Bearing Fruit Consulting

Servant Leadership For Real

Not so with you.  Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant...

My dear, dear punker Laurie Ruettimann (who I love) recently had a post and thread on servant leadership over at Punk Rock HR in which she, and many others, portrayed it as a weak, soft and touchy-feely sort leadership that really wasn't wanted or needed in businesses that need to get results, drive revenue or be successful.  She says:

Here’s my message to anyone who calls himself a servant leader.

• You want to demonstrate empathy, bring out the best in people, and facilitate personal growth? Go home and spend some time with your kids.

I don’t need that kind of emotional baggage at work, yo.

The detractors of servant leadership preferred someone who only cared about results and didn't try to "serve" them in any way shape or form.  Too "nanny state"!  Servant leaders nurture bad employees and keep them around too long others said.  Oh, read the comments on that thread and you will see it all.   

The word SERVE and SERVANT are automatically associated with indecisiveness, weakness, subordinate and a bunch of other terms.  When the term SERVANT, and by extension the auto-associated terms, are combined with a power word like LEADER or LEADERSHIP it seems to be a paradox and people's brains malfunction trying to make sense of it.  Instead they just "got to guns" and start hammering away at what some might call the "softer" aspects of servant leadership while ignoring the essence of strength imbedded in the execution of servant leadership.  True servant leaders are, in fact and by definition, strong, decisive and results oriented.  At heart, the individual is a servant first, making the conscious decision to lead in order to better serve others, not to increase their own power.

State of the Wine Industry 2009-2010 from Silicon Valley Bank

By now most of you know I have an intense passion for wine.   

In recent years I have begun to really invest significant time in the business side of the wine industry and I have even had the opportunity to consult with a few of the larger wine producers as it relates to acquiring and retaining talent.  It is so awesome to combine your profession with your passions!

Silicon Valley Bank annually issues a State of the Wine Industry report and the 2009-2010 report was issued on May 1, 2009.  It took me until now to finally ready it cover to cover and I wanted to share it with our readers because there are not only lessons for the wine trade but business in general.  That said, it is an absolute must read for those in the wine business and anyone who has a passion for wine. 

The author is Rob McMillan, EVP and founder of SVB's wine division and it is incredibly insightful, well written and shows an enormous amount of foresight as it relates to the American wine industry.  There is a cacophony of noise around the poor economies impact on the wine industry and most of it is just speculation and outright guess work from people who are not in the know.  SVB is one of the largest lenders to the U.S. wine industry (winery and vineyard clients in the major wine making regions of the U.S.A number into 300's) and therefore has access to information, data, business plans and strategies of those who actually have to execute and deliver results.  Bottom line is, if you care about wine, the U.S. wine industry and business in general you need to listen what Rob is saying. 

Read the report through the link above but if you just want a quick overview the Good News / Bad News, taken directly from the Executive Summary of the report, is after the jump. 

Paying Your Employees To Quit - Brilliant!

Sure you say.  Pay our employees to quit.  What could be so brilliant about that?

Bill Taylor (FastCompany, Mavericks at Work) over at Harvard Business Blogs tells the story of Zappos and their practice of paying employees to quit.  The gut reaction from most is say that is nonsense, a gimmick and it flies in the face of all that is holy in the HR space regarding turnover.  That is exactly why it makes sense - it flies in the face of all that is holy in the HR space.  Here is the money from Bill's blog:

So when Zappos hires new employees, it provides a four-week training period that immerses them in the company’s strategy, culture, and obsession with customers. People get paid their full salary during this period.

After a week or so in this immersive experience, though, it’s time for what Zappos calls “The Offer.” The fast-growing company, which works hard to recruit people to join, says to its newest employees: “If you quit today, we will pay you for the amount of time you’ve worked, plus we will offer you a $1,000 bonus.” Zappos actually bribes its new employees to quit!

Why? Because if you’re willing to take the company up on the offer, you obviously don’t have the sense of commitment they are looking for. It’s hard to describe the level of energy in the Zappos culture—which means, by definition, it’s not for everybody. Zappos wants to learn if there’s a bad fit between what makes the organization tick and what makes individual employees tick—and it’s willing to pay to learn sooner rather than later. (About ten percent of new call-center employees take the money and run.)

I think it is total brilliance on the part of Zappos.  The cost of keeping disengaged and disloyal people who have a very high probability of being poor performers is significantly higher than dropping a quick $1,000 on them and sending them on their way. 

Ideas like this work, they make sense and they get resuts.  They also take daring and courage which is exactly why most companies won't do it. 

HR - Serving Two Masters?

You can't serve two masters!  It is a concept as old as the time of Jesus.  In fact, Jesus actually spoke those very words. 

Human Resources constantly finds itself in the awkward position of trying to do just that.  With all the furor over Why We Hate HR and related stories seeming to die down in mainstream media I am sure HR is wondering if the storm has passed.  On the surface that may be true but what lies beneath is more troubling than a FastCompany article. 

The blogosphere, social media, social networks and other alternative forms of transparent communication are continuing the outing in a less grand but more damaging conversation about HR.  Sadly, HR does not understand these modes of communiction much less utilize them effectively so they aren't even aware of this ground swell of anti-HR sentiment that lurks around them.

Today, Lisa Takeuchi Cullen (staff writer for TIME Magazine) asks In times of trouble, is HR your friend?  Her blog Work In Progress is a great read.  More importantly her keen observation about HR is a telling sign that HR is not trusted by one of the masters they purport to serve. 

Do Passive Candidates Make Better Employees?

That is the interesting question being raised over on LinkedIn.  There are some really interesting responses by some very solid recruiting professionals who are weighing in with their thoughts.  I even took a few minutes recently to add my thoughts. 

Recruiting Gen Y: New Thoughts

Penelope Trunk is really smart and I have always enjoyed reading her blog Brazen Careerist.  Her ideas are fresh, intuitive and always significant.  Today I read her post The Real Deal about Gen Y and it hit me like a ton of bricks.  In my opinion, here is the money quote:

Gen Y does not admit it, but their top priority is stability. This is a fundamentally conservative generation. And in the middle of this very long article in Business Week, is  an important quote from Andrea Hershatter, director of the undergraduate business program at Emory University and veteran of college recruiting:

“There is a strong, strong millennial dislike of ambiguity and risk, leading them to seek a lot more direction and clarity from their employers, in terms of what the task is, what the expectations are, and job progression.”

Hershatter gives a great interview because she explains in detail why young people today are fundamentally conservative in their goals and decision making. Not conservative politically. (In fact, we know they are not conservative politically.)  But conservative in their lifestyle. They are not risk takers, not boat rockers, not revolutionaries. Young people today want a safe, nice life, and clear path to that goal.

I have long been an advocate that Gen Y was going to cause a major shift in corporate America mindset.  After all, every study and article written about Gen Y and their attitudes about careers and life pointed in the direction of a maverick generation that would buck against the ultra conservative, static and rigorously structured corporate world.  I have even written and spoken publicly that Gen Y would cause Recruiting teams all around America to have to re-think their recruiting strategies because Gen Y's attitudes would lead them away from working in corporate environments.