Well, perhaps I exaggerate just a bit. Perhaps there are some people who genuinely like Starbucks. I personally enjoy the coffee, but I hate the idea of Starbucks. And WalMart. And The Cheesecake Factory. And Olive Garden. And every chain restaurant and store in every mall in every town across the US.
One of my favorite pieces by Anna Russell (aside from the brilliant "Ring of the Niebelungs: an Analysis"), is "How to Write Your Own Gilbert and Sullivan Opera." In it, Anna describes the "formula" used to write the well-known operettas:
As you know, you always have to start with a homogenous chorus. Now, I know a lot of people are going to say, "That isn't homogenous; that's homogeneous." But that isn't what I mean; I mean homogenous as in milk. All the characters are all the same; they're either all Japanese or all pirates or all... something or other."
What do Gilbert and Sullivan have to do with Starbucks? Simply put, Starbucks - and the other chains I mentioned above - are all about creating a homogenized experience. No matter where you are, you can walk into a Starbucks (or McDonald's, or Olive Garden, or...) and know precisely what the experience will be like. Some people find this comforting; I'm not one of those people.
There's a coffee shop not far from my house; it's small, comfy, and quirky. Locally-produced art hangs on the walls; metal sculptures and handmade soaps and candles are for sale. I've never been in another coffee shop like it. Sadly, this coffee shop opens too late in the morning for me to visit during the week; however, I stop there regularly on the weekends. Aside from the uniqueness of the wares, the people who work there actually build relationships with their customers (every time I go in, the owner asks how my little boy is doing, despite the fact that she's only seen my son a handful of times).
There are those who say that consistency is a good thing; certainly, it's good for the financial status of the companies who build national chains. However, we the consumers lose something critical in this age of mass-commercialization: we lose the character and relationship-building and expertise that can be found only in smaller scale, locally-owned shops. There's something just wrong about the fact that I can drive up Gallatin Road in Hendersonville, Tennessee and find that it looks just like State Route 4 in Paramus, New Jersey. But I digress.
My point is, while it may be good for business to standardize for the sake of growth, it's not a good strategy for managing people. Despite what many corporate types would have you believe, you cannot treat your employees all the same. Can you treat them all fairly? Sure. But "equitable" doesn't have to mean "identical."
As a manager, you need to figure out just what it is that floats the boat of each member of your team, and then manage each team member accordingly. For example: I am an attention junkie. I'll readily admit it; I'm a frustrated performer, and I love an audience. If you want to motivate me, offer me the chance to give a presentation to an important customer. Put me on stage, baby - I'm there. But if you take someone who hates the spotlight, and ask him to give a presentation to a customer, he's not going to thank you for it. On the contrary: he's going to be terrified, stressed, and resentful. One employee's reward is another employee's punishment; ignore that at your peril.
Here's another example: let's say you have this terrific employee; we'll call her Jan. Jan's been with the company for several years, and she's a top-notch performer. Let's say that Jan's mom becomes very ill, and Jan needs to cut down on her time at the office. She can't afford to take FMLA, because she's the sole breadwinner in her family. However, Jan has a notebook PC and remote access to the company's systems. Jan requests that she cut back to four hours per day at the office, and assures you that she'll complete her remaining work at home.
In many large companies, the answer to such a request would be no, because "if I let you do that, then I'd have to say yes to everyone." Well, that's zero intelligence zero tolerance thinking; Jan is a particular individual in a particular situation. You wouldn't you give everyone who works for you exactly the same salary, and exactly the same raise every year; you offer salaries and raises based on experience and performance. Just as no two snowflakes are exactly alike, neither are any two people exactly alike. Why shouldn't you manage workloads and personnel performance individually? If you say yes to Jan, several things will happen:
- Jan will become your most loyal employee because you worked with her to create a solution that was viable for everyone.
- Jan's productivity will skyrocket, because she'll be less stressed and more prone to go out of her way to help you.
- Other team members - though they may resent it a bit at first - will come to realize that you actually care about them as more than just their productivity; this will increase their level of satisfaction as well. And I don't need to tell you that satisfied employees are generally much better performers than dissatisfied employees.
And don't tell me that you can't trust Jan to perform if she's working remotely. My philosophy is this: if you don't trust your employees to do their jobs, then either they shouldn't be there, or you shouldn't be there. If Jan has always performed well, then you can safely believe that she will continue to do so. Of course you'll need to monitor her performance to ensure that she stays productive, but you should be doing that even if she's working full-time in the office.
Don't let outdated beliefs about managing people dictate how you let your employees work; measure what's important rather than what's easy to measure (trust me when I tell you that face-time and productivity are not necessarily mutually inclusive). Unless the employees you're managing are in fact ants or bees, they deserve to be treated as the individuals they are.
Comments