What's In a Name?
When Andrew Carnegie was a child, he enjoyed raising rabbits. His father built a shelter for the animals and the Carnegie homestead became a popular gathering place for young Andrew and his friends. Andrew was in charge of feeding the prolific brood and he quickly realized the enormity of his task. Without any money to hire help, he struck a unique deal with his companions. In exchange for spending their summers gathering dandelions and clover as food for his pets, Andrew promised to name newborn rabbits after them. This hard bargain was, noted Carnegie in his autobiography, "the poorest return ever made to labor."
Later in life, as a philanthropist, Carnegie again bestowed naming rights as a reward for hard work. Charlie Taylor was the original president of the Hero Fund, a pension fund that Carnegie established for families of fallen heroes. When Taylor refused to take a salary for the job, Carnegie set about finding another way to compensate him. A graduate of Lehigh University, Taylor had been urging Carnegie to contribute money to the school for construction of a new building. So Carnegie secretly contacted Lehigh's president and offered to pay for the building on the condition they name it "Taylor Hall." When Taylor uncovered the plot, he objected and insisted that he was unworthy of that kind of recognition. Carnegie took great delight in watching his friend's protest and jokingly insisted that he would reconsider his contribution to Lehigh if Taylor withheld the use of his name. Carnegie later wrote, "Visitors who may look upon that structure in after days and wonder who Taylor was may rest assured that he was a loyal son of Lehigh, a working, not merely a preaching, apostle of the gospel of service to his fellow-men, and one of the best men that ever lived."
Carnegie was not without his faults when it came to dealing with his employees. After all, he made his fortune at a time in American business history when immoral labor practices prevailed. But when money was not a viable reward, he found a priceless way of inspiring people. He simply used their names.
Later in life, as a philanthropist, Carnegie again bestowed naming rights as a reward for hard work. Charlie Taylor was the original president of the Hero Fund, a pension fund that Carnegie established for families of fallen heroes. When Taylor refused to take a salary for the job, Carnegie set about finding another way to compensate him. A graduate of Lehigh University, Taylor had been urging Carnegie to contribute money to the school for construction of a new building. So Carnegie secretly contacted Lehigh's president and offered to pay for the building on the condition they name it "Taylor Hall." When Taylor uncovered the plot, he objected and insisted that he was unworthy of that kind of recognition. Carnegie took great delight in watching his friend's protest and jokingly insisted that he would reconsider his contribution to Lehigh if Taylor withheld the use of his name. Carnegie later wrote, "Visitors who may look upon that structure in after days and wonder who Taylor was may rest assured that he was a loyal son of Lehigh, a working, not merely a preaching, apostle of the gospel of service to his fellow-men, and one of the best men that ever lived."
Carnegie was not without his faults when it came to dealing with his employees. After all, he made his fortune at a time in American business history when immoral labor practices prevailed. But when money was not a viable reward, he found a priceless way of inspiring people. He simply used their names.
Labels: leadership, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usLive With Integrity: The World is Watching
In this age of instant information, any ethical misstep by a well-known person is just a click away from our desktop. That's why, after watching the behavior of the former heads of scandal-plagued companies such as Enron, WorldCom, and Tyco, many people now find it difficult to trust any corporate CEO. And why, after listening to the campaign gaffes of a few disgraceful politicians, it's easy for a weary public to imagine that, deep down, everyone in Congress is a racist. The barrage of news stories reporting the transgressions of powerful people is creating an overwhelming generalization among the American population: that is, that no one is trustworthy.
What can a single person do to change that mindset? As a young boy, Benjamin Franklin obtained a battered copy of the book, Essays to do Good, and later attributed his virtuous conduct to the lessons he found in its pages. One passage he valued stated, "a little man may do a great deal of harm; and pray, why not a little man do a great deal of good?" Consider this argument in light of today's ethical environment: if the behavior of a small group of business and political figures can cast suspicion on the integrity of an entire nation, why can't the actions of a small number of morally strong individuals restore the republic's faith that people are generally good?
By choosing to live with integrity, you'll help to fight back the onslaught of unethical behavior. You might not get the publicity afforded business scoundrels and nasty politicians. But those close to you will notice, and you'll succeed in proving that there are still honorable people in the world.
What do you think? Post a Comment
What can a single person do to change that mindset? As a young boy, Benjamin Franklin obtained a battered copy of the book, Essays to do Good, and later attributed his virtuous conduct to the lessons he found in its pages. One passage he valued stated, "a little man may do a great deal of harm; and pray, why not a little man do a great deal of good?" Consider this argument in light of today's ethical environment: if the behavior of a small group of business and political figures can cast suspicion on the integrity of an entire nation, why can't the actions of a small number of morally strong individuals restore the republic's faith that people are generally good?
