Meeting Etiquette

Sitting in a big meeting last week I found myself getting more and more frustrated over time with the behavior of some of the leaders in there. We had 16 people at the "grownups" table and another 20 of us along the wall, there to give presentations or answer questions for the big folks. These 36 people are all long-time government employees, senior managers in a big government agency, and to be honest, they acted like children. As I sat there bored out of my mind (I didn't really need to be there but my supervisor wanted a big presence in the meeting from his directorate, so there I sat violating a basic rule of meetings: don't be in a meeting if you don't need to be) I started observing the behaviors around me. I managed to turn a boring meeting into a pretty entertaining organizational sociology clinic.

The biggest thing I saw was people cutting each other off mid-sentence. I'm don't mean two people who start talking simultaneously, nor do I mean thinking someone is done when they've merely paused for a breath, but instead actually interrupting someone in the middle of their point. You're sending a message like "what you're saying is unimportant" or "I'm smarter than you so let me talk instead," and oddly enough, most people don't like that. It's bad enough to do that to a peer, but I saw one guy who kept doing it to his boss, and yeah, she noticed. And the leaders were doing it to representatives from other agencies, and that doesn't help the cooperation between offices.

Perhaps one reason for all the interrupting (and seriously, it was continuous) was that too many people went on and on and ON when talking. They got really detailed when it wasn't necessary, they repeated points multiple times, and no doubt others cut them off because they were taking up too much time from everyone else. I've always noticed that people listen to you more if you talk less; keep it short and sweet, ok?

One thing that was especially annoying was my twit of a colleague who couldn't be bothered to answer the questions he was asked after his presentation. Every time he was asked the same pretty specific question (4 times in all, by my count) he seemed to be answering the question he wished he'd been asked. That hurt his case, because it made him look like there wasn't a good answer to the question. I felt like I was watching a White House press conference. He was proposing something pretty far out of our mainstream and needed to be ready to answer the "why are you doing this?" question.

Lastly, when the guy running the meeting says "OK, let's move on," it's not a good idea to cut him off and keep talking about it. Especially when he's the big boss.

These may seem like minor things but they really have the potential to hurt the ability of people to work together and get things done during the meeting and afterwards.

How should you use my ranting about all this? Well, first of all, consider that many of your Creatives may not have a lot of experience in meetings and might display many of these same behaviors themselves. Maybe their ego is so big they're sure that what they say is far more important than what anyone else might offer. Perhaps they've been working solo their whole lives and now have to learn to play nice with others. Maybe they have a vision in their head but forget that others don't have the same vision and are currently unable to read minds. Whatever the reason, if you see this, you need to stop it...you can tactfully deflect their behavior during the meeting then later discuss it with them one on one, so they don't embarrass themselves or create a poor work environment in the future.

But the perhaps the most important thing you can do is watch your own behavior. As a leader, what you do sets an example for your Creatives, and they will follow the standard you set. After all, if this is how you operate, and you're successful, well then that's what they should do, too, right?. This kind of poor meeting etiquette makes for a less productive meeting and ends up wasting time, and can also create some resentment and unnecessarily bad relationships between people who have to work together.

Even if your mother didn't teach you some manners when you were younger, it's never too late to learn

IT Should Empower Workers

A recent presentation by Bill Gates, highlighted in a Wall Street Journal blog, suggested that leaders haven't done enough to empower their workers. The point was made that up until now most business software was designed to help managers track information more than to help workers better use information. The Journal blog reported that

Gates said that the next wave of productivity will come from technology aimed at making information available to workers and helping them communicate.

What he's getting at here, to a large degree, is technology to support collaboration. This is obviously useful if you use telework as a business practice, particularly when workers are scattered around the world, but it's also useful even if you're in the same office.

Gates gave a demonstration of Sharepoint, a useful collaboration tool produced, of course, by Microsoft. Now, I've been in an organization using Sharepoint and we had a lot of trouble getting it to work properly. One thing to keep in mind is that a new system like this is likely to require an investment in training...otherwise, you're just buying a bunch of software that will sit there unused.

Google Docs offers another opportunity to make information available for real collaboration, not just review. I've been involved with some non-profit groups using Google Docs to send around proposed bylaws, collect information for a race, and review and submit budget information. We are scattered around the DC area so trying to meet up in person wasn't feasible, and the single point of contact had better things to do than deal with 40 separate e-mail trails.

Getting these tools is easy enough; getting people to use them is another matter. At a recent government offsite, in a discussion about internal communication, I heard a number of older managers (sorry to be ageist, but they've all ben around a while) say that they wanted hard copies passed around the office. When told that they could simply print out an attachment or e-mail if they want a hard copy, one manager said "I don't want to have to hit the print button every time I want something!" Okaaaaayyyyyyyy...how do you deal with that? To some extent, you can train people and allow them to see the benefits emerge during their training. But really, the best way to encourage acceptance of new IT tools is to introduce new ideas one at a time, but consistently, thus helping create a culture where new methods are the norm. Trying to institute a wholesale change at once is typically a non-starter...going from a "read file" full of paper copies of things people should be reading to a Sharepoint system is simply not going to cut it. "IT acceptance" is as much a part of your organization's culture as any other value.

We are starting to see more and more IT tools that encourage, rather than discourage, collaboration. We hope that our Creatives will be open to new ways of doing things but the default response to change is typically "no." The truth is, most workers will say they want to be empowered but when it actually happens it makes them nervous. Addressing that is more of a cultural issue than a technological one, but now that the technology is coming into play, successful firms need to make the cultural shift toward acceptance.

Get 'em Ready...Again

Apparently, the need to start employees off right isn't confined to our creative fields and private firms. Even the federal government is beginning to realize the importance of setting a good tone for new employees, as seen in an article that first appeared here earlier this month.

Agencies Need Better Welcome Wagon for New Employees, Report Says
By Alyssa Rosenberg

Federal agencies should improve their approach to bringing new employees onboard and integrating them into the workplace culture if they want to boost retention rates and productivity, the Partnership for Public Service and Booz Allen Hamilton said in a report released on Monday at the Excellence in Government Conference in Washington, sponsored by Government Executive.

Leslie Ann Pearson, senior associate at Booz Allen Hamilton, said "onboarding" was not used as a retention tool by agencies and orientation for new employees tends to be a paperwork exercise. "They may not be getting any mission information," she said. "One employee said he was sworn in in a hallway without an American flag. It's not inspiring. We had one employee who showed up for work and their manager didn't know they were coming.

"The report, which included feedback from 11 agencies, said the federal government had no consistent approach to onboarding and orientation, even though high-quality programs can boost employee performance and eliminate turnover.

