Another Good Bye and Pardon My French

We've been saying good bye way too often lately. This week we lost yet another champion. Good bye, Ted. We will miss you.

Of the many wonderful stories told about Ted Kennedy over the last few days, one that was only alluded to was his love of language and especially his love of the use of what others might consider 'vulgarities'. So, as public service and as a tribute to Teddy, I offer the following.

Is it just me, or have you noticed that a lot of people all of sudden can speak French? Or so they say. Funny how their idea of French sounds indistinguishable from the words I spit out whenever I try unsuccessfully to use a tool to fix something around the house. While not a linguist by training, I wonder about two things:

1. When did the French language become the euphemism for vulgarity?

2. Why can't people swear? Openly, with gusto?

Let's leave the French out of this for now (I like their toast and fries) and focus instead on the dearth of the good and productive use of profanity. While we're not advocating the overuse of profanity, a well-placed, nicely-punctuated, passionate 'vulgarity' can capture the attention of the people around you and help make a point that much more emphatically. That's why we have these words in the first place. And if there's anything we do advocate here, it's expressing oneself fully. Done well, you won't offend. So, got something to say? Say it with pride, even if it involves the judicious use of profanity. You'll feel better.

And have you noticed that you usually do feel better after using even one profanity? There's a biological reason for it. Really. A study out of Britain's Keele University, reported last month in the journal NeuroReport, claims that swearing is actually good for you. (Having spent much of my 20's at Berkeley, we at Cal -- especially those of us who have followed their football team -- have known this for years. We just didn't know why, nor did we care.)

It appears that the use of profanity helps to vent frustration, which is a good thing, psychologically speaking. Ah, but you knew that. But did you know that swearing also reduces physical pain?

Here's how the Keele University researchers went at it: Subjects were brought individually into a room and were asked to put a hand in a large glass of heavily-iced water. They were told to keep their hand in the water as long as possible. In one condition, subjects were told that they could use any profanity they wanted as they suffered the pain of the freezing water. In another condition, subjects were told they could say anything they wanted, but, please, no swearing.

The results? Those were could swear kept their hand in the ice water longer and reported less pain than those who couldn't use profanity. This was true for men and for women. But, check this out: The outcome was far more pronounced among women. Females who could swear freely kept their hand in the ice water significantly longer and with significantly less reported pain than women who were not allowed to swear. According to the researchers, this is possibly due to their observation that women tend to use profanity less frequently than man. (They obviously haven't met the women who spend a significant amount of time around me.) Indeed, it seems that a more judicious use of profanity has its benefits, making the use of swearing that much more powerful.

So, overlook what your mother taught you and whip out that good, expressive profanity from time to time. We can take it. And more importantly, you'll feel better. Especially when someone cuts you off while driving -- and doesn't wave. Or when someone doesn't hold a door for you. Or doesn't say 'Thank you'. Or says 'No problem' when you thank them. Or when some idiot insists on wearing a blue tooth device while talking to you. Or when your manager claims there is pay for performance or that fool down the hall is considered a 'good performer' when everyone knows the truth. Or when people who watch Fox News think they have the facts and tell you by screaming it at the top of their lungs to prevent an honest debate. Or when the same merde they've been telling you for years...hey! Wait! I can speak French!

Just don't call it French.

Walter, We Need You More Than Ever

Remember back in the day when the #1 priority for news reporting was to provide accurate information? When information provided during a newscast required validation, credible sources, and corroboration? When news reporters lived by a credo of honesty and integrity? When we believed and trusted what we heard and saw during a television newscast? When news reporting wasn't about entertainment or profit but about the truth?

I do. But it seems like ages ago.

Walter, oh Walter, where are you?

The issue about truth in news reporting hit a new high -- or deep low -- earlier this week when an NBC poll revealed that self-identified Fox News viewers have significantly different beliefs about the elements of Obama's health care reform plan than do viewers of CNN or MSNBC. Check out the data about these viewers' beliefs about the plan:

Viewers of

Fox News CNN/MSNBC

-- Coverage to illegal immigrants 72% 41%
-- Use of taxpayer dollars for abortions 69% 40%
-- Government to decide on care to elderly 75% 30%
-- Will lead to a government takeover 79% 39%

Interestingly, the beliefs of ABC, CBS, and NBC news viewers were similar to those of the CNN and MSNBC news viewers, leaving those who watch Fox News in their own and completely different reality.

So, of course, I wonder: What's going on at Fox News? Do they not understand the proposed plan? Are they unable to read English at a 3rd grade level? Are the concepts in the plan -- health care for e-v-e-r-y-o-n-e -- beyond them? Are the blue tooth devices on their ears somehow disrupting synaptic activity? A little too much gravy with their biscuits? Or are they not concerned with those pesky things we call 'facts'?

