Most of the time when I blog I try to provide some insight into a particular challenge or situation. Not today. No, today I'm just going to put some situation on the table and invite you to share your insight by posting a comment. It could be that I'm trying to start some conversation on my blog or it could be that I have only a short amount of time to complete this post and I'm feeling a little pressure.

Examples

The other day I felt pressure to break the law and put myself in danger while stopped at a traffic light. I was at the front of a line of cars waiting to turn left. When the light turned green, the intersection wasn't clear, so I couldn't enter without stopping in the middle of the intersection. Unfortunately, the guy behind me didn't see it that way. He began honking, yelling, and gesturing at me to move forward.

I was engulfed with a strange sensation. Part of me felt the urge to enter the intersection to escape from this guy's incessant abuse, but I knew that would only put me in more danger. Part of me wanted to get out of my car and 'convince him' to knock it off, but I knew that idea was really unsafe.

Fortunately, the line of cars ahead of me soon moved forward and I was able to enter the intersection safely with no further incident.

It's strange how this happens in so many places, even at work.

This week I facilitated a two-day workshop at a large technology company. Most of the building where I worked was secured by electronically locked doors that required a key card to open them. Despite these obvious security precautions, most people were very willing to pause and hold the door open for me. Even though I was a complete stranger, the social awkwardness of demanding to see someone's credentials pressured people into an obvious security breach time and time again.

Examples like this abound at work. Employees disobey safety rules because they feel pressure to work faster or safety feels 'uncool' in front of their colleagues. Managers fail to properly train and supervise their employees because they feel pressure to spend most of their day in unproductive meetings or responding to hundreds of emails. Executives pressure their managers and employees to cut corners because they are under pressure from stockholders to maximize short-term profitability.

What can we do to overcome this pressure? I have a few ideas, but I'd much rather hear yours. Please leave your comments or share a resource.

No call back #1
I made my initial call to request a quote and was told by someone in the office that the owner/salesperson was with a customer and would call me back. Unfortunately, that call never came. I would have written the company off, but the referral came from a trusted source. I wondered if the office person failed to give the owner the message. OK, I decided, I'll give them another shot.

The owner, Russ, was available the second time I called and we had a good chat. We set up a time for him to come out to the house, take a look at things, and provide an estimate. He arrived for the appointment on time, took some measurements, shared some options, and then left with a promise to submit a proposal within a couple of days.

Breakin' the law
The proposal arrived promptly a day or so later. It was simple, straightforward, and illegal. In California, a contractor can ask for a maximum of 10% up front. Russ wanted 50%. This was a giant red flag.

No call back #2
Sally called this time to speak with Russ and discuss the contract. Perhaps we are jaded from a horrific remodeling experience a couple years ago, but we still believed that good referrals were hard to come by and it was worth being patient. Russ was out of the office that day, but the person promised to have Russ return our call when he was back to the office.

Of course, Russ never called. (You knew that, didn't you?) After waiting a few days, I emailed a response to Russ's proposal and said, "No deal." I even outlined the reasons why. No response from Russ.

Word travels
I wanted to be sure my referral source knew about Russ, so I gave him a call and told him the story. He was surprised and said that sounded very unusual. He also asked if I was OK with him sharing this feedback with Russ. "Sure," I said, "it won't be anything I haven't already shared with him via email."

The plotten thickens with lame excuses
The next day I got a voice message from Russ. He said he had heard that I was unhappy, but said he hadn't gotten any messages from us or he would have called. He also defended his contract, saying he had done business this way for many years.

Needless to say, I didn't bother calling Russ back. After all, there was little to talk about and if he wasn't in he probably wouldn't get the message.

Lessons for business owners (but mainly Russ)

Here are a few lessons I take from this situation.

• Get really good at spotting weak links in the chain. This office person could be really hurting his business if Russ consistently misses out on callers who want to do business with him.
• Don't write illegal contracts. One, because it's ILLEGAL. Two, because it shows you don't understand your business. Three, because it demonstrates a lack of respect for your customers.
• Don't defend your illegal behavior on voice mail. Really, Russ? You've left a recording that I can take to the Contractor's State Licensing Board?

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, Slater got into an argument with a passenger while the passenger attempted to remove a bag from the overhead compartment while the arriving plane was still taxiing. This confrontation escalated to the point where Slater decided vent his frustration over the plane's PA system and cuss out the passenger. He then activated the plane's emergency chute, grabbed two beers, and fled the plane. Slater was later arrested at his home in Queens, New York for criminal mischief and reckless endangerment.