The report authors recommended a five-step approach to acclimating new employees. Agencies should reach out to and prepare for new employees as soon as they accept job offers. On a recent hire's first day, the report suggested agency managers spend time teaching mission values and introducing the employee to senior leadership and possible mentors who can help them negotiate the new environment. Also, managers should be directly involved during the employee's first week, according to the the report, to set performance expectations and ensure that the hire starts doing meaningful work as soon as possible. During the first 90 days, managers should both give and solicit feedback and provide initial training. During the first year, employees should receive recognition, formal feedback and a development plan.

"The first 90 days are when the employee is thinking, 'Did I make the right decision, should I stay with this organization?'" Pearson said. "It's no surprise that the agencies we went to that had stronger onboarding programs were higher up on the [list of PPS'] Best Places to Work.

"Cynthia Heckmann, chief human capital officer at the Government Accountability Office, said her agency had succeeded by analyzing GAO's workforce challenges and rebuilding its onboarding strategy from the ground up.

"We put together a two-year program for our entry-level staff. It's very structured in terms of the training we provide," Heckmann said. "Every two months there's a review and a pay component.

"GAO also built a mass notification system, Heckmann said, and as soon as a new employee accepted an offer, everyone from information technology to GAO's shared service center was alerted so the employee had what they needed to do their job when they arrived on their first day.

Candace Irwin, director of workforce systems and the accountability division at NASA, said systems integration was particularly important for agencies like NASA that carefully monitor access to facilities and deal with classified information. A single system allows human resources officers to fill in information about new hires, request technology and alert security to the arrival of new employees. NASA also has built a portal that provides information to new hires and their families so they can prepare for their first days at work.

Joyce Cofield, director of recruitment, retention and diversity in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency in the Treasury Department, said OCC woos candidates seriously, sending them gift baskets when they accept jobs, and then intensely inculcates them in OCC's values.

"Orientation is where we seal the deal," she said. "We spend a full week with our college recruits, and we do all those pieces of reinforcing the OCC culture.

"Irwin emphasized that onboarding has to be continuous. "Onboarding is a process; it's not an event, she said, "and it has to begin before the employee shows up at the gate."

First impressions matter. We know that if we can get employees familiar with their jobs and trained up, they'll do better...that's obvious. But if we welcome them aboard and treat them well from the start -- with simple respect and some recognition of their enthusiasm -- they're likely to stick around longer, too.

Creative-to-Leader Communication

We know that it's important to not hide information and communicate information from the top down, but don't forget that information and ideas need to flow from the bottom up, too.

Sometimes, though, bosses can seem unapproachable (sometimes, because they really ARE unapproachable...not every leader is good). When that happens, it may be up to the employee to try to resolve the problem...otherwise, the relationship, and the company, suffers. A friend sent me the article below and it provides some great ideas.

Kristie Kennard, in How to Manage Your Boss, offers some tips on how an employee might try to resolve a communication gap. You might consider sharing these with your employees so that if one day they have trouble communicating with a boss (though surely that's years in the future, because they won't have a problem with you, right?) they'll have some idea how to fix it.

Determine what kinds of communication problems you and your supervisor are having.
Do you feel your boss doesn't listen to you? Misinterprets your words? Ignores your comments and suggestions? Is too busy to discuss issues with you? Do you and your boss have conflicting communication styles? Think of recent examples of miscommunication between the two of you so you can pinpoint where communication is breaking down.

Remember that effective communication is a two-way street.
Before you start a laundry list of all the ways your boss fails to communicate, keep in mind that when communication goes wrong in any relationship, both parties have contributed their share to the problem. Take an honest look at your own communication strengths and weaknesses, and assess whether your communication style may be in conflict with your supervisor's.

Observe your supervisor's preferred form of communication and use it whenever possible.
While some bosses prefer casual communication - just drop in and ask a question - others find this too great an interruption. Note how your boss communicates with others up and down the chain of command. If your supervisor always seems too busy to talk to you one-on-one, this is a sure sign that she prefers some other form of communication. Try e-mail, memos, voice mail and assess the results.

Always prepare for a one-on-one meeting with your boss.
It's never advisable to "wing it" during a meeting with your supervisor, particularly if your one-on-one meetings with him are rare. Organize your thoughts, even if you've only got a couple of minutes to do so. Be clear in your mind what you want to communicate and what outcome you want from the meeting.

Specify the topic you want to discuss and suggest a convenient time for your supervisor.
Timing is everything when it comes to effective boss-employee communication, and few supervisors appreciate problems being dropped in their laps with no warning. If your supervisor is generally harried by the end of the day, don't ask for a 4:30 p.m. meeting. Always provide your boss with a pre-meeting memo - even if it's only a sentence - outlining what you plan to cover.

Pay attention to nonverbal feedback you're getting and giving to your boss during the meeting.
Watch for body language with a positive meaning and make certain that you're using it, as well. This means good posture, strong eye contact and a pleasant, attentive facial expression. See these signs, and you're coming through loud and clear. But beware if your boss crosses her arms, checks her watch, frowns or is stony-faced and starts tapping her toe. Stop immediately and ask for feedback, such as "How do you feel about some of the issues I've touch upon?" Address misunderstandings before you go any further.

Verbally summarize what you've agreed upon and end on a positive note.
The meeting should be wrapped up when the purpose of the meeting has been met. Unless your boss does so first, sum up what you've discussed, being specific as to what each of you has agreed to do in the future. End the meeting in a spirit of cooperation and thank your boss for his time.

Follow up with documentation as to what you and your boss agreed upon.
Always follow up with a memo summarizing your discussion, and do it as soon as possible, while the conversation is still fresh in both you and your supervisor's mind. Be sure to date the memo and keep a copy for your files.

This is good advice even for those cases with a good Creative-to-Leader relationship. We can always improve, and these are some good ways to strengthen an already good sense of rapport.

Salary Alternatives

You can't always offer the top salary. In fact, you can't always offer above average salaries, because for that to be the average, then someone has to be below it, right? New firms in particular may not be able to offer much at first until they build up their clientele and have a little cash in the bank. And if you expect a high turnover rate, you might not want to invested a lot in people who will only be with you a short time, especially if they come to you as an unknown quantity and you know little about their abilities. So when it comes to hiring and keeping talent, are there any alternatives besides high salaries?

Silly question. Of course there are.

Too many people take jobs for the money and end up unhappy. Often, they spend so much time making it that they never get to enjoy it. While most of us would like jobs that make us rich for only a little work, few of those exist, so we need to consider a better balance between salary and the other things that make us feel good about our work.

The most tangible alternative involves other forms of compensation. You can offer performance bonuses, say, at the end of a major project. You need to explicitly define some standards for awarding the bonus, make sure your employees understand them, and then stick to them...give the bonus if they deserve it, withhold it if they don't. Something to keep in mind about performance bonuses is that you shouldn't let them become the norm, because employees then expect them and factor them into their compensation expectations, and and if you end up not awarding them, major drama will ensue.

