Four Easy Ways to Make Remote Employees Work

I had a discussion yesterday with a client about hiring an out of territory sales rep. The company has never done it before and is skeptical a salesperson could be effective in this role.

In the current state, that may be true for them, but continued growth - particularly in niche industries - is eventually going to demand it. Being able to do so earlier will open a wider and more skilled talent pool to the company.

Here are four things that can make it easier and more likely to be successful:

Upgrade Core Technology

This does not need to be expensive. The odds are you already own most of these things, you're just not using them. The following tools are critical:

  1. VOIP Telephony: The phone system should have the ability to have a phone with an internal extension anywhere with internet access and should have a mobile app that allows 
  2. Cloud Apps: Ideally these are web-based, but if you have a Citrix environment or a terminal server, that's just fine. The point is, people should be able to access all of your core applications from the field at any time.
  3. Instant Messenger: You already own this, your employees probably just aren't using it yet.

And the following tools are nice to have:

  1. CRM: If you aren't using it yet you should be anyway - no matter how many salespeople you have. If you are onboarding remote salespeople, CRM will be critical to making them successful - particularly if there are backoffice or internal sales and service folks they will be working on the same customers with.
  2. Collaboration tool like Slack which is a great way to organize subject or project-specific internal conversations
  3. Video Conferencing: You may already own something that offers this as well (Google Hangouts, Microsoft Skype) but it takes some heavy management to get people to use it regularly. Video can really shrink the distance between a central team and remote workers.

Organize Your Content

Odds are your information is fragmented across the company. Using a tool like Google Drive, Microsoft SharePoint, or even Box or Dropbox, organize the information that the prospective employees will need to do their jobs. Your employees should get away from storing things in their own hierarchies and on their own devices anyways.

This exercise will also force you and your employees to rationalize what's really important and identify clear gaps in your documentation. Work to fill these gaps over time as you on-board new employees and get them up to speed.

Institute Management Reporting

"Management by walking around" is a great discipline but in the modern work environment it needs to be paired with some level of regular reporting and data-based analysis.

Work with management to develop the core, key management report - both activity-based and output based - that gives them an understanding of what's happening in their department at a macro level. Ideally, generate these from a centralized system (e.g. CRM, order management, production management) rather than asking people to compile them manually.

Once again, this is just a good management discipline. Regardless of whether you're adding remote workers you should be doing this; but in order to be able to manage remote workers this is absolutely critical.

Hire Millennials

That's right. Seek out and hire millennials.

They will challenge you in some ways - they'll ask for more flexible schedules, they will want more feedback from their managers, and they will want a collaborative and fun work environment. Embrace it.

They will also show you how they can be effective under these alternative arrangements. You will need to work with them to find the balance between flexible and traditional.

Subscribe to Ronan Consulting Group - Steve's Blog by Email

How to hire top talent as a mid-sized business

Ronan Consulting Group has being doing a lot of recruiting work recently. Though we don't focus on selling recruiting services, when there are roles our clients need to fill in order for our initiatives to be successful we will source those roles in many cases.

We consistently need to answer the question: How does a smaller company compete with larger companies for top talent? Over time, I think we've found a few good answers.

There are a few more complicated ways to find good people I'll cover in a later post. Today we will look at how to fill senior-mid-manager and senior positions by hiring people from larger companies. 

Things to do now

1. (easy) Ignore every article you see about millenials. They are all wrong. Recruiting high-value millenials isn't that different than recruiting any high-talent person. The term "millenials in the workplace" is, 9 times out of 10, a thinly veiled complaint about how things aren't what they used to be. In reality, employee expectations have shifted across the board. This is going to feel strange for a lot of SMB CEOs. But it is what it is and, ultimately, if you want to be able to hire the best people you'll need to make some adjustments to be able to compete for them.

2. (easy) Have someone independently look at titles in you organization and re-align them to the norms of the industry. Titles carry more weight in larger organizations and will matter to new people you bring in. It will also communicate seniority more accurately and help avoid miscommunication about responsibility down the road

3. (hard) Start to realign current HR policies that deal with flexibility. It is likely new employees are going to negotiate more for flexibility than for pay. The problem is that giving one person more flexibility than others in is much more visible than paying them more and it is more likely to cause consternation with current staff. Save yourself the headache and begin implementing low-cost, low-impact flexibility standards to everyone ahead of time. Examples can include more forgiving work-from-home policies, reducing the years of service required for more vacation time, and liberalizing part-time work arrangements like 3 or 4 days per week.

Things to do during the search

1. (medium) Really think about the type of work the new person needs to do and make parallels to other industries and lines of work. A good search is going to need to be broad. Locking yourself into narrow industries or roles is unlikely to yield the most qualified pool of candidates. As an example, for a high-end hardware manufacturer, we looked to design-heavy industries like jewelry, fashion, and luxury automotive. We found a great candidate who would not have been on our radar if we had stayed in construction, architecture, or manufacturing - all of which appear to be more directly related.

