RoR: Forum

Indeed, this is an excellent video, as are others by him... too often persons go into a job without grasping means to ends, especially their own.... this produces two divergent results - a dis-satisfaction with where they work, regardless, because it is not what they wish to productively do with their lives - or they come to see their productivity as an enhancement to both themselves and the place they work, a feedback that, properly, can grow and keep on growing...... the latter seems to be your case, and 'bully for you'..... the other, however, also has two divergencies - the one who sees the work as prep, as means to ends of his/her own future [eg. the eventual self-employed entrepeneur], and those who drift, viewing work as a chore, viewing its recumbances as an entitlement.....

I should add that grasping this means to ends is unfortunately something which should be taught, but isn't and rarely has been if ever - indeed, when in high school, way back in what actually were 'good old days' compared to today's schools, I asked about thinking of the future, what kind of work wished to do as career work, the answer was always not to worry, just get a job, like an apple to pluck off trees - if it turns out you love it, well and great, and if not, well such is life..... and nowhere was the idea of self-employment given as a good option unless all you wished was hot-dog stands and cleaning septic tanks....

Post 1

Saturday, June 7, 2008 - 7:26pm

Robert! How wordy of you. Must have touched a nerve.

TSI: Well, I keep the faith. I have held those views as my own ever since I read Fountainhead and Atlas at 16 and 17. However, the world is not always like that. I have been on projects at GM, Ford, NASA, Honda, and many small companies and I have been an employee of others large and small. When the boss asks "Are there any suggestions?" That is not the time to offer a suggestion, I assure you.

My wife and I went to one those "Quality is Free" seminars in the mid-1990s. Afterwards, we thanked the presenter for his enlivening words, but I assured him that his action plan only gets you fired. He replied that most of the people in the audience were career employees of the state and GM (this was in Lansing) and they were only now getting the skills they would need on their next jobs and they did not see how soon that was going to hit them. He said that my wife and I were ahead of the curve and would do well.

Working now in private security, I still experience the same dislocations. We are treated like disposable, consumable commodities. Our managers are nearly incompetent. The field is overloaded with retired cops and cop wannabes, especially at the management levels, but at all strata, of course. I do not even bother to try to explain anything. All I need is a bit more experience on record and with my degree, I can open my own guard firm and run things my way.

Back in 1989, I wrote a four-part series for The Greater Lansing Business Monthly on Quality. Nothing has changed (or improved) since then.

All of that being as it may, I am happy for you that you have a job that meets your needs.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 6/07, 7:27pm)

Post 2

Saturday, June 7, 2008 - 10:13pm

That is not the time to offer a suggestion, I assure you.

I can assure you, Michael, that is not the case with my employer. He'd be downright pissed if no one spoke up. It's a marketing firm, so if you're not creative, you're "dead."

I think it's sad you're so jaded. You seem to really enjoy your job, so it must be terribly frustrating not to be listened to, or even to have lost any hope of being listened to. I know you don't hold much respect for business owners, but I swear there are good ones out there. My faith (using the term in the loosest possible sense) in Capitalism has been fully restored.

All of that being as it may, I am happy for you that you have a job that meets your needs.

Well, the interesting thing about that is, I don't want to work for anyone who doesn't really need me either! I like knowing I'm relied on. It keeps me motivated.

Just for the sake of curiosity, how would you keep your people motivated? How would you empower them?

Post 3

Sunday, June 8, 2008 - 5:09pm

Teresa,

Have you ever heard of ROWE (results-only work environment)? It's being implemented at the headquarters of BestBuy in my home state of Minnesota. It was started by 2 women who wrote a book called "Works sucks: And what you can do about it" -- or something like that.

You get to work when and where you want to (even from home or at coffee shops), just as long as you get your work done. It seems relevant to the idea of getting the best out of people.

Ed

Post 4

Sunday, June 8, 2008 - 9:24pm

TSI: It's a marketing firm, so if you're not creative, you're "dead."

Ah! Yes, indeed! In your world, the worker bees are called "creatives;" like "electricians" or "accountants" it is their title. So, that would define your job differently than mine and it would of necessity affect how you see your job.

