I attended my first Future Salon on Thursday night. Future Salon is a monthly event in Palo Alto that sparks our imagination about what could be. As we gathered around the refreshments during networking hour, we pondered the future of corporations, and what could happen if corporations gained a conscience. That was the topic of the night: Activating Conscience in Corporations
The concept is not new, in fact, many professionals have struggled with the dichotomy between personal values and work demands. The bottom line only, winner take all type business model seem less and less appealing for many who are seeking an alternative form of career satisfaction. How would a corporation behave if it were person with values? How do we embody these values into the DNA and culture of the corporation?
To prepare us for this discussion, host Mark Finnern asked the audience to submit their top 3 values prior to the Future Salon. Mark then took the values and created a word map. Integrity, Honesty, Freedom, Respect and Kindness were the top 5 values that the audience-collective submitted prior to the Future Salon. As an exercise, we used those five collective values to create a values roadmap for an imaginary FutureSalon Inc. As guest speaker John Montgomery guided the audience through the values roadmap process, I find myself thinking, it's nice to have value statements, but everyone has encountered "Core Values" framed on the wall, how do culturally successful companies make them a reality?
It all starts with the founder and the leadership team. Culture successes like Southwest and Zappos are all out on a mission, a mission driven by their founder. The founder's every movement oozes with values and the followers embrace those values as their own. "In order for culture to work, you need to hold each other accountable, tops down and bottoms up." said John Montgomery, who has worked with hundreds of start-ups in the bay area. He tells three stories about start ups whose founders have died in accidents, and how the cultures of those companies was stimulated and rallied around each death. "I'm not saying the founder needs to die," joked Montgomery. But the shared experience of death really bonded the team and cemented the culture. The point is that well established and understood values along with strong, shared personal connections are the foundations for a strong and thriving value based culture.
About Future Salons:
Future Salons starts with networking from 6-7pm, with light refreshments proudly sponsored by SAP; then the presentation and discussion follows at 7-9+pm.
Location: SAP Labs North America, Building D, COIL (Co-Innovation Lab). SAP is located at 3410 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304. Free and open to the public. Please spread the word and invite others, but be sure to RSVP http://bit.ly/9kPpRt so we know how many people to expect.
2/26/2010
Gather Restaurant - sustainable dining for every budget
More fun places to eat that helps the planet! Check out Gather in Berkeley,CA.
The founder of Gather came to give a talk at my Graduate School. Gather is a restaurant with sustainably sourced food. A lot of restaurants in Berkeley offer sustainably sourced menus, but are usually "mostly" sustainably sourced. At Gather, all items on the menu are sustainably sourced.
Gather was built on community dollars, not VC funded. He was able to garner support from small investors starting at $5k to fund his restaurant, much of the proceeds of the restaurant goes back to those small investors. Talk about keeping money in the community.
In addition, Gather maintains a yummy 50% vegetarian menu, with menu items ranging from a $15 pizza to share to $100 on fish and wine, truly providing a place for people of all budgets, tastes and dietary needs to Gather.
http://www.gatherrestaurant.com/
The founder of Gather came to give a talk at my Graduate School. Gather is a restaurant with sustainably sourced food. A lot of restaurants in Berkeley offer sustainably sourced menus, but are usually "mostly" sustainably sourced. At Gather, all items on the menu are sustainably sourced.
Gather was built on community dollars, not VC funded. He was able to garner support from small investors starting at $5k to fund his restaurant, much of the proceeds of the restaurant goes back to those small investors. Talk about keeping money in the community.
In addition, Gather maintains a yummy 50% vegetarian menu, with menu items ranging from a $15 pizza to share to $100 on fish and wine, truly providing a place for people of all budgets, tastes and dietary needs to Gather.
http://www.gatherrestaurant.com/
Only recycling but want to do more? Start an Eco-Team
A lot of Americans have good intentions for the environment, but when asked what they are doing about it, they simply respond with "I Recycle." Maintaining a sustainable living planet requires a lot more than just recycling, but it is very understandable that knowing where to start may leave people perplexed. But there are answers out there. EcoTeams, formed since the 1990s, are neighbours coming together to socialize and learn about sustainable living. You can also learn how to augment your contribution beyond recycling. The Green Living Handbook is a good place to start:
Image Courtesy: http://www.empowermentinstitute.net/glh/images/GLH_cover_web320.jpg
Read about the handbook here.
You can also read more about EcoTeams here.
2/24/2010
The collboration and transparency generation
"You now have a generation in the workplace who expect transparency in how decisions are made and are used to being collaborative." -Deborah Asbrand
While this may be true, we are at least, if we're optimistic, 10 more years from truly seamless collaboration and transparency. The bridges for collaboration are being built around us. Tools like Blogs, Google Docs, Wikis are available. Open source initiatives are widespread. But transparency and collaboration is a cultural problem not a tool problem. It takes 3-4 generations for new paradigms to stick, if it sticks. The first bulk wave of believers in collaboration and transparency are still in their 20s and 30s. This group speaks the language and uses the collaboration tools everyday, but the group, except for a select few, is still working their way up the ranks of business, government and society.
