So much chatter about why the percent of women on the earth isn't the same as the percent of women in this business or that industry or the boardroom down the hall.
Reach back and dust off something we were ALL told, probably sometime between ages 3 and 5:
Boys and girls are different.
When we were told this, we were NOT told that one was better. Because one isn't better. Just different. So what.
We can keep making a big deal out of how we are different and why we are different, and how to "fix" or "equalize" it (God help us) or we can accept and embrace the simple fact that boys and girls are different and SHOULD BE. Know why? Because PEOPLE are different. So what.
Love the differences. Work with the differences. Respect the differences. And quit obsessing about HOW & WHY people are different.
In a very vulnerable and real piece by my refreshingly unlawyerly friend Heather Bussing, I think you'll find the reasons to celebrate and love the difference.
"Being a woman is a million different things, and nothing in particular. Labeling work and life questions as women’s issues is at worst, a distortion; at best, a distraction."
Setting people up for success is something of an art.
Bob had it down pat; he was the consummate professional. He’s retired now, but his reputation of wisdom and effectiveness was earned over decades of consistently demonstrating both of these traits. In his role as a senior partner of his midsized CPA firm, he was kind but firm, and always sincere. Bob never said something unless he meant it.
Bob’s exactly the kind of guy you don’t want to disappoint. And exactly the kind of guy people want to hire.
It was almost noon and I stood in his firm’s lobby awaiting my lunch mates. As I waited, I witnessed one of the finest business lessons I’ve seen.
A somewhat shy new guy—a bright young auditor right out of college—stood near me. Let’s call him Dan. It was Dan’s first day so he’d been hurriedly introduced to everyone in the office. Now he was waiting for some of his team members to take him to lunch.
Bob entered the lobby from the interior offices right as a couple people came in the front door. Bob warmly greeted the clients who appeared to be meeting him for lunch. Always thoughtful, Bob turned and introduced the receptionist, then me. Then, he did something pretty extraordinary.
Without missing a beat, Bob took a couple steps positioning himself beside Dan and, in a fatherly sort of way, put his hand on Dan’s back, kind of behind his shoulder. Smiling, he announced proudly:
“And this is Dan! He is going to be on your audit team this year and you’ll be in excellent hands with him.”
Several great things had just happened.
First, Dan stood tall. He shook hands and learned the clients’ names. Running through his mind was something like: I’d better do a great job…Bob just personally endorsed me and made me look really good!
Through the clients’ minds went something like: If Bob says this guy is good, then by golly, he is.
Bob created both the strong desire in Dan to excel, and a reason for the clients to feel confident about Dan being on their team.
The introduction could have gone so differently and in most firms it would have. Dan had only met Bob that morning. It’s kinda remarkable that Bob even remembered his name. In some firms, the partner would have just left with the clients, introductions skipped. A huge opportunity missed.
Otherwise, a probable scene would have been for the partner to greet the clients, and indicate toward Dan: “This is our new guy. He’ll be on your audit this year.” In this scenario, you can almost feel Dan shrinking back a little. And clients might be thinking, Oh, great, another new auditor we get to train.
But Bob knew exactly what he was doing.
In a single moment, Bob created the perfect environment for a positive experience on both sides. He inspired Dan to want to impress the client and make the partners proud, to live up to his words, and to earn Bob’s advance expression of trust. Bob put his reputation on the line and Dan did not want to let him down.
A company’s reputation is always on the line when employees represent it, right?
To inspire the very best from people, we have to believe in them. Bob’s way is is the most effective way to get what we need from others. Conversely, when we hire someone and think, well, I sure hope she can do the job, or I hope he doesn’t embarrass me, it seeps through in our demeanor and we’re much more likely to create the very result that we fear.
Bob understood something that most of us never consider. What he knew was that people actually want to do great work. In fact, until or unless we give someone a reason not to, they will continue to want to. Anyone worth their salt, anyway. (This is intrinsic motivation, discussed in the book Drive by Dan Pink.) Bob got great results from people because he knew they would want to do their best not just for him and clients, but for themselves, too.
It’s our job, as owners and managers, to expect their success and to keep that spirit alive in them. If that spirit was there once and died, it’s probable that we somehow squelched it (certainly without meaning to).
In other words, if we believe people will achieve, we foster their success. And if we watch for them to fail, they will. Initially it's fairly easy. But over time, the key is in handling mistakes. Don’t give up on people when they make mistakes. Continue to know that they’ll master it after a few tries.
Think of your baby learning to walk. When he takes those first steps, teeters, and falls, you clap in celebration and encourage him to try again. He grins in glee, pulls himself up, and repeats until he's a walker. When he falls, what you don’t do is declare: “Gee, walking is obviously not your thing. You should probably just stick with crawling." This is because you absolutely know that he’ll master walking. And your trust in this urges him on. This applies all through the parenting years.
And it applies just as much in business, too.
To make this work, trust has to be paid forward. And it has to be sincere. Words of trust must be heartfelt, they can't be faked. People can sense when you don’t trust them. Little things like eye contact, tone, and body language convey the truth. The small but meaningful detail of Bob standing beside his newest team member, literally “backing him” with the gesture of support on his shoulder, spoke volumes to everyone in the room.
It’s a lucky few who have a Bob around as they start their careers. But even for those of us who did not, it’s never too late to take a cue from this wise and successful nurturer of good employees and future leaders.
Whether you’re a man or woman, aspire to be a Bob.
*Bob's name has not been changed for this story. How can you do better than Bob??
Law and accounting grads are consistently over 50% female, yet the percentage of female firm owners has just reached 20%, up from 19% several years ago.
It's easy to blame the mommy track for high female turnover. Or maybe discrimination. As a fix, firm owners and consultants strive to "retain women" and to make women more "promotable." To this end, they create women's support groups and development programs, both centered on the "unique issues that women face."
Despite the good intentions, I believe these women-oriented programs miss the mark. In fact, they hurt more than help. I'll explain why I think that, explore what it is that firms are actually trying to accomplish, and offer up some alternate solutions.
The Women's-Issue Myth
When you look at the topics of these women-only programs, you'll see that every issue or situation they address exists for men, too.
All the issues named as "women's issues"—save one—are actually just people issues.
The one unique-to-women issue? Nursing moms need a comfortable, private room at work in which to pump. Otherwise, men and dads today face the same difficulties—and the same balancing-act challenges—as women and moms.
Please name any other need that only women have in the workplace that they cannot capably see to themselves.