TSI: You seem to really enjoy your job, so it must be terribly frustrating not to be listened to, or even to have lost any hope of being listened to.

It's an Objectivist thing. We all carry own crosses of one kind or another. "You don't run things here," they said to Gail Wynand ... until he named his yacht I Do. Someday, I will. And to be fair, as an individualist, I have not wanted to "run things" only to do my work to the best of my ability, to be paid well for it, to deliver it on time and then to look for the next assignment. That was a technical writer. Obviously, as a security guard, things are a bit different. I report to people with two-digit IQs who think they know what they are doing. "Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do." Once I get licensed, this, too will change for me.

TSI: know you don't hold much respect for business owners, but ...

I have nearly infinite respect for entrepreneurs and nearly zero respect for managers. "Business owners" are of both types. Some are just the CEO, the chief exec, the captain's gopher, the henchman of the Board, but true business owners, TSI, for sure, I do indeed have respect for them. All of my working life, I have been a business ower. I learned long ago that I have a complete monopoly on being Mike Marotta and I run this company that way.

Post 5

Sunday, June 8, 2008 - 9:59pm

TSI: Just for the sake of curiosity, how would you keep your people motivated? How would you empower them?

Let's just deal with the hypothetical (but realistic) case of my own company, Ranger Security. Most firms win contracts by shaving nickels. They charge about $15 per hour and pay their guard about $10. (Weaponized officers on federal contracts are billed at $22 to $25 and make about $17 per hour. The ones who get killed in armored car hold-ups make $7.50 per hour.)

My marketing strategy is to hire only the best guards and to charge the most for them. With enough margin in the contract, I can afford to give small raises and other incentives. My primary recruiting will be from the community college and university criminology courses, where part-time, adult learners are plentiful.

I prefer firemen to soldiers and I prefer soldiers to cops. In fact, a city cop would have go a long way to prove himself worthy: they are not team players; they rely on force; they come with moral hazards. As cops go, I prefer women to men because they have better people skills.

I believe that money talks and bullshit walks. So, I will place emphasis on merit raises. That must be allowed by the financial realities of the contract. We have to charge more because we deliver more. In addition, attaboys count. Attaboys don't replace money, but money only goes so far, only buys so much.

Security guards tend to be at the far left and far right of the Bell Curve. Each has special needs and each requires a different kind of empowerment. The slower ones need to know that they can rely on the organization. The bright ones need to be able to see their suggestions accepted and realized. I have worked with degreed scientists and engineers and even a former Hillsdale professor. You have to treat them as they rightfully expect and deserve. When a retired mechanical engineer tells you about a potential problem in facilities, you have to take that to the facilities manager; you can't blow it off. That kind of visibility is worth money, billable money, for a guard company that is truly invested in people. At the left-hand side of the curve, you need to provide support, training, cameraderie and paramilitary discipline for those who want it. You have to check their boots for polish and check off the box on the sheet in the office when they shine. They need that, more than they need money.... but they do need money...

You motivate a concrete thinker and give them a checklist to follow and they will follow the checklist. That avoids, prevents and identifies a lot of problems. The building I guard is new and it is settling. Of course the windows leak. How could they not? Someone has to check the seals and report the ones that are wet.

At the radical extreme of my thoughts, there would be no "guards" or "officers" but rather customer service, and account manager... client guardian... customer protector... Always keep the business aspect ahead of the paramilitary... Manager, representative, intrapreneur .... Investor, not investigator....

Post 6

Monday, June 9, 2008 - 2:49am

You get to work when and where you want to (even from home or at coffee shops), just as long as you get your work done. It seems relevant to the idea of getting the best out of people.

LOL! How would that work?! I mean, I'm thinking about the short time I worked in a retail setting, they were opening a brand new department store. Everyone, I mean EVERYONE wanted to work and hang out in the pet department. It was actually hilarious. A couple of college boys managed to teach some of the parakeets to sit on their shoulders and walk around the store with them. That was fun, and extremely entertaining for everyone else. Had to stop when the store opened to the public, however.

Next up was electronics. Everyone wanted to play with the stereos and televisions. Way fun. Someone would crank up their new Dr. Dred CD, and boos could be heard from all over the place (or cheers, depending on what CD was being played.)

