A recent study from Hewitt Associates and WorldatWork indicates that companies are placing a greater emphasis on performance-based pay. However, 83 percent of the organizations surveyed say their pay-for-performance programs are only somewhat successful or not working at all.

According to Paul Shafer, a business leader for Hewitt Associates, "The good news is that companies are trying to motivate through performance. The bad news is that few organizations do enough to motivate this way, so in many cases, employers are unintentionally reinforcing an entitlement mentality among employees."

In The Leading from the Heart Workshop, participants play a game called "Win As Much As You Can." Four teams are given one card with an "X" and another with a "Y." In each of ten rounds, teams simultaneously hold up either the X or Y. Teams win or lose money depending on the combination of cards held up by the four teams. For instance, if one team holds up an X and three teams hold up a Y, the X team wins $3 and the Y teams each lose $1. If all four teams hold up a Y, each team wins $1. The teams can only communicate with other teams in three of the rounds. The only stated objective is to "win as much as you can."

The results are not surprising. Rather than working as single unit to win as a whole, teams compete to beat the others. Why? The instructions fail to adequately explain the goals and how the results will be determined.

Hewitt and WorldatWork suggest that lack of communication, as demonstrated in the Win As Much As You Can game, is the main reason for poor pay-for-performance results. "It's futile to try to establish a pay-for-performance culture without openly discussing goals, how to accomplish them and what it means to an employee's pocketbook," said Shafer. "Pay-for-performance programs without proper communication lead to a culture of employees who are confused about company priorities and don't know what to focus on to maximize performance dollars."

Leaders must Have a Vision and Convince Others To Share It. Only by effectively communicating the organization"s vision, and each individual's role in achieving that vision, will leaders realize the desired results of pay-for-performance initiatives. Bookmark this post on del.icio.us

Giving away authority can be a challenge. Sharing your influence and the prestige associated with leadership often requires confronting your insecurities about losing power. And if you're among the growing ranks of business leaders who must both manage others and meet personal production goals, that challenge can be even greater.

Largely, people earn their leadership roles through the demonstration of other job-related skills. You're a good salesperson; we're going to make you the sales manager. However, as demands to reduce costs and operate with fewer employees increase, more managers are taking on the dual roles of manager and producer. Now, as in this example, the best salesperson has the added duties of overseeing the sales staff.

In their book Player Manager: The Rise of Professionals Who Manage While They Work, Philip Augar and Joy Palmer examine how various leaders juggle the simultaneous responsibilities of managing and playing on the team. There is the Rookie manager who labors to do it all; the leading-by-example Players' Player who tries to duplicate his or her own success in others; and the Player Again who gives up managing and returns to strictly producing.

Because Player Managers receive little in the way of leadership training, many struggle to Freely Give Away Their Authority. Some cling to their old expertise as a safety net: I may not be the greatest leader, but I'm still the best salesperson, and they won't fire me if I'm producing sales. Many Player Managers have a subconscious concern about carrying their weight; they fear that empowering others will be viewed as shirking part of their own duties. For others, empowerment leads to micromanagement and second guessing, resulting in a lack of trust and the loss of employee initiative and creativity.

Player Managers--in fact, all managers--must remember that one of their responsibilities is to prepare their organization's next generation of leaders. Giving away some of their authority is a duty, not a dereliction.

A warning to organizations from Augar and Palmer: "Without more recognition and some help in balancing impossible work loads, more player managers will either burn out or step away from leadership challenges." Bookmark this post on del.icio.us

Starbucks Coffee Company epitomizes the principle that companies should Live By The Values They Profess. One example is in the way the company purchases coffee. Last year, when prices of commercial-grade arabica coffee sold in commodity markets for 55 to 70 cents per pound, Starbucks regularly paid negotiated prices averaging $1.20 per pound directly to coffee farmers. The practice helps improve conditions for farmers in coffee producing communities and helps maintain long-term customer relationships on which the growers can depend.

At Starbucks, the values listed in its mission statement define the company's culture and guide the behavior of its employees. According to Starbucks chairman Howard Schultz, "If people relate to the company they work for, if they share an emotional tie to it and buy in to its dreams, they will pour their heart into making it better." The employees, or partners as Starbucks refers to them, seem to agree: 78 percent of the company's partners say the organization's values provide meaningful direction in their jobs at Starbucks.

Starbucks takes commitment to its core values to a higher level. Employees are encouraged to hold their leaders accountable by expressing their opinions on whether or not the organization's practices are consistent with its mission statement. All concerns are shared with Starbucks leaders and employees can expect a response. In addition, the company publishes a Corporate Social Responsibility Annual Report, listing initiatives, programs, and activities that demonstrate how Starbucks provides social, environmental, and economic benefits to the communities in which it operates. It takes the added step of hiring a certified public accounting firm to verify the report's contents.