On the other hand, might it be that people who watch Fox News on purpose are daft? Certainly a possibility, though someone will undoubtedly need to explain to them what 'daft' means.

Before we go any further, let's get a couple of things straight:

• The health care plan is written in English -- or as close to English as law makers can get -- and states clearly that illegal immigrants will not be covered, that taxpayer dollars will not be used for abortions, and that the government will not decide on care to the elderly. (And, no, Sarah, there won't be 'Death Panels'.)

• This is not meant to be political (as much as I'd like to go there), but, instead, about a concern for truth in news reporting and how our country is being further fragmented by the self-interests and individual agendas of a few who, in the process, appear to be providing misinformation for personal gain. Or, possibly, because facts just don't seem that important to them.

By the way, 'misinformation' is a nice word for 'lying'. (Okay, I guess this is a bit political.)

Call me old-fashioned (it won't be the first time), but it seems to me that the news agencies -- and let's count Fox News as a member of this club -- have a responsibility to tell us the truth. We can handle it. (If I didn't say it you would have, right?) That's their job. Once we have the facts, then it's up to each of us to decide how we feel about these facts and, in the process, develop a point of view about the issue. Everyone having the same facts is essential if we're to have a proper debate and come to some resolution.

Instead, at least one of these news agencies has opted for a different route: Appeal to the fear and alienation caused by the emotionally-charged topic of health care reform to increase viewership (and, undoubtedly, advertising dollars) by providing inaccurate, uncorroborated information as fact. Maybe that agency is also interested in killing the plan. Who knows?

And, by all accounts, they are doing a marvelous job of increasing their number of eyeballs: Fox’s viewership is up 11 percent over last year, according to Nielsen Media Research. CNN and MSNBC, which benefited from interest in the presidential campaign last year, are down.

I'm all for business growth, but at what cost? Doesn't Fox News -- and all organizations calling themselves 'news sources' -- have the responsibility to inform us accurately? Provide reliable and truthful data? And do so in a somewhat dispassionate way? You know, like journalists? Like Walter did?

Speaking of Walter, remember how he'd read us the news and then Eric Sevareid would try to explain it? Often with the word 'Commentary' clearly shown at the bottom of the screen so we'd know this was commentary and not news. Even if you're too old or too young to remember, this used to be how the news was reported. Truthfully, with the intent to educate. With care. And, critically, with an obsession for integrity.

Where have those days gone? And how can we, as a country, attempt to deal with our most significant challenges if we don't have a common understanding of the basic facts? Providing false information is an injustice that undermines our ability to debate, fragments the populace, and, in turn, prevents us from resolving issues together. Moreover, the dissemination of misinformation (you know what that means) by a news agency, whether intentional or not, is shameful. Thanks, Fox News, for keeping us from doing what we Americans do best: Engage in a good, heated, healthy debate.

We miss you a ton, Walter. You, too, Eric. Now more than ever.

What Is Hip?

Want to be, depending on your age, hip, cool or rad? Consider the following facts about hipness. Take them seriously. We do and we're judging.

1. It is definitely NOT hip to wear one's bluetooth device on your ear all of the time. You look stupid, in a silly cyborg kind of way. In the history of humanity, there is only one person who looked cool wearing an ear piece.

You are not him.

Instead, think of Groucho Marx's great line on live TV about his cigar and take your bluetooth gizmo off your head every once in a while. Either that or have it welded to your head.

By the way, might that be the next fad in body enhancing surgery? Blue tooth implantation? Which will lead many of us to wonder whether that blue tooth device on your head is real or surgically-enhanced.

"You think that's real?"

"How could it be? At his age?"

"You're right. It's too perfect. Think he's had other work done?"

"Don't know. But maybe he should."

You wouldn't want us talking about you that way, now would you?

You also wouldn't want to end up looking like this poor guy. (Actually, that's what everyone who wears a bluetooth device looks like to me. And I don't think I'm alone on this one.)

2. It is definitely hip to hold the door for anyone, regardless of your gender or the gender of the person for whom you're holding the door. As a matter of fact, it's also hip to look behind you before letting go of the door. Anyone who forces you to catch a door as it's coming at you is definitely NOT hip.

3. A corollary to #2: It is definitely hip to thank someone for holding the door. Even if that person is dressed as a doorman. As a matter of fact, it's hip to say 'Thank you' any chance you get. And, by the way, 'No problem' is not the same as 'You're welcome.' Do as they do in Costa Rica, where 'Gracias' is followed by 'Mucho gusto.' With much pleasure.

Sorry to sound like Miss Manners, but it appears that many among us have forgotten some basic courtesies. And that's definitely NOT hip.

4. Speaking of NOT hip, it is absolutely not hip to talk on your phone in a public bathroom. I mean, really! Give us all a break, will you please?!? We know who you are.

5. Telling your employees the truth about the state of the company is hip. It's also right.

6. Beyond NOT hip: People who drop their cigarette butts wherever they please. Ashtrays. Every heard of them? Give 'em a try.

7. While driving, give a wave if someone let's you merge, if you're given the right-of-way, or if you cut someone off. Not waving is just wrong, definitely NOT hip, and may keep you out of Heaven, regardless of whether you even believe in Heaven.

8. Managers who are oblivious to the fears of their employees -- especially in times like these -- are NOT hip. They are insensitive.

9. Definitely NOT hip: Spandex on the wrong bodies. Enough said.

10. In any employee handbook, a 'rules' section longer than, say, one page is NOT hip. Aside from 'Do the right thing.', what other rules should the handbook contain? 'Do the right thing.' says it all.

11. Going outside to play is hip. Organizing your own game and playing without uniforms, a manicured field, refs or umps, and without adult supervision is VERY hip. Pass the word.

12. Reading a book -- any book -- is extremely hip. Even if you're also listening to music.

13. Music is hip, regardless of its type. No music or musical group is more hip than any other, except these guys who asked the question about hipness in the first place. And, of course, those who love Tower of Power are, without doubt, totally hip. (It's my blog. I get to make the rules.)

14. While we're on the topic of music, singing while walking down the street is beyond hip. And if your singing gets someone else to begin singing, too? You, my friend, qualify for the best type of hip: Hipster Extraordinaire. Because there simply cannot be too much music. And we need to make it together.

Now For Something Completely Different

So last week's entry didn't offend you completely and you've come back for more? We knew we liked you.

As you'll recall (though you've undoubtedly been doing your best to forget), last week we advocated throwing out your performance management process because it's likely a terrible waste of time, energy, emotion and money. And in these times -- or in any times, for that matter -- what organization can afford to waste time, energy, emotion and money? None that we can think of.

Actually, what most organizations need now is a way to increase the number of outstanding performers on their payroll. Enough of this obsession with normal distributions (a.k.a., bell-shaped curve), where only a select few people can be considered 'top' performers -- and, shockingly, where a vast majority of the employee population doesn't even know what qualifies as 'outstanding' performance. How can you expect people to aspire to something that's ill- or undefined?

Enough of the quota system -- whether written or otherwise -- in which a fixed number of employees can be considered outstanding. Enough with the obsession with rating performance. It takes too long, it diverts many from the job of work (note the nice tie-in to the title of this blog), and it doesn't work. Toss it. And consider something entirely different (with apologies to Monty Python).

We suggest an approach that will measurably increase the performance of your organization. Here's how it works:

1. Define 'world class'. Simply put, what level of performance must your organization achieve if it's to be considered world class? Substitute 'world class' for any concept you like, as long as it's:

• Ambitious, so as to capture the imagination of your people, and
• Compelling, so as to grab the hearts of your people. Critically, our bet (based on years of research) is that your people want your organization to be great. If they don't, you're in more trouble than you think.

Your definition of 'world class' should be clear and include concrete metrics. This is not a vision statement; instead this is a definition of what you believe your short-term business objectives to be and what 'winning' looks like.

Do this at the enterprise level. Then within each division and department. If you have a good Strategic Plan, you should already have the definition -- at least at the enterprise level.

2. Within each department and work team, create an operational definition of what it will take to become world class. That is, what do we need to do to perform at a world-class level?

There are two keys to this:

• The use of 'we', and
• A focus on becoming best-in-class.

Emerging from this discussion, if done well, will be a set of tangible, observable behaviors that will help the department/team contribute brilliantly to the organization's goal of becoming world class. This list becomes -- get ready, here it comes -- the definition of outstanding performance that is typically lacking from the vast majority of performance management systems.

What's powerful about this definition is that it's tied directly to the organization's goal of achieving world-class results. Maybe of greater importance, though, is that employees helped create the definition. As a result, no more disconnects. No more will employees not know what 'outstanding' looks like. And, thankfully, no more will 'showing up on time' and/or 'good attendance' be viewed as outstanding performance.

A quick side-note for the skeptics among us (you know who you are): EVERY time we've implemented this process, employees have set the performance bar higher than it had been by the department or work team's manager. Why, you ask? When we've asked, we've heard the same thing repeatedly: Because employees want their company to win, to be the best in class. And when given the chance to set a standard for excellence, employees will set it sufficiently high to enable their department or their team to help their company outperform their competition. This competitiveness, this eagerness to win, is a key driver of this process.