Anyway, if a job required one to deal with customers face to face (something a lot of people don't enjoy very much), I can see those jobs being abandoned to an overworked few. Maybe the the book and idea involved administrative realms? I can't see it working in all environments.

Post 7

Monday, June 9, 2008 - 4:45am

... and a word about Training...

I believe in training. First of all, I am a committed lifelong learner. Though I only now completed a four-year degree, I never stopped going to school, whether 2-year, 4-year or industry continuing education, etc. I just finished a FEMA certification in incident response management, for example. It was all online and somewhat limited, therefore, but a good exercise. As another example, I took a couple of community ed classes in Italian and Arabic.

More to the point, for security, training is necessary so that when an emergency or event happens, you do not need to stop and think. You know what to do and do it.

So, keeping the best people requires that you give them training. You improve their skill level and you nail down those performance based skills. Sales people need motivational seminars to keep their fires lit. I could go on all day about the benefits of training.

That said... (here it comes)... We security guards get beaten up with training. They require it of us, but pay us the same as the untrained. Training sessions can be substandard. I have had two Red Cross certified classes in Adult CPR that were less than the mandated eight hours. "There's just a few of you here, so we can breeze through this..." In one, there was no Resussie Annie. In another, we had an Annie, but the trainer left for a smoke break and told us to practice on our own. So, we "trained" each other, I guess, leading me to ask what we needed the trainer for. I completed an associate's and then a bachelor's and did not even get any acknowledgement from the local office. They do not intend to pay me more for my new skills, any more than they paid us a nickel more for completing 14 (fourteen) different modules --- high rise security, fire safety, traffic control, etc., etc., -- in 90 days, as required by our managers. Well, we did get little pins to wear: Professional Security Officer. When I put that down in writing, I received a written reprimand: "Mr. Marotta represented himself as a Professional Security Officer..."

See, the thing is that your wages determine your social status. If you make a lot of money, you get treated well. The less you make, the more abuse you take. .... and the best part is that the account managers get incentive bonuses based on their ability to pull this malarky. In a lot of ways, it resembles tax-farming a lot more than it resembles Atlas Shrugged.

Post 8

Monday, June 9, 2008 - 8:00am

This speech about hiring "people persons" not afraid to engage the customer certainly needs to be qualified by profession and context. Too often anymore, it's become "us versus them."

Customer service in retail is certainly not what it used to be. Working for a certain book chain that is facing financial difficulty, it is an "us versus them" attitude" on many days. Book discounts have given way to "rewards cards" and aggressive hawking of them, coupons in exchange for personal information to create "loyalty programs." Returns and exchange policies are changing, becoming stricter, including a 30 percent return penalty once reserved for electronics. I'm actually on the side of the company, since many customers are anything but, treating unpaid for product as personal property.
The big chain stores are a victim of their own success. They operate on a model that was adapted from their small-bookstore days, when you could cater to a local following with chairs and cafes. But taking that small-store mentality, and blow it up to acommodate anyone, while selling music and movies, they've gained more patrons, but lost their book niche. (Think about this as well: when you start selling movies and cd's of a broad base, that includes rap and "gangsta shit." Now the bookstore environment is attracting many who are not bookstore people, and the attraction for a book person to work in a bookstore becomes compromised. Now we are supposed to become all things to all people.) Because it's now not about selling books, but about selling more and more and competing with the other guy, and now Costco and Walmart. But the point is that the stores attract people who are NOT customers, who use and abuse the bathrooms, read magazines in store all day while taking up valuable chair space, and monopolize listening stations, preventing legitimate customers from using them, yet these people are called "customers." We wind up having to throw quite a few out, while enduring taunts and threats. And these aren't necessarily the shoplifters.

And you know times have changed when the company actually begins to lose the "customer is always right" motto and actually back up their store employees. The free ride for customers is over.
(Edited by Joe Maurone on 6/09, 8:33am)

Post 9

Monday, June 9, 2008 - 12:29pm

Thanks, Joe. There, too, the problem is that your Big Book Store is not the daily work of one entrepreneur, but the career of professional managers. The company could go to ruin at your level, but as long as it looks good to Wall Street, the managers think they are doing the right thing.