Why are company values so important? Job candidates are less likely now than ever before to select an employer based simply on financial rewards. The emphasis now is on values. Today, people seek out employers with values consistent with their own, and look for ways to satisfy their interests and needs by aligning with the mission of an enterprise. Those organizations that recognize the role of values in leadership, and who Live By The Values They Profess, will win the war for talent, both in attracting and retaining the best workers.

Read the Starbucks Corporate Social Responsibility Annual Report. Bookmark this post on del.icio.us

When it comes to punctuation, Lynne Truss is a stickler. She gasps in horror and despair at a redundant apostrophe. Her concern for the growing apathy toward the standards of punctuation prompted her to write the book Eats, Shoots & Leaves. The book, originally published and successful in her native England, has shot to the top of the New York Times bestseller list in its North American edition.

Writes Truss, "The reason to stand up for punctuation is that without it there is no reliable way of communicating meaning. Punctuation herds words together, keeps others apart. Punctuation directs you how to read, in the way musical notation directs a musician how to play."

What does punctuation have to do with leadership? If leaders are to communicate effectively, they must Master Both Listening and Speaking. When they speak through the written word, in memos, e-mails, and text messages, they must punctuate their writing correctly.

Consider this example from the book. Suppose you are instructing an employee to use accurate timekeeping when measuring a process. You write, "Don't guess, use a timer or watch." You are actually conveying the opposite of your intended meaning, appearing to say, "Don't guess, don't use a timer, and don't use a watch." Therefore, the sentence requires a semi-colon or period after "guess," rather than a comma.

Maybe most readers will miss or ignore your careless punctuation. But the sticklers will notice! They will find your sloppiness distracting. Furthermore, they will stop believing you when you state, "We value quality in everything we do."

Eats, Shoots & Leaves is an amusing, yet informative book. I could tell you what the title means, but that's part of the fun. I'll warn you: there are differences between British and American punctuation standards (we use periods to end sentences; they use "full stops") and Truss is from England. However, she points out the contrasts without altering the magic of the book.

Master Both Listening and Speaking, and master punctuation, too. Bookmark this post on del.icio.us

Industries once based their leadership models on the centuries-old notion of organizations as machines, and considered the best-managed workplaces those that were orderly and unchanging. Implementing change required re-engineering the machine, or system. In that environment, the most revered managers were those who held everything under control.

Those theories are misplaced in today's workplace and must be abandoned. Why? Simply put, it's impossible to compete by operating a machine that works just like every other company’s machine. Too many organizations make the products you manufacture, provide the services you offer, or meet the social needs you fill. Today, business involves constant change and the best leaders are those who can drive change fastest.

Writing in the October 2000 edition of Fast Company, former United States Secretary of Labor Robert Reich proclaimed, "Companies that can't change the way that they think about change won't be able to change the way that they compete."

According to Reich, "In a time of constant change, one thing hasn't changed: Organizations are still resistant to change. The change agent of the old economy worked in an environment where incremental change was all that was needed--and all that was tolerated." Reich says that being a change agent is insufficient. "Change today demands the change insurgent."

Webster defines insurgent as: Rising in opposition to civil or political authority, or against an established government; insubordinate; rebellious. Is that kind of behavior encouraged in your organization?

To be effective today, values-based leaders must take risks and one of those risks might involve driving change from below. It can mean rising up against change resisters and risking being labeled an insurgent. Reich offers encouragement. "Many change agents used to depend on title, authority, or official sanction to undertake their change programs. Change insurgency doesn't depend on formal rank; it depends on great ideas, powerful visions, and daring examples. There's no way that the people at the top can know enough about technology, markets, or the potential of people in and around the organization to be the major instigators of change."

Reich warns that in pushing for change from below, change insurgents "are playing a high-risk, high-reward game. If they succeed, the company thrives, and they earn both personal credit and the chance to stay in the game. If they fail, the company may falter, and they risk losing personal standing."

Is being a change insurgent worth the risk? Yes, if the changes you advocate are important to the values of your organization. Remember, your employees joined your organization because they saw a connection between their personal values and the stated values of the company. Those common values provide them with the meaning and connection they need in their jobs. Pushing for changes that uphold the organization's values demonstrates your credibility.

To drive change, you must be a risk seeker. You must be brave and innovative, try new approaches, and chance failure. In other words, you must Accept Challenges and Take Risks. Bookmark this post on del.icio.us