While the information age has enabled a brand new breed of young information entrepreneurs, the bulk of society still lives in a tops-down, mainly computer-less world. And the 20s and 30s will find themselves constantly bumping against a generation gap as they shift the paradigm from tops-down to webbed interactions.
While this may be true, we are at least, if we're optimistic, 10 more years from truly seamless collaboration and transparency. The bridges for collaboration are being built around us. Tools like Blogs, Google Docs, Wikis are available. Open source initiatives are widespread. But transparency and collaboration is a cultural problem not a tool problem. It takes 3-4 generations for new paradigms to stick, if it sticks. The first bulk wave of believers in collaboration and transparency are still in their 20s and 30s. This group speaks the language and uses the collaboration tools everyday, but the group, except for a select few, is still working their way up the ranks of business, government and society.
While the information age has enabled a brand new breed of young information entrepreneurs, the bulk of society still lives in a tops-down, mainly computer-less world. And the 20s and 30s will find themselves constantly bumping against a generation gap as they shift the paradigm from tops-down to webbed interactions.
2/23/2010
Hiring Leaders in Pairs - part 2
Unfortunately my Google Buzz feed does not update to blog posts directly, so I'm writing another post in response to a great comment I have received on the Hiring Leaders in Pairs post. Thanks BN for sharing your insights from the HR point of view...
The comment was "speaking as a startup recruiter, it's a conscious expectation that the new VP you hire will have a team they can bring along. it's part of the value they provide when you hire them, and it's definitely discussed during the recruitment process. often you're building out a brand new team from ground up or building upon one or two other people, and VPs should have the connections to identify and fill the gaps in skillset where they exist." i don't think it would be necessary for the whole team to interview as a lump, it's more of a puzzle where you're fitting together various pieces into a whole. that being said, i like the idea of hiring in pairs. i work much more effectively with my design counterpart than by myself, and if i were a leader it would be a good way to ensure a great team environment along with diversity of thought."
It seems we are doing a version of hiring in pairs or teams in the real world, this often happens in a manager-subordinate situation, and I believe it works for those dynamics. But for the dynamic of dual-leadership role such as CEO and CFO, President and Academic Dean, there exists a certain power autonomy for the leaders. I believe in these circumstances there are distinct advantages to explicitly hiring in pairs:
1. It creates an even power dynamic.
Neither person hired the other and as a result, neither have implicit power over the other. Being new hires at the same time bonds the pair in the context of the new organization.
2. It shows the new hires that the organization values the pair as a whole.
When hiring in pairs, the expectation from the organization that "You are a team" is very obvious. This in turn dampens the desire to take personal credit for team accomplishments, and sets the understanding of "we want results from both of you, as a team."
This doesn't work for all organizational environments today. Most organizations track employees on an individual rather than a team basis. But organizations with a strong team cultures and metrics may find this practice useful for establishing team mentality from the top- down.
The comment was "speaking as a startup recruiter, it's a conscious expectation that the new VP you hire will have a team they can bring along. it's part of the value they provide when you hire them, and it's definitely discussed during the recruitment process. often you're building out a brand new team from ground up or building upon one or two other people, and VPs should have the connections to identify and fill the gaps in skillset where they exist." i don't think it would be necessary for the whole team to interview as a lump, it's more of a puzzle where you're fitting together various pieces into a whole. that being said, i like the idea of hiring in pairs. i work much more effectively with my design counterpart than by myself, and if i were a leader it would be a good way to ensure a great team environment along with diversity of thought."
It seems we are doing a version of hiring in pairs or teams in the real world, this often happens in a manager-subordinate situation, and I believe it works for those dynamics. But for the dynamic of dual-leadership role such as CEO and CFO, President and Academic Dean, there exists a certain power autonomy for the leaders. I believe in these circumstances there are distinct advantages to explicitly hiring in pairs:
1. It creates an even power dynamic.
Neither person hired the other and as a result, neither have implicit power over the other. Being new hires at the same time bonds the pair in the context of the new organization.
2. It shows the new hires that the organization values the pair as a whole.
When hiring in pairs, the expectation from the organization that "You are a team" is very obvious. This in turn dampens the desire to take personal credit for team accomplishments, and sets the understanding of "we want results from both of you, as a team."
This doesn't work for all organizational environments today. Most organizations track employees on an individual rather than a team basis. But organizations with a strong team cultures and metrics may find this practice useful for establishing team mentality from the top- down.
2/22/2010
Hiring leaders in pairs
The status quo is to hire leaders and manager one at a time. Normally leadership positions become available one at a time, making this sequential hire a necessity. But what if we hired pairs at a time? CEO and CFO together, President and Academic Dean together?
My organization is currently in the unique position of having both top leadership positions open. Wouldn't it be great if we can do the hire in pairs with the intent of forming a stunning team?