By choosing to live with integrity, you'll help to fight back the onslaught of unethical behavior. You might not get the publicity afforded business scoundrels and nasty politicians. But those close to you will notice, and you'll succeed in proving that there are still honorable people in the world.
Labels: integrity, leadership, values
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
This is very similar in concept to St. Therese's "Little Way". By doing the little things, you will be noticed. Little people doing little things can change everything.
What do you think? Post a Comment
An Unhealthy Work Environment
Every day, workers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention battle infectious and chronic diseases, workplace hazards, and environmental health threats. It is meaningful work, according to a recent survey conducted by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management. In fact, four out of five CDC employees like their roles and believe their work is important. But an outbreak of mistrust toward the agency's leadership has left the organization in critical condition.
A paltry 40 percent of CDC employees think their agency's leaders maintain high standards of honesty and integrity, according to the survey. That's down from 45 percent in 2004 and over 50 percent in 2002. What's causing this workplace vital sign to decline?
Here's one likely explanation. In 2003, the CDC undertook a massive strategic reorganization. Ever since, employees have expressed growing confusion about their roles at the agency. In 2002, before the shake-up began, a whopping 91 percent of CDC workers said they knew how their work related to the organization's goals and priorities. One year after the restructuring started, only 77 percent saw a correlation between their duties and the CDC's goals. Now, three years into the restructuring, only three out of four workers understand the purpose of their work. And when employees struggle to discern any link between their work and their organization's actual mission, the resulting frustration leads them to mistrust their bosses.
Changes, like the reorganization at the CDC, are bound to occur. Contrary to popular leadership belief, employees don't fear change; they fear loss. Specifically, they worry about what they might lose from the changes. Therefore, if leaders fail to communicate effectively how changes will affect each worker's role in the organization, those employees can only assume the worst. And, as the CDC example reveals, assumptions lead to diminishing trust.
If you want to maintain a healthy work environment, immunize your workers against suspicion and doubt. Infect them with a healthy dose of enlightenment.
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
A paltry 40 percent of CDC employees think their agency's leaders maintain high standards of honesty and integrity, according to the survey. That's down from 45 percent in 2004 and over 50 percent in 2002. What's causing this workplace vital sign to decline?
Here's one likely explanation. In 2003, the CDC undertook a massive strategic reorganization. Ever since, employees have expressed growing confusion about their roles at the agency. In 2002, before the shake-up began, a whopping 91 percent of CDC workers said they knew how their work related to the organization's goals and priorities. One year after the restructuring started, only 77 percent saw a correlation between their duties and the CDC's goals. Now, three years into the restructuring, only three out of four workers understand the purpose of their work. And when employees struggle to discern any link between their work and their organization's actual mission, the resulting frustration leads them to mistrust their bosses.
Changes, like the reorganization at the CDC, are bound to occur. Contrary to popular leadership belief, employees don't fear change; they fear loss. Specifically, they worry about what they might lose from the changes. Therefore, if leaders fail to communicate effectively how changes will affect each worker's role in the organization, those employees can only assume the worst. And, as the CDC example reveals, assumptions lead to diminishing trust.
If you want to maintain a healthy work environment, immunize your workers against suspicion and doubt. Infect them with a healthy dose of enlightenment.
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
The Rule of 10
If you've ever studied ecology, you probably know how "consumer" organisms acquire energy by eating other organisms. Along a food chain, there is a sequential order in which organisms consume each other. Ecologists call those feeding ranks trophic levels. The "Rule of 10" says that only 10 percent of available energy passes from one trophic level to the next; the rest is lost as heat. Nature abandons so much energy between successive species that food chains seldom exceed four or five trophic levels.
I see a striking similarity between ecological food chains and most leadership communication. Too often, our messages lose their meanings as each level of the corporate chain consumes the information. Second-hand information is usually inaccurate or incomplete. And if the information is misconstrued, how can we expect the message's tone to go through several levels intact? I'd say it's likely that only 10 percent of a message makes it through each level of communication. The rest, like forgone energy, is just hot air.
Here's a workplace example of an information feeding cycle in action: A leader tells some colleagues in a meeting, "We have excellent employees, and because we continue to grow, we need more people just like them. So, ask your staffs if anyone knows someone looking for a job and, if so, to please let us know. We're still looking for good people." After multiple employee trophic levels devour the message, this is what people at the bottom of the corporate food chain hear: "They're looking for some good people. Apparently, we're not good people."
Nothing saps the energy out of an organization faster than poor communication. So, if you're a leader, remember this Rule of 10: Only 10 percent of your intended meaning passes from one messenger to the next.