If you're keeping salaries down primarily because you're low on cash, you might consider compensating them through corporate ownership plans like stock options. These were very useful during the dot-com boom of the 1990s, though they lost some luster when a lot of those options ended up being worthless as companies went out of business. They also might not be as attractive in high turnover companies where employees might not be as interested in the long-term viability of the firm (though this could be one way to get them interested).

You might also consider how good benefits might offset a lower salary. You could offer really comprehensive health benefits, student loan repayment, or maybe tuition reimbursement to encourage continuing education. Of course, this last one could lead to employees soaking up education at your expense and then leaving, but it might be worth a shot. Once again, if you're offering lower salaries because you don't have the money to pay higher ones, then maybe you can't afford these benefits, either. Maybe more vacation time, or the chance to leave for a sabbatical at some point with a guarantee their job will be waiting for them, might make more sense.

Many of these compensation schemes and benefits will take money out of your account, and that might not be an option for you. They could cost you less than a higher salary, but you may need to consider other non-monetary ways to get them and keep them on board. One of the advantages of Creatives is that, ideally, they're doing something they enjoy and so the money might not be as important as other things.

Consider, then, the opportunities you might offer your employees. Maybe you set aside time for them to work on things besides their regular job. Google, for instance, allows (in fact, requires) employees to spend 20% of their time on new projects of their own choosing. Maybe your employees would appreciate the time to work on something different, something with a specific interest for them, which might turn into a moneymaker or might not. You might also allow them time to participate in volunteer activities...Creatives can make great mentors, so how about Big Brother/Big Sister programs or some other after-school club? maybe they can get out and do environmental work. Give them chances to do things that other employers don't offer and you'll be in competition for some of the most energetic talent out there.

Perhaps what they're looking for is a suitable culture and climate at work. Offer a challenging work environment where they have the opportunity to develop their skills and succeed based on their merits, and you'll attract self-starters who will work hard to achieve personal satisfaction. Emphasize the product over the process by allowing telework or some other flexible-work program, or keep a relaxed dress code. Give your employees a space where you focus on what they produce and they focus on how they produce it.

An advantage of leading Creatives over, say, bureaucrats or fast-food workers is that to a large degree you're getting employees who do something because they enjoy doing it, and are motivated by more than just a paycheck. In that case, not only can you survive and get great talent despite paying less, you might actually make it part of your business model that you're going to pay less while providing incentives for really motivated and talented people, who are not afraid of hard work in order to succeed, to come work for you.

Employee Feedback

Your employees need to know how they're doing -- hopefully, that falls into the category of "no-brainer." You want them to keep doing the good stuff and stop doing the bad, but they need to know which is which, and it isn't always obvious to them. Even when it IS obvious, sometimes they need a little reminder about what's important.

Your feedback to employees should be based on objectives you've agreed to. You and your employee should sit down and come up with a set of objectives they should meet during a particular period of time. These should be challenging but attainable, and you should have some way to measure progress, even if it's an "I'll know it when I see it" kind of thing. these objectives should be based on the firm's requirements...look at your strategic plan and decide what they should be striving for. Just make sure you both understand what the employee should be doing.

Try to have regularly scheduled feedback sessions. For newer employees this could be every 3 months while more experienced employees sit down with you every 6. Set a schedule, and stick to it. If there's a problem, or if they're doing particularly well, don't be afraid to step in earlier, but definitely don't go any longer than the timeline you've agreed to...they'll start to lose respect for the feedback if you treat it as unimportant.

Have them keep track of the things they do so you can have a more informed feedback session. If someone is your assistant and you've only got the one employee working for you, you can probably keep track of what they're doing, but if you have 20 people then a lot of things will be happening out of your sight. This also gives you a chance to see what they consider most important, and it's helpful if your view on that and theirs match up?

When offering feedback I like to use what I call "the sandwich approach." That is, I start with things they've done well and set a positive tone. Then I get into the problems they're having, with an eye toward improvement more than blame, and then I finish up with positive items again so the session ends on a good note and the chance of them being defensive about the criticisms is reduced.

Don't be too effusive with praise. If you're always telling them how great they are, even for the smallest things, then the value of that praise drops a lot. I once had a boss tell me "good job" so often, and for such little things, that when we finally had a formal feedback session I really didn't care because I knew he'd say "good job" for tying my shoes right. make them earn the praise, and make sure your criticism is only for things that matter, too.

Feedback should be a conversation, not a lecture. If they are having problems, try to find out why they think that is. See how they view their performance and you'll have a better idea what they see as their role in the firm. This might not be the place to ask for feedback on your own leadership style -- knowing you're going to ask them that question could influence the feedback you give them -- but definitely get a sense of how they feel about their performance to go along with your own perceptions.

If they've met the objectives you agreed to, then it may be time for new ones. Use these sessions to look at not just what they've done but also what they can do in the future. Once objectives are met it's time for new challenges.

Lastly, you should document these sessions. There's a good reason, and an unspoken one. the good reason is, you want them to have something to refer back to later so they can see where they're performing well, see where they need to improve, and understand how they've changed over time. The unspoken reason is, if you decide to fire them, you want a record of all the chances you've given them to improve and all the discussions you've had about their poor performance.

Good employee feedback is critical to growing a business and growing employees. Many of us prefer to avoid conflict or discussing less-than-happy topics, but that's what we pay leaders to do. In creative fields in particular, where progress and success can't always be measured by numbers or graphs or other objective means, you have to do something really unusual to help your employees understand how well they're doing: you have to actually talk to them.

Leading Free Agents

Free agents can play an important role in your company, but they're only helpful if you use them right. One thing to remember is that the leadership style you use with your full-time Creatives isn't going to be appropriate for someone who's with you temporarily, and who you may never meet because they're on the other side of the world. You don't get to develop a relationship over time...you've only got a short window of opportunity to do it.

Is short-term leadership really just "management?" Are you really trying to lead someone or are you just trying to get them to complete a particular task? Do you really have the responsibility to lead them like you do your regular employees?

Well, consider the possibility that you might want to bring them back sometime. Maybe you'll want to use them again for future projects, or you might even want to try to bring them on full-time. If you think you might work with this person again then you have an interest in developing them somewhat. You might not be the mentor that guides them to a successful life. Then again, you might.

In addition to trying to turn them into someone you'd want to have working for you, you may also need to sell them on the idea of working for you. After all, if they've chosen the free agent route because they like it, you'll have to show them the benefits of working for you. one of the things you can offer that a free agent is lacking and might want is good leadership. Letting them see that working for you is a good deal in that regard can encourage them to sign on if you provide the kind of environment they've been waiting for.

So how do you exercise leadership with a free agent? Well, first of all, be very clear about your objectives for them just as with any other employee. help them develop a plan for meeting those objectives, whether they're with you for one project or for a particular period of time. Do what you can to integrate them into the organization so they can play well with others...make sure they are introduced to the people they need to know, make them aware of all the resources to them, and do your best not to make them feel like a second-class citizen.