I wasn't on the plane, but let's assume for a moment that this passenger was completely in the wrong. Slater's horrible attempt at addressing the situation resulted in Slater being arrested, him receiving national media attention for being an idiot, and will likely cost him his job. Yeah, you sure showed him!

Examples are "improve customer service", "continue to develop", or "drive strategic results". It's hard for employees to know what to do when they start the year with squishy goals. This leads to infrequent coaching on progress, since it's hard to really know if someone is "continuing to develop" without any specifics. This causes confusion at the end of the year when the boss sits down with the employee, lamely attempts to dissect past performance, and establishes a new set of squishy goals for the coming year.

Strong goals that drive performance follow the SMART model. (Download our primer here.)

S = Specific
M = Measurable
A = Attainable
R = Relevant (to your strategy, mission, or vision)
T = Time-bound or timely

Clearly, "improve customer service" isn't SMART. However, "improve our score on the annual customer satisfaction survey from 85% to 95% by December 31" is SMART. Not only does it fit the model, it's much easier to understand, it's easier to measure progress, and it's easier to tell if we've achieved it at the end of the year.

Check out your employee goals and see how SMART they are. You can use our worksheet to help you.

I understand the desire to rate companies when people are paying for their products and services, but what about companies like Facebook whose service is free?  Shouldn't we expect less than amazing service since it's free?  And, are we really customers since it's FREE? It strikes me as odd that Facebook faces so much criticism since, ahem, IT'S FREE!

OK, I guess there are a couple of sides to this.

On one hand, it's natural for us to expect a lot out of an organization as influential as Facebook. Certainly, they've taken notice of all this discussion and will work to improve their perceived level of service in the future as part of their growth strategy.

On the other hand, there should be a limit to what people expect from a free service. We're not forced to use Facebook. I even know several normal, well-adjusted people with active social lives who don't even have Facebook accounts! (Which reminds me, I don't know what they've been up to lately.)

Perhaps as a middle ground we should reserve the right to offer constructive criticism while tempering the amount of expectations we place on a free service. So, the next time you have a gripe about Facebook (or Gmail, Yahoo, or Twitter for that matter), just remember that you get what you pay for.

I did a little experiment this morning in my kitchen. I guessed how long it would take me to make a delicious breakfast of coffee and English muffins with melted cheese. My estimate was three minutes. The actual time was nine. Was this how my day was going to go?

This little tale may come as a suprise to people who know me well. Over the years, I've crafted the illusion that I am very organized and punctual. A friend of mine once said, "If you are ever five minutes late to a meeting I'm going to call the police because I know something happened." Ah, but there's one big secret to my apparent organization. I keep it real with time.

Use the Rule of 3 to Avoid Disappointment
The next time you give someone a time estimate multiply your gut instinct by three. For example, if your gut says "1 hour" then propose you get back to the person in 3 hours. If your gut says 5 minutes, propose 15. I call this the rule of three.

Why do this? Our desire to please coupled with a lack of time-awareness leads us to make unrealistic promises and sets us up for failure. If I promise I'll get back to you in an hour because I want to appear responsive, I'll look like a slacker when it actually takes me three.  On the other hand, it's likely you'll be OK with a promised response time of three hours.  And, you'll be please if I actually do respond in an hour.

Avoid the Procrastination Chain Reaction
We often find ourselves in a time crunch when we procrastinate. A time crunch increases our stress levels and may impact the quality and thoroughness of our work. High stress and low quality is a perfect recipe for poor productivity. It's a mean chain reaction.

In his book Predictably Irrational, Dan Ariely details an experiment where he compared the grades of three classes that had different types of deadlines to submit their papers. Here are the results:

1. Pre-set deadlines. The class that was told when each paper was due got the best grades.
2. Set your own deadlines. The class that was allowed to set their own deadlines at the start of the semester got the second best grades.
3. No deadlines. The class with no deadlines at all received the worst grades.

The experiment highlights our problems not only with procrastination, but our inability to fully understand it. It also suggests that the way to avoid the pracrastination chain reaction is to set deadlines for yourself that represent incremental progress toward a goal.

Arrive Early not Late
I don't often worry about trying to get to a meeting on time because I plan to arrive early. The result of being early is I'm more focused and ultimately more productive. For example, I'm going to a meeting this evening that's about 45 minutes away from my office. Here are two ways I can approach it.