For myself, I just want to underscore a fact that is too easy to miss. Private security is dominated by the warrior-guardian mentality that Robert Malcom called The Taking Philosophy as opposed to The Trading Philosophy. I intend to change that. I have no interest in "law enforcement" and every desire to create new values by minimizing risks.

For instance, Joe, one solution is to tie to those Reward Cards to admissions, making your store a club for clients, as Cosco and Sam's Club are. More rewards means deeper access to better goodies, and to lowered risks of lost time waiting on people who do not buy.

Post 10

Monday, June 9, 2008 - 1:09pm

Teresa, good stories.

In fact, the headquarters of BestBuy Company -- where ROWE is being implemented for the first time -- is an administrative environment, just like you say. Managers get to stay on extended vacations in the tropics, communicating with their underlings via email and cell phone in order to facilitate-from-afar the ongoing work projects ...

Ed

Post 11

Monday, June 9, 2008 - 2:51pm

For myself, I just want to underscore a fact that is too easy to miss. Private security is dominated by the warrior-guardian mentality that Robert Malcom called The Taking Philosophy as opposed to The Trading Philosophy. I intend to change that. I have no interest in "law enforcement" and every desire to create new values by minimizing risks.

Thank you - about time someone noticed that....;-)

(Edited by robert malcom on 6/09, 2:51pm)

Post 12

Monday, June 9, 2008 - 4:19pm

The free ride for customers is over.

HooRay! It's about damn time. I happen to know my own boss does not subscribe to this outrage against the mind.

I have an old friend who's been working in a used and rare book store for years. Loves it.
I don't know how well he'd adjust to big box book stores, either.

I can just see him now... "Don't read that trash! Here, this is a excellent book. Buy this one instead. You'll thank me later."

LOL!

Post 13

Monday, June 9, 2008 - 5:04pm

LOL - the book nazi, huh....;-)

Post 14

Friday, June 13, 2008 - 2:06pm

John Tschohl opens this video with the statement:

Hiring and keeping the right people is a core ingredient that every service leader has. I happen to believe one of the fundamental principles of that is that we have to make sure we do not hire people who hate customers.

I think most any five year old could have made this observation. Who could believe that a company could prosper with employees who hate their customers?
Furthermore, he goes on to repeatedly quote Jack Welch and Jeffrey Immlet, the top executives of GE. This again is something any five year old could do.
His essential message is merely to be careful about the quality of the employees that are hired and then to nurture them to improve their performance.  Ditto again.

What does this guy think he is accomplishing here? I find it impossible to take this man seriously. Any one who produced a video so cluttered with the ideas of others and such utterly obvious observations should be ignored.

The most important abilities for any CEO to have is 1) the ability to determine the product line his company will produce, which in turn requires an extensive knowledge of the current market and the vision to go beyond it and 2) the ability to produce the product and get it to market, which in turn requires the necessary knowledge of research, manufacturing and organizational skills to get the job done. This is the hard part.  It would be interesting to see a video about this, and preferably one containing his own ideas on the subject, assuming he has any.

Just as an after thought, a simple way for a CEO to assess the quality of the work environment of his company might be to ask: How long would the heroes of Rand's novels last in it if they were hired? (Or equivalently, how long would the villians?) If the environment could support the employment of a Howard Roark, then there is sufficient respect for independence and integrity of the mind, or a Dagny Taggart then sufficient valuation for competence, etc. But if it could support a soggyminded-conformist like Peter Keating then there is a serious deficiency of creativity, or a manipulating-predator-sadist like James Taggart then it would be flawed to the point of complete dysfunctionality.

Post 15

Friday, June 13, 2008 - 3:29pm

I think most any five year old could have made this observation. Who could believe that a company could prosper with employees who hate their customers?

How lucky for you, Robert, that you've never had the misfortune of dealing with a service representative that clearly hates customers. (Or maybe you should just get out of the house more often) ;)

Just as an after thought, a simple way for a CEO to assess the quality of the work environment of his company might be to ask: How long would the heroes of Rand's novels last in it if they were hired? (Or equivalently, how long would the villians?) If the environment could support the employment of a Howard Roark, then there is sufficient respect for independence and integrity of the mind, or a Dagny Taggart then sufficient valuation for competence, etc. But if it could support a soggyminded-conformist like Peter Keating then there is a serious deficiency of creativity, or a manipulating-predator-sadist like James Taggart then it would be flawed to the point of complete dysfunctionality.

