There's only 14 hours in a day

You only have 12-14 working hours in an average day to get done what you need to get done, so you better get proficient and diligent about scheduling and time management.

That is the paraphrased advice I caught from one of the guests on an MSNBC show called 'Your Business', a show about tips, strategies, and advice for small business owners and aspiring entrepreneurs.

It's pretty easy to take that '12-14 hour' assertion and break it down to see if that kind of level of effort and commitment would work in your life of course. It's just a numbers game really.

Take the midpoint of 'working hours' say - 13

Give yourself an (optimistic) 6 hours for sleep.

That's 19 hours accounted for so far. You have 5 hours left, but that still seems like a lot, right?

Do you physically have to go to an office? If not, you likely on most days, have to go somewhere. Let's be conservative and say 1 hour a day (on average), is spent in transit, and such, more or less not available for 'work', or at least not usually.

4 hours left. That still feels like plenty.

There was a really popular book that came out a couple of years back that suggested 4 hours was enough to get a week's worth of work done. I admit to not reading the book and knowing anything about how one might actually successfully pull off that trick, but if someone can figure out how to cram a week's work into 4 hours, then that same amount of time each day has to be plenty for non-working, non-sleeping activities.

So what would need to be fit into the remaining 4 hours? Well depending on your personal situation, interests, and motivations, you'll need to select however many items you can from the (incomplete) list below:

1. Eating

2. Obtaining and/or preparing food and related items to support your need to eat

3. Personal care and hygiene

4. (If you have kids) whatever you do each day that passes for parenting

5. Family/friend social time

6. Everything else I missed

Can you fit that all in to 4 hours? Maybe. Again, on average maybe for a while.

Of course you or someone you take care of might get sick. Your car might break down. Some inconsiderate friend or family member might actually need more than about 45 minutes of your time at a stretch one day. And of course you need time to keep track of and update, (variously), Facebook, LinkedIn, (well that might be 'work'), Twitter, Instagram, Tumbr, Pinterest, etc.

But the interesting thing to me is not that the guest on the small business focused talk show casually tossed out the 12-14 hours as the standard or expected allotted or expected 'working day', it's that none of the other guests nor the host challenged the assertion in any way. It was a given. It was 'normal'. And while interesting, it certainly isn't surprising, everyone knows, (except maybe the 4-hour work week guy), that small business owners and entrepreneurs have to work longer and harder and give up mostly everything else in their lives for a time in order to get a new venture off the ground.

That kind of grind, and maybe even worse, comes with the territory. Which is one of the many reasons that small business ownership and entrepreneurship will never be for everyone. Lots of smart, talented, and dedicated folks simply can't or don't choose to sign up for that kind of grind, particularly when they hit a stage in their lives when personal and family obligations increase and become more important, (think kids' school and sports activities, elder care, spouse or partner job transition, and more).

What's the point?

I guess that 5 years in to a slowdown-recession-recovery-slowdown cycle that seemingly will go on another 5 years or so, and with so many organizations that have had to fight to survive many of the actual 'survivors' have had a long stretches of time where they've been asked and expected to have the dedication and submit to the lifestyle of the 12-14 hour a day entrepreneur, but usually without any (or many) of the associated benefits.

The owner and entrepreneur grinds it out because they have a vision, passion, and 'need' to see that vision realized. The W2 wage guy grinds it out usually for different reasons, to fulfill different needs, (almost all of which are financial), and that might be met just as easily somewhere else, and maybe in only 10 hours a day instead of 14.

I guess I really need an editor because after re-reading this I think I just churned 800 words to re-state the obvious - that leaders and organizations can't really expect the kind of sustained passion and dedication and commitment of an entrepreneur when all you are really offering is a few more dollars and the likelihood that your team members are making incredibly tough choices about what they have to miss each day that many of them never thought they'd have to make.

How many of your team, or possibly even you yourself, are thinking - 'Hey, I never signed up for this?' 

