THAT FAMOUS SEVEN-LETTER WORD ...

There’s something about “culture” that everyone wants to own today.

Gigantic corporations are tasking their leaders and managers to figure out how to create genuine, authentic, and entrepreneurial innards, environments that will attract millennials who prefer to work in fast and nimble start-ups.

Ad publications claim, though a handful of case histories, that marketers should own the culture fit bit and make sure that brands reflect company values.  And vice versa. 

Even recruiter Egon Zehnder adds its two cents by revealing its 100-person survey results:  Ninety-five percent believe perceived culture affects the brand.  Sixty percent say culture supports the brand – and   20 percent say it’s an underminer.  Ergo, CMOs need to embrace that word.

Yet culture needs to be owned by the right individual(s).

The creation of culture – and its values – clearly belongs in the province of the leader.  It’s s/he who reflects the organization, shapes (or re-creates) its values, and acts to show the way.  It’s not marketing speak.  Nor solely developed by the CHRO.  And, for sure, not locked up in a wordy company manual.

Culture needs to live, to breathe, and to, if needs be, adjust to current realities.  Companies do, during crises or turnovers, rethink values … and re-cast them, with smart planning, to inspire, motivate, and transition to the new way.  After all, if culture is the way we work around here, why shouldn’t (eventually) everyone own it?

FACE TIME

Warning:  Our hackles have been raised.

Those hairs on our neck shifted upwards when we read of not-so-secret one-on-one meetings between money managers, hedge funds, and the like and public company CEOs.

Not that there’s anything wrong or illegal with the practice.  [After all, the SEC calls it “corporate access” and, though there’s some monitoring, it doesn’t breach the Regulation Fair Disclosure rule of 2000.]

Yet survey after survey of these fairly regular occasions – about 99 on average each year for public businesses, says Ipreo – demonstrates that this kind of face time allows analysts and investors to make better trading decisions and more accurate earnings forecasts.

So be it.  It’s obvious these kinds of conversations help persuade the monied occupations that a company’s stock is a worthwhile investment. 

At the same time, it allows other, external observers to gauge the tone and confidence level and body language of the CEO (or CFO).

So what we object to is not the need to present to the investment community, face to face.  No, what causes our discomfort is the not-so-equal access of the C-suite to his/her employees, the rank and file who need to understand the strategies, the changes, and, yes, the financials. 

Okay, we get it:  Executive time is precious.  But don’t employees relish and deserve regular face-to-face communications in small groups with key senior leaders?

OUR CUPS DON'T RUNNETH OVER

It’s sorta expected, in our business.

After all, we’re outside experts or, at the best, business partners who work with companies on a variety of short- and long-term projects. Though we might be around for a while, we’re definitely hired help.

All fine.  So the idea of thanks (given to us) is somewhat novel, and one that’s never guaranteed.  Nonetheless, we do perk up when we hear good words, and remember the whos and whats of the conversation.

What’s unexpected, though, is the endemic lack of thanks today in the workplace, full-time colleagues and leaders who work for one company.  In its typical fashion, The Wall Street Journal, late last year, riffed on a recent “there’s no gratitude” survey, then proceeded to set up a typology of those managers who just couldn’t show appreciation.   To us, the publication’s five characters were (pick one):  1) somewhat stereotyped, 2) overblown, and/or 3) created for the sake of a headline.

For whatever reasons (and feel free to make up your own), thanks just isn’t embedded in contemporary vocabularies.  Or, if it is, it’s somehow, er, fake.  How many times have you gotten an e-missive that, oh by the way, acknowledges your contributions (usually the middle of a list of things you have to do)?  Or been lobbed an off-handed compliment on the way out the door?

We’re not imagining this.  Survey says, for instance, that only 10 percent utter a thank you to colleagues, while 7 percent manage to be gracious to the boss-person.  Are dollars or other tangible rewards good substitutes for an authentic note about “job well done”?  Is everyone way too busy to look back and forward on a day’s work to compliment the support given?  Or do we need to add an amendment to the Ten Big Ones about being grateful each and every day?

Aretha, you got it right. 

THE ART OF TALK

These days, conversation just might be the 2013 version of texting. 

Then, again, a second talk trend seems to contradict that. 

One positive we’ve noticed, personally and in the media:  Encouraging, even engaging all around the table in hearty dialogue during mealtimes. “The family that converses together, stays together” is how the adage might play out. And families and couples, from the Obamas to, yes, Joe the Plumber and his peers, tune up the conversations at dinner.  Some focus on more meaty subjects, like politics and the state of the green world.  Others, simply on sharing the day’s events.  There’s no right or wrong way, say proponents, to talk.  Just do it.  Minus the television, cell phones, video games, and other tech distractions.

Trend two:  Casual restaurants (Applebee’s, Chili’s, even P.F. Chang) are installing mini-screens at the tabletop, offering diners the options to order, play games, and pay.  And not communicate.  Quite a few of these pilots claim great success in driving more frequent table turns, increasing dessert orders, and helping determine if the kiosks will become more permanent profit centers.  Parent reactions are mixed; waiters, even more so.  In this not-so-giving economy, we get it:  It’s time to continue seeking additional sources of revenue. 

We as proponents of the art of talk aren’t thrilled with the advent of diningIT.  There are good and valid reasons for eating outside the home, whether it’s a choice of more Top Chef-like menus (sorry, Mom!) or simply a relaxing escape from daily cooking.  Inserting technology into the experience negates personalized service offered by wait-persons and eager-to-serve counter people and, most important, limits our human interactions.

We know it’s hard enough to get managers and employees to talk casually and meaningfully with each other about work that matters.  So advocating that anyone adopt another tech-y habit is akin to endorsing “no talk zones” … everywhere.  Or is it enough to endorse the art of dialogue, as does Robert Louis Stevenson?  “Talk is by far the most accessible of pleasures. It costs nothing in money, it is all profit, it completes our education, founds and fosters our friendships, and can be enjoyed at any age and in almost any state of health”?