The difference of a few extra steps

My 11-year old daughter has been using an old iPhone 4 without a SIM card for a few years now. It’s more like an iPod with a few games on it.

The phone is so old that we can’t update the iOS on it anymore. And it only has 8 GB of storage on it. Which means she can’t download the latest games or store more than a few pictures.

So on Tuesday, she used her money to buy a refurbished iPod. Apple shipped it by FedEx and delivery was scheduled for Thursday. On Wednesday, she bought an iPod case on Amazon, with overnight Prime delivery.

Both items arrived on Thursday. FedEx left the $200 iPod in my driveway, near the street, in plain sight, begging to be stolen, despite the fact that several neighbors have complained to FedEx of missing packages in recent months.

Meanwhile, Amazon delivered the $8 case all the way to my front door mat, out-of-sight, took a picture of the delivery and sent it to my phone. Just 12 extra steps.

Technically, both companies delivered their product. But Amazon showed a greater degree of care for its buyer than Apple and FedEx did.

Caring is a competitive advantage. Caring for our employees improves retention and recruitment. Caring for our suppliers improves quality. Caring for the communities where we operate enhances our brand.

If we care for the right things, profits will come.

Seeing the unseeable

“We have seen what we thought was unseeable.”

These were the words of an astronomer during a news conference yesterday, prior to unveiling the first picture of a black hole.

To “see” this black hole, scientists used eight radio observatories located on four different continents for a period of 10 days. Then, they spent two years analyzing the data.

Those of us interested in corporate culture can draw a few parallels, as culture appears elusive at times: let’s observe culture from multiple vantage points, collect as much data as possible, and use the scientific method to draw conclusions.

My friends at Vega Factor have spent years doing just that. They call it the science of total motivation (ToMo for short) and they wrote a fantastic book about it. They literally have cracked the code on culture. For me, learning about ToMo was like seeing the unseeable. But it was more than that because once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

Are your flood routes unobstructed?

The recent, devastating floods in Iran were caused in part by the obstruction of flood outlets and by the conversion of flood routes and dry river beds to residential areas. To a large extent, the devastation was avoidable.

In a company, we can expect similar floodings when the business swells with opportunity or uncertainty, or both. This is when communication channels can be life-saving, allowing employees to ask questions or to report actual or suspected wrongdoing. But if the access to HR, to Legal, to Ethics & Compliance or to the hotline has been obstructed, then devastation can ensue.

This, too, is avoidable.

Coxswain

Cambridge won The Boat Race a few days ago.

I’m not a rowing fan but I admire how rowing teams synchronize their efforts towards a common goal. If one rower is off, the team is unlikely to win. Therefore, the focus is on teamwork. The win will ensue.

The same applies to corporate culture. All the leaders and processes must be aligned towards ethical performance. Misalignment causes drag, which slows the business. Thus, the focus is on creating processes that generate the right cultural outcomes.

What process is ripe for change in your organization?

Protecting the innocents

This article made the rounds on the internet last week. After all, who doesn’t like to read about the crazy expenses some employees try to get reimbursed for?

What I found interesting is that some of the culprits saw nothing wrong with their behavior. It’s a great reminder that policies, training, controls and audits have a place in the corporate world, even if 99 out of 100 employees know what’s right. There’s always going to be one that honestly doesn’t get it, and they need to be protected as well.

Trust but verify

If you have to verify, did you trust in the first place?

It’s an unfortunate use of the word “but”. It should be “Trust and verify”.

This Russian proverb actually calls for two distinct obligations. We must trust each other if we want real progress to happen. And we must verify compliance as part of our duty of care to those we serve.

In that sense, to verify is to build trust.

Ethical leadership ensues

“The secret to happiness is helping others.” – Chinese proverb

“You can have anything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want.” – Zig Ziglar

“The most meaningful way to succeed is to help others succeed.” – Adam Grant

See the pattern?

Today, there are colleagues in our organization struggling with an ethical dilemma. Reach out and help them. You’ll become a better ethical leader in the process.

Ethical debates

We know that it’s way better for employees to hear about ethics & compliance from their business leader than from their ECO.

And do you know what’s even better than that? Two or more business leaders debating an ethical issue in front of the employees, each arguing in favor of a different path or outcome.

In a healthy culture, these debates happen daily.

When’s your next ethical debate?

HT to Seth Godin

The questions analysts aren’t asking

Larry Fink is at it again in his 2019 letter to CEOs. His message is clear: there is more to corporations than profits.

BlackRock is not alone. Big investors are now demanding more from issuers because they finally agree that purpose and planet positively impact the bottom line.

We need one more group to get the message: the analysts. For one hour per week, you can run an easy experiment for the next month or two. Listen to an analyst call each week and count how many times they ask a question about “doing the right thing.” I can give you the answer right now: zero. If a company is announcing the opening of a factory in a developing nation, analysts want to know if there will be enough skilled workers and whether the infrastructure is sufficient. The fact that corruption is rampant in that country seems to be irrelevant.

Companies take analysts’ questions seriously. When analysts finally become concerned with how things are done (i.e. with the culture), we’ll see a new wave of progress.

Is this good for humanity?

When we first invented the car, its adoption was slow and we had plenty of time to figure out what rules of the road would be necessary. A century later, we invented the self-driving car and we can’t fully bring it to market because the rules aren’t in place.

We’ve entered an era when technology moves faster than our ability to create rules around it. I doubt we will ever go back to a slower pace, at least not in our lifetime. So what shall we do?

One answer is to once again become comfortable relying on values. In the absence of rules, values fill the gap. We need to bring ethical considerations to new technologies, starting at the ideation stage. We need to ask “Is this good for humanity?”

Technology is neither good nor bad, but what we do with it can be one or the other. Let’s adopt a values-based approach to technology.