Relocation, company growth, and asking the right questions

Editor’s Note: Today’s post is the final in a series brought to you by Allied Van Lines, proud sponsor of the “2012 Workforce Mobility Survey”, designed to capture the voice of HR on topics related to workforce mobility. Allied has more than 75 years of experience in corporate, household and international relocation.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the simple plan for today's offering -

First, I'll drop two simple, but related charts from the Allied 2012 Workforce Mobility Survey.

Next, I will spend a sentence or two expressing disbelief, incredulity, and general hand-wringing about what the numbers are telling us about our, (that's the collective 'we', not you, dear reader. We both know you are better than that), inability to do the most simple, basic, yet important things well.

Last, I will issue a general plea for all of us, (again it's them I mean, not you), to try and do just a little better. 

Sound good? Here goes.

Chart 1 - Getting to the question of 'How important is relocation, and by extrapolation, flexibility, commitment, and possibly even drive in whether or not you're likely to become a big shot in this organization?'

Wow, turns out it is pretty important. Especially in very large organizations where 60% of respondents indicating for VP and Director-level roles, relocation is required for career advancement, and almost half indicate its requirement for Business Unit leader roles. Since relocation is a requirement for advancement into these very senior, and likely critically important roles, you'd think just about all organizations would have a great handle on just who amongst the potential internal candidates for these roles would be ready, able, and willing to actually relocate for one of them.

Right?

Chart 2 - Guess again, an incredibly small percentage of respondents, even in large companies, indicated they were actually tracking employee's willingness to relocate.

We've heard the story about a zillion times in various formats and ways over the years. The world is shrinking, US companies are looking for growth all over the world, and tapping into markets like China, India, Brazil and more, are becoming keys for many organization's strategies. But in order to make those kinds of strategies possible, to say nothing for less-ambitious but still tricky domestic-based expansion efforts, it will almost always require at least some ability to deploy internal talent in new locations. In order to drop a new store in Topeka, or open a new regional distribution center in Singapore, it is highly likely someone, (probably several someones), will have to go live in Topeka for a while. But based on the survey data in the above chart, it seems like about 88% of companies would have no real idea who might be a good candidate for that kind of primo assignment, because they never bothered to ask anyone.

So here's the wrap-up and the plea. There are lots and lots of things about HR and Recruiting that are really complex, difficult, and simply hard to do. Employees are unpredictable. Managers can go off the plot. Technology that is supposed to make it all better sometimes, unfortunately, lets us down.

Yes, much of what comprises these kinds of the talent processes can be downright perplexing and maddeningly frustrating. But not all of it is hard. Some things are actually kind of easy, like keeping track of people's ability and willingness to pursue new assignments and relocation roles. It is just a question. Ask it once a year, maybe at annual review time, maybe on their service anniversary, maybe at the company picnic, whatever.

But when the simple question isn't asked, and the data to answer the CEO when he or she wants to know if we have the talent to tame a tough market like Topeka does not exist, well then we, (them, not you), look really silly. And the shame of it is that we might have lots of other things that will make us look silly that are out of our control, we really should not be helping anyone make that case.

Many thanks to Allied for the opportunity to participate in the shaping and analysis of the 2012 Workforce Mobility Survey.

And sure, making it a little bit fun probably won't hurt.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you would like to learn more about Allied Van Lines, please check out their website or blog. And if you would like to get more information from the Workforce Mobility Survey, you can click here. It’s definitely worth checking out.

The one thing you bring to the (operating) table

Oh the Linsanity...

Over the weekend New York Knicks phenom and new starting point guard Jeremy Lin was diagnosed with a more serious knee injury than was originally thought, and with the necessary surgery and rehab it seems likely that Lin will miss the remainder of the NBA season, and this development may quite possibly derail the team's chances at a playoff run. Bibby - Sans headband

Upon learning the news, I (sort of) joked over an email to the 8 Man Rotation team that perhaps the Knicks should ask for a knee ligament donation for Lin from (backup point guard and veteran player on the last stretch of his useful career), Mike Bibby's cadaver. A bad joke I suppose, and perhaps an unfair cheap shot at Bibby, who even with his best days as an NBA player far behind him, by all accounts has been a good team player and citizen on this current Knicks team.

