Kansas City man named to Time magazine Most Influential list

Congratulations to Kansas City's own Gary White for being named one of Time magazine's most influential people of 2011!

Gary, and his partner Matt Damon (the Academy-Award-winning writer/actor), co-founded Water.org in 2009. Water.org is a nonprofit organization committed to providing safe drinking water and sanitation to people in developing countries.

“Water and sanitation are the most basic building blocks of human life and dignity. Without them, people will forever struggle to move forward with their lives” said Gary White. Gary has been working to bring water around the world for more than 25 years and has received numerous awards and recognitions for his work over the years.

In 2010, Gary was featured as one of the All-In people in my book Put Your Whole Self In! Life and Leadership the Hokey Pokey Way. Gary and Matt are All-In and Influential.

Links:
Time Magazine 100 Most Influential People
Water.org
Put Your Whole Self In!

The stampede has begun!

Everyone following the recession and its impact on high performers has been waiting for this day. We have expected it, warned of its arrival, and wondered when it would come. It has arrived.

A look at the headlines of the Wall Street Journal's Management page indicates the stampede of high performers toward the exits has begun.

They are leaving the companies that kept them employed during the height of the recession for greener pastures. They are leaving for positions with more authority or to start their own businesses. Some are leaving to take a break from the high-pressure jobs they've had in recent years. A few are leaving because they were kicked out, but they aren't like the top performers you should be concerned with.

Have your top performers left yet? If not, are you enticing them to stay? Are you doing enough?

If you are not enticing top performers to stay, know that your competitors will entice them to their greener pastures.

Twitter is making me skeptical of thought leaders

I love Twitter. I love connecting with people all over the world--most are interesting and generous with their knowledge. At least the people I follow are that way--interesting and generous.

I have chosen each "follow" carefully upon quick reviews of each profile. While I may have missed a few here or there, for the most part, I review profiles before re-following and prior to initiating a Twitter relationship.

Upon reviewing about a dozen profiles this morning, I noticed about half called themselves "thought leaders." Their use of the word startled me because it seems like something others should say rather than something one should say about oneself.

The word prompted me to dig a little deeper to see if they were indeed "thought leaders."

Not that I am in charge of assigning such a label as "thought leader" for everyone else, I can do so for myself. So, I assigned the label to just two of the people whose profiles and web sites I viewed. I am glad to know about those two folks and anticipate learning from them in future tweets.

What made them thought leaders? Their posts, profiles, and web sites showed them to be original (not one Zig Ziglar motivational quote among them), thought-provoking, fresh thinkers.

Surely, we all can agree that those who only post quotes from others, whether they are business experts, self-help gurus, or musical artists, are not "thought leaders."

What do you think: is it appropriate to label oneself a "thought leader"? Or, is that label better left for others to use?

Perhaps the term implies different things to different people--what does it imply to you? Your input could help reduce my skepticism of thought leaders in the future.

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk free?

The "free milk" analogy my Irish grandmother used to say came to mind when a client shared her recent experience of "putting out." My client, Jill, has been in a long-term relationship but lamented about how "putting out" is not leading anywhere. Aha, just like my Irish grandmother said!

Jill is not a high school girl learning to maneuver the dating world. She is a forty-something executive maneuvering the corporate world.

Jill is frustrated about doing the work of three people without being rewarded for it. In September, three departments merged under one VP. Jill was the one to remain, and the other two were transitioned out. At the time, Jill did not want to rock the boat by asking about aligning her compensation with her responsibilities. So, she's been doing it without complaint, without a significant raise, and without an increase in resources. And, the company has not acknowledged it.

While we could discuss whether a man would have demanded a raise at the time, my question is, "Why should the company acknowledge it?"

Why would the company buy the cow when they are getting the milk free?

Jill's expectation that the company would eventually realize what an outstanding contribution she is making--and she is!--is risky and cowardly. As I've said often, including in the book Put Your Whole Self In!, the cross-your-fingers-and-hope plan rarely yields big results. When Jill is ready to do something about her current situation, she will need to talk with her boss about aligning her compensation and responsibilities.

High performing companies who want to keep their high performing people pay attention to them. Whether it is the president whom Jill reports to or the VP of HR, someone should be aware of the disparity between Jill's responsibilities and compensation. And, they should honor her by fixing it.

To answer the question, the company should "buy the cow" because eventually that cow is going to quit giving free milk. It might even give sour milk, while telling all the other cows in the field to do the same thing.

Fancy perks are not enough--just ask Google

Google, the darling of the tech world and oft-cited king of employee engagement proved over the past several months that fancy perks are not enough to keep talented people.

Google employees get so many on-site perks, they call it the Googleplex. Some of the perks, in addition to the slide between floors pictured, include the following:

• salon with free hair cuts
• well-equipped gym with swim-in-place pools
• medical staff
• laundry and dry cleaners
• games like ping pong and pool
• private communication pods (pictured below)

The most famous perk is the 20% time each person can dedicate to special projects of their choosing.

The perks certainly are attractive. In 2007 and 2008, Google was ranked the #1 Best Company to Work For by Fortune magazine.  Upon announcing in February that it would add 6,000 jobs this year, Google received 75,000 applications. Clearly, some people want to work there.

Unfortunately, Google hires high-caliber, talented people, and many of them do not want to stay.

Since 2008, Google has ranked the #4 Best Company to Work For. More than 15% of Facebook's staff is made up of former Google employees. Google's stock declined more than 4% last year.

What has happened?

Google lost its focus. It lost its entrepreneurial edge and way of thinking. It became too silo'ed and structured and process-focused, which stymied innovation. Creative, innovative people want their ideas pushed forward not bogged down in paperwork. Former employees express frustration about Google's lack of accountability, which caused delays, errors, and lost competitive advantage.

Being able to get good work done is important to Google's employees. It is more important than free hair cuts, pool tables, and free laundry. Earlier this week, Google named a new CEO, and today, he revamped Google's management team. The new CEO, Larry Page, seems aware of the fact that fancy perks are not enough to keep talented people.

Do you?

(Sources: www.money.cnn.com and www.bloomberg.com)