take approximately 2 years, with just 8 months for brainstorming, benchmarking and writing of content. These constraints can further restrict freedom and creativity in the name of getting the job done.

Third, while we have a wealth of technology options, sometimes this diversity in communications tools becomes overwhelming. After working with the Chapter team on the HRM topic for 4 months via email and the wikispace we are using, our first face to face meeting was spent resolving a host of fairly important but basic issues such as deadlines, content questions and so on. Even when we focus on a few of the multitude of tools (email, wiki) and ignore others (linked-in, facebook, secondlife). This problem is compounded when there are wide differences in personal capabilities, comfort level, or even access to the technologies required (e.g. secondlife).

Fourth, the overhead of developing the content, coauthoring, and policing the contributions is something that becomes less appealing, especially when there are not many tangible rewards for participation. After all, this is time that could be spent on 'real research' or other activities that may be recognized by the administration and relevant to promotions or rewards.

So what is to be gained? First, by bringing together such diverse 'voices' in the process of creation, the content, examples and presentation of otherwise 'standard knowledge' should take on a unique color and flavor. It may be a cacophony, a babel-like mess, or it may be something greater that is attractive to a new generation of students in ways which us 'old fogies' cannot imagine.

Second, we have global perspective built into the team. Each chapter is written by up to 50 individuals, frequently representing as many as 20 countries (over 90 countries are represented in the project at this point).

Third, we are creating this book about collaboration by collaborating - and this brings a shared experience to the process like no other. Will we remain friends? Will we remain academics?! Will we even keep out jobs?! Or will we find new opportunities and new friendships, not to mention new understanding of our little world?

In my opinion, in order to succeed, this project will never be a true 'wiki' or 'open-sourced' text book. It cannot be. That model does not fit the needs of any of the current stakeholders - publishers, authors, teachers or students. That is not to say that we could not produce such a work. I think a true wiki for management knowledge would be a wonderful thing. But you (and I) would have to do it for love, not money.

I would love to discuss that last idea with anyone who may have an interest...

*This project was initiated by Prof. Charles Wankel, St Johns University, New York. His creative spark has set a lot of us into motion.

Your roaming reporter heads to Disney for Academy of Management Conference

Due to summer conferences, exec education programs, a hectic summer at http://hrmthejournal.ning.com/ and did I mention summer (see http://tw0o.blogspot.com) I have not posted for a couple of weeks. However, expect this to change shortly as the annual meeting of the Academy of Management is upon us. I hope to blog about some choice new research findings in the employment domain, live from Anaheim, California...

Yes that's right mom, I'm going to Disneyland!



Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device

Malcom Gladwell Knows Everything!

In this rather lengthy video which ultimately may be considered a preview of his new book, Malcolm Gladwell regurgitates a thread from Moneyball and one which is the core topic of concern to any selection specialist. The focus is on the problem of identifying effective predictors of job performance. As in Moneyball, MG discusses the use of field tests as predictors of future performance in sport. He also uses examples of cognitive test in the National Football League, physical abilities tests and subjective tests as predictors of performance in hockey, football, and basketball.

The focus is on what MG has termed 'mismatch'. Mismatch means identifying the wrong person for the job and fundamentally rests on choosing the wrong predictors (as was the story in Moneyball). To generalize the problem, MG goes on to provide examples of the difficulty of predicting effective performance in teaching and in the legal profession.

In teaching, the question is what predicts teacher quality? This is clearly important as it has an impact on student learning. Traditional predictors include various dimensions of education and experience. To teach in the US you must have a first degree, certification, state licensing, and academic work specific to the specialty. As reported by MG apparently there is no relationship apparently between these predictors and teacher quality.

What is missing from this discussion is a definition of what being a good teacher is. It is true, that in part a good teacher is one who contributes to improvements in test scores of students. However, many would argue that simply seeing standardized test scores improve cannot be judged the only indicator. What if you are lucky enough to work in a school where you have bright students. They will learn despite your efforts to the contrary! What if you are unlucky enough to work in an environment where students have other serious distractions such as family troubles, poverty, gang violence? Can we judge a teacher as poor even if her achievement is simply to keep kids in school? How will we measure this criterion (similar issues for Doctors and Lawyers by the way)?

Unfortunately, in his rant, MG has made a fundamental error. He never considers the complexity of measuring the criterion - what is an excellent athlete, what is an excellent teacher or lawyer? By obfuscating this half of the equation, it is unlikely that any satisfactory analysis will be achieved.

However, Gladwell does pose a challenge to selection specialists everywhere. In a world that is complex and dynamic, where the required behaviors are uncertain, should we continue to search for predictors of performance? Here in my opinion, are some of the flaws in the logic of Gladwells argument:

1. He ignores the fact that even a weak predictor is actually likely to improve your odds over no predictor at all (chance) or a bad predictor (stereotypical ideas of a good performer). If you combine several modestly predictive measures you can significantly impact job performance of new hires.

2. Performance is complex and must be defined clearly. Sometimes we can predict parts of a job performance rather than overall job performance.

3. Using standardized predictors increases actual and perceived fairness. It helps us to ensure that blacks, whites, women, men, old and young etc. all receive consistent treatment. Furthermore, it enables us to hold companies accountable for how the decision is made.

4. Despite the examples of cases where selection systems do not work, MG ignores the fact that when done well, careful selection improves the average performance of the employees hired and that has a positive impact on organizational performance. This was the other side of the story in Moneyball!

I am looking forward to Mr Gladwell's book. He chooses interesting topics and writes beautifully. What is your opinion, is selection more or less important as the world increases in complexity?

Waive goodbye to your employment rights

An article from the Detroit Free press suggests that it is rather easy for an employer in the US to overcome statutory limitations on filing sexual harassment and other discrimination charges. While the EEOC allows up to 300 days, and other state laws allow up to 6 years for a statute of limitations, employers may simply build shorter limitations right into their employment contract. This is apparently what Chrysler (alone among the major US auto manaufacturers) is doing. Specifically, it is limiting employee claims to 6 months. Any occurances older than six months are disallowed under the employment contract - and this has been upheld by US courts.

Consider the situation - you are denied opportunities or benefits based upon your age, sex, or national origin etc. The first time this happens you are unaware of the issue, over several months or years the pattern becomes clear. Eventually you become so concerned that you wish to act. You file a complaint. Only the specific events that have occured within the six months of your complain may be considered as relevant. How would you feel? How would you feel when you realize that the intent of the labor law of your country was quite simply undermined by the fact that employers are allowed to ask employees to waive their legal rights in exchange for a job?

Now consider that unemployment is rising throughout the developing world. The pressure to accept a job when offered, no matter how unfair or unreasonable the terms, is rising. At a time when employees only defense - the labor union - is at it's all time weakest worldwide, who or how will employees redress the balance in this very unfair bargain.

It will be interesting to see how smart employers deal with this weakness in the labor union and the increased power that they have for doing bad (evil may be too strong a word here) as well as doing good. What happens when you build a reputation for such shenanigans and then the labor market gets tight once again as we expect it will? Who will want to work for you? Will you labor costs be higher than your competitors? Will you employees be less committed?

We call it regression to the mean

When you see outstanding performance on a regular basis, it is quite possible that you will sooner or later see performance that is closer to the average. This is a statistical necessity called regression to the mean. In the case of a company with an outstanding record, it is quite likely that we will sooner or later see a drift towards the average.

Google seem to be experiencing issues like this recently in terms of their people management practices. Not surprisingly, as the firm grows and grows it needs to control costs and promote the return on its people practices. Now, Google is receiving flack on a number of fronts. Just this week, the New York Times reports that Google has announced an increase of 75% in the price of child care for employees:

"Parents who had been paying $1,425 a month for infant care would see their costs rise to nearly $2,500 — well above the market rate. For parents with toddlers and preschoolers, who were charged less, the price increases were equally eye-popping. Under the new plan, parents with two kids in Google day care would most likely see their annual day care bill grow to more than $57,000 from around $33,000."