Just in Time
I could plan to leave my office 45 minutes before the meeting to arrive just in time. The problem with this plan is I might get caught up in a project, caught on a phone call, or caught in traffic on the way there. All of those situations would cause me to arrive late (annoying others) and a little stressed out.

Plenty of time
What I'll do instead is leave two hours early and drive to a Starbucks down the street from my meeting. I'll bring work with me and get caught up on a few things. Changing my environment to Starbucks will positively impact my productivity because it will refresh my mental state. I'll also be able to arrive a few minutes early to the meeting which means I'll get to do a little networking and will be in a positive frame of mind once the meeting begins.

Needs some help?

Check out our Time Management workshop. Better yet, contribute to the discussion and let me know what you do to keep it real!

As a business owner, it's still a great idea to have some irons in the fire. If I were to ask you "What's new?" what answer would you give? Do you have something cooking that I should know about? Can you tell me something more exciting than a tale about treading water in the grim economy? A good answer can breed curiousity which leads to a good conversation which may result in opportunity.

The answer to the "What's new?" question might be different depending on who is asking. Here are some of my answers. Next, I want to know yours.

• I might tell my friends in human resources that I'm launching an HR Management Certificate program on July 22 in partnership with Nonprofit Management Solutions. I love that "What's New" is a part of the URL for this program.
• I might tell my friends in customer service that I'm hosting a webinar on July 22 on How to build a service culture. I'd probably even send them a link where they could register for free.
• My friends who are business owners might hear about the webinar I'm hosting on July 29 called "Maximizing Employee Engagement". Again, I'd probably send them a link where they could register for free. (I'm a really good friend.)

So, what's new with you?

Here’s one of my favorite scenes.  (I don’t know if the poster has authority to post it, so please email me if the clip disappears.  Also, please go buy a copy of the movie Office Space so everyone stays happy.)

I love this scene because Stan (the manager) wants better performance from Joanna but he doesn’t know how to describe it.  The conversation quickly becomes frustrating for both Stan and Joanna and there’s no real resolution at the end.  It’s a great example of what happens when we focus on a somewhat arbitrary standard rather than our true intent. 

Here are some more examples:

• A call center rep may earn a 100% call monitoring score, but doesn’t solve the customer’s problem. 
• A front desk agent at a hotel may hit all the brand standards at check-in, but sounds like a robot and doesn’t make the guest feel welcome. 
• A salesperson may follow the sales script but fail to make the sale because she didn't listen carefully to the customer's answers.

Tasks vs. Outcomes

Many of the things we do at work resist being standardized in the same way you would standardize a widget production procedure in a factory.  A clear, step-by-step process makes sense for widgets since you want each one to be just like the others.  The problem we run into in a service environment is human interaction resists standardization.

I’m not an opponent of standardization, but we need to standardize human interaction in the right way.  If you call tech support to get help with a computer problem and tell the rep you have already rebooted your computer, why should he be required to ask you to reboot the computer?  The standard could be re-written so it asks the tech support rep to explore some basic fixes (like re-booting) before trying more complicated solutions. This gives him the flexibility to adapt to the situation and makes it more likely he helps you with your ultimate goal - getting your computer to work again.

Let’s go back to the video.  What does Stan really want Joanna to do?  He wants her to deliver on the Tchotchke’s promise of atmosphere and attitude.  How would he know if Joanna was doing this?  A good indicator might be if her guests are laughing and smiling.  Perhaps Stan should have discussed ways Joanna could better engage with her guests so they are smiling and laughing.

If you are an Office Space fan, I know what you are thinking. Joanna just wasn't cut out for working at Tchotchke's. In that case, at least Stan could have addressed her performance without getting hung up on a technicality like she was wearing the required pieces of flair!

Getting a slew of negative publicity for firing an employee who made disparaging comments your organization on Facebook or having to hire him back after his manager doesn't follow proper procedures for employee terminations?

Baseball fans have already heard this story since it was widely reported last week that the Pittsburgh Pirates had hired back Andew Kurtz, after firing him the previous week. Kurtz performs in mascot races between innings at Pirates home games, running while dressed as a giant pierogi. Here's a link to a good overview in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette if you want to read more.

This story captured a lot of a media attention but there are many instances when managers create additional liability for their organizations by failing to follow procedures. It's a particular challenge with human resources issues because managers are paid to make decisions, but you don't want them acting unilaterally without careful consideration or help from an HR professional.

A few of our clients have asked us to help them educate their managers on when to contact HR, so we've put together an interactive workshop called Managing Within the Law. It uses a lot of scenario-based learning and the line managers who participate are often surprised that the common sense response is often the wrong move.