This brings up a unique issue with free agents: making them feel like part of your team even though, for the long term, they're not. This is tricky. They won't have the relationships with other workers like the full-timers develop. Your other Creatives know this person is just here temporarily and may not be interested in being very accommodating because, after all, this person is probably leaving after the project anyway, so hey, where's he long term benefit in cooperating? It's also possible that you're paying the free agent more than your full-timers to balance out the lack of benefits...if your regulars get wind of this they're liable to start thinking that being a free agent is a better deal and you may create a retention problem for yourself.

In addition to your full-timers perspectives your free agent may feel uncomfortable as well. One of the better documented cases of this in recent years was at Microsoft, where full timers had benefits such as stock options that would ultimately make many of them millionaires while the free agents didn't. That's a risk that somebody takes when they become a free agent, and they should understand that, but you may still have to soothe some ill feelings, especially if your full-timers are getting something good and lord it over the free agents. Also, you don't need to do one thing that Microsoft did: full-timers and free agents had different colored badges, making a very clear distinction between the two groups even though they had the same goals in terms of producing a product. Bad idea.

Don't worry about providing free agents the training or other development opportunities you give your full-timers...anyone who takes on free agency needs to understand they're responsible for their own training. But while all your leadership tools aren't available to you, that doesn't mean you should ignore leadership. For 2 days or 2 months or longer, these folks DO work for you, and in order to get the best results out of them, you need to invest some time in leading them.

Employing Free Agents

What role can free agents play in your company? A pretty good one, if you use them right.

Free agents are folks who aren't employed by your company but instead work for themselves, taking on contracting or subcontracting gigs as the mood (and their rent payment) strikes them. Sometimes they choose to remain fully employed, in other cases they only work part-time or do this as a side job. Some leaders hesitate to use free agents, but they bring a lot of advantages and can be pretty useful if you manage them well...but that's a discussion for another day.

One of the big advantages is that they can bring fresh ideas, or at least, a fresh set of eyes on a task. Your in-house employees can, through no fault of their own, start to get stale over time. A free agent not only brings new ideas to a project but can also spark renewed creativity among existing full-timers. They can also piss off your full-timers, which means good leadership from you is needed...but again, a topic for another day.

Free agents also provide you a lower-cost employee, allowing you to bring in talent when you need it but not be paying for it when you don't. With free agents you don't have to deal with health benefits, Social Security or 401(k) contributions, paid vacation time, etc. You may not want to be paying for workers that aren't 100% employed, so you can use free agents when you need them but let them go when you don't.

Along these lines, free agents might be especially useful when you need a special skill for a current project but it's not something you want to pay for on a regular basis. If you need a specialist in a particular programming language or database design, or if your salon is prepping for prom and you know you'll be doing a lot of up-dos over a weekend, you might want to bring in a specialist temporarily.

You might be in a situation where paying for full-time employees simply isn't an option. If you're starting a new business you may not have the resources to commit to paying people for full-time work, and you might even still be figuring out exactly what kinds of employees you need. Using free agents to help you get off the ground allows you to right-size your business and build up some cash before you take on the obligations of full-time employees.

You could also use free agents as a "tryout" for full-time positions. Lots of free agents go back and forth between free agency and regular employment. Rather than hiring an unknown quantity, you may want to bring someone in for a project as a way to see how they'd fit in with your company. In this case, it's probably best if you let them know what you're thinking and see if they're interested...if not, you can still use them, or you might check out someone else instead.

For many firms free agents will be one part of your employee picture but not the whole thing. For some others, hiring only free agents is the way to go. If you understand the needs of your business and the roles that free agents can play, you'll be in a good position to strike the right balance.

Get 'em Ready

Graduation is hitting soon for high school and college students and many of them will be showing up on your doorstep ready for work. Many of them will have worked before but often in a different field and typically not on any sort of career path. So their concept of the workplace is more likely to be based on The Office or Ugly Betty than on reality. What can you do to help them get started?

Teach Them What's Important

When you get to college, professors don't care what you got on your SATs, they only care if you can explain why Shakespeare had so many plays about cross-dressing. By the same token, the days of Dean's List or winning the Pep Band Chug-a-Thon really mattering have passed once you've taken off the cap and gown. Your new employees need to start focusing on the things that matter at work and understand that what made them successful in school might not be the same as what makes them successful here (it might be, but it might not). You need to change their mindset and make them realize that blowing off a project for four months and doing it all the night before is no longer acceptable. Until they're in senior management.

Introduce them Around

In a small company they're likely to meet everyone in your office. In a large company they could go years before meeting people face to face that they deal with via e-mail. Take the time to walk them around and introduce them to people, don't just leave it up to them to do it on their own. They probably need to meet people outside their day-to-day group, and if you walk them around, people will associate them with you and remember where they work.

Have a Sponsor for Them

Designate one of their co-workers -- preferably a volunteer -- to "sponsor' them. The military does this when new people come into a unit, and it's especially helpful when those new people are coming from around the world. the sponsor helps with things at work but can also help with other issues like checking out neighborhoods where the newbie might rent or putting together a little city guide cobbled together from all the city guides available online. They can also help explain company benefits, with which your hew hires might be unfamiliar, seeing as they've probably been on mom and dad's health insurance and always had their vacations defined for them by their school. Giving someone a definitive contact point can relieve a lot of anxiety.

Set Objectives...and Follow Up!

They're going to need some guidance about what to do...the things you and your existing employees take for granted are unknown to the newbies. Sit them down early and explain what is expected of them, and b e sure to follow up with them soon and see if they're doing it and if they have any questions. Letting them know they're on the right track keeps them from guessing and maybe wasting a lot of time. this kind of feedback is especially important for today's new grads, who in many cases are used to get a lot of regular feedback and really want to know how they're doing.

Save the Politics for the Democratic Primaries

It's tempting to explain the internal power struggles because in many cases you can make yourself look like the king of the hill. Don't. let them figure out the bureaucratic politics on their own. Such dynamics are stupid enough as it is, and who knows, if you get a bunch of new grads at once they'll just ignore the office politics and focus on doing good work and then BOOM you've got a culture change. That's not going to happen, of course, but it sure would be nice.

Cut the Cord Early

Having said all of this, it's important to let them go on their own soon. Give them the information to succeed but then let them succeed. You can't baby people and you don't want to give them the idea you're always going to take care of every detail for them. Let them build networks among their peers and figure out their own relationships.

It's exciting to get new hires because you can really mess with their heads and mold them into images of you. But if you can just give them a start, you've done enough.

Two Types of Leaders

There are two types of leaders in this world.

OK, I'll bet there are a lot more than two, but for our purposes, let's say there are two.