But the 'cadaver' joke led me to thinking about how at times it can be really easy to see contributors on a team or in an organization for what they can't do or what they can no longer do, instead of seeing (and admittedly looking harder for), what they still can bring to the table, even if it is only that one thing.

In sports it could be the late career veteran or that single-skilled expert that you might only need once in every five games, but when you need that skill, he or she can be counted on to deliver, whether it is a timely three-point shot in hoops, or in soccer to be calm enough to come off the bench and cooly and efficiently take a penalty kick.

At the office it might be that past-his-prime account rep that landed the 'Big Account' fifteen years ago and has not been doing that much since. But every year at contract renewal time the client still wants to have him in the deal and his presence and stability ends up being a big part of getting the deal done, and a nice chunk of revenue locked up.

Or it even could be one of those 'been there forever and is skating the last three years until retirement' guys that has pretty much checked out, but whenever one of the junior staff is in a jam, and wakes him up long enough to ask a question, he always knows what to do, who to talk with, and (maybe more importantly) who not to talk with.

The key that ties these kinds of scenarios together?

That the unique contribution, that 'one thing', that these types of contributors bring to the table - the donated ligament, the long-term customer relationship, or the deep understanding of organizational politics, are all really personal, really hard to replicate, are extremely important, and can't truly be captured in any kind of database or information management system.  They're 'owned' so to speak by the one person alone.

Two things to take away then. One, as a manager or leader that you'd be wise to make sure when you are cutting people loose or shipping out so-called dead weight or low performers, that you are not losing some critical 'one thing' that no one else can bring to the table. And two, if you are one of those 'one thing' kinds of contributors yourself, well you better make sure you are ready and willing to step up on those rare occasions when your number is called, and that you are still willing to do what it takes, even if it might not be easy.

Even if, possibly, it involves donating a ligament to the new hotshot on the team.

Note: Hat tip to Kris Dunn at the HR Capitalist for his help shaping up this post as he is very concerned about the playoff prospects for the Knicks.

We're all in this together. Unless your Business Unit stinks...

I'm sure you have heard something in the news about the current strike at Verizon Communications, notable for not only the sheer numbers of workers involved (about 45,000), the seemingly irrational timing of calling a stike in this economic climate, but also for the nature and nuances behind the dispute.

The striking Verizon workers represent and support Verizon's landline business, a business that according to the company is in decline. Whether it is due to more consumers choosing to simply forego a fixed home landline in this age of mobile telephony, or the simplicity and low cost of services like Skype, the facts seem to be clear that the landline business is not where growth and increased profitability for the company will lie.

Most of us these days when we think of Verizon, see it only as a wireless/mobile company, with a national presence, constant broadcast advertising, (Can you hear me now?), and retail locations popping up all over the nation. In fact my local Krispy Kreme establishment was closed recently and now has re-opened as a Verizon Wireless store.  Sadly, the conveyor belt that used to carry the tasty donuts for their sugary glaze coating is gone as well.

But the 45,000 striking workers from the landline side of the business point to the overall growth and success of Verizon Communications (the consolidated landline and wireless sides), to argue against management's insistence on concessions and increased contributions to health care and retirement plans. Why should we, they argue, have to 'give back' when the organization overall is performing so well?

I don't really know enough about the details of the contracts and the proposals to come down on the side of either the striking workers or Verizon management as to the specifics of the dispute, but to me the interesting angle is the internal division at play here.  While most of us have not been caught up in a strike like this one, I bet we have all been part of organizations with variations in performance (and contribution to profits and growth), across lines of business, regions, product lines - whatever.