If you'd say that woman aren't as promotable, I'd say hogwash. Women's advancement potential is now no different from men's. Maybe you'd say that partnership isn't very desirable to women. But I know plenty of men who don't want to be owners either.
Both men and women defect from firms at an alarming rate—nearly 85% exit law and public accounting by their fifth year.
And of those who stay, do women actually need different professional skills than men?
Lawyers and accountants of both sexes generally lack management skills. It makes sense since they went to school to learn law or accounting, not management or business development—the themes of most women-oriented education.
Both men and women need additional skills and support. Every entrant into these professions now needs marketing skills. Most need management skills. And some need to become leaders.
Focusing on women's issues in the business world is actually divisive.
Since women's skill needs and life-work balance accommodations aren't unique, claiming they are unique is inaccurate and exclusionary to men. Especially to single dads. And it's insulting to women—as if we're incapable of succeeding without special accommodation or tailored skill development.
To make matters worse, some of these formal programs include wardrobe advice and shopping excursions. As a woman—even one who enjoys fashion—this horrifies me. People are supposed to take such a program seriously?
Yet firm owners feel obligated to support women's or diversity programs or they could appear insensitive. It's why these programs increase in number; a trend that doesn't solve the problem.
These programs widen the gap rather than close it. Divisive indeed.
What Problem Are We Trying to Fix?
We fret over fewer female employees and partners than male so, naturally, we seek to balance the proportion. What's our purpose in having more female leaders? Have we identified the right cause?
Are we worried about discrimination in promoting women?
I'm inside a lot of firms and I don't think that's it. I've not yet encountered a firm that failed to see the strengths that women can bring to the boardroom.
And discrimination isn't just a female problem—it occurs based on all sorts of impressions and biases from appearance (sloppy or sophisticated), personality and style (abrupt or shy), communication ability, education, age, size, race, and religion.
Besides, isn't promoting women primarily to equalize the numbers discrimination, too?
Are we seeking to correct too little diversity?
We know that firms pursue "diversity" to appear more attractive to current employees, certain clients, or future recruits as if to say: "See? Women can advance here!"
Sadly, this, too, misses the mark. When we seek diversity, the purpose should be to achieve diversity of mind—of thought—not quotas related to a person's color or body parts.
Diversity of thinking has to be supported or it ceases.
Interestingly, most firms aren't even prepared to support diversity of thought. To nurture diversity, firms must act on the ideas (the thinking) of their people. But firm leaders tend react defensively to new and different thinking, and often stifle it.
It's a lot easier to "look" diverse in a photo or statistically than to actually be diverse. Diversity is cultural, and we aren't there yet. Even when we fill quotas. (This will need to be another blog post.)
Diversity will occur organically when we empower people.
What Makes People Powerful?
These are very sensitive subjects and I've been pondering this post for years.
I'm publishing it now because something really nice happened this month. I was named among 25 accomplished people as "Most Powerful Women in Accounting" by CPA Practice Advisor magazine.
It's truly an honor to be recognized among peers for thought leadership, and as a role model. I owe an extra debt of gratitude to CPA Practice Advisor for pulling these people together because reading the award recipients' insights has inspired me and I see important themes.
But I'll let you in on a secret. I feel squeamish about the "women" part of this recognition. Imagine the uproar if we recognized "Most Powerful Men in Accounting."
"Powerful" is a pretty amazing word, and I think herein lies a key to success for men and women alike.
Powerful—to me—is the sense that nothing can hold us back from what we want to accomplish.
Some of the other Most Powerful Women honorees seem to agree with this perspective (not necessarily the rest of my post).
Stacy Kildal, Michelle Golden, Geni Whitehouse, and Dawn Brolin
CPA Practice Advisor posed questions to the honorees about perceived limitations to women in advancement and opportunity. Their answers unapologetically reflect their power.
Dawn Brolin, to the question, "Do you think being a woman in the accounting profession has made career advancement more challenging than it might have been for a male in the same situation?" answered: "As a strong woman, I would have to say no."
Stacy Kildal says: "I have honestly, not for one minute of my life, ever considered that being a woman would ever make advancement in my career more challenging. My gender doesn’t have anything to do with my ability..."
Geni Whitehouse said: "I didn’t feel that I was given unequal treatment at any time in my career. The accounting profession rewards hard work and results."
And honoree Gail Perry tells firm leaders: "...my advice would be that the firm regard its female employees just as it would any employee—judge on merit, not gender. Don't provide preferential treatment based on gender..."
Is it coincidence that "powerful" women don't see femaleness as a limitation? I think not.
What they all have in common is personal drive. Personal drive is power.
To those who say women face advancement limitations, I say nonsense. Being a business woman in no way hinders me if I don't let it. Similarly, being a parent in no way hinders me unless I let it.
Of course it wasn't always this way. Initially, it was indisputably difficult for women to advance. But due to the courageous first, the promotion path is well-forged. I commend and thank those brave women. Their efforts paid off.
And the pendulum has now swung. With the increasing number of dual-income families and single-parent households, men have significant responsibilities at home and face the same struggles as their female counterparts. We're all in the same boat.
Women simply don't need special treatment to be successful in business. To be successful requires personal drive.
If women (or men) want advancement, then advance!
If women (or men) don't like the culture in their firm, then change it. Or leave.
If women (or men) don't want to be owners in a predominantly male firm, then start a new one. It's easier than ever to do, and many people are.
Perpetuating the Myth
"Women's issues" are falsely named. Certainly everyone benefits from support and skill development.
We mustn't keep the "women's issue" mantra going. Things that we continually call attention to become our realities, even if they aren't real.
Morgan Freeman's interview with Mike Wallace provides perspective on the problem of paying too much attention to distinctions between people:
It's time to neutralize the entire discussion of gender in the workplace. How do we end women's issues?
And then, a full day of learning on Thurs, Jun 14. VeraSage Vegas is not free, but we guarantee value greater than your investment! Would VeraSage do anything less? Heck, no!
If you're coming for the AICPA/AAM thing, stay for VeraSage Institute's intimate, public events!
And if you weren't already coming to the AICPA/AAM events, arrive a few days before VeraSage and catch me, Ron Baker, and SO many others, at their huge event, as well. After you register for either or both VeraSage events, you'll receive a discount code good for $$ off the AICPA/AAM show!
You already knew about the AICPA's combined Practitioner's Symposium and Technology + Conference, right? And now they've combined it with the Association for Accounting Marketing Conference. You can get those three great shows—practice management, technology and marketing—for ONE price.
Then round out the week nicely with a day and a half with VeraSage, learning how to price your knowledge, keep your firm highly profitable doing so, and manage your firm in a non-timesheet enviroment.