When someone comes forward with a new idea, some new opportunity that has some benefit to the firm or to your field of interest or to society in general, and it's something outside the norm, then there ARE two types of leaders: those who figure out why you CAN'T do something, and those who figure out why you CAN.

If we've surrounded ourselves with Creatives, we need to consider that they're going to be, you know, creative. So every now and then they're going to come up with ideas that are different from what you've done in the past. That's the nature of a creative industry. If you want things done the same every day, you need a bureaucratic structure and you need to avoid hiring Creatives. If that's what you need, then go for it, but if you've agreed your industry demands creativity, then that's what you'll get.

When employees bring you something new to try, you've got a decision to make. Ideally, you have a lot of experience, know the history of your firm and the industry, understand the laws, are familiar with corporate polices, and in general, are omniscient (remember, we said "ideally"). Given that knowledge and understanding you can decide whether to proceed.

There are many leaders -- too many -- who will go through that knowledge and look through the policies and come up with plenty of reasons why it can't work. Some of them may be based solely on opinion, others may be in black and white in corporate manuals. They are specifically looking for a reason why it can't be done. Maybe they're just covering their asses or maybe they think they're protecting the company or maybe they're just too lazy to do anything else. After all, if they let you try something, it might increase their workload. Or, someone above them might not like it, so the easiest solution is to just say no.

But there are other leaders who recognize the worth of that suggestion and who will find a way to make it happen. They, too, can look through the books and find a reason they can't do something. But they'll go a step further and find a justification for why they can. Very often corporate policies may conflict, with one section allowing something and another disallowing it. The trick for this kind of leader is to actually do the research and do some thinking about how something can work...chances are that this leader will make something positive happen.

This sort of thing is common in the military. With so many regulations out there it's inevitable that there'll be some overlap, with Army Regulation XXX.XX saying you can't do something and Army Regulation YYY.YY providing an opportunity. The military is a bureaucracy, of course, at least in peacetime, and when you're controlling hundreds of thousands of people and using taxpayer money, perhaps you should err on the side of commonality.

But a business can't afford that, because if you say "no," chances are one of your competitors is saying "yes," and they won't just steal your customers, they may just steal your employee, too. Sure , maybe the answer has to be "no," but don't go into it with that as your goal. See if it's possible to say "yes" before turning someone down.

Larry Page was recently interviewed in Fortune magazine and he bemoaned the fact that so many people just seem naturally resistant to change. Larry is not resistant to change. He's also a co-founder of Google, which hasn't done too badly. So he might be worth listening to.

None of this is meant to suggest you should say "yes" to stupid ideas, or to something illegal. But it IS meant to suggest you shouldn't say "no" simply because of some arbitrary rule that might be contradicted by something else. If an idea sounds worthwhile, pursue it, see if you can make it happen. This is one time when being a "yes man" is OK.

Playing It Straight

One game that people play in the workplace is called “I Have a Secret,” in which they know something’s going on, they let other people know that they know, but they never say what “it” is. It’s a power game played by weak-minded people who can’t get ahead on the strength of their abilities, so they try to make themselves seem more important by suggesting they’re “on the inside.” It’s a stupid thing to do when employees do it, and it’s ridiculous and totally unprofessional when bosses do it. So don’t.

You need to be straight up and honest with your employees. Transparency is the name of the game in effective employer-employee relations. After all, you expect honesty from your employees, so you need to give it to them, too.

You want your employees concentrating on creating, not on worrying about what they don’t know. As soon as they learn you’re keeping a secret from them, they’ll wonder what else you haven’t told them, and then they won’t be focusing so much on work anymore. Don’t give your employees a reason to mistrust you, it just gets in the way of them doing what they should be doing.

Creative industries often take a group approach to work. One thing you don’t want is some members of the group knowing everything that’s going on while others are in the dark. People end up spending more time discussing all these secrets than they do working, and that doesn’t help anyone. It can also bring discontent in your teams as those that aren’t up on what’s going on start to resent or distrust those who seem to be in the know. Don’t create problems that you don’t need just by hiding things.

Very often we don’t like to talk to employees about problems they’re having with their work. In order to avoid conflict we take the easy way out, sit back, and hope they change their performance. But if people don’t know they’re doing something wrong, they’ll just keep doing it that way. Bite the bullet, get over the anxiety, and realize that by providing honest, constructive feedback you’re liable to get better work out of your employees. Open, constructive feedback leads to better work.

Sometimes problems arise that you think might make you or the company look bad. In that case, you have a couple choices. One is to hide the problem, try to fix it by yourself and hope things get better. Another option is to tell your employees about it and use their creative minds and fresh outlook to maybe help solve the problem. You’ve got creative talent working for you – use it to deal with internal issues as well as with the product you’re producing.

It’s tempting to hide stuff from your employees. You might think you’re avoiding hassles by keeping things from them, but in the long run, you’re likely hurting yourself. Sometimes there may be company information that you need to keep quiet, but very often it won’t hurt to be transparent about what’s going on. Before you decide to keep something secret, ask yourself “Am I doing this because it would be bad for the company to let them know, or am I doing this because it might make me embarrassed or anxious?” If it’s the latter, then suck it up and tell them.

Jobs as Education

I recently read a good book called Free Agent Nation, about working independently. The author acknowledged that there are times, especially when you're starting out, that working independently isn't really an option and you'll need to take a job working for someone else. He suggested using this job as an education to get you ready for the day when you ARE ready to go out on your own.

Hmmmm...

Leaving aside for the moment the discussion about working independently, how about this idea of the job as a form of education? Does that have any relevance for a leader of Creatives?

Well, yeah.

Encourage your employees to see their job as an educational experience while you adopt a role as a teacher (as well as a scheduler, manager, therapist, social director, and all the other things a leader has to do).

If your employees treat the job as an educational opportunity, they'll be more inclined to keep learning about new things, improving their skills, learning more about the broader field in which you work, and so on. Guess what? Better informed and better trained employees will turn in a better performance. That may be kind of a "master of the obvious" revelation, but there are other advantages, too.

Consider that as your employees feel they're getting more out of their job, they'll be more motivated to come in and get to work. After all, they're not just giving you work in return for a paycheck...they're actually getting something beyond the ability to eat and pay rent, and that's not always the case in a job. So you'll be creating a more motivated workforce.

You'll also be helping to create the next generation of leaders for your company. Some of your employees are going to want to stay at the technical level, and that's OK for them, but some will want to advance to positions with more responsibility. Encourage them to see every day as one step in that advancement, not in a "suck up to the boss, and oh, I take cream in my coffee" kind of way, but instead, in a continuously learning sort of way.

Some of your employees are going to take that Free Agent Nation advice and leave , whether to go out on their own or to explore other companies. But you know, as much as Creative people move around between jobs, there's a good chance they'll be back someday. By helping them learn now, not only will they be more excited about coming back and working with you someday, they'll also be better at it.