According to Silicon Valley Insider:

"the Google co-founder Sergey Brin said he had no sympathy for the parents, and that he was tired of “Googlers” who felt entitled to perks like “bottled water and M&Ms,” according to several people in the meeting. (A Google spokesman denies that Mr. Brin made that comment.)"

Is this also a case where a company has built a reputation for its remarkable HR practices only to suffer when reality creeps in? Could it be that HR must be careful in terms of long term planning - how fun and attractive can we reasonably make this company if we expect to be held accountable for costs and returns in the long run. Is it really true that the 'Googlers' feel a sense of entitlement, or is this backlash to be expected when you seem to be breaking a psychological contract. Google promised explicitly not to be evil. They also promised, implicitly, to take great care of all of their employees needs. If they are seen as breaking these promises by insiders and outsiders, it will no doubt impact their employment brand and ultimately their corporate reputation.

There are a number of clouds on the horizon. In a recent blog, one insider explained why he was returning to work at Micrsosoft:
"There are many things about Google that are not great, and merit improvement. There are plenty of silly politics, underperformance, inefficiencies and ineffectiveness, and things that are plain stupid. "

It will be interesting to see how Google handle this next phase in their life - as they move beyond the 'everyone loves us' phase. Are they going to regress to the mean - at least an 'industry' mean if not the 84.hour.week.working.at.the.steel.mill mean.

Remarkable HR example #1 Deloitte Film Festival

Last week I asked for examples of remarkable HR, here is my favorite so far. This is the Deloitte Film Festival, where employees are asked to create films that in some way reflect the brand and employment at Deloitte. I challenge you to try and keep a straight face.

This is great stuff. It also reflects that idea of Remarkable HR that engages people, energizes them, builds dialog about a critical issue: what is this organization that I am in a relationship with, what does it mean to me as an employee, what does it give me, and what do I offer in return? Here is the overview video, there are more here (thanks to Employee Factor):

Miss Matched Socks in HRM?

A recent post by Seth Godin (thanks to Employee Factor for the link) made me wonder. What can or do HR functions do that is REMARKABLE. You know, the sort of WOW, that's COOL or INTERESTING.

The sort of thing that might make an employee say 'I have a great employer' and that makes potential employees say 'I wish I worked for...'. For example, when I see the type of things that Google does, I get the sense that they are remarkable in their HR (dogs, food, hairdressers, game rooms, massages, what.ever.it.takes.to.get.you.and.keep.you) Are there other remarkable HR functions, or actions that you have heard of?

On the other side of this coin, do we always want remarkable? Do we want our HR function to be wacky, crazy, miss-matched socks? or would we prefer, matching, gold-toe, never wear out, earth-toned-but-reliable HR. Unremarkable, but no nasty surprises?

Which of these two are going to make you feel engaged with the job/organization? I would wager that we need something remarkable every once in a while, if only to remind us that there is actually an HR function there, working to support and develop us, to build a relationship between us and our organization.

I want to see some mis-matched socks!

Heresy in management?

When it comes to management knowledge are you catholic or heretic?

So here is a metaphor for considering the two ‘sides’ in the discussion about creating legitimate new knowledge about management. The question is: are you catholic (small c) or heretic in your views?

The catholic approach to knowledge is universal, hierarchical, dis-integrated and handed down from above by an expert ‘caste’ or ‘priesthood’ who have some inherited or earned rights to control or legitimate the knowledge. Is this what some perceive as the current position of management scholarship? Is knowledge of the research process ultimately used in a self-serving and inward looking way (towards other academics) rather than necessarily solve the practical problems of management?

The contrast with the catholic approach is the heretical which I will refer to as gnostic. The gnostic approach to knowledge is particular, personal, holistic, and integrated. I see the gnostic view as represented in action research and cooperative or collaborative inquiry, and often also implicit in the works of many management sages and gurus. In fact, one might argue that the popularity of non academic management guru’s and sages may come from the perceived legitimacy of experience over pure intellect. Notably, the gnostic approach to knowledge of management is also implicit in development activities involving experiential learning.

