Monthly Archives: August 2008

Finding Value In Every Employee

In these seemingly dark economic times, tough decisions are being made in executive offices across the country: with less revenue this year than last, who gets to stay and who gets let go?

These are tough questions with no easy decisions (well, maybe a few easy decisions). The obvious answer is to keep the highest performing employees, who bring in big bucks and big clients. The folks over at Harvard Business Review, however, disagree with this approach.

Who’s most critical to your company’s success, especially during a weak economy? Who supplies the stability, knowledge, and long-term view your firm needs to survive? B players—competent, steady performers far from the limelight.

These supporting actors of the corporate world determine your company’s future performance far more than A players—volatile stars who may score the biggest revenues or clients, but who’re also the most likely to commit missteps. B players, by contrast, prize stability in their work and home lives. They seldom strive for advancement or attention—caring more about their companies‘ well-being. Infrequent job changers, they accumulate deep knowledge about company processes and history. They thus provide ballast during transitions, steadily boosting organizational resilience and performance.

Yet many executives ignore B players, beguiled by stars’ brilliance. The danger? If neglected, these dependable contributors may leave, taking the firm’s backbone with them. How to keep your B players? Recognize their value—and nurture them.

While these so-called “A players” are dreaming up the next big idea that will rocket the company to super stardom or wining and dining a major client whose business will take the company into a higher tax bracket, the B players are working diligently in their cubicles putting together presentations, managing client relationships and keeping the company running each and every day.

By sheer dollar measure, B players don’t appear to bring in as much value as an A player, but in terms of long-term value to a company, B players are the ones holding the key to the company vault so to speak. Though B players may lack the motivation or dazzle of more ambitious A players for a variety of reasons, they still provide vital production, intelligence and project management skills that if measured in hard dollars, would far surpass those of their more prominent A counterparts.

In my own experience, I’ve seen examples of B players being devalued and even let go–to the detriment of their respective employers. One solid B player, well beloved and respected by both those in his department and those outside of it, was unceremoniously fired one day for requesting that he get paid what he was worth. Apparently, management decided to value their bottom line over a quality employee with a history of good performance and working 10-hour days (with no overtime).

Another B player I know, who fits Harvard’s description to a T, is seriously job hunting after his manager refused several times to promote him citing his “lack of motivation” to take on new projects—even though this B player has the heaviest workload and manages the highest number of projects of any member of his department. Instead this player’s manager chose to commit the biggest mistake of any manager: promoting what I like to call the “F Player.”

An F (for “fake”) player is one who masquerades as an A player but in reality produces little to no value to the company. They get ahead by capitalizing on their generally excellent public speaking and persuasion skills, pulling the wool over management’s eyes as to their actual contributions. B players can always ferret out an F player, another reason why they are so valuable to have around.

During any hiring or firing deliberations, it’s important for management to remember that every company needs “worker bees.” Companies made up solely of idea men will be great at coming up with hot new products, but crippled by their inability to execute on them if they do not retain enough B players to build their products.

Michael Scott, Steve Carrell’s character on the hit show, The Office, once recited a great quote about the role of managers:

“Good managers don’t fire people. They hire people and inspire people.”

Although Michael Scott’s character is the poster-child for bad management, his message still rings true.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Facebook: Friend or Foe?

As someone whose entire career would not exist without the World Wide Web, I think of the internet as a tool, a marketplace, a reference library. I once had to spend a week without a broadband connection while I was in the process of moving and I felt oddly disconnected and anxious, as if a vital part of my life was missing. To me, the internet is a way to connect, create and learn.

But to most employers outside the ecommerce industry, the internet is viewed as simply this:

A distraction

There is no doubt that the advent of computer-based work and having an entire world of entertainment available at our fingertips has contributed to increased worker distraction. But haven’t employees always found ways to goof off at the office? How much distraction is too much?

Brazen Careerist blogger, Matt Elliott, argues that as long as an employee is getting their work done, they should be allowed the freedom to do with their time as they wish.

It seems entirely acceptable for an employee to spend 10 minutes chatting with co-workers about the movie they saw on the weekend or 5 minutes on a personal phone call, but apparently just a glimpse at Facebook is an instant productivity killer. The message, I guess — and this is coming from those generally clueless about everything online — is that you can’t be working if you’re also on some website.

The real issue I have with this is one of trust. By constantly monitoring your employees’ screens, by installing filters and blocks, by blanket policies forbidding access at work, you’re essentially saying to your employees that you can’t trust them. “Why would you do this stupid work I’ve assigned you when you have fun internet things to look at?”

I can certainly agree that if an employee’s output is being impacted by constant web surfing (or personal phone calls, frequent absences, or general goofing off), then by all means, they should be disciplined for poor performance.

But what if the irresponsible actions of a handful of employees start to affect the work of others?

What if one employee’s constant Facebook viewing goes unchallenged and the other members of that person’s department have to pick up that person’s the slack or become resentful and therefore less productive? Or even more commonly, what if an employee’s YouTube addiction starts to drain serious bandwith from the entire company, impacting internal systems from functioning?

A comment on Matt’s post by a reader named Travis offers some startling statistics:

Being an Administrator that has recently put in place a content filter to “Block” employees from going to certain sites, I completely agree…that people need to save it for after work. It’s called work for a reason, and allowing Facebook and Myspace are not conducive to a working environment. I personally have watched the productively levels increase here – we did a test as to how many “hits” sites like Myspace and Facebook were getting prior to blocking the sites, and I can say that in the 3 months of testing certain employees were on those sites 28% of their day, now that they are blocked we get about 15% of that back in productivity (the other 13% now goes to other sites that we don’t feel we should block)

28% is over a quarter, or 2 hours of every workday. That is some serious time and bandwith being wasted. Doesn’t everyone have to sign computer-usages policies as part of the standard new hire paperwork? Most people seem to ignore the points about excessive personal internet usage and the prohibitions about streaming media and downloads. Some people don’t even read the policy before signing it. How does that demonstrate personal accountability, even among those who only “occasionally” check their personal email at the office?

Where should businesses draw the line? Should they honor an employee’s personal freedom to do what they wish and deal with troublemakers on an individual basis? Or should they aim for the lowest common denominator and ban all non-work-related sites (such as MySpace, Facebook or YouTube) from office computers?

What do you think?

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Related Reading: