2. Play “Win-Win” with Your Employees (and Allow Them to Be All They Can Be—for Self and Company)

Business leaders at every level must build a work environment that enables each employee’s preferred self to emerge at the workplace through an alignment and balance of the employee’s personal attributes and needs with the organization’s goals.

Sounds a little academic and even Mary Poppins-ish, doesn’t it, this talk of preferred self? It’s a term that even seems to lapse over into—arghhh!—guru or consultant’s speak! But a preferred self is something that’s literal and a part of the opportunity for workplace productivity, and it’s a state of being that you have probably experienced—at work, at home, or more likely at play—though you may have called it by another name that’s easy to describe but hard to explain. (I say all of this mindful that some readers will contest whether the downturn in the economy even affords us any latitude for seemingly touchy-feely approaches to managing people. But I assure you, what I’m talking about is ultimately all about the bottom line.)

A noted workplace researcher at Carnegie Mellon University, Denise Rousseau, found, and I concur, that an employee’s preferred self is the work-self you are comfortable with when working free of the facades and defenses people erect to protect themselves from the inconsistent behaviors of leaders or the organization.

I am sure you know when your preferred self isn’t allowed to emerge. That’s when you hear workplace phrases such as, “I’ve never seen a more highly charged political workplace environment,” or “This place is toxic.” Heard that before?

In that workplace scenario, you feel defensive, on guard, and you spend more time protecting your back than getting anything done. But when the preferred self emerges and an employee can spend her creative energy focusing on doing, building, creating, completing, and accomplishing, (instead of watching her back), then that person is acting and working in a maximum comfort zone. That’s an employee who feels good about what he is doing, how he is doing it, and how he and his work is perceived. When those stars align, that employee can be completely authentic to coworkers, simultaneously vulnerable and trusting.

This isn’t a sing-Kumbaya-around-the-campfire moment I am talking about; it’s not some workplace epiphany, when the world turns to slow motion as people smile at each other in mystical contentment. This is a time of peak productivity! And who couldn’t use a little more of that in our current economic predicament? This is a time when the employee’s self-interest and the aspirations of the organization are mostly in sync and great things get done.

For an artist or an athlete, a preferred self might be easier to attain and much easier to see than for an individual within an organizational infrastructure. That’s because the artist’s and athlete’s “occupations,” per se, are based in individual performance, and the infrastructure is just his identity. If you were to introduce that individual performer into an organizational structure—even if it were an organization of artists working creatively and collaboratively—the demand of organizational infrastructures and the stressors of the workplace have the potential to drain the joy out of work, no matter how much creativity is required to make it. There’s a simple reason for that—and a slew of tactics to counter it. Let’s look a little deeper.

When an organization starts focusing on, well, organizing, they are not focused on joy. Joy? That’s another term that may be a little too touchy-feely. Would it still seem so touchy-feely if I were to directly correlate workplace joy with productivity? And joy with the bottom line? And joy as an essential key to creating mind-blowing innovation and breakout new products?

After all, do you think products like the iPod were created in an atmosphere of drudgery? Do you think GPS devices were designed by people who burned with singular resentment in their lonely cubicles, as they plotted revenge? New miracle drugs concocted by people who hated their coworkers and dreamed of escaping their desks? The elegant curves of a 740Li series BMW made by people who dread getting out of bed in the morning?

Of course not!

An organizational infrastructure that enables a worker’s preferred self to joyously emerge creates the most profitable and innovative workplaces, with staggeringly high rates of employee retention—four to five times the industry average.

Yes, it’s true. I’ve been there to see it, in good times and in bad. I know what helped to make it happen and helped sustain it.

A great organization creates supportive workplace environments in which preferred selves can come to the surface. But it’s more than just providing a person with a task he likes to do. The truth is that any employee might get satisfaction for doing a worthwhile task, with access to the right resources and team. However, preferred self can emerge only when the workers see that they are contributing to something bigger than themselves. They must recognize, and be reminded on a regular basis, what part they play in the overall success of the organization. The individual worthwhile task is exponentially more important to the individual (and the organization) if the employees sees it as part of a grander plan to which they are making an integral contribution. And the “illusive effort” you are always seeking in your employees—that burst of creativity and contribution that gives you iPods, GPS invention, miracle drugs, and great machines? It will be produced voluntarily by the employee’s preferred self.

Does this mean that the workplace must provide an endless series of ecstatic moments? No, you can’t run a workplace like that any more than you can run a relationship or a friendship like that. It would be ruinous and exhausting. But you do need to create infrastructure (physical, emotional, and organizational) in which an environment can emerge that lets people do what they love to do, while tapping into their personal willingness to perform. That environment must also have a system in place to recognize and reward what these people do.

What I recommend has nothing to do with the size of the company. Or even the financial resources of the organization. Or even the sector of the economy in which a company operates. When I speak to groups about this topic, inevitably a person from a small company asks, “We’re such a small company; how is this possible?” Or “How can you justify that when we’re struggling to just survive.” The next day, I’ll hear someone ask, “We’re such a large company; how is this possible?” Or “Why do we need that when everyone understands that we try to stay competitive and keep afloat?”

But the job of management and leadership is to take people in any size group and—without impeding their progress with a difficult infrastructure—allow the enlightened self-interest of the worker to thrive, and drive productivity, whenever it advances the organization’s overall goals and profitability.

That said, it isn’t easy to achieve. It’s not necessarily expensive, but it takes commitment. Serious commitment. All the way up and down the ladder. In fact, allowing the preferred self to emerge isn’t just a matter of day-to-day operations, though that is part of it. It’s an acculturation process that must influence every aspect of the company’s operations, from nurturing and retaining employees all the way down to the plans for the holiday party. And it even extends into the recruiting process. That’s because the culture that enables an employee’s preferred self to emerge is one that will draw the right people to your organization, people who are eager to work in positive and productive environments, people who want to be part of great efforts.

Make no mistake, the proper environment acts as a beacon that calls the right kind of people to you. So, part of building that acculturation is having a clear understanding of the kinds of employees that you want, the kinds of people who will propel your organization forward and the kind of leadership you need to attract them. As a baseline requirement, that includes recognizing the employees and candidates with the kinds of skills and attitude required to fuel the productivity propulsion mechanism of the preferred-self work environment.

Let’s look at a real-world example. Take a widely known company such as Starbucks. Starbucks believes that the way to get exceptional performance and productivity from people and management teams is to have an environment focused on trust. It believes that the trust factor has at least five elements. First, Starbucks believes that you need to build an infrastructure that enables people to take risks, without fear of career-debilitating punishment if the risks bring failure. Second, Starbucks makes its people accountable, not just responsible, but accountable. (There’s a difference.) Third, they trust that the people understand good service. Fourth—related to element number three—it believes that when people understand good service, they will be creative when delivering it. And fifth, Starbucks trusts that its people will pass on these beliefs and practices when new people come on board. That corporate infrastructure—when clearly and consistently communicated and acted on by everyone at every station in the company—will serve not only as a guiding light for current employees, but it also acts as a way to draw the kind of people who want to work on this corporate culture. Even though I have never worked at Starbucks, I can recognize people in the world who would flourish there, because it is a place in which a preferred self can emerge that is gregarious, creative, service-oriented, and customer-focused. I can also recognize a good number of people who would not flourish there, and whose engagement with the company would be a costly waste of time.

How is this preferred–self culture communicated? Well, here’s the overall message: We are building and trying to sustain a workplace in which you as an individual will be respected and nurtured as long as you respect and nurture others. But communicating it starts with emphatic and determined leadership that lays down what it values as a company. Second, that leadership must put forth a three-, five-, and ten-year mission that identifies awesome goals that it will accomplish. Third, the leadership must create a model of behavior—from the top down—that provides an environment filled with respect, trust, recognition, and excellence, an environment that plans to engage employees with growth opportunity as it leverages their skills, intellects, and aspirations to build corporate wealth. By communicating those things, the leadership has taken giant steps on its paths to find people who at least aspire to fit into that kind of environment. If you go forward living up to those values and goals, and that behavior model, what you get is a workforce that is filled with valued, engaged people who take responsibility for the company’s success, people who have the attitude that they will give until it hurts—though it never really hurts—people who have their bodies and their souls involved in the task of the workplace.