Team and individual assessments such as 5Dynamics, firo-b, meyers-briggs all conclude that a well balanced team is a powerful team. The members of a powerful team balance each other in skills, learning styles and personality. This balance is important for leadership that is resilient to changes and market forces.
While evaluating the performance of individuals alone is the simpler and the politically correct way to do things, it does not reflect the reality of great performances. Great performances are achieved by great teams, not great individuals. Just as a great movie is the result of many people behind the scenes, a CEO may start a project but a great team delivers the product. I do not wish to undermine the ability of the leader to pull the great team together, in fact I believe that is the singular most important contribution of a great leader.
So what does that mean for hiring leaders?
1. Great performance is the result of a great teams, not just a great individual.
2. Great leaders are great because they form great teams.
This means, whenever possible, we should be hiring great teams instead of individuals. Businesses have discovered this and by hiring consulting firms, they enable the hiring of a great team instead of individuals.
Great leaders are great because they form great teams. That means when we interview for a CEO, provided other leadership positions are open, we want to test his or her ability to form a great team. This ability should be demonstrated during the interview process, and the leadership pair, or team, should be hired in one fell swoop.
My organization is currently in the unique position of having both top leadership positions open. Wouldn't it be great if we can do the hire in pairs with the intent of forming a stunning team?
Team and individual assessments such as 5Dynamics, firo-b, meyers-briggs all conclude that a well balanced team is a powerful team. The members of a powerful team balance each other in skills, learning styles and personality. This balance is important for leadership that is resilient to changes and market forces.
While evaluating the performance of individuals alone is the simpler and the politically correct way to do things, it does not reflect the reality of great performances. Great performances are achieved by great teams, not great individuals. Just as a great movie is the result of many people behind the scenes, a CEO may start a project but a great team delivers the product. I do not wish to undermine the ability of the leader to pull the great team together, in fact I believe that is the singular most important contribution of a great leader.
So what does that mean for hiring leaders?
1. Great performance is the result of a great teams, not just a great individual.
2. Great leaders are great because they form great teams.
This means, whenever possible, we should be hiring great teams instead of individuals. Businesses have discovered this and by hiring consulting firms, they enable the hiring of a great team instead of individuals.
Great leaders are great because they form great teams. That means when we interview for a CEO, provided other leadership positions are open, we want to test his or her ability to form a great team. This ability should be demonstrated during the interview process, and the leadership pair, or team, should be hired in one fell swoop.
2/18/2010
Is the Fed sustainable?
A visit to the San Francisco Federal Reserve Bank yesterday prompted a lot of questions. One of which is whether the US Federal bank structure is sustainable, and whether our wealth is protected. First, a little background on how the Fed works. It is fascinating how the whole US banking industry works, and the Federal Reserve Bank (FSB) is central to it all because it is the bank for all the other banks. By manipulating the Fed Rate, Discount Rate and Reserve Limits, the FSB stimulates lending and limits inflation. Fed rate is the lending rate set by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). Discount Rate is a special lending rate to member banks of the FSB. Reserve Limits are federally mandated minimum liquidity that a bank must maintain. Your local corporate bank, like B of A, or Chase, are required to maintain federally mandated reserve limits.
For safeguarding, your corporate bank keeps a lot of money at the FSB because they can then count the cash sitting there as part of their reserve. Ever heard of the Automatic Clearing House (ACH)? That's actually a service provided by the FSB. Since all banks have deposits at the FSB, when you deposit a from bank A to bank B, the receiving bank B simply forwards the check to the ACH, which is the FSB, who then moves money from bank A's pile to bank B's pile.
So is the Fed sustainable? Is the wealth of the US protected? The US dollar used to be backed by gold and silver, referred to as the gold standard. Since gold is now traded separately, backing the dollar with gold will limit growth to our economy and cause unnecessary fluctuations. The gold standard practice has been long abandoned. Now the US dollar's value is based on faith of the American people, faith of the world, and the Fed's ability to curb inflation and keep our dollar steady. So can the Fed keep our dollar steady?
So far, so good. The primary tools used to stimulate the economy and curb inflation, namely the Fed Rate, Discount Rate and Reserve Limits, have proved useful so far. The question is whether this can continue indefinitely. And during this recession, we have discovered the limits of these tools.
To curb fears of bank bankruptcy during the recession, the Reserve Limit has been increased. However, to stimulate investment, we had to decrease the Fed Rate, and therein lies the culprit. You see, there is a lower limit of zero for the Fed Rate. If we cannot bounce the economy back by lowering the Fed Rate all the way down the zero, which is what we have done so far, then we are out of tools for manipulating the economy from the Fed's perspective. At that point we have to turn to other stimulants, those which require increasing the deficit. Luckily, it seems the Fed is raising their rates again in anticipation of the economic upswing. This story: Feds to lift discount rate as "exit" begins was covered in today's Financial Times.
So it seems for now the Fed and the Fed policies live on. But until we figure out other methods for the Fed to stimulate the economy, we are always in danger of hitting this lower bound.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)