Have a good story to share? Drop a comment on my blog -- I always enjoy an interesting HR adventure!

Many organizations are still using the same boring categories on performance evaluations. Does a subjective evaluation of an employee's job knowledge, teamwork, or dependability really tell us what someone is adding to the bottom line?

I'd like to see us evolve a bit and borrow a few stats from baseball. The following comparisons make a pretty good argument, I think. Some of you may accuse me of being biased towards my favorite players and teams. Fortunately, I have stats to back me up!

Experience (Job Knowledge)

A lot of long-term employees get a free pass when we evaluate their talent because they've been with the organization so long. If baseball players were evaluated solely on experience, Philadelphia Phillies pitcher Jamie Moyer would be the best. He has 23 years of Major League experience and is still pitching competitively at age 47.

But what if we used a more objective criteria, such as Earned Run Average or ERA? ERA is a measure of how many runs a pitcher allows per game, based on factors he can control. Giving up home runs, doubles, and walks will hurt a pitcher's ERA. A run that scores because someone else on the team made an error doesn't count against the pitcher's ERA. The better the ERA, the more likely it is the team will win. In the business world, we might translate that into productivity.

This season, Jamie Moyer a 4.43 ERA. That's pretty good, but San Francisco Giants pitcher Tim Lincecum has an ERA of only 2.86. Despite having only 4 years of experience to Moyer's 23, Lincecum has won the last two National League Cy Young Awards, given annually to the best pitcher in the league. That's two more Cy Young Awards than Jamie Moyer has won in his career. Lincecum's $9,000,000 salary in 2010 is also similar to Moyer's $8,000,000 salary. Moyer is a good pitcher, but Lincecum is clearly better.

Teamwork

We want our employees to be likeable and supportive of other members of the team, but this isn't the best gauge of what someone adds to the organization. If we evaluated baseball players solely on teamwork, we might pick New York Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter as the best player. He is universally regarded as the consumate teammate. Jeter even won the 2009 Roberto Clemente Award, which is given to the player who best demonstrates commitment to their community and performance on the field.

What if we evaluated an employee's contributions to the team based on more objective criteria? In baseball, a new stat has emerged called "Ultimate Zone Rating". This judges the number of runs a defensive player prevents from scoring compared to the typical person at his position. Shortstop is primarily a defensive position, so you'd naturally want a shortstop who helped his team by being really good at preventing runs from scoring. In the business world, we might translate this into a measure of quality.

Derek Jeter's current Ultimate Zone Rating is -.2, which means he is allowing .2 more runs to score than the average shortstop. Jeter's 2010 salary of $22,600,000 might be okay for the consumate team player, but it's hard to justify for someone whose work is of such poor quality. Especially compared to Boston Red Sox shortstop Marco Scutaro. Scutaro's 3.8 Ultimate Zone Rating means that he prevents 4 more runs over a season than Derek Jeter. And, Scutaro's practically a bargain at only $5,500,000 in annual salary.

Dependability

Showing up on a regular basis and getting your work done on time should be a minimum standard, not a criteria for evaluating outstanding employees. Milwaukee Brewer's firstbaseman Prince Fielder is currently the most dependable player in baseball. He has played in more than 250 consecutive games. That's the business world equivalent of coming to work every day for two years without calling in sick or taking a vacation day.

What if we instead evaluated employees based on their contributions compared to what the average employee on the job market could do? In baseball, this is called Value Over Replacement Player, or VORP. This statistic measures how many wins a player contributes to his team per season compared to the average player at his position. The business equivalent would be asking, "Is this employee the best we can get at this rate of pay?" Or, "Could we get a much better employee for less money?"

Prince Fielder's current VORP is 1.7. Not bad, but not nearly as good as San Diego Padres firstbaseman Adrian Gonzalez, whose VORP of 3.5 is among the best in the league. This means that the Milwaukee Brewers would win two more games this year if Gonzalez was their firstbaseman, not Prince Fielder. That could mean the difference between making the playoffs or an early end to the season. Gonzalez is also a bargain at a 2010 salary of $4,875,000 compared to Fielder's salary of $11,000,000.

Conclusions

Experience, teamwork, and dependability didn't yield terrible players in my baseball example. They were all good, albeit a bit expensive. My argument is productivity, quality, and value over replacement employee will generally give you a better idea of what employees are contributing.  Over the long run, this means a better team at a more reasonable rate of pay.

What baseball stats would you like to see in the business world? How about from other sports?