The future is here. Meet 20+ firms who are doing it.
See ya there, and bring your swimwear. The pools and spa at the Aria are FABULOUS!
Changing workforce mentality, evolving customer/client needs, and transparency of service are shining big, scary spotlights on many of the flaws in the professional-firm business model of old.
Some problems inherent in the traditional business model are:
Running firms as democracies instead of visionary businesses precludes innovation and differentiation because decisions result in the common-denominator option that so often comes from "concensus"
Micromanagement so typical in today's firms doesn't inspire people to do their best work and perpetually decreases morale
Butts-in-seats or 9-5 culture that doesn't work very well in today's business climate
Billing customers for work after the fact instead of offering them certainty in price
If you'd like to learn how to break free of these and many more symptoms of a business model that somehow survives (definitely not thrives!) despite its detriments, join VeraSage Institute's educators at one or more of these upcoming events!
Firm of the Future Forums in Australia - March 2012
The events are organized by VeraSage Senior Fellow John Chisholm (John Chisholm Consulting) along with five enlighted friends of VeraSage: Matthew Tol (Mta OptimaChartered Accountants), Michael Bradley (Marque Lawyers), Michael Stewart (Integrity Wealth), Matthew Burgess (McCullough Robertson Lawyers) and Steve Major (Trusted Authority Partners).
VeraSage Las Vegas - June 2012
Immediately following the AICPA's PS/Tech & AAM conference (10-13 Jun) VeraSage will host 2 separate but related programs in Las Vegas at the Aria! (The AICPA hotel room rates will apply)
Wed, 13 June, 2-6pm FREE event open to anyone and will feature Ron Baker, CPAs of various firm sizes who've led their firms through these business-model changes, and will culminate with a live THRIVEcast! Join us for this special edition of the popular podcast series during which Jason Blumer and VeraSage Fellow (& stand-up comedian) Greg Kyte will grill interview Mark Koziel of the AICPA and Tom Hood of Maryland Association of CPAs. For a hint of what they might cover, see Greg's February Accounting Update (video below) tackling the recently released AICPA's CPA Horizons 2025 report.
Thu, 14 June, 8am-6pm Program (not free, pricing TBA soon) features back-to-back plenary sessions led by VeraSage Founders Ron Baker and Dan Morris and Senior Fellows Michelle Golden, Ed Kless and Jay Shepherd in the morning. Dynamic workshops follow in the afternoon covering the subjects of Setting Price & Scope, Conducting the Value Conversation, Project Management, and Managing People in a Timeless Firm. Registration will be open to anyone and details will be available soon.
If you'd like to be notified when registration opens, email me with "VS-LasVegas" in your subject line!
Today, I want to talk about a recent revelation I've had that a problem I thought I just observed "here and there" is actually so common that I now estimate it occurs in about a third of the 100+ firms I've been exposed to during the past 12 years that I've spent consulting.
Here's the scenario.
Introducing the Partner and the Apprentice
There's a dynamic, successful partner with some of these traits:
A natural at marketing. By that, I mean that she makes friends readily and plants seeds with just about everyone she meets. She exudes confidence and is pleasant to interact with. She burns through a box of business cards ten times faster than anyone else. She'll go in for surgery and leave the hospital with a new client or two.
An expert or niche-practice specialist. He is considered one of the leaders among peers. Unquestionable that he's good at what he does—solid credentials back up any claims of quality, and happy clients abound.
Recurring referrals from the same sources. Referrals keep coming from the same people because the work is that good and the quality is that consistent. Her referrals feed the firm well and the practice area grows. Team members are added to support the practice and do the work that she brings in.
Meticulous about work and service quality. He may believe that few people can perform to his level, and trust is limited to a few key people that work particularly closely with him. It makes sense! Quality is how he built the practice and keeping that reputation intact is essential to the continuity of the happy clients and referral sources.
Tight control of relationships. She's worked hard to earn the business. The most trusted team members have some client contact, but aren't perceived to be truly "in charge" of the work—she's the primary contact for the key decision makers. Her referral sources either haven't met any of the other team members, or aren't encouraged to communicate directly with them.
Then there's someone junior to that partner. This person has some of these traits:
Highly valued right arm to the partner. She's reliable, conscientious, and very competent. Her strong technical skills, consistent delivery, and unquestionable dedication are why the partner relies on her so heavily.
No book of business. He was handpicked to work for the partner and support the growing practice. The partner brings in plenty of work and, as the first person the partner turns to for leading the project, there's been no need for him to develop business of his own. In fact, the partner hasn't encouraged him to get involved with the firm's marketing and might even discourage it saying, "we have so much going on, don't worry about that right now."
Full plate. Work's lined up for the foreseeable future. There's no need to "shop" internally for other projects to work on, thus no chance to participate in other practice areas. Others in the firm don't consider her as a resource because she never has time to do anything but the partner's work. They may even be a little jealous of how important she is to the partner and how she seems exempted from activites the others are expected to participate in (like marketing).
Non-equity partner or forever manager or associate. Maybe he's never been worried about becoming partner or was made partner without meeting some otherwise key criteria (like having a book of business or demonstrating the abililty to bring in clients). The senior partner might have lobbied for the promotion explaining he'd be able to bring in business once "partner" was on the business card. An underlying reason for this hope promotion might have been to keep this important worker from defecting.
Subdued personality. She has a reserved nature, rather the opposite of the natural-marketer tendencies of the senior partner. She's happy to have such a great role and the respect of the dynamic partner. And she's glad she doesn't have to do that marketing stuff because it would be uncomfortable and maybe even a little beneath her to do it. Quite frankly, though people in the firm know she's a pro, she doesn't exactly exude "confidence" to strangers. This might be a reason she's not introduced to referral sources.
What's Actually Happening
An apprentice is someone who invests in learning a craft from the skilled employer. And if you learn well, you can earn the privilege of being groomed to eventually take over the practice. There is nothing wrong with this model.
The problem I keep seeing in the accounting and legal professions is that there are too many partner-apprentice situations similar to the one I described.
The "grooming" part is more or less missing.
For years the team approach works well for both people, but what's frighteningly absent is self-sufficiency of the junior person. It's a co-dependency. And everyone ends up hurt in the long run: the junior person, the clients, the firm, and possibly even the senior partner if she really did hope to build a legacy practice (sometimes she doesn't actually hope to).
When the partner retires or leaves, continuity of client relationships in this well-established practice area is impaired or in jeopardy. And new work slows to a trickle because the most logical "next in line" hasn't learned the skills and developed the contacts to keep the pipeline full.
