All Posts in Leadership

|In: Business Ethics|Last Updated:

The subject refuses to die!

Responding to those who perceive a correlation between business formal attire and a better work ethic, a correspondent points out that while the phrase “empty suit” is well-understood, thus far the phrase “empty t-shirt” has not entered the business lexicon.

Don’t worry. This column isn’t about dress codes. That horse is dead, and has just about stopped twitching.

It’s about work ethic. And whether how hard an employee works is a matter of ethics at all.

It’s tempting to make this a very short column. The answer is, no. With respect to the employee/employer relationship, at least, there is no connection whatever between how hard you work and any ethical consideration of any kind.

Period.

Why would there be?

There could have been, and at one time there might have been. Once upon a time, employers acknowledged ethical obligations toward their employees, such as only terminating them for cause, or when financial circumstances became so dire that the only realistic alternative was bankruptcy. When employers viewed this as an ethical obligation, it was plausible to argue for an ethical quid pro quo — that employees should consider working hard on their employers’ behalf to be an ethical obligation as well.

That stopped being the case in 1997, when the Business Roundtable, the official voice of business (and a powerful lobbyist) redrew the lines. Business leaders previously recognized the obligation to balance the needs of customers, employees, the community and shareholders. That has stopped. According to the Business Roundtable, business leaders now have only one obligation: To maximize shareholder value.

Taken literally, this means compliance with laws and regulations isn’t an obligation, and it’s clear that many businesses simply figure the cost of fines into their return-on-investment calculations. And even among businesses that do consider the law to be an absolute boundary, it’s a less onerous burden when you get to write the text of the law, as is often the case these days.

Employers recognize no obligation to employees beyond the boundaries of the laws they often get to write or at least strongly influence. And sometimes even those are ignored — note the large number of recent class action lawsuits related to compulsory “off the clock” and unpaid overtime work. (Before anyone writes about these indicating a need for tort reform: Juries, after hearing the actual evidence, are finding the companies guilty, which just might indicate that they really are guilty and really do owe the plaintiffs money.)

If employers acknowledge no ethical obligation to employees, only what is required by enforced laws and whatever is in the policy manual, why should employees acknowledge an ethical obligation to work hard?

There is no reason. “Work ethic” is simply a well-chosen phrase, an example of using vocabulary to slip an idea past mental barriers that otherwise would discard it as worthless.

If an employer tried to persuade its employees that working hard is an ethical rather than contractual obligation, employees would evaluate the logic of the proposition. By instead packaging the same proposition as vocabulary, employees let it slide on by, perhaps because we’ve all been taught that arguing about word choice is semantic nitpicking (my partner claims this attitude has given rise to rabid antisemanticism).

And since work ethic has become part of our vocabulary, we’ve all — employees and managers alike — unconsciously accepted the notion that working hard is an ethical obligation when there’s no logic at all to support this notion.

There is simply an implied contract between employer and employee. It says employees who work harder and smarter for longer hours receive bigger bonuses and raises, and perhaps promotions as well.

To the extent employers live up to their side of the bargain, hard work is a matter of enlightened self interest. To the extent employers don’t live up to their side of the bargain, promoting empty suits and paying excessive executive salaries while requiring unpaid overtime, employees who work as hard as they can are being suckered.

As an IT leader, you’re supposed to create a high-performance organization. Part of doing so is motivating employees to work hard, work smart, and when necessary work long hours as well. To do so you have two choices.

You can bandy about the phrase “work ethic” and hope they fall for the ruse. Or, you can reward hard smart work and live up to your side of the bargain.

Comments

|In: Leadership|Last Updated:

We need more sex in the workplace.

In some cases, much more.

Not among co-workers, for heaven’s sake. That’s their business, and if you’re very lucky they won’t make it your business.

No, this column is about sex in its biological sense — as a dramatic accelerator of adaptive evolution.

To understand the significance of sex, compare it to evolution in asexual populations. Imagine the offspring of an asexual creature contains a random, beneficial mutation. If it’s beneficial enough, eventually the population will consist entirely of that organism’s descendants. Then, a member of that future generation might have an offspring that contains another random, beneficial mutation. The process repeats, and with excruciating slowness the population will evolve.

Compare that to sexually reproducing organisms. Two parents give rise to an offspring containing a random, beneficial mutation. More of its offspring survive to reproduce than average, so the beneficial gene spreads.

Meanwhile, in another part of town, another beneficial mutation occurs elsewhere in the population. Among asexual organisms, the two beneficial mutations would compete. But these organisms reproduce sexually, which means two organisms, each having one of the mutations, can mate, giving rise to offspring that have both. The word is recombination. It’s what lets sexual evolution take place at a vastly faster pace.

Now, imagine a business with branch offices — maybe it’s an insurance company with agencies, a retailer with stores across the country, or a manufacturer with a number of local distribution warehouses.

The company could plan all innovations at headquarters. This is neither sexual nor asexual. It’s an attempt at divine creation. As few business leaders are divine, the odds of anything useful happening are limited, proportional to the number of former branch employees working at headquarters.

The company could, instead, encourage each branch office to innovate — to run itself as an independent business. This will encourage innovation, and innovation that fits local circumstances. But if that’s all the company does, it’s asexual. The branch offices will diverge, and because each will have to reinvent each others innovations, progress will be slow. Another disadvantage is that IT gets the miserable job of supporting as many different ways of doing business as there are branch offices.

Add sex. On a regular basis, bring the independently innovating branches together to compare notes and spread the best innovations back among the remaining branches. It’s recombination. But it isn’t as easy to accomplish as it sounds.

Among the barriers: It’s natural for the people in each branch to think their circumstances are unique, allowing them to ignore what the others do. Another: Designing an incentive system that, with the best of intentions, creates a barrier to adoption. If for example, you give a bonus to managers whose innovations are used elsewhere, everyone will focus on selling the benefits of their great ideas while denigrating those of the others.

This misses the point entirely. You want your managers to be the brokers of great ideas, not their originators. Give bonuses to the employees who suggest the successful innovations, and to the managers who adopt and implement as many innovations as possible, wherever they come from.

IT’s role in all of this is difficult. Not as difficult as supporting diverse ways of doing business, but still more difficult than if all innovations are designed at headquarters. You’ll need to create a systems architecture that supports multiple parallel innovation. Version control, change management and regression testing become challenges as well.

One solution: Create an environment that encourages IT innovation through end-user tools that link to the standard core systems. For those that spread sexually (DON’T SAY IT!), institutionalize them by rebuilding them into the core applications using enterprise-grade tools.

This isn’t a solved problem, by the way, which is just one of the aspects to branch innovation that makes it fun.

If you compare the benefits of branch innovation coupled with recombination to any of the alternatives, the advantages are clear: The business gets to try lots of experiments. It finds out which ones work and which ones don’t at modest risk, never betting the whole company.

It’s how nature works, and while evolution did give us the platypus, it has also led to a tremendous panoply of amazingly diverse creatures, each exquisitely adapted to its particular set of circumstances.

It’s a very sexy way to run your business.

Comments