This isn't just for your employees, of course. You, too, should see each job as an education. Most of us don't have formal education in leadership, so you better take it where you can find it. Frankly, if you're not learning something from your experiences, it may be time to move on try something else. Why stay someplace where you're bored??

Lifelong learning is a useful habit to get into. It can occur in formal settings, but a lot of the most useful learning takes place through daily life. But you need to stay open to it, paying attention to what's going on around you, making connections between what you see today and what you saw last week. It doesn't have to take a lot of conscious effort; after a while, it becomes second nature. Encourage your employees to take this approach so they get a lot more out of their jobs.

And encourage yourself, too.

Can Bureaucracies Be Creative?

Can bureaucracies be creative? Yes.

Will they? Well, that's another matter...

We have to remember that bureaucracies aren't designed to be creative. Instead, they exist to make sure that repetitive tasks that need to be done the same way each time get done repetitively, the same way each time. This is why creative people often avoid working in bureaucracies.

But even bureaucracies sometimes need evolutionary and revolutionary change. Evolutionary change, as the name implies, happens over time as the organization adapts to small-scale things. This might include changing some internal processes because of budget reductions, or meeting new legal requirements ("Yeah, did you get that memo about the new cover sheets for the TPS reports?"). Often times this can be handled by the bureaucrats themselves, though suggestion programs or "empowering" the employees.

Revolutionary change, on the other hand, comes about when a massive shift in your environment (usually external to the organization, and usually out of your control) takes place. In that case, the whole reason for your organization's existence may change, and your priorities and values may need to shift quickly as well. A private company may face extinction if it doesn't change, and even government agencies may face irrelevance and accompanying budget cuts, even if they're safe from going out of "business." When the shift from mainframes and workstations toward desktop computers started picking up steam, IBM was faced with a need to change its focus. When the Cold War ended, the US military needed to find a new role and claimed it was undergoing a "revolution in military affairs."

In this case, the repetitive-minded folks who are buried in your bureaucracy might not be in a position to see the need for change -- very often, all they see is their own little piece of the world. You need someone else to look at your group's role in the broader world and see what needs to change. You need someone educated, someone open-minded, someone interested in doing great work without worrying too much about exactly what that work is...you need a Creative.

And preferably, more than one.

Smart bureaucracies have these people. They might call them "Strategic Planners" or a "Red Team, or some other term to show they have a different role than the rank-and-file. They aren't better, they just have a different function. And it's a necessary one.

The organizational culture of bureaucracies is naturally resistant to change, so leading Creatives in a bureaucracy presents some unique challenges in terms of communication of new ideas within the organization and defining your vision for the future, as well as in terms of morale when your Creatives feel nobody's listening to them.

Still, while there are challenges to overcome, overcome them you must. A large company needs its Creatives to help them adapt to the little changes and survive in the face of the big ones. A government bureaucracy needs Creatives to help it understand how it's role changes so it can serve the public's needs. Creativity in a bureaucracy can be tough, but at times, it's vital. And with the right people, it's possible.

About 10 years ago, when I was working in a government agency, a friend complained about how hard it was to get new ideas through the system. Our boss said, "You're frustrated because you know you're doing work, yet it's hard to get it approved. But think about this: what if you were stupid...and it was EASY to get things approved?" We agreed that would be worse, but that still didn't make him feel better.

Minimizing Drama

Put a group of creative people into a room. Challenge them to do outstanding work. Demand that they use all of their skills. Give them a tight deadline. Provide some guidance, then step out of the way.

If you've got a good group of people you'll get some really good results. It'll be tight, it'll be what you wanted, it may be better than you hoped for.

But along with good results, you'll probably get a lot of drama on the way.

Why is that? Why is it that when you put a bunch of skilled, creative people together you end up with catfights, gossip and innuendo, and occasionally some screaming and hair-pulling? Where do all the drama queens come from? It's so common that we expect it...no one sees the interpersonal conflict on Project Runway or America's Next Top Model and says "oh, that's SO unrealistic." But the only way to deal with it is to understand where it comes from.

First of all, consider that the really good people are going to set high standards for themselves. As a result, they probably expect everyone around them to meet the same standards, and when that doesn't happen, conflict erupts. (I know I'm guilty of this a lot) Also, if anyone does anything that might keep them from meeting those high self-standards, then that person is viewed as a problem and is dealt with accordingly.

One reason people feel comfortable setting high personal standards is because they think highly of their own skills. So if there's any critique of those skills, any hint that someone else thinks they aren't as good as they thought, the defenses go up immediately and instead of listening to something that may be constructive (or might not have even been a critique) you get two people either talking without listening to each other, or not talking at all (it's tough to tell which is worse).

In a lot of cases you bring together people with a mix of skills. That's obvious in something like website design, where you've got coders, designers, content providers, ad people, and so on. But even in a hair salon you're likely to have people who specialize in color vs hair, or in mens' cuts vs women's, and they will all have their own view on how things should get done based on the perspective they bring. If those various opinions differ, well then, you get conflict.

Not only do your employees bring different skills, they also have different options available for using them. In a bureaucracy, where everything will get done tomorrow the same way it got done yesterday, you don't have a lot of choices to make. But in a creative environment where things could get done many different ways there will be as many opinions as there are options. When someone's path doesn't get chosen you've got the opportunity for some drama right there.

And of course, people are often drawn to creative endeavors because they have a particular temperament that's suited for it, and one aspect of that is often a flair for the dramatic. Alas.

So how do you deal with it? How do you keep the drama to a minimum? Well, you need to realize it's pretty likely to occur and deal with it in advance, before behavior patterns get established, feelings get hurt, people storm out, lawsuits get filed, etc.

Bring your employees together and see how well they mesh.

Try to keep people who despise each other away from each other.

Help them learn about each other's strengths, and about individual work styles, so they don't get surprised later.

Nip the problem in the bud by making it clear during hiring interviews that this is a drama-free zone.

Have an opportunity for feedback and constructive dialogue so people can vent their frustration in a less confrontational way.

Discourage (but don't prohibit) inter-office dating.

Given that enclosed spaces can lead to high tensions it can be tempting to think that having remote distance workers will solve your drama problem. On the one hand it can reduce the face-to-face screaming, but it can increase the behind-the-back whispering (or texting). You also miss out on the bonding that can occur between colleagues which can reduce friction, and further, you can limit the opportunity for people to learn about and understand each other's particular talents, which could also help minimize the conflict.

Whatever happens, do your best to keep your drama away from your customers. That's not what they're paying for and they don't want to hear it. Be honest, do YOU want to hear a cashier complaining about the long hours he's working or a flight attendant going on and on about how horrible passengers are? Does it inspire confidence in a client to hear the hairstylist say "I could just kill everyone in here right now!" while holding a pair of recently-sharpened shears? No no no no no. Whatever internal issues are going on, once the client walks into the room it's time for smiles on everyone's faces, or else a quick boot out the back door.