How can this unfortunate situation be avoided?
If You're the Junior
Understand that, even though you probably didn't choose law or accounting in order to get involved in "sales," business development is an absolutely requisite skill set (unless you elect to work in industry rather than practice in a firm).
Without the skill set, you will forever rely on others to create your work. You'll have less control of your workload, less opportunity to explore other areas of practice, and much less marketability to move as a lateral. Your odds of earning an equity owner position are slim without at least a modest book of business and the ability to grow one.
Maybe that's okay with you—you don't aspire to be an equity owner. That's fine.
But it doesn't change the fact that, essentially, your career future is beyond your control and perhaps threatened when your other half retires or moves on.
If you stay but can't lead the practice group, the firm has to either bring in a new senior partner (pray you get along with him and that he respects and values you like the other one did) or the practice group dries up. Maybe you can start working in another practice area, but you then have to start all over learning a new trade. It's too bad you didn't have much exposure to other practice areas in the past.
If you look for a position elsewhere, you're now competing with other professionals who do what you do and have a book, or the skills to develop one. Your only remaining option may be an industry position.
Bottom line: don't permit yourself to become dependent on another practitioner to fill your work plate; become proficient at building contacts and discussing your capabilities with confidence as early in your career as possible. These are skills that can be learned with practice.
You may never by the dynamic marketing type that the partner is, but successful marketing doesn't always look like her. Lots of quiet types are very successful at developing business!
Remember this as you progress in your career: it's far better to get to the point where you bring in work that you don't do than it is to always be doing work that you don't bring in.
If You're the Partner
If you're the partner, you are doing your colleague a disservice by not urging him or her to obtain the skills and confidence to be self-sufficient in a practice without you.
Even if you don't consider this person to be the ideal future successor, he or she is your right-hand person and if the proverbial bus came along, your cherished clients would all be left in a lurch. Your firm would face the threat of a completely disrupted, significant practice area. And your valued colleague would be stuck in the situation I just described.
To avoid this, begin introducing your protégé to clients and referral sources. If she really doesn't have what it takes to impress, help her acquire greater confidence by creating opportunities to present to people she's comfortable with on topics she's a master of. Practice is critically important. Few people rock at this without repeat performances.
If needed, consider some outside skill development. Toastmasters and the like. He probably won't ever be the dynamo you are and that's okay. He doesn't need to be. Enough confidence to instill trust and to be personable and helpful is the minimum you're looking for.
She should have some exposure to clients, new prospect meetings, and get to know your referral sources and their successors. Your demonstration of confidence in your protégé to include her in these meetings will also go a long way toward instilling a sense of (internal) confidence in her.
In general, if you do expect the person to eventually replace you, be cognizant of the inherent problems when you hire someone "opposite of you" in personality. You're probably setting yourself up for disappointment. The opposite of you is a great worker bee but is not usually successor material unless you are committed to helping him obtain the skills to keep the practice growing long after you are gone.
Seek out a strong worker who is also a people person. He might be harder to tame, but an entrepreneurial spirit will ensure the continuity of your practice.
Humiliation is a great way to boost productivity, isn't it? After all, we can get some results when we chew someone's ass out in front of his or her peers.
Sure. When results matter a lot more than respect. And loyalty. And, you know, people's feelings.
In the what-the-hell-were-they-thinking category, there's a London law firm that found a high-tech way to slap a scarlet letter on "underperforming associates." This per "Red Faces for Poor Billers," an article in Lawyers Weekly, Australia:
According to RollOnFriday, an insider reportedly complained that RPC has implemented a program that changes the colour of associates' computer screens, depending on their level of profitability.
A red screen is obviously not so good, meaning the lawyer is losing the firm money, while yellow means they're coasting along okay but could do a little better. Those staring at a green screen can look forward to a few long lunches with the partners some time soon.
Unfortunately for those not hitting the big numbers, their red screens are viewable by all within the firm's open plan office.
Despite the public display of a lawyer's profitability — or lack thereof — a spokesperson for the firm confirmed with RollonFriday that colour coding was used, with the system designed to enable lawyers to "develop their commerciality and understand the work they're doing and the amount of time they're spending on it" and not to shame unprofitable staff in front of their colleagues.
Really? Not the aim to shame people into different behavior? This management approach went out decades ago.
The professions are fans of "Best Practices" and this needs to be added to the "Worst Practices" list, for sure, right along with blocking social media.
There are so many things wrong with this I couldn't possibly name them all, but lets start with these two:
Professionals, you ARE your brains.
Your knowledge is your only source of high-value offerings. OJT is nice, but cannot be solely relied upon for increasing your knowledge.
CPE requirements are low, and CLE requirements are ridiculously low, already.
Per the ABA, minimum CLE by state requirements average 10-15 hours annually. Are you kidding me?? For a knowledge profession like LAW? I really hope this is wrong. If a firm thinks that 1-2 days per year is adequate and that they should "cut" anything they support in addition to that, then I'm scared for the future of law. The AICPA has this state-by-state CPE chart that reflects most states require 40 hours of annual continuing education. Physicians' CME requirements by state, at about 20 hours/year, are greater than law, but lower than accounting.
For knowledge professions, these minimum requirements are far from adequate for average performers, and they sure won't result in very many superstars.
As a buyer of services with the sort of stakes we are talking about... my LIFE, my financial security, and my legal protection, I certainly don't want a lawyer with 2 days per year of learning and a doctor with just 3 days. I'm scared and you should be, too.
Some might argue, well, there is great value in on-the-job training. Ok. OJT guided by senior practitioners meeting minimum continuing education requirements does not excite me. Further, I've worked inside of great firms, large and small. Are you telling me the knowledge transfer from senior to junior is anywhere near where it could or should be? I didn't think so.
Do you realize the Container Store invests 241 hours in employees' first year training and 160/yr after that? Seriously. I wrote about it before at Your CPE is Your R&D, Don't Underinvest. Closet design and storage solution service delivery merit more education than a DOCTOR? The Container Store gets it. Look at the leadership training and resources here. And the positive impact on morale. And the happy customer trail. This is not mere coincidence.
At any rate, these comparisons are only as useful as navel-gazing can ever be. Firms need to be breaking OUT of the pack. Not cutting back on their most important "asset" - their ability to grow their knowledge and create more value for customers than others can or will add. Knowledge is the only way.
"Knowledge has to be improved, challenged, and increased constantly, or it vanishes." ~Peter Drucker
Law and accounting are already under-trained on leadership, management, and service, if not technical matters. Invest in your human capital.
