I’m a huge fan of Marcus Buckingham’s work. When I read his books, my immediate reaction is, “Yes! That makes so much sense.” It’s often a feeling of recognition – something that I’ve known all along, but just didn’t realize that I knew. I also appreciate the fact that his work is research-based, rather than opinion-based.
In his latest book, Find Your Strongest Life, many things jumped out at me, but one particular group of ideas really hit home. Mr. Buckingham notes that, “Neglect [of using what truly strengthens you] is a strength-killer. . . As you feel yourself weaken, you become confused. This perpetual state of feeling overwhelmed wears you down.” I find myself in this very place. I am seeking work that allows me to use my natural strengths (whether a “job” or in my own business), but because I don’t have the “piece of paper” that certifies my ability to do a particular thing, it is difficult to get people to take a chance on me. They would rather hire someone who has the piece of paper, whether or not a particular experience is an actual strength. This has been disheartening, to say the least. It makes me question the path I am trying to take (confusion), and, as Mr. Buckingham predicts, results in a feeling of being overwhelmed that is exhausting.
Mr. Buckingham’s findings create an additional level of complexity when viewed in conjunction with Sylvia Hewlett’s work. In her book, Off-Ramps and On Ramps, Ms. Hewlett notes that women’s careers tend to be non-linear, which is not easily compatible with traditional paths to the top. Women, in much higher percentages than men, need to “off-ramp” at some point in their lives, whether to care for others (children, or, with increasing regularity, elderly parents) or for a variety of other reasons. Trying to get back on the career track can be difficult if not impossible; trying to do that while focusing on your strengths adds an additional layer of difficulty. And even if women are able to find work again, they are often forced to accept a lower salary than before, and a lower level of responsibility.
For businesses, this means a huge loss of talent, both in terms of turnover (talented women off-ramping) and failure to tap the pool when hiring (the on-ramping piece of the puzzle). Some companies, recognizing this gap in their hiring strategy (especially when viewed in conjunction with the predicted war for talent) have taken steps to actively retain and recruit these talented women. But it requires a new way of looking at things. The obvious first questions are, “What needs do women have that men typically don’t, and how can we address those needs?” However, that’s only a beginning. Other questions have to do with what motivates women, why women work, and what their priorities are. The answers to these questions are not necessarily the same for women as men, and until organizations start recognizing this, women will continue to suffer, and companies will continue to miss out on valuable talent.
Companies that recognize this vast, largely untapped pool of talent and develop ways to take advantage of these workers will benefit in a number of ways; reduced turnover (and the costs associated with turnover), increased talent, a more diverse workforce (which translates into better knowledge of consumers and their spending habits), and a more loyal workforce.
Will that be your company?
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Monday, April 19, 2010
Do You REALLY Value Diversity, Or Only Some Kinds of Diversity?
There’s a lot of talk about the value of diversity today, which encompasses both private and public employers. The State of Iowa, in fact, undertook a massive diversity training project for all executive branch employees last year, and I had the good fortune of being hired as one of the trainers. In the training sessions, we talked about many different types of diversity, including gender, race, age, disability and sexual orientation. Most people can see (or at least be politically correct enough to acknowledge) the benefits of this kind of diversity. Additionally, most will give lip service to the desirability of diversity of thinking, noting that different perspectives and opinions provide a richer and more inclusive solution to various problems facing businesses today. However, I’m seeing more and more intolerance for political diversity – and this is not limited to any one party.
As an example, I recently saw a posting on Facebook by an individual I consider to be a friend and colleague, although he is clearly more liberal than I am. When we talk face to face, he is respectful in how he states his position; sometimes we simply have to agree to disagree, and that’s fine. I still come away with a different perspective to consider. But in his Facebook posting, he noted that “The Tea Party has their panties in a wad because 47% of Americans don't pay Federal Income Tax (but do pay sales and payroll taxes). GE earned $10.8 BILLION in profits and paid $0.00 in taxes. Exxon has a similar situation. If you open your mouth about the 47% people who aren't on the tax rolls, be prepared to explain why you aren’t BILLIONS of times more offended by GE and Exxon.”