And finally, don't be afraid to let people go if they are more trouble than they're worth. At the same time, bear in mind that if they're worth it, you may have to put up with some screaming and hair-pulling. Such is life.

Bottom line: drama is a part of life but it's not inevitable, and it CAN be managed. And if all else fails, maybe you can just work them so hard that they're too tired to complain about anything.

Know Your Employees...and Yourself

Last month the president of a large public university stepped down after two years in the job. The first unusual thing about that was the timing...that's a job most people keep longer, and he even suggested he'd intended to stay in it for at least four years. The second thing about it that caught my attention was that the university president in question was a retired four-star general from the US military. Going from a highly regimented, intensely bureaucratic organization like the military, to a much more creative, idea-driven place like a university, is quite a challenge, one that a lot of folks simply aren't up to.

He recently sent a letter around explaining his reasons for leaving, but reading between the lines suggests a few more reasons than what he offered.

Now that the smoke has settled, I keep getting asked the question "Why are you leaving"? Nobody asked me to leave; we have arguably had one of the best years in the school's history, and there's plenty more to do. One of the main reasons I have chosen to move on is the success we have had over the last two years - and the inevitable and predictable ache that change has caused. I thought it would take four years to get where we wanted to be in most areas. We did it in two years.

What he's saying is that he's leaving because he finished what he set out to do. But I've spoken with some professors from that school and they suggest a different reason. They told me that in many ways he was still acting like he was a general, surrounded by people that were legally required to follow his orders, instead of like a real leader who had to motivate people but not get in the way of their work. This caused some clashes between the faculty and the school administration and it's a lot easier to replace one president than to replace a bunch of professors.

But change is hard - and somebody has to initiate it and somebody had to take the heat for it. That's me. This university needed a hard turn. Now it's time for somebody else to make the next round of changes and set a new standard.

Yes, change can be hard, but it doesn't have to be. With a good leader who is open about what he's doing and who communicates that down the line, the difficulty of change can be managed. However, generals don't have to explain what they do, so maybe he's not used to that.

We needed a process to quantify and define our research goals and the strategy to reach those goals.

Hmmmmm...yes, you need defined goals, but do they HAVE to be quantified? He seems to be focusing specifically on measures of performance you can count, rather than just on developing measures of performance that could be either objective or subjective. That's a very military attitude -- how far did the troops advance today, how many push ups can you do -- that doesn't necessarily fit a more creative environment where less stringent metrics might be more appropriate.

No doubt there is more to do...But it's time for someone else to move us forward. It only took two years – vice four - to achieve what I set as goals for myself.

"what I set as goals for MYSELF" Interesting. He seems to be focusing on his own progress, rather than on the university's. When it comes to moving ahead as an individual - -say, working your way up the ranks to general -- maybe you need to focus on your own performance, and in a bureaucracy with standardized procedures it's easy enough to measure that progress.

Going from the military to the civilian world is a real shock, so moving from a senior position like he had to one where you actually have to play well with others must be incredibly difficult. This may be why you don't see many retired generals being successful in politics, given all the compromise and negotiating that must be done there. By the same token, walking into a creative environment like a university without adapting your style based on your new employees simply won't work.

Don't misunderstand me...I have worked with many of the most senior generals out there today and, as a group, I respect them highly. But when it comes to being civilian leaders, many of them have trouble making the transition. One general I knew in the 1990s retired and went on to be president of a railroad. He left in part because he still insisted on being called "General" while the people around him preferred to call him "John." Another retired four-star went on to run a major non-profit group and finally left because of clashes with the board, based somewhat on his expectation that when he said he wanted something done, it would automatically get done with no questions.

It's critical that, when you step in as a leader in a new organization, you get the lay of the land and figure out what leadership style will work there. It needs to be something you're comfortable with AND that's appropriate for the situation. Don't expect that something that worked in your old job will also work here...after all, this is a different place. Going from a rigid, bureaucratic organization to a creative one is going to require some extra effort on your part to fit in. If you can't do that, if you can't change your style, then you're better off not coming over in the first place.

Transparency

Keeping secrets from your competition makes sense.  Keeping secrets from your employees makes problems.  Keeping secrets from your creative employees makes for some drama.  And that's not good at all.

As a leader you need to be open about what you're doing. With few exceptions, the time for secrets is over.  Forgot the passive aggressive manipulation, forget playing Jack off of Jill, forget your plans for total world domination...you've got a business to run and all of that, ALL of it, simply slows down your progress.  Leaders who play a game of "I've got a secret" lead their people into trouble.  Trying to do things in secret really explodes in your face once people find out what you're doing...and they will.

In my last government position I was in what was supposed to be the creative cell within a larger bureaucratic body.  Our division was called Strategic Plans and Initiatives...the acronym, of course, was SPI.  When I saw the devilish grins on my boss and some of my co-workers I knew we were in trouble.  "ooooh," they said, "we're the SPIs...quick, close the door!"  They were very impressed with their perceived role in the world and were pretty sure we needed to be operating behind closed doors so other divisions wouldn't learn about what we were doing.  Why we didn't want other divisions knowing what we were doing was never fully explained, but that set the tone for all of our daily activity.  

Why is transparency so important for a leader?  Well, first of all, you need to provide people a common focus.  As we discussed before, your creative employees may well go off in completely different directions without some common goals, so setting your goals and keeping them to yourself isn't going to help. I had a government boss once who told me, "I don't see why people want plans to be written down...I already know in my head what it is I want to do." Yeah, that's not helping the rest of us, because we haven't been to mind-reading class yet. If you want your employees working together (and you DO), then they need the same information, and keeping plans and issues to yourself isn't going to help.

While it's true that everybody likes surprises, it's also true that nobody likes surprises. What I mean here is that everyone (well, except for grumpy people) likes opening a present on their birthday, nobody likes opening a budget and seeing their resources got cut because of some priority they never heard of. People like to know what's going on and if they feel they're being cut out of things they're going to resent it professionally and personally. My SPI boss had someone working on a wiki-based information sharing system while the Research and Analysis division was working on integrating databases in a couple different agencies to try to achieve a similar result. But the wiki-work was being done in secret, even though the two efforts could have complemented each other, and because some good effort was divided, and everybody got mad when the "secret" project was revealed in the budget meetings, neither project ended up going anywhere. A bunch of drama in the workplace doesn't help, and that's exactly what you'll get from a creative bunch of folks who spend their time coming up with good ideas and hate seeing them wasted.

Yes, in many businesses you face inter-office politics, and that's usually the justification for a lack of transparency. But the impact that different groups in your organization will have on each others should lead to more transparency, not less. Chances are you need to get buy-in from other divisions to encourage cooperation and reduce friction in budget plans and such. Maybe your employees' work is only going to matter if it's done in conjunction with others, and so you need cooperation rather than competition. Try to overcome the problem of politics rather than feeding it.