Please, firms, don't cut eduction. It's the worst decision you could ever make.
#1 on Jane's list is "Stop working with anyone that gives you a headache or stomachache"
My take: this applies to clients AND employees. Bummer customers suck you dry. Bummer employees suck everyone in your organization dry (one rotten apple spoils the barrel) AND they don't represent you well externally, either.
CUSTOMER SERVICE
#2 is "Admit that everything takes three times as long and costs twice as much."
My take: this pertains to the expectation setting you should do when committing to work, the pricing you give to your customer, and meeting delivery terms.
KNOW YOUR MARKETPLACE
#3 is "Don't operate your business in a vaccuum."
My take: pay attention to what others (your competitors, yes, but also companies you aspire to emulate from a service and impression standpoint) say and do.
KEEP YOUR QUALITY HIGH
#4 is "Put yourself first at least one hour a day."
My take: you cannot be a "great" thinker and service provider when you are are operating on an empty tank. In order to have the energy to innovate and solve problems for people, you need to recharge.
BE LIKABLE
#5 is "Keep your sense of humor."
My take: if you are too serious, you're probably not that fun to be around. Lighten up by looking at the brighter, or funnier, side of things more often.
DON'T OVER-PROMISE AND UNDER-DELIVER
#6 is "Cut the email and phone tether."
My take: not only do we need a mental break from being constantly accessible, but technology can render us less effective than we otherwise would be because we underestimate the affect of 24/7 intrusion on our time and thinking. The distraction often disrupts our ability to get done what we promise. See #2.
Enjoy the read and wish me luck because I definitely need to apply this advice too!
If you entered the professional workforce more than, say, ten years ago, you probably can't imagine an environment in which computer access was disallowed.
Or imagine, twenty years ago, if using the telephone in your daily tasks was not permitted.
But what if you were expected by management to get your job done as efficiently and effectively as possible.
Ludicrous, right?
Wouldn't you be thinking management was foolish to deny you access to the tools that you'd used in your daily life...growing up and throughout your education years?
You'd be thinking members of management are not very bright or not very trusting--maybe both--and that they are definitely cutting off their collective nose to spite their face.
Yes, both of these tools can also be used for "playing around" and not getting our work done. Being (gasp) unproductive! But they can also empower us to get our jobs done exponentially faster than without them.
Along these lines, for years we've watched big morale problems stem from companies locking down Internet, blogs, and IM access. Frustration arises because we now KNOW that these tools let us research and communicate better and faster than ever before. And the bulk of the reason for prohibition is/was...lack of trust in us to not "abuse" these "privileges" of access.
Now we include social media in the mix. Resources like instant access to brilliant friends through Linked In and Twitter deliver solutions in mere seconds! (And, yes, the same tools permit us to mess around and waste time, too).
Personal access to these tools, that we and our kids have been using for 5-10+ years, on a daily basis, is so affordable and portable that all the company lockdown policies serve to accomplish is to insult and anger the people we hire.
Just as we would have been insulted if we were given no access to a telephone. Or basic computer.
And with smartphones, the access to these banned tools is right in peoples' hands if not on company equipment. We didn't have that luxury back in the day to compensate for prohibited phone/computer access, did we?
Okay, so we know that teens and very young adults aren't the perfect group to look at for evidence of wisdom and judgment in application of professionalism and ethics in how they currently use their social media.
But what we DO know is that the access to ideas and information, not to mention marketing-related contacts, through their extensively developed social networks will be UNPARALLELED when today's youth are tomorrow's emerging professionals. The speed and ingenuity in accessing resources and creating solutions will be impressive.
So what can we do to prepare?
Open our minds.
Loosen our policies.
Educate current employees about appropriate and inappropriate amounts and forms of usage.
Give people time to change their habits accordingly.
Add a new element to our people search:
Hiring well will require us to be even more thoughtful, diligent and smart in detecting signs of professionalism and good judgment in those we hire. And then continued training peppered with lots of trust is the only way to deal with this in a healthy manner.
Think back to parenting skills... you cannot rule with an iron fist and simultaneously expect well-adjusted, self-sufficient children.
Frankly, we are all battling the increased distraction of competing technologies vying for our attention.
We could probably ALL use some education and refreshers on prioritization and time management! We sure aren't born with these skills.
And note the sub-heading of the above-referenced story: "Survey Explores Ethical Implications of Teens' Social Networking; Signals to Employers That Training in Ethical Decision-Making is Necessary"
Which of us couldn't use some more training on decision-making?
Some firms have already experienced turnover due to ludicrous, insulting (and sometimes hypocritical) policies that are in place--equating to no phones or computer access (their departed employees have told me so).
Firms that don't become more adaptive may well end up with good, old-fashioned mutinies on their hands.
I'm working on some risk assessment tools for firms to use to determine the level of rigidity (or lack thereof) needed in their own social media policies--and firms' likelihood, or not, of success in using social media tools to their full potential.
And I wholeheartedly believe that, while some potential risks exist (liability, etc), such policies are primarily anchored to the level of trust within an organization.
I like to keep things simple so I created a 3 question "Quiz" for firms to assess the strictness of their policies governing, well, everything--but particularly: Communication, Internet and Email Use, and Social Media Use.
Here's the quiz:
How important is autonomy among your firm’s values and current practices? (scale 1-5, 5 highest)
How important is innovation among your firm’s values and current practices? (scale 1-5, 5 highest)
To what degree does your culture demonstrate trust in, and respect of, employee judgment? (scale 1-5, 5 highest)
Results:
Add to determine your total score.
Score of 11-15 = SM usage can flourish in your firm because trust inspires people. A brief, mellow policy will be more than adequate and you won’t have to worry about hampering people’s enthusiasm with rigid, unfriendly policies. (samples: Baker & DanielsMayo Clinic and Headset Bros )
Score of 6-10 = SM usage may be less than it could otherwise be. A tendency toward carefully worded, somewhat detailed policies convey the firm is wary or skeptical and somewhat concerned about being embarrassed by employees.(sample: Jaffe templateHarvard Law and Microsoft)
Score of 1-5 = SM doesn’t fit well with your current culture. Very specific, restrictive policies probably suit your firm best. Look closely at the underlying reasons for your concerns and try to understand the root cause so you can work on building a more knowledge-worker-friendly environment. (I choose not to embarrass any orgs by listing them here, but these tend to exceed 2 pages, and include everything but the kitchen sink)
This topic keeps coming up. People have differing comfort levels with newish technologies and therefore have very different tolerance levels for others using it.