Tschohl has a serious contender in you, doesn't he? How sad no one else knows.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 6/13, 6:46pm)

Post 16

Friday, June 13, 2008 - 8:52pm

REM: "The most important abilities for any CEO to have is 1) ... and 2) ...

Actually, unless you are the sole proprietor of a robotized factory, you need people. Google T. J. Rogers of Cypress Semiconductor. He came recommended to me as an Objectivist. (As did Mark Cuban of the Mavericks, Fred Smith of FedEx, Ed Snider of the Flyers and several others. I wrote to all of them, sending them a resume, cover letter and sample of my work. I got an interview with Rogers. So I know him and his company directly.) In beating up a nun (figuratively: see here), he pointed out that his firm hires the best people it can find. In his book, No Excuses Management, Rogers says that when an employee says that they are quitting, the manager's immediate and uninterrupted task is to address that and all of its issues and prevent it without any hesitation: employees are irreplacible, if they are hired right.

I will grant that REM has a point that the message was a restatement of a message of a message about the touting of the touting. Nonetheless, the mesage is valid on its own merits. Get closer to the source, if you prefer, but that only clarifies (makes clear) the essential information.

As TSI pointed out, we all have had the experience of suffering at the hands of a CSR who hates her job and her customers. Let me tell you, I went out online with a former employer and called an office with several supervisor openings posted, each a bit different. 'I need to talk with your HR person," I said. "She's not here," came the reply. End of sentence. I teased the information out of the receptionist, one item at a time.... first name, last name, out to lunch? voice mail (no!)... email address (I don't know.) ... and so on. I correctly guessed the email address and made contact with the HR person directly, no thanks to the receptionist who hates her job and her clients, both internal and external.

Post 17

Friday, June 13, 2008 - 9:22pm

Nice thread! Almost all of the posts are very informative and interesting: detailed, factual, full of real world experiences you all have had (as opposed to floating theory without examples or situations).

In my case, in my first 'business' career, I worked for many large corporations on both coasts. In my second, I've worked at a number of schools from very tiny to a very large multi-campus private school.

One of the most overlooked supposedly obvious principles is - treat your employees well and your company will prosper. Even if a five-year old could formulate the principle (he couldn't not even having the following concepts: 'corporation', 'sales', 'employee', 'payment', etc.), the real difficulty is in the implementation. Figuring out how to make the principle work. Sustaining the effort, etc.

The company of any size I worked at that was the best at this was HP (Hewlett-Packard) --- justifiably one of the world's most respected companies. It grew like gangbusters for decades by following something called "The HP Way" set up by the founders. And hiring the best then empowering, listening to, rewarding them was a key part of this.

I've also worked for several large banks, a defense contractor, and several educational institutions that tried to get the most hours for the least reward out of its people [�taking institution� rather than �trading institution�, did someone say?]. And then treat them like mushrooms (keep them in the dark and feed them manure). Ignore good advice from "the peons" who actually work down in the trenches and actually know what is going on in great detail. Make promises to them of future rewards, but never seem to be able to fulfill them.

It is crucial in grasping the rather complex real world not to over simplify complex causal relations so that they are viewed as "one causal factor" relations. A mistake often made by RI's (rationalist-intrinsicists), RN's (Randroid Newbies), and RO's (ritualistic Objectivists).

Multi-factor causality applies to individuals, to their personal relationships . . . and to business organizations: There are many reasons why an organization can succeed or fail, grow or stay static. So this one issue -alone- won't cause them to go bankrupt, anymore than one bad habit or one irrationality in a human being will suddenly kill him.

But human effort and human intelligence are crucial to the success of even the simplest and (supposedly) most routinized endeavor. And so, in each of the companies above, how they used and treated their people had a major role in how successful they were while I was there and in how successful they have been since.

Post 18

Monday, June 16, 2008 - 9:18pm