Now I know that you might be one of those people who are used to rewarding short-term gains. That’s typical of short-term, bottom-line focused management theory and practice. I think many executives think that rewarding short-term goals is the only way to drive productivity, and this approach to business is especially tempting in the economic downturn. Anything else would be looked at as being soft. Well, there is nothing wrong with being tough. So, when I am talking about the preferred self, I’m not saying that you can bring it out only with family picnics and circles of singing employees. Preferred-self environments are only about win-win-win. The employees win; the company wins; the customer wins. The owners win; the stakeholders (shareholders) win. The company makes gains as a result of the employees’ efforts, yet the employees grow as well through learning and professional develop and they become better people, better employees, better contributors than they were last year because of the growth and development that the employer made available to them. As a result, the organization and its products and services are more valuable. And there is no embarrassment in success, because, yes, the company is making money on the backs of the employees’ efforts, but the employees aren’t being beaten down as the company succeeds.

With that in mind, let’s take a look at what kind of people do you need for this type of workplace environment. It varies by organization, by the texture of the enterprise. A person who works well in pharmaceuticals might not work in a tech startup. Retail customer service drives some people crazy, yet they might flourish in an educational environment or a manufacturing setting. One thing that remains true across the spectrum of various organizations is that the right good people always should have the requisite skills (a baseline requirement, a given) along with a capacity to grow and develop, and an intellectual and visceral understanding of the organization’s goals. They must see that their personal advancement is not adversarial to the organization’s advancement. The organization’s leadership must hold the same opinion; indeed, the advancement and success of the individuals and the organization should be in sync.

Too often organizations hire people with great track records but who are not a good fit for engaging themselves and a preferred-self environment. When I interview candidates during the recruitment and hiring process (collectively referred as the onboarding process), I look for people who are interested in being part of something larger than themselves, people who are interested in joining a team. I also look for people who are naturally curious about where the company is going, how it got to where it is today, and what opportunities it offers them. For that last item, that might seem odd that I welcome that inquiry. I don’t find it selfish when someone essentially asks, “What’s in it for me?” Because in the right setting, what’s in it for them is what’s in it for the company, and there you’ll find an alignment of personal and corporate ambitions.

Now let’s dig a little deeper into how to draw the right good people. As your culture acts as a beacon to potential new hires, you will draw people who think they fit the model and say, “That’s the right place for me.” Let me give you another example. There is a company in semi-rural Pennsylvania called Minitab. It’s a large statistical analysis company that runs a great shop. Minitab is close to Penn State, with a high quality of life, with a highly developed intellectual culture. Minitab prides itself on creating a workplace environment that is highly communicative, caring, and nurturing. Their people do indeed aspire to intellectual excellence and hard work. In its Pennsylvania location, near Penn State, the local environment is appropriate for the personal needs of its ideal employees. People come to Minitab to do interesting and challenging work in a competitive environment, and they live in a local culture that is loaded with activities and events that interest them. So, the Minitab brand attracts people who fit. But perhaps more important, from the bottom-line side of the equation, Minitab knows who won’t fit. During the interview process, it does not need to guess that a prospect will be a good employee and can clearly identify the people who won’t fit in. If candidates come to Minitab thinking how fun it would be to live near Penn State but are interested in a stratified workplace and a system that rewards superstars, then they won’t fit there. Minitab can pick them out and remove them from the hiring process before any further engagement gets expensive. If candidates are curious about deeply engrained attributes of the organization, that’s a good sign. It’s also a good sign if they have done research on the history of the company and its place in the community. Those kinds of people will have a natural affinity for Minitab. However, if people take time during the interview to talk about bonuses, salary, while asking about the gym, and the pool, that’s not a good sign. You see, the corporate culture is so clearly defined at Minitab, that even during the recruiting and hiring process, it looks for other members of its tribe and know them when it sees them.

Let me give you another real-world example. When I was vice president of human resources at SAS Institute, we started to offer low-cost daycare to our employees at the North Carolina campus. We wanted to offer this perk to our employees because it treated them well, and at another level it helped with employee productivity and was therefore cost-effective. We also did it to send a beacon to the community that clearly said that we were a company that recognized the value and importance of family to our employees, and that we cared enough for them to make it available. It not only kept good people, but it also drew the right good people to us.