True that some people just don't "get it" when it comes to being polite. The cell-phone screamers and mid-conversation texters or email-checkers come to mind.
The common reaction seems to be "We need a company policy for [fill in technology here]?"
For everything from listening to ipods (wrote "iPods Are Not the Enemy") and blogging ("Blogging Policies" post) to streaming video watching at work or accessing facebook, business leaders want policies. Especially accounting and law types. We want to control it!
I've written an article that was just published in Practical Accountant and WebCPA, but it applies across many industries. It's called, "Charting a Firm's Social Media & Communications Policy" and I hope you'll check it out.
Basically it explores a facilitated session I led with managing partners to explore how to deal with emerging technology urging them to take the time to fully understand it... hopefully BEFORE cranking out a policy banning or stifling its use.
Something you'll find in my article, above, is that getting the partners/owners on the same page about your policy approach, in order to make policies that make sense, requires giving them the opportunity to hash through what REALLY concerns them, and dealing with those concerns, rather than jumping to policy FIRST.
For those among you who have managed thus far to maintain good, solid compartmentalization between your business and your personal lives, I offer a hearty “Congratulations!”
Seriously. Not an easy thing to do these days. In fact, for some of us, we couldn’t cleanly sort the people in our lives into the two buckets of "business" and "friends" if our lives depended on it.
But this “blur” of personal and professional isn’t really a new thing, at all, is it?
For years, we've become friends with clients and friends become clients. Co-workers become like family. Sometimes they literally become family. It's not uncommon that lawyers/doctors wed other lawyers/doctors, etc. (With the hours some people put in, where the heck else would they meet anyone?? )
But now it’s in your face and soon to be, if not yet, in your employment policies: dealing with social media applications and the work day.
Collecting all your contacts in one place is complicated, too. There is the clear challenge of deciding how much of your personal side to bare to whom.
You might whip out pictures of your kids to show a colleague at a conference, but do you really want them seeing photos of you in your swimsuit chasing your kid (not pretty is my point)?
For those who want to dip their toe in the pool of the life/work blend (or who are already waist deep) and wishing for a way to be more selective about who sees what, you will probably appreciate this excellent “how to” on Facebook privacy through using “groups” for sorting your friends and business contacts. Read 10 Privacy Settings Every Facebook User Should Know.
I’ll briefly touch on policies, too. Frankly, as much as companies have tried over the last decade to stifle employee access of third party email sites, interactive websites, etc, it’s simply impossible to restrict the entire internet. Why bother to lock out hotmail/yahoo when people have email and text on their smart phones??
That era is over.
And it’s dumb to block most websites, too. Disallowing Linked In, Facebook, Blogs and Twitter (yes, some firms lock down all of those) is cutting off your firm’s nose to spite its face. These are valuable marketing tools for those who wish to use them that way.
But more discouragingly for the leery employer, if you ban them, smart people who like a challenge (there tend to be quite a few of those in the professional knowledge firm arena) will spend their time finding a way to circumvent the ban.
C’mon, you were teenagers...you remember the thrill of stretching or breaking a rule just to see if you could pull it off!
So, don’t spend a lot of energy worrying about who is using what forum and instead, if issues arise at the individual level with regard to performance, then address problems one-on-one with that individual. Worry about people not getting their work done is the real issue behind the bans, anyway, right?
Today's reality is that there is little choice now but to trust the way people spend their “time” is appropriate, overall, and simply hold people accountable for the end result: either they are cutting the mustard with performance, or they aren’t.
Good luck and happy entry to this new era of life/work management.
*Hat tip to the incomparable Debra Helwig (excellent new blog: Service Minded) for pointing me to the the Facebook Privacy article and its 239 useful comments
Especially happy for the recognition of my friends at Mark Bailey & Co for ranking the #1 small firm to work for (any coincidence that the firm does not keep timesheets?).
Per the article:
Mark Bailey & Co. in Reno, Nev., Frazier & Deeter LLC in Atlanta, and Kaufman, Rossin & Co. in Miami garnered the first-place ranking in the small, midsized and large categories, respectively.
In all, five small firms, 40 midsized firms and 15 large firms were honored as Best Firms to Work For. They will be recognized at an awards ceremony in May.
How were these firms evaluated?
Identifying and recognizing the best employers in accounting was a joint effort of the publishers of Accounting Today and Best Companies Group.
...accounting firms with at least 15 employees...submitted an Employer Benefits and Policies Questionnaire to disclose company policies, practices and demographics, which made up one quarter of the firm's score.
Then staff members completed a confidential Employee Engagement and Satisfaction Survey, to evaluate the employees' workplace experience and company culture, which accounted for the remaining three quarters of each firm's score.
The results were then analyzed and categorized in eight areas: leadership and planning, corporate culture and communications, role satisfaction, work environment, relationship with supervisor, training and development, pay and benefits, and overall engagement.
Rita Keller brings up being "cool" if a firm is going to remain competitive. I agree and expand the point to emphasize it's a two-parter!
The first step is attracting great people. The second and more important part (and much more difficult one) is inspiring them to want to STAY so your firm has the talent AND attitude to continue to do great things for clients.
Rita's post, "Do you speak their language" talks about texting. Specifically, texting used in an accounting firm's recruiting ad. And, sure, it's a clever ad. I don't know the firm, but I hope they have the second part down-pat, too.
Just this month, I've been privvy (with great disapproval) to several firms' conversations about their policies on ipods, text messaging, and so forth. Basically, they say "don't" because "it interferes with productivity."
Funny. How many of those staffers jammed to their favorite tunes through every homework assignment they've had while they earned their grades that qualified them to join the firm. (Take yourself back a few years...there was definitely a stereo, maybe even a favorite record or cassette, cranked up while I did MY studies. How about you?)
Maybe they're just trying to tune out the office chatter-box so they can get some work done! (Is there a no office chatter-box policy??)
And when I spoke in June at the AAM conference about blogs, a number of attendees said their firms' internet security won't let them access blogs from the office!
A number of firms also deny access to Linked In, Facebook, YouTube and other social networking sites in order to "control timewasting." Blogs and social media tools facilitate some of the most effective marketing and networking going on these days. And firms are blocking them!!
A commenter on David's post says people take advantage and waste hours on the internet to which David wisely responds:
... it is a management issue, not a technology issue. If people mess around at work, it doesn't really matter if it is on Facebook, or chatting by the water cooler, or taking a three hour "shopping lunch". It's all the same - people not doing what they've been paid to do.
I would deal with the behavior. If required, fire the employee who is not working.
Amen.