Having said all of this, there ARE some things you need to keep quiet. Personnel matters, for instance...not everyone needs to know who's making how much money or which employee has only 3 weeks to show some improvement before being let go (THAT employee needs to know, but you shouldn't broadcast it to everyone). Private matters and problems at home shouldn't be advertised...if you know one of your folks is having trouble at home and it's going to affect their work, find another way to explain that impact in the office without giving all the private details of your employee's life. Remember, "transparency" is not the same as "feeding the gossip machine."

If the reason you limit transparency in the office is because you don't trust your employees -- maybe you're concerned they'll go to a competitor, or perhaps use the information to take your job and get ahead -- that's a sign of a bigger problem. Why do you have people working for you whom you don't trust? If you really and truly don't trust your employees and peers, then the best thing to do is to go elsewhere, because this is a company destined for BIG problems.

What's Your Mission?

What do you do?

Seriously, when you come to work in the morning do you ever ask yourself, "why am I here?"

A lot of people go to church to answer this question, but for our purposes, giving it a little thought in the office can do wonders for you.

When you're making decisions about your business -- such things as what jobs you want your employees to perform, what skills they need, how many people you have, how to spend your money -- all of this should be designed to support your mission.

But what do we mean by "your mission?" Well, if you identified your firm's vision, then that tells you what you what the world to look like. Your mission is what you do to get there. It's the main function that you perform, and everything your employees do should either advance that mission or support those who do.

Unlike vision statements, which we said last week should be involve more nouns than verbs, mission statement should be more "verby." These are action statement, they say what you DO, not what you WANT. For example, let's say you're in a public relations firm. Your vision statement might be something along the lines of "Our clients can walk into any room of their choosing and everyone there knows who they are." Your mission, then, is to create that environment. Your mission statement could be something like "we use every available medium of communication to put our clients' names in the forefront of the public's mind," which says you see your purpose as creating public familiarity with your clients. Or maybe, "we tout our clients' successes while allowing them to learn from their mistakes in private," suggesting that your function is to promote the good news stories while keeping quiet those things that will hurt your clients' reputations so the public has good feelings about them.

Your mission statement should be specific enough to get you to your vision while being broad enough to encompass all you do. It doesn't need to identify every specific task performed in your company, but every specific task should fit within the broad outline you've described. We'll talk more tomorrow about how to create your mission statement.

The most important outcome of defining your mission is that it gives your employees some focus. In a bureaucratic environment where the mission is pretty well understood -- "we'll do the same things tomorrow we did yesterday" -- it's easier for employees to absorb that focus by immersing themselves in the organizational culture. But when it comes to more creative enterprises, especially those in fast-paced, changing environments, your employees are going to be thrown into a mixing bowl at high speed and they'll need some direction to keep them moving forward and avoid the blades of this really bad metaphor that I just decided I don't like. OK, here's the thing: you get a bunch of talented, free-thinking, creative people together and they will come up with great ideas that may have nothing to do with your business. Ten people could easily go in ten different directions if you don't have something that ties them together. That's what a mission statement does for you.

It's easy to just pencil-whip these, crank out something that sounds high-minded but is devoid of any real meaning. "Quality is Job #1" was a statement used by Ford Motor Company for many years -- I'm not sure if they intended it to be their mission statement but it was on banners and everything, so maybe it was. But it didn't give any direction to employees, except perhaps to say "don't make mistakes," but really, the mission of Ford isn't to not make mistakes...it's to make money. So why not have describe your mission in such a way as to help you get to that?

Something to keep in mind: if you're doing something, and you can't figure out how it relates to your mission, then maybe, just maybe, you shouldn't be doing it. If you come across something like that, and you're afraid to make a change and stop doing it, well, just accept that you're spending resources on something that doesn't really matter, which translates into "wasting time and money." That's not good. When we talk about being creative, we don't mean "find a creative way to go out of business."

Understanding why you're here is important. Gaining that understanding isn't always easy. But with a little thought you'll gain a lot of focus, and that will keep you moving ahead of your competitors, and also help your employees understand why, exactly, they should show up for work each day.

Seeing Your Vision

How do you want your world to look?

When you say your business is successful…what do you mean?

If everybody does what they’re supposed to do, what have they done?

The answers to these help you find your Vision. For many large companies and government agencies, “Vision Statements” are nothing more than something to print on a poster and hang everywhere, or stick on a website so your clients think you “get them.” But if it’s just a slogan, or if it’s designed to fit on a coffee mug in a pleasing font, then it isn’t going to help you at all. On the other hand, if you really put some thought into it, it’ll help you drive your business toward success, and it will offer some focus to all those wild-eyed dreamers, and squinty-eyed accountants, working for you.

If you're going to do some planning -- and you should - - you need to have some idea where you want to go. You really need to know where this business should be heading before you start worrying about budgeting, personnel, where do buy the coffee, key things like that. And as you're trying to lead your employees, you should be able to communicate your Vision to them to give them a target to shoot for. As for you, your leadership style and the techniques you use should be based on what it is you're trying to accomplish. So don't just pencil-whip it. Your Vision Statement should be the result of some real effort.

A good Vision Statement should be descriptive, using lots of nouns and not a whole lot of verbs. It’s not so much what you want to do -– that comes later -– it’s what you want to be, what you want to create, what you want your clients or customers to do or have or get. This should be the first step in any serious planning you do because it allows you to define success and puts a goal out there around which everything you do should revolve. If you don’t know where you’re going, how will you decide how to get there? For that matter, how will you ever know you’ve arrived?

It really shouldn't be the result of just one person's thinking. I mean, if you're the creator of a new firm, you probably have a pretty good idea where you want it go. But as you grow, you'll want to include others in that discussion and decision. Why? Because the discussions you have about your Vision will help you know if you've got a collection of like-minded team members or if you have 20 people going in 20 different directions (hint: that's not so good)

You need to make your Vision Statement realistic, but remember that “realistic” and “likely” are different words. It’s like the difference between “possible” and “probable” – the former is adventurous, the latter is safe. Realism depends on the time frame of your planning…if you’re only looking a year down the road you’re likely to be stuck with the resources you have, but if you look five years away, a lot more options (and challenges) occur.

When I wrote my doctoral dissertation I discussed how government agencies change (or not) when the world around them changes. One of the things I emphasized was the need for a good Vision that was communicated to, and accepted by, the members of the organization. One of my advisors said she thought government agencies spent too much time writing Vision Statements and then ignoring them, and she's probably right. But she was wrong when she said they were unimportant...if done right, they're one of the most important tools to help you lead your business.

Consider some of these:

“We create companies we’d be proud to have our children work for.” (Trium)

“A free and democratic Iraq.”

“We focus on our clients’ outer beauty so they can focus on their inner beau