This is why I really, really like beBee...

Simply put... it is the fascinating people you get to meet.

Today I met RenéeCormier and Kevin Pashuk for coffee (I actually had diet coke but this isn't about my slight addiction). I have known Renee for a while now and we meet regularly, but this was the first time I've had the opportunity to meet Kevin face to face. 

I have known Kevin through his writing and comments, and it has always been a nice experience — To meet him face to face was a complete pleasure. Our conversations ebbed and flowed on a litany of topics for about two hours and I was slightly saddened when we had to part company. I will admit some of the sadness was because I had to head out into the rain but that is no reflection on anything other than I don't like to get wet.

I met both Renee and Kevin through beBee, and it is just the luxury of geography that has allowed us to have coffee and diet coke together... but here is the thing in all of this.

I have also met people from Spain, Australia, South Africa, Belgium, Israel, India, the U.S., other parts of Canada, the U.K., et cetera, et cetera... I may not get to spend time with them in a trendy Oakville cafe but I get to know them through their writing, their comments, their interests, their engagement, and their expression. 

I have become a richer person for my beBee experience so far; to everyone I have connected with, "Thank you".

And to all those I will meet in the future, I can hardly wait.

iamgpe

www.bebee.com

A simple and elegant definition of business...

I asked this question to a seasoned businessperson the other day, "How do you define business?"  

His answer wasn't exactly what I had expected.

For him, business is defined as "cashing the cheque" that was given as payment for an activity that had been agreed upon with someone(s). Business in his mind was not defined by what was being done or how, but by the actual transfer of money from one person to another. It was that simple in his mind.

Some clarification was needed on his part because it just didn't sit well with me that there seemed to be little consideration given to what and how something was being done for that "cheque".

It was then pointed out that there was up front consideration to what he would (and wouldn't) do based on legal, moral, ethical or personal reasons, but in theory it could be wide open as to what activities were part of this definition, and that was an individual decision. In his mind it wasn't about what you did that defined business but it was about the transfer of money. We didn't discuss the definition of money but I suspect that if "chickens" were the agreed upon currency, his definition would be satisfied.

Putting aside the opportunity for endless discussions on ethics, morality, legality, good or bad, there is something simple, clean, and direct about his definition. The more I thought about it, the more I began to believe he was spot on, and I did like the elegance of its simplicity. If we agree the goal in business is to make money, then everything else is just activity — If your activity results in a cheque that you can cash then it's business; if it doesn't, then it's just activity (or an expensive hobby). 

In the end the goal of business is to make money, make more money, and make it faster. Underlying this I suppose is all that sales, marketing, finance, operations, human resources, regulatory interpretation, et cetera that goes on each and every day. Cashing that cheque is a reminder to do it better, faster and more innovatively because that's how you stay in business.

Coincidently, a couple of days later I ran into another seasoned businessperson who defined business as "an enterprise or endeavour designed to create value for stake holders, or something like that".

If anything, I was reminded that people look at things differently so you need to stay sharp!

iamgpe

The worst example of Leadership I've heard in a while...

The story goes something like this...

A relatively new employee arrived at work and as she settled into her day she got a call from Human Resources to come to their office. Upon arriving, she was informed she was being terminated; they went on to say it wasn't a performance issue, that they would give her a good reference, and the situation was the result of broader business issues. It was effective immediately, and did she want them to collect her things.

After hearing this, I asked where her boss was when as this was happening and was told he was in another office in the building. I could not help but become indignant on her behalf and said, "That is just awful leadership, and most likely reflects a gutless culture. You are better off not working for an organization like that." 

Before I offer a perspective as to why I said this, I should make it very clear that I understand employees get terminated, be it for cause or simply because the company is at a bad time in the business cycle. It is one of those hard realities of business. I operate under a simple premise that hiring managers hire and hiring managers fire, and there is a great responsibility that comes with hiring, managing, leading, and every so often, terminating people. This situation was a lack of ownership in my mind and avoiding the responsibility for the greatest asset a company has.

If you may be thinking Human Resources IS responsible for terminating, I will suggest that's not the case. Human Resources is responsible for governance of people, the systems and processes for people management, coaching, and maybe even development, but not termination of a person (or hiring for that matter). They are a partner in what has to be done, but the responsibility and ownership is with the manager.

Terminating someone from the organization needs be, and always should be, a very difficult thing to do. There needs to be a constant reminder that it is not a faceless exercise and that a person's life is being impacted. I understand that a person owns his or her career, as well as meeting the expectations that come with the role, but it is important to keep this in mind:

• If they are not working out, maybe you shouldn't have hired them in the first place.
• If they were struggling, did you work to develop them up to their potential or out of the organization in a clear and respectful manner.

In the case of the story that I heard the other day, the manager should have been front and centre to look the person in the eye and deliver the difficult news, if for no other reason than the respect owed to the person. 

And this brings us back to why I think it's the worst example of Leadership I've heard in a while. Why would anyone want to work for an organization that doesn't want to take ownership, avoids what is difficult, and doesn't respect the most important asset they have? I will also point out that the manager has a boss, and that boss has a boss, and this situation most likely reflects something bigger than just one person. It probably reflects a company culture and maybe that is why they are struggling.

What makes this story even more interesting is two days after being terminated the company called the woman back and offered her a job. She of course declined.

Rightfully so in my mind.

iamgpe