At any rate, policies like these stink. Most contradict what firms are trying to claim they are: great places to work. These policies (attire, perfume, internet use, ipods...) are insulting because they treat every person on your team as the worst behaved child by making everyone "pay" for the sins of one or two who show poor judgment and ought to just receive a talking to, and maybe a boot, if the talk doesn't work.
I'm picking up Rita's post today because I want to reinforce, all the great "cool" recruiting in the world won't solve the talent crisis. The problem is people leaving once they came, they saw, and they experienced. A lot of firms DO have amazing and cool cultures. And those firms are not seeing the turnover like the ones who get uptight about ipods and blog-reading.
Treat all the people like grown-ups and if some don't choose to act like it, then deal with them individually! But stop punishing the masses or you won't have a mass...there are too many other places for them to go.
My friend Ron Baker taught me about HSDs. HSDs are the days when something happens that makes you swell with sense of accomplishment and think, "this is why I do what I do!" - your raison d'être.
Ron credits John Heymann, founder of NewLevel Group in Napa, CA, as the creator the High Satisfaction Day (HSD) term which Ron wrote about in one of his books: Measure What Matters to Customers.
Some companies and firms encourage employees to note their HSDs on a calendar in the employee lounge. Others, like Brendon Harrex's accounting firm, use technology to capture HSDs with a computer desktop button that, when pressed, launches a celebration fanfare and notes, somewhere, who had an HSD today.
Companies can keep an eye on increases or decreases in HSDs to get a sense of morale or personal fulfillment. This is why Ron calls it a KPI: or Key Predictive Indicator. No HSDs could imply an unhappy team member...someone who may not enjoy their job, or want to stay.
Anyway, Ron recently posted one of his HSDs which inspired me to post my best HSD ever. It's an email I received in May from a new client's lovely wife (edited a little for privacy) after my first project with the firm.
Michelle,
I just wanted to send a quick note to let you know that, even though you aren’t aware of it, you’ve made a tremendous difference in my life in the last few weeks!! It seems funny because we don’t really even know that much about each other, but I wanted you to know how much I appreciate you and your professional contribution to the marketing efforts at M's firm.
M is so proud of the proposal for the [prospect] project and having made the transition to having a product like that get out the door in such a short time was HUGE! Sometimes it’s nice to have input from “outside” .... M thinks the world of you and feels very lucky to have such a valuable resource for the firm.
Needless to say, he is a much more relaxed husband this weekend and of course that makes me a much happier wife!!
Anyway, I hope that you have time to spend with your family this holiday weekend and that the weather where you are is better than the cold and rain that we have here this weekend! I truly enjoyed your stay here with us and I do hope that we have more opportunities to share and get to know each other better in the near future.
Sincerely, J
Having positively impacted the family life of a client is probably the most important thing I've ever accomplished as a consultant. This, to me, was the ultimate compliment...definitely reminded my why I love doing what I do. And it feels good to share!
Can you think of your most recent or best HSD? We'd love to see what inspires you and makes you feel rewarded!
If you don't have a blog, feel free to post your HSD in a comment to this blog post. If you do have a blog, consider posting your HSD on it (trackback here, if you like).
Also, if you want to participate in a meme on it, here's a starting list to add to your post:
With permission, I post an e-newsletter article by a St Louisan in the PR profession, Les Landes. Les also recently started a blog called "Inside Out" which addresses "aligning marketing communications with employee engagement."
(I'm kinda proud of Les' entering the blogosphere because I helped introduce him to blogs at my presentation for the International Association of Business Communicators St Louis Chapter meeting awhile back!)
Anyway, here's his e-newsletter article:
Are Employees Really an Audience?
A few years ago, The Journal of Employee Communication Management published an article entitled "Employees Are Not an Audience." It was written by Glynn Young, who currently heads the Issues, Employee and Electronic Communications function for Monsanto Company. His basic premise is simple yet significant - the job of organizational communicators should NOT be mainly to create and deliver messages to the employee audience, but rather to facilitate conversations within the employee community.
That distinction is more than an exercise in semantics. It goes to the heart of why organizations struggle - and often fail - to generate meaningful employee engagement. It also explains why organizations get caught in the wrongheaded notion that they need better "two-way" communication.
Seriously - is there any other kind? Bottom line, if it isn't two-way, it isn't communication. It's message distribution.
Community of Professionals Even if we're not conscious of it, we know in our guts that employees shouldn't be treated as an audience when it comes to communication. Just look at another metaphor often used for them - team. Can you imagine how Michael Jordan or Tom Brady or Albert Pujols or other sports team members would react if their organizations communicated with them like an "audience?" Pretty weird, huh?
But they're different, right? After all, those people are "professionals." Consider for a moment, though, how an organization might run its business and communicate with its employees differently if they viewed employees as a "community of professionals" - professional accountants, professional order entry clerks, professional maintenance workers, professional production line workers -- and so on? You get the picture.
Sure, the challenges are different when you're communicating with 12 to 50 people instead of 12,000 to 50,000. But the need for people to feel that their organizations are communicating with them as professional members of a team is much the same.
Shifting from Messages to Conversations Admittedly, logistics are more complex with larger groups, and the options for communicating differ from one organization to the next depending on numerous factors. What's more, truly interactive communication simply isn't possible in all circumstances. If the building is on fire, for example, that's no time to engage an employee discussion group in considering various options on how to respond.
Still, organizations of any size and circumstance can and should shift from "sending messages" to "facilitating conversations" wherever possible by operating on two basic principles:
1. Stop using the phrase "communicate to," and replace it with "communicate with." If the best you can do is send a message, say so - but don't call it communication.
2. Where it's feasible and appropriate, frame "messages" as "conversation points," and create systematic ways for employees to converse and provide feedbackon those topics.
While those principles are important for everyone in management to understand, it's vital for people in charge of internal communications to follow them if they want to get employees truly engaged and strengthen working relationships within the "employee community."
Les has an impressive list of communications of interest to people who understand that appreciation and respect of human capital is especially critical for firms who rely on Knowledge Workers. I hope you'll enjoy his messages as much as I do.
I'm so behind in blogging. Seriously. And I know I don't actually have to tell you that. The beauty of blogs is that you, the reader, don't really know all the things I've been meaning to post and haven't yet. Except that, um, now you know.
So now that I've blown that facade completely, let me share some things worth checking out!
1. The all-around BEST website legal disclaimer you've ever seen (you'd sort of expect that from a law firm, but JUST WAIT...) is that of Valorem Law Group. Exactly what I love about Pat Lamb...