Setting aside for a moment whether the facts are accurate, and why those two scenarios may or may not be different, I would make two observations. First, there have been numerous articles and news reports regarding the Tea Party, with the most common theme being that they are not a group that can be easily pigeon-holed. So to say that the “tea party” thinks or believes any one thing can be a bit of a challenge.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, why use language like “has their panties in a wad” or "if you open your mouth about..."? Although he is certainly free to express himself in (almost) any way he wishes, insulting language like this does not facilitate “civil discourse.” It only makes people angry, defensive and unwilling to listen to the speaker’s point of view. The question itself (i.e., “Are you as angry at GE and Exxon as you are at the non-tax-paying Americans, and if not, why not?”) is a good one, but the “in-your-face” manner in which it is presented is probably not going to encourage productive discussion.
His choices of phrasing may also have adverse effects on his business. Although I certainly respect his expertise in his field, his decision to use language that could potentially offend clients and potential clients (who may be friends, colleagues or clients of mine) makes me a bit leery of recommending him to others.
Finally, I am surprised at his choice of language because of his dedication to diversity. His comments suggest that he is only open to diversity in areas of race, gender, etc., but not politics or even diversity of thinking. I don't necessarily believe that of him, but someone who does not know him well and just reads his post, might.
People are constantly complaining of how polarized our nation has become. Perhaps if both sides of the political spectrum (and everyone in-between) would tone down the insulting presentation of their comments, and instead ask questions with a sincere intent on learning why their opponents believe as they do, it would encourage people to work together to find common ground and solutions for the difficult problems we face.
As an example, I recently saw a posting on Facebook by an individual I consider to be a friend and colleague, although he is clearly more liberal than I am. When we talk face to face, he is respectful in how he states his position; sometimes we simply have to agree to disagree, and that’s fine. I still come away with a different perspective to consider. But in his Facebook posting, he noted that “The Tea Party has their panties in a wad because 47% of Americans don't pay Federal Income Tax (but do pay sales and payroll taxes). GE earned $10.8 BILLION in profits and paid $0.00 in taxes. Exxon has a similar situation. If you open your mouth about the 47% people who aren't on the tax rolls, be prepared to explain why you aren’t BILLIONS of times more offended by GE and Exxon.”
Setting aside for a moment whether the facts are accurate, and why those two scenarios may or may not be different, I would make two observations. First, there have been numerous articles and news reports regarding the Tea Party, with the most common theme being that they are not a group that can be easily pigeon-holed. So to say that the “tea party” thinks or believes any one thing can be a bit of a challenge.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, why use language like “has their panties in a wad” or "if you open your mouth about..."? Although he is certainly free to express himself in (almost) any way he wishes, insulting language like this does not facilitate “civil discourse.” It only makes people angry, defensive and unwilling to listen to the speaker’s point of view. The question itself (i.e., “Are you as angry at GE and Exxon as you are at the non-tax-paying Americans, and if not, why not?”) is a good one, but the “in-your-face” manner in which it is presented is probably not going to encourage productive discussion.
His choices of phrasing may also have adverse effects on his business. Although I certainly respect his expertise in his field, his decision to use language that could potentially offend clients and potential clients (who may be friends, colleagues or clients of mine) makes me a bit leery of recommending him to others.
Finally, I am surprised at his choice of language because of his dedication to diversity. His comments suggest that he is only open to diversity in areas of race, gender, etc., but not politics or even diversity of thinking. I don't necessarily believe that of him, but someone who does not know him well and just reads his post, might.