I see a striking similarity between ecological food chains and most leadership communication. Too often, our messages lose their meanings as each level of the corporate chain consumes the information. Second-hand information is usually inaccurate or incomplete. And if the information is misconstrued, how can we expect the message's tone to go through several levels intact? I'd say it's likely that only 10 percent of a message makes it through each level of communication. The rest, like forgone energy, is just hot air.
Here's a workplace example of an information feeding cycle in action: A leader tells some colleagues in a meeting, "We have excellent employees, and because we continue to grow, we need more people just like them. So, ask your staffs if anyone knows someone looking for a job and, if so, to please let us know. We're still looking for good people." After multiple employee trophic levels devour the message, this is what people at the bottom of the corporate food chain hear: "They're looking for some good people. Apparently, we're not good people."
Nothing saps the energy out of an organization faster than poor communication. So, if you're a leader, remember this Rule of 10: Only 10 percent of your intended meaning passes from one messenger to the next.
Labels: communication, leadership
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usA Climate of Trust
Is global warming a serious threat? According to a recent ACNielsen survey, only 42 percent of U.S. citizens think so. What's more, Americans are hesitant to believe that human activities cause climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wants to convince us otherwise.
On February 2, the IPCC will release its latest assessment on global climate conditions. This year's report will contain some strong evidence that global warming is real -- and that humans are to blame. IPCC chairperson Rajendra Pachauri said, "I hope this report will shock people."
The report will try to "shock" us with predictions of higher temperatures that will melt Artic glaciers and of rising seas that will engulf entire Pacific islands. One included prophecy: average global temperatures will rise by 2° to 4.5° Celsius over "pre-industrial levels" by the year 2100. According to Pachauri, the numbers speak for themselves. "You really can’t get a more authentic and a more credible piece of scientific work," he says.
Well, let's take a closer look at those numbers. To be sure, a 2-4.5°C rise in global temperatures gets our attention. But the shock subsides when you consider that the projected increase will have occurred since "pre-industrial" times. In case you have forgotten, the industrial era started around 1750. That means the projected temperature rise will have occurred over a span of 350 years. With these types of fear-mongering warnings, it's no wonder most Americans fail to take global warming seriously.
The IPCC approach reminds me of a non-profit agency in San Diego County currently making the following claim: "Every one second, a public high school student is suspended in America." I did the math. That works out to sixty suspended students every minute, 3,600 every hour, 86,400 every day, and 31.5 million every year. Yikes! But wait. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, that's twice the number of public high school students in America. As it turns out, the agency only counts the seconds in school days -- 180 days of seven hours each -- and that number just doesn't have the same shock value.
Attempts to manipulate people with sensationalized statistics usually fall short, causing skeptics to distrust even the most compelling scientific evidence. If you want to persuade others, you first have to earn their trust. Only then will people warm up to your ideas.
What do you think? Post a Comment
On February 2, the IPCC will release its latest assessment on global climate conditions. This year's report will contain some strong evidence that global warming is real -- and that humans are to blame. IPCC chairperson Rajendra Pachauri said, "I hope this report will shock people."
The report will try to "shock" us with predictions of higher temperatures that will melt Artic glaciers and of rising seas that will engulf entire Pacific islands. One included prophecy: average global temperatures will rise by 2° to 4.5° Celsius over "pre-industrial levels" by the year 2100. According to Pachauri, the numbers speak for themselves. "You really can’t get a more authentic and a more credible piece of scientific work," he says.
Well, let's take a closer look at those numbers. To be sure, a 2-4.5°C rise in global temperatures gets our attention. But the shock subsides when you consider that the projected increase will have occurred since "pre-industrial" times. In case you have forgotten, the industrial era started around 1750. That means the projected temperature rise will have occurred over a span of 350 years. With these types of fear-mongering warnings, it's no wonder most Americans fail to take global warming seriously.
The IPCC approach reminds me of a non-profit agency in San Diego County currently making the following claim: "Every one second, a public high school student is suspended in America." I did the math. That works out to sixty suspended students every minute, 3,600 every hour, 86,400 every day, and 31.5 million every year. Yikes! But wait. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, that's twice the number of public high school students in America. As it turns out, the agency only counts the seconds in school days -- 180 days of seven hours each -- and that number just doesn't have the same shock value.
Attempts to manipulate people with sensationalized statistics usually fall short, causing skeptics to distrust even the most compelling scientific evidence. If you want to persuade others, you first have to earn their trust. Only then will people warm up to your ideas.
Labels: communication, credibility, trust
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usWhat do you think? Post a Comment
Author George Brymer's comments about the leaders who get it, and those who never will.