3. We also love the MySpace approach over at Choate! My favorite is the bouncing ball video.
4. And would you expect anything less than edgy humor and creativity from a law firm that's comfortable with the nickname "MoFo"? I think not. I love their @$%#@! {Pigeonholed} page and their Why Mofo? page
Have you noticed these are all law firms. Ahem. Okay accountants, time to relax and let your creative juices flow!
Contrast the above with this type of video from PwC (who does do some edgy stuff, too) but you'll see their message is good but they are totally serious and low energy. Hmmm.
This post is for professional service firms who are thinking of starting a mentoring program or who have one and are wondering why it's not a brilliant success.
Assigning mentors doesn't work. And internal mentoring programs are rife with problems.
If you joined your firm before so-called 'mentoring programs' were all the rage, answer the following questions:
Who were/are your mentors?
Were they within the organization in which you worked or were they outside of it?
Did you select them or did they select you? (I'd bet money that no one assigned them to you)
Can a real mentor be selected by anyone but you anymore than your spouse ought to be chosen by someone other than you? (Yeah, I know that this is still done in various cultures, but how often does it work out really, really well?)
Your mentor was probably someone you encountered somewhere in your journey other than your present workplace. And I’d venture to guess that your mentor was somebody who saw promise in you and mutually admired them, and you clicked.
Mentoring is a relationship. Whether you initiated it or they did, at some point you asked their advice and they gave it. And whether you realized it or not, you also brought something to the relationship that they enjoyed. The relationship blossomed and you came to deeply value their opinions, their counsel, and maybe even their approval.
MENTEES...
Being mentored takes an open-mindedness that can only be “heartfelt” and never "required."
It requires a blend of respect for the mentor and trust that when you expose your vulnerability (because you must in order to grow with the guidance of a mentor), they will protect it and won’t judge it, exploit it, or broadcast it.
MENTORS...
Being a mentor requires a sincere desire to help the mentee succeed. It requires seeing in the mentee that ‘special something’ that they want to foster. And it is not something that can be done half-heartedly. As much as the mentee must have genuine desire for the mentor's guidance, the mentor cannot fake or feign his or her role.
Mentoring isn’t something that can be done once a month over a lunch hour. And “progress” can’t be measured objectively. It has to be judged.
MENTORING WITHIN A FIRM
When a mentor and mentee work together in a direct or indirect reporting relationship (ie the mentor has influence over compensation and advancement), there are barriers for either party to be totally “real” with each other, not the least of which is a mentee's desire for advancement and the fear that weaknesses will be held against him at promotion time.
Further, when one’s boss is the mentor, a mentee can be perceived as “a pet employee” because the boss “protects” him or her (a natural role for a mentor). It doesn’t serve either person well among his/her peers when the mentor could be viewed as displaying favoritism and the mentee perceived as a brown-noser--a label which can be unfairly applied when a direct report becomes "close" to a boss.
Having a mentor within one’s company is risky and is generally not very appealing to the mentee. Selecting a mentor outside of one's company alleviates these concerns and provides a level of objectivity the mentee really needs from her mentor.
How the mentor/mentee are paired is becomes quite problematic. Assigning can’t work. That respect/care and trust/vulnerability has to be heartfelt and real.
Some firms think they get around this by "letting" their team members select their mentor from among the partners or managers.
What typically happens is that the same few people the firm are chosen by all, and nobody selects the others. Ouch. Feelings get hurt. And damage is done because it's apparent who's "looked up to" and who isn't. And the chosen few are overwhelmed and they really aren’t inspired to mentor a ton of people (if any at all).
SEMANTICS?
It seems to me that firms are confusing apprenticeship, or the role of preceptor, with “mentoring.”
I don’t think these are the same as mentoring. I could be wrong. I think what you are actually wanting to accomplish is KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER.
Maybe all this is semantics, but it seems to me that words do matter. I think having a forced internal initiative that you call a “mentoring program” is simply fodder for frustration on everyone’s part. It's pretty much a waste of time and energy. And it's kind of insulting to boot.
In other words, it's very possibly delivering the reverse of the effect you desire. Most “mentoring programs” fall flat in firms--considered laughable by the team members and dreaded by the leadership.
It is probably transfer of knowledge that is the most needed and least attended aspect of the continuity of a professional practice.
INSTEAD
Instead, I would recommend one of two approaches:
1. Do create a mentoring program but encourage people to find a career/business mentor “anywhere.” Identify him/her, ask them to be their mentor (a good classic post on this over at Escape From Cubicle Nation), see if the person is into it, connect regularly, and then, in the firm, get together as a group periodically to discuss the experience and share a recent learning.
Perhaps if someone doesn’t want to seek out a mentor, perhaps they will seek out a mentee (again, “anywhere”) and they, too, can share their learnings. A purpose of this would be to show that you value REAL mentoring and that you believe it is important for everyone to have someone who is a career mentor for them.
2. Set up an “apprenticeship program” instead if that is what you are really after (teaching people judgment, behaviors and skills) and create learning goals and objectives. Again, transfer of knowledge is the most needed and least attended aspect in the professions.
Unlike a "mentoring program," an "apprenticeship program" doesn't imply that you have to seek a person's career guidance and advice, but it does imply that the junior person can identify traits and skills to admire and emulate from VARIOUS leaders in the firm. And leaders can identify, from each other, traits and skills to OFFER and give, as a gift, to their team members.
IN CLOSING
Successful people do have mentors (whether the mentor knows that s/he serves this role or not!). But they select their own or really just evolve into the relationship. It's actually a pretty natural behavior for humans and typically begins with admiration and respect.
Let's call things what they really are and work on knowledge transfer as its own effort without trying to force the issue of internal mentoring where it is complicated with politics. Mentoring is best left to individual choice.
A timeless guide to modern marketing strategies: online and off.
"The most comprehensive guide that I have seen so far."―Joe Bailey, CPA
"How to execute social-media strategies and the reasons why they work, written at a higher than most level; a must read if you are serious about social networking." —Anthony Provinzino, Farmers Insurance
"So much more than a run down of the tools....helps you to think strategically about social media by putting in its proper perspective."―Colette Gonsalves, CPA firm marketing director
"Extremely well organized ... winning ideas for ... firms to develop and maintain non-cookie-cutter marketing programs that are firm-specific and purposeful."―Richard Weltman, Business & bankruptcy lawyer
With permission, I post an e-newsletter article by a St Louisan in the PR profession, Les Landes. Les also recently started a blog called "
Michelle Golden's first in-store book sighting! Click to read Michelle's bio
Recent Comments