Okay, at this point we know what winning looks like and we know what we need to do to win. We're cooking, to be sure, but we're not there yet. Arguably, we've saved the best for last.

3. Help each other become world class. Yes, you read that right. Create a way to help everyone perform at the highest level, a way to help everyone perform brilliantly.

(Take a few deep breaths if you're feeling dizzy. This concept may not be for everyone. Probably only for those who want to beat the competition.)

This concept is based on research -- ours and others -- of high-performing teams in sports and in corporate settings. You've seen how athletes help each other during a game? The same can be seen in teams that consistently exceed their goals. Team members helping improve the performance of their fellow team members so that the team, together, can win.

But, but, but, you sputter. This can never work. We don't talk about performance with each other. Team members must be nice, play nice, overlook the weaknesses and deficiencies of their colleagues -- even if the performance of the team suffers. Talking with each other about how we're doing in our jobs to help our team win is something we simply don't do. That's the job of the manager. Once a year.

Right. And you're probably not used to winning, either.

Admittedly, this last step requires a bit of work. Creating an environment in which co-workers can help each other takes come effort, as does providing guidance on how to help co-workers improve. We believe that co-workers can be the best teachers. We also believe that the more you help people, the more it is likely to become a habit. We also believe that the company that has the most outstanding employees has the best chance to win.

We've seen this approach create a strong sense of accountability and responsibility for performance. We've seen this help develop that 'learning' environment so many organizations seek. But most importantly, we've seen this process help teams, departments and entire organizations improve their performance and their ability to compete. Which is what it should be about, no?

Are you ready for something completely different? Like winning? Say 'yes' to both. You wouldn't want to disappoint these guys, would you?

Enough Already

In the spirit of summer fun, this week we have a 1-item quiz for you:

1. What's the biggest waste of time, energy and money at work?

If you said, "Increasing morale, engagement, or commitment," give yourself 0 points. You'd be close, but we're tough graders.

If you said, "I know! I know! Performance appraisal processes!" give yourself a gold star. You are right. You've also probably been a victim of one sometime in your career, as has just about everyone else.

Without doubt, performance appraisal processes -- no matter the form, timing or accompanying training -- are wrong on so many levels. But let's focus on their most important failing: They simply don't work to improve performance. Which, of course, should be their goal. We should also point out that many in the world of work believe that their last performance review wasn't even accurate, but that would make our argument too easy.

So what's to be done? Mechanize them? Obsess about timing? Improve training? Change the rating scale from a 3-point scale to a 5-point scale or to a 7-point scale? Force rank? Throw darts blind-folded at a target?

Our suggestion: Stop using them. Today.

"But", the HR professionals among us might stammer, "What will become of Western Civilization as we know it if we don't have a rigorous performance appraisal process? How will we know who our top performers are? How will we link pay to performance?

Our response:

1. Western Civilization will be just fine without the cumbersome, awkward, ineffective processes imposed on us -- processes that ignore nearly every validated guideline for effective teaching and coaching known to humanity.

2. You shouldn't need a performance appraisal process to know who your top performers are. Similarly, you definitely don't need a performance appraisal process to know who your poor performers are. Just ask around. EVERYONE knows who the poor performers are. It's the second worst-kept secret in any company. (Compensation being the #1 worst-kept secret, of course.)

3. Pay for performance? You're kidding, right? A top performer getting a raise that's within a rounding error of mid-level performers or, worse, poor performers is not in any way 'pay for performance'. Don't even get me started on this one.

4. 'HR professional'? Why is there a need for those in HR to add the word 'professional' to their description? Who are they trying to convince and of what?

We say enough already. Think for a moment about the time and money (and consulting fees) you can save if you stop using your process. No more time filling out a form that, being kind, is about as useful as dusting behind your fridge. No more stilted conversations in which the manager is hopeful that the person somehow 'got the message' and the receiver of the feedback wonders what in the world the manager is talking about. No more need to pretend that the rating is justified. No more explaining that 'being on time' and/or 'not missing too much work due to illness' does not make one a top performer. No more e-mails nagging you to complete the forms or have the meeting. No more resentment that your review hasn't happened in, oh, a decade. No more nonsense.

(And, by the way, are there any more feared words at work than, "I've got some feedback for you."? We didn't think so.)

We think there's a great alternative, one that actually works to improve performance. But that's for next week. In the meantime, we say, again, enough already. Put a stop to it. In the name of love.