Want to see how something like that actually pays off? Here’s an example: When I was at SAS Institute years ago, we were interviewing for a high-level technology position. A young man from California sent a resume that looked great. So, we brought him in. He interviewed well and was a great fit. So, we made him an offer, which he accepted. When I did my post-hire interview, I told him that we typically had difficulty attracting technically gifted people from the west coast to North Carolina. I asked him what drew him to SAS Institute. He said it was the daycare that stood out. I asked him, “So how old are your kids.” He said he didn’t have any kids. I asked him, “Kid’s on the way?” “No.” So, I asked how long he’d been married?” He said, “I’m not married. I’m not even in a serious relationship.” “Then why,” I asked, “did the daycare draw you here?” He said that a company that expressed its concern for the well being of its employees and their families by offering them daycare was a place he’d like to work. He felt the fit.

So you see that looking for the right people is all part of an over arching plan, a multi-pronged approach that first draws and hires people for their skills and talent. These are the people who make your organization competitive. These are the people who have the potential for capabilities growth. Yet they must fit into the organization’s preferred-self culture, people who fit into not only what you are but also how you operate. However, if you bring on people who are all potential, yet have no talent and skills, then you risk poisoning the workplace atmosphere by dragging along someone who was hired just for their potential. Others will look over the cubical wall and say, “Hey, this guy’s not pulling his weight!” Third, if you hire someone who has talent, and ambition, but they are not a good cultural fit—they are not team players, or they are selfish without giving back—the “wisdom of the crowd” at work will feel as though the integrity of the group has been dragged down.

Well, with all this talk of talent, skills, potential aptitude, and fit, you know I had to come up with a sports metaphor sooner or later. Right? Here’s a good one: Alex Rodriguez. Since his first full season in 1996 through 2007, he has put up, shall we say, some fairly good numbers. He leads the majors in home runs, runs scored, RBIs, and total bases and extra-base hits. Of all players in baseball history prior to their 31st birthday, Alex Rodriguez is first all-time in home runs, runs scored and total bases; second in extra base hits and RBI, and fourth in hits, tainted somewhat now with recent revelations. He is the youngest player ever to hit 500 home runs, breaking a record set in 1939. He is, by any other description, a superstar and one of the finest athletes to ever walk the planet. (He was recruited to the University of Miami as a baseball player and as a quarterback!)

He currently has a 10-year contract with the Yankees, worth $275 million, with a $30 million bonus if he breaks the all-time home run record (762). But when the Yankees signed him away from the Texas Rangers, there was a great uproar about whether he would fit. He surely had the talent and aptitude, but Rodriguez took the position of third base. The position of shortstop, his traditional spot, was already taken by the beloved Derek Jeter. At third base, Rodriguez was not a golden glover. And he took the position probably for less than market value than if he went to be a shortstop on another team. The reason? He felt that the Yankees were about winning championships, and he wanted to contribute—even at some relative sacrifice—to something larger than himself. He even changed his number to 13 from his lifelong number 3, because 3 was already retired in honor of a man named Babe Ruth.

Will he be the next Mr. Yankee? Or achieve the status and charisma of Derek Jeter? Maybe so. But in spite of the money, he showed a sense of humility to achieve something that he is interested in, and it was aligned with something George Steinbrenner wants. For Rodriguez it wasn’t about him, but about “us.” And in the long run, as he develops professionally at the Yankees, their faith in him and his faith in them will likely earn everyone far more money over time than if he has gone from team to team as a gun-for-hire hot-shot, achieving sugar highs here and there but not contributing to an enduring team legacy.

Are you hiring people like Alex Rodriguez, with superstar qualities, great potential, and an achievement-filled resume that want to be part of a team? Are you drawing people to your organization like that West-Coast software engineer who wanted to work at SAS Institute because of the company’s philosophy about the value of people, even though he didn’t plan to take advantage of it? You need to recognize a member of your tribe during the hiring process and confidently turn away people who won’t fit. Can you?