Once the enterprise achieves a bit of scale there are bound to be some parts of the organization that simply perform better than others. And while sometimes individual contribution to the success of these better performing business units is recognized (unit specific bonuses or awards), often it really isn't singled out, particularly when for many organizations it can be difficult to fairly and accurately allocate shared corporate overhead costs to product lines or business units.

So while compensation might be tied to business unit success, things like benefit plans, retirement programs, PTO policies and the like are almost never variable inside and across competing business units within a larger organization. Whether or not you are a high-flying sales rep in a growing product line, or a administrative support person in a declining business, most companies treat you the same way with respect to benefits. After all we're all in this together, right?

The Verizon situation is certainly complicated by the fact that the declining landline business is unionized, and the growing and more exciting wireless business is not, but the larger issue that seems to position one side of the business against another is certainly fascinating.

I am sure we have all had different times in our careers when we looked at a business line in our organizations and thought - 'Man those guys are killing us'. But I doubt we ever as HR or Talent pros advocated for whacking their benefits or PTO because of it. Seems kind of a tough position to defend.

What's your take - should non-compensation related items vary inside organizations according to contribution to success?

Can Innovation be Departmentalized?

It has been an exceedingly dreary few days (weeks, months, years?), here in the USA, with the seeming inability of our government leaders to find solutions for significant issues like the national debt crisis, the ensuing downgrade of US Treasury debt, and the most recent and horrible loss of soldiers in Afghanistan. 

Unemployment remains unacceptably high, many large organizations while reporting strong profits, are choosing to sit on cash stockpiles, rather than increase or expand their labor forces. It is a very uncertain climate, and in this uncertainty it seems like for many companies, caution and restraint make a more prudent choice than more aggressive expansion. Sure, there are still (and always will be) exceptions to this rule, and we have seen several successful tech companies like Apple, Google, and Zynga (and more), continue to increase revenue, create new products, and expand hiring. But for all the high-flying tech successes, there are perhaps more news reports of organizational contraction and mass layoffs, (RIM, Cisco, HSBC, to choose just a few). Image - smithsonian.com

What marks the key difference that allows some companies to succeed and thrive in these tough economic times compared to ones that struggle to survive, or that hope to endure through this sustained period of economic malaise with exercises in cost-cutting, hiring freezes, and even workforce contraction?

Might one of your answers be 'The ability to innovate?'

It makes sense right? Apple wins because they created new and better ways to buy and enjoy music with the iPad, transformed the mobile phone experience with the iPhone, and re-invented and continue to dominate the tablet computing space with the iPad. They have simply out-innovated (and executed, and marketed, and managed), their way to success and dominance.  Heck, they might still have more cash on hand than the US government.

So the question is then, if 'innovation' is the prime cause or factor for sustained growth and success, can organizations and nations simply declare 'We are going to become more innovative', and set up a department, task force, blue-ribbon panel - whatever; and sit down and commence innovating?

I thought about this while reading some articles on a new blog on the Smithsonian.com site called 'Department of Innovation', a resource that describes itself as follows:

"...in the spirit of banging the drum for new ideas and fresh thinking, this blog will track all things innovative, not just in science and technology, but also in how we live, how we learn, how we entertain ourselves."

And while that sounds like a worthy and perhaps even productive undertaking, (there are already a few cool articles on the site), I can't help but think by (at least by name), compartmentalizing innovation into its own 'Department', might not be the right way to frame the discussion, and certainly not the right way to try to advance innovation inside organizations. 

My sense (and this is completely unresearched, so if I am off base, please feel free to bash me in the comments), is that the most truly innovative organizations don't try to box up or to departmentalize innovation. They realize that innovative concepts or even creative ideas can come from anywhere and at anytime in the organization. 

It seems to me that the pre-requisite for improving the chances for innovative ideas to spring up and take root in any kind of an organization is to create an environment where people feel free and safe to share ideas, explore new concepts, and have a real chance to see their work and effort impact the organization, their colleagues, their customers, and their communities. The first step to becoming more innovative might just be granting permission.

For real success today, I wonder if every department in the organization needs to be the 'Department of Innovation.'