People are constantly complaining of how polarized our nation has become. Perhaps if both sides of the political spectrum (and everyone in-between) would tone down the insulting presentation of their comments, and instead ask questions with a sincere intent on learning why their opponents believe as they do, it would encourage people to work together to find common ground and solutions for the difficult problems we face.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Stalking as a Customer Service Technique
Last Saturday, I had the pleasure of going shopping with my daughter. We were in one of the large department stores looking at candles, when we were approached by a sales clerk. As is typical (but probably not terribly effective), she asked if she could help us “find anything.” We told her we were just browsing. She made a comment about the candles we were looking at, which can be a good lead-in to a sale, but rather than point out the great things about that particular brand of candles, she told us that she didn’t burn “real” candles, because she had a cat and was afraid he might set his fur on fire! I confess that I had never thought of that, but I do own a cat (perhaps my cat is more intelligent than hers?), and being on a caffeine high, I made a flip comment about my cat. She laughed, and I assured her I was only kidding.
Kierra and I wandered on, only to have her talk to us again in another department, trying to get us to open a credit card (10% off today if you open an account!). She continued to "chat us up" throughout various departments until we finally left. We couldn’t look at what we wanted to look at, because she was so intent on talking to us (and no, I don’t think she was concerned that we might shoplift).
I have had other, similar experiences. Sales clerks are so intent on “helping” me pick out clothes to try on, that they end up driving me out of their store in exasperation. This has occurred even after I have told the clerk that I want to look around on my own, and assured the clerk that I will find her/him if I have any questions. I’m sure that some clerks think I’m rude, but I have found that the best way to be able to leisurely shop and look at what I want to look at is to be brief and not make eye contact when they greet me.
The pinnacle of this “stalking” occurs on the lower level of the Jordan Creek Town Center, at a kiosk selling hand lotion. The sales people stand on either side of the kiosk (no escaping them) with a tube of lotion, asking customers if they want to try some. If they customer says no, they follow up with, “Can I ask you something?” I fell for this the first time, only to learn that they wanted to ask me if my nails were “real” and if they could show me their amazing buffing stone! It’s so bad that I often avoid the lower level of that particular wing – I’m sure the other retailers would not be happy to hear that the kiosk’s sales tactics are driving away their potential customers!
Ann Taylor (the women’s clothing store), on the other hand, does a nice job of training sales clerks to recognize which customers want help and which don’t. They teach them how to greet customers (so they are acknowledged) without stalking them, and how to be helpful yet unobtrusive.
Do your associates know the difference? Do they know how to treat different customers? Or are they so intent on being friendly and helpful that they are driving your customers away?
Kierra and I wandered on, only to have her talk to us again in another department, trying to get us to open a credit card (10% off today if you open an account!). She continued to "chat us up" throughout various departments until we finally left. We couldn’t look at what we wanted to look at, because she was so intent on talking to us (and no, I don’t think she was concerned that we might shoplift).
I have had other, similar experiences. Sales clerks are so intent on “helping” me pick out clothes to try on, that they end up driving me out of their store in exasperation. This has occurred even after I have told the clerk that I want to look around on my own, and assured the clerk that I will find her/him if I have any questions. I’m sure that some clerks think I’m rude, but I have found that the best way to be able to leisurely shop and look at what I want to look at is to be brief and not make eye contact when they greet me.
The pinnacle of this “stalking” occurs on the lower level of the Jordan Creek Town Center, at a kiosk selling hand lotion. The sales people stand on either side of the kiosk (no escaping them) with a tube of lotion, asking customers if they want to try some. If they customer says no, they follow up with, “Can I ask you something?” I fell for this the first time, only to learn that they wanted to ask me if my nails were “real” and if they could show me their amazing buffing stone! It’s so bad that I often avoid the lower level of that particular wing – I’m sure the other retailers would not be happy to hear that the kiosk’s sales tactics are driving away their potential customers!
Ann Taylor (the women’s clothing store), on the other hand, does a nice job of training sales clerks to recognize which customers want help and which don’t. They teach them how to greet customers (so they are acknowledged) without stalking them, and how to be helpful yet unobtrusive.
Do your associates know the difference? Do they know how to treat different customers? Or are they so intent on being friendly and helpful that they are driving your customers away?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