Here is my bullet point summary of the two perspectives:

Catholic view:
• There is a knowable universal truth about management practice(s). This ‘true knowledge’ exists objectively and can be received, and also disseminated effectively through exoteric teaching in text books.
• There is one way to receive this truth and that is from an ‘apostalic’ priesthood. That is, from wise and skilled initiates who themselves received the knowledge from their teachers (the 'vestigial tail’ of this idea is revealed by a concern with one’s academic ‘family tree'!)
• The acquisition of true knowledge requires the development of specialized skills. This justifies occupational segregation – there are managers, and there are 'management scholars.’
• Failure to adhere to the 'right path’ leads to heresy and illegitimacy. There are right and wrong ways to acquire knowledge of management. Individual experience tends to be devalued and critiqued as in-valid, not generalizable, and subjective.
• A catholic view leads to dis-integration of the knower and the knowledge. This is because of the assumed primacy of objective scientific values, coupled with the dominant interpretation of these values as being realist and positivist.

Gnostic view:
• Consistent with the catholic view, there is a knowable universal truth. However in this case truth may be experienced directly and personally through reflective or contemplative thought.
• There are many ways to achieve this knowledge. However, ultimately it is derived from engagement with the object (management practice) rather than separation from it.
• The tools for knowing are consistent with those from the catholic perspective. These include interpretation, inductive and deductive reasoning, critical and systemic/systematic thinking. These tools are attainable by the thoughtful and not only those who are initiated by an ‘apostolic priesthood’. However from this perspective, knowing does rely upon esoteric knowledge, and this implies that you do in fact need to be initiated, or enlightened in some way – this knowledge is not for everyone!
• Because many diverse ways of knowing exist, and personal experiences are unique, a gnostic approach is heterodox by definition – in contrast to a conservative and orthodoxy-reinforcing approach depicted by the catholic perspective.
• Obtaining true knowledge about management is not the realm of the academic alone – in fact at the extreme, there is no requirement for a ‘priesthood’ at all.
• Because of the inseparability of knowing and knower, the gnostic view is inherently integrative with respect to these categories (i.e. knowledge and knowledge-holder).

I believe that there are numerous avenues here to explore, such as the question of whether heterodoxy can coexist with an MBA education (as in 'Managers not MBAs'), the place of the management journal in informing practice, and the contribution of management practitioners to academic discourse.

What do you think?

Down on the farm

The BBC reports an interesting new study: If you want to recharge your batteries, head to the farm.

"Professor Jules Pretty, head of biological sciences at [Essex] university, said there was "growing evidence" that exposure to green space and woodlands was good for people... This study clearly shows that spending as little as two hours on a farm benefits a person's wellbeing and enables them to connect with nature... ditch the gym workout or snooze on the sofa and get out into the countryside and on to a farm instead."

The report was sponsored by a group called 'Linking Environment And Farming.'

You may be able to re-energize by taking a trip to the country this weekend.

Overlooked and Underutilized: Meeting the talent shortage

The fact that there is a talent shortage surely has not gone unnoticed and will surely not be surprising to any readers of this blog. Over at 'Perfect Labor Storm' the labor shortage is a central focus of the discussion. In particular, blogger Dr. Ira Wolf cites a recent Manpower survey which claims "22% of the 2,000 employers participating in the survey indicated they were having difficulty filling positions even in a slowing economy."

A recent study by Mark Lengnick Hall, Philip Gaunt and Mukta Kulkarni draws attention to an oft' overlooked segment of the workforce which you may want to reconsider. Their study, just published in Human Resource Management, entitled 'Overlooked and underutilized: People with disabilities are an untapped human resource.' I want to point out some highlights.

• In the US, 12.6% of working age individuals report one or more disabilities (thats 21, 455,000).
• The unemployment rate of this group is 60% in comparison to 20% of those without disabilities.
• While 56% of non-disabled people are employed in full-time employment, only 23% of persons with disabilities are. (source for all these data are American Community Survey, cited in the article)

The questions driving the study are simply:
1. If employers are short-handed, and people with disabilities are available to work, what is the problem?
2. What can be done in practice to bring these two groups together and solve both problems at once.

What is interesting and new here is that the authors are asking an old question in a new way. Instead of focusing on whether people with disabilities are available to work, the ask: what factors drive employer demand for people with disabilities?

The answers are enlightening. The study interviews 38 corporate executives. There are three categories of concern that employers have when it comes to hiring people with disabilities:

1. People with disabilities may not be qualified, or may not be able to perform the job, or, may be less productive.
2. The cost of hiring people with disabilities will be higher due to absenteeism, health care costs, legal liability, or making reasonable accommodations.
3. Stakeholders - customers, or coworkers - may react negatively or even feel resentment.

The authors then go to some lengths to evaluate the extent to which these concerns are supported by the facts. While there are certainly some areas we do not yet know much about (e.g., comparisons of attitudes and motivation of people with and without disabilities), there is a lot of empirical data that refute the major concerns of employers.

1. In terms of dependability and performance there are no differences
2. The costs of accommodations tend to be low and there are no differences in terms of accidents or insurance costs
3. There is little evidence that coworkers or customers react negatively to the employment of people with disabilities.

One area where improvements can be made is with respect to institutional qualifications. When people with disabilities have institutional qualifications it increases employer confidence in hiring, according to the authors.

One executive is quoted as saying:

"There has to be an economic reason for people in management to put their heart in action"

If the talent shortage is not a good economic reason, then what is? The costs of failing to hire the right people for the job can be significant for any organization - why forgo this opportunity?

No more people-people

Recently Theresa Welbourne suggested that we reconsider some Myths in HR. In that spirit, I want to raise an old - and painful - bit of HR folklore: that there is an HR personality (and worse - this is a People Person-ality!)

This was the subject of an article published earlier this year over at Human Resource Executive Online. In that article, the author Scott Flander explored evidence that HR execs differ from non HR execs. The results do stimulate an interesting discussion, but beware of jumping to conclusions about the 'HR personality'!.

First, Flander notes that the two groups (HR/Non HR execs) are in many ways the same. This conclusion is drawn on the basis of a variety of personality tests administered to clients by a variety of consulting organizations. The tests included the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, the CPI (both from Consulting Psychologists Press), the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument, a 'Global Personality Inventory' (Personnel Decisions International) among others.

Here are the other observations in a nutshell.

In comparison to non HR executives, HR execs are:
1. Less competitive - less likely to intimidate, manipulate and resort to passive aggressiveness - and sin of all sins, less ambitious and entrepreneurial!

2. Nicer people - more optimistic, sociable, empathetic, self aware and considerate. They tend to be more interested in working in teams, and building consensus

3. However, there is some evidence that the people at the top of HR are in fact more 'business' and less 'people' than those further down the HR hierarchy - there is more similarity among top execs of all functional backgrounds including HR.

The problem with this approach is that it leaves open the door to claim that the real reason HR does not get its voice heard at the strategy table is personality. That is a poor excuse and not one that should be perpetuated. For a number of reasons we must view the idea of an 'HR personality' with caution.

First, we have substantial research evidence that personality only influences behavior when the situation is weak - there are not strong norms or social expectations - one has to rely upon one's own framing of a situation and this leaves the way open for personality. Ask yourself, are making an effective presentation to management, selling your ideas, being accountable, measuring results really activities that are so ambiguous that personality matters? Or, are these skills and habits that can be learned, no matter what your personality profile may be?

Second, if we start to examine that list of strengths and weaknesses we also may find some social framing going on. After all, we have a lovely myth that being tough-as-nails is the only way to win in business (just ask Jack Welch). On the other, we have the myth that HR is for people-people. In fact, this very article risk's re-creating this myth! This point is well made by Gina Hernez-Broome (Center for Creative Leadership) who notes that in these personality inventories, people may be simply reporting 'what was expected' of them

Third, there is a distinct difference between the statement that personality is an important driver of occupational preference, and the statement that it is a driver of executive effectiveness. There is no doubt that personality preferences influence our occupational choices. However, HR executive effectiveness or ineffectiveness stems from what you do. There is not a strong argument that says your personality will prevent you from doing the right thing if you know what that is.

What is your opinion?

Cooking, energy and engagement

What can we learn about work and employment from cooking? This week I took my Global Executive MBA group to an 'experimental kitchen' here in Milan, called Spazio Galatea. The idea is to have some fun, get to know one another and of course reflect a little on what it means to be engaged and energized by work.

The beauty of this kind of activity is that it is, of course, fun. However the rhythm of a kitchen brings certain other issues to life. In particular, the ideas of meaningfulness of a task, and the urgency of the context.

The team building aspects of the kitchen stem in part from your novice status - shared with the rest of the team. You and your peers are likely to be novices, at least when it comes to cooking for 30 people in a professional kitchen. For non Italian speakers, novice status is reinforced by the fact that your guides in this adventure will only be speaking Italian! The roles and tasks can be quite unclear, and this process creates an environment that is conducive to very authentic interaction - where you reveal both your strengths and perhaps weaknesses, but in a safe environment.

A second useful aspect of this activity is that it presents a task with a high level of meaningfulness. When your job is to cook a dish, which will hopefully be enjoyed by the others in your party, this brings a sense of accountability to the game. Accountability is an important driver of being engaged in the work - you have responsibility and ownership. These are intrinsically satisfying and motivating and can support a greater degree of engagement in a task.

Lastly, an interesting dimension is inherent in the life of a professional kitchen - that is urgency. Timing is perhaps the key skill in cooking, and making sure everything comes together at the right time is essential. However, with urgency comes pressure. Pressure can be very energizing - you focus your attention and bring extra effort to bear. However, it can also become overwhelming. Although we certainly didn't bring anyone close to breaking point in this exercise (this isn't boot camp!), we did experience the waxing and waning of our individual and collective energies over a 120 minute period. Fortunately, eating a great meal and sipping a nice glass of wine helped us all recharge quite quickly!

Cooking - who knew you could learn anything about management in the kitchen!

Welcome to Threee

Its always nice to do the first blog - the first marks in a blank workbook, first tracks in the snow, kind of thing. This is not my first actual blog (james-hayton.com has some earlier items), but this one might be more coherent in its goal, which I will share with you here. The goal of the blog will explain the blog's title: threee, as in Three E, actually as in e-cubed or e to the power of 3.

I am a researcher of organizations and particularly focused on managing people and the formal and informal systems that influence their behaviors. I believe that, within all the complexity inherent in organizations, we need to focus on three levels of analysis, which 'magically' can be captured by the three e's.

External alignment of people management practices with strategy, structure, culture, and competitive environment of the organization. We tend to focus on strategy, and this may be most significant. External alignment or fit between how we manage and reward and the goals of the organization seems like common sense, but is often more complex that first appears.

Engaging employees in the organization. Again, obvious, but not so easy - especially when no one can even agree on what engagement actually is or how it is defined.

Finally, energizing: yourself, the group in which you work, and the organization. Energy is a very personal and direct experience and has recently received some attention by researchers - including a colleague at University of Michigan, Theresa Welbourne who is running a project called 'leadership pulse/leadeship team pulse.' Full disclosure - I am also involved in this project and hope to share some of the insights from our part of the project here in this blog.

The core idea is that all three levels of analysis are significantly influencing performance whether or not you pay attention to them. Furthermore, the idea that they are interdependent means that there will be synergistic effects from paying attention to all three levels. The question is, how can you leverage these dimensions to produce superior performance?

This is the substance of threee.
More later