2. (harder than it sounds) Use a rigorous, consistent interview process. We start every applicant with a short phone screen. This is the airport test and to make sure their experience is likely a good fit. The next step is a thorough in-person interview that gives us insight into how the person thinks, works, and interacts with peers. This should contain at least one "case study"-like discussion. I will cover my thoughts on this in a separate post. They are extensive.

3. (easy) Ideally find at least three good candidates to interview but don't make this too much of a constraint. If you find the perfect person, they crush the interview process, and you think you can make the role attractive enough for them to accept, don't play around. The right person can and does come around on the first try sometimes. Trust your instinct when it happens. If you're not sure, then have at least three candidates to compare against each other. But don't feel like you need to hire one of them. If your perception of the role evolves or none of the candidates seem like they fit, keep looking. Making the wrong hire is bad for everyone and is painful to recover from - it's better to just extend the recruiting process.

4. (medium) Be open about the company and encourage your people to be very transparent about what it's like to work there. If most people come in at 7:30 and leave at 8, tell them. If the role has turned over a lot, tell them. If they are going to need to shoestring some tools together where they probably have very sophisticated tools at their current job, tell them. There's no sense in getting a great person and having the role and company not match what you told them during the interview process. That always ends badly.

 

If you do these things you are guaranteed to find the right person and keep them forever.*

 

*This does not represent a guarantee. There is no substitute for good judgement.

Subscribe to Ronan Consulting Group - Steve's Blog by Email

Hiring an NFL Head Coach for Your Company

@JennyVrentas has an interesting MMQB piece up with a behind-the-scenes look at the hiring process for NFL head coaches. It's a great read for hiring managers and candidates seeking an executive-level or leadership job.

I just tweeted out a mini-essay on my takeaways, but here they are for posterity:

Takeaway #1: As hire As, Bs hire Cs. Evaluate potential leaders on how they build their teams, not just what they have done

The longest block of time in most interviews is spent going over the candidate’s prospective staff. Coaching positions are in flux at this time of year, and you’re not always able to get the assistant you want, so candidates have to present a depth chart—three or four deep—of their top choices at every position from the coordinators to the position coaches. Be prepared to defend your choices if the team doesn’t like them. One owner, for example, vetoed a candidate’s third choice for a coordinator during their first interview.

Discussing specific people isn't practical for most jobs, but talking about profiles and people you have hired - or wanted to hire - is. Hiring managers and candidates should spend time talking about how they will build a great team and what they will do when it isn't working. If you hire a specialist for a leadership position based solely on what they specialize in you're probably going to end up with the wrong person.

Takeaway #2: Have a plan + flexibility to adapt. Cannot apply a system or template rigidly-must account for ability to execute

But what is the coach’s plan for making it work with players the team is committed to financially, such as a disgruntled star who’s earning more than the coach, or a regressing quarterback? Adam Gase won over the Dolphins by explaining his philosophy that coaching a quarterback can’t be one-size-fits all, backed by his experience blending different offensive systems and styles to best suit the spectrum of QBs he’s coached: Tim Tebow, Peyton Manning, Jay Cutler and now Ryan Tannehill.

Having a discussion about "best practices" can be valuable both for understanding the depth at which a candidate understands what they have done in the past AND how those best/leading practices should be applied or disposed of. If someone has always done something the same way and it's worked every time that still doesn't mean it will work for your company. Make sure they will give careful consideration to how to appropriately adjust their favorite methods and processes to match your strategy and, most importantly, your culture. 

Takeaway #3: #changemanagement is an integral part of every job. You need to hire well and then get them to work well together

Here’s how one candidate answered the adversity question: He cited a time when his team traded for a player whom he soon realized had trouble learning, to the point where it had affected his playing time with his previous team. The coach spent $600 an hour to meet with a sports and performance psychologist, learning how to become a better teacher to a slow learner. The player went on to have a career-best season under his new coach.

Change management isn't a formula - it's a sensibility. If a candidate has a good sense for how to manage change in the organization in both directions, the odds are they will be able to execute.

Takeaway #4: Ask for input. Somebody has been in a similiar position somewhere before. Their advice isn't available on Google

Charley Casserly is frequently hired as a consultant for coaching searches. Implied in he article is how many candidates are hired, fired, and interviewed every year. You can't look up what happens in those rooms and, thought you can read articles like this to give you a flavor, it doesn't replace the nuance a smart person in the room will be able to articulate.

Hiring managers should talk to people who have made similar hires and learn the most valuable pieces of information they have pulled out of interviews. Bring in a consultant if you don't have a lot of this experience or if you feel you need a different point of view. 

Candidates should talk to people who have been on these types of interviews and have landed these jobs. Talk about the process; talk about the conversation.

Hiring is hard. Making big career changes is hard. A good hiring process is a good conversation. And unlike the NFL, if you don't find the right person you can just keep looking.

Subscribe to Ronan Consulting Group - Steve's Blog by Email

The Culture of Successful Projects and the Superbowl

As has been noted ad-naseum today, last night's Superbowl commercials were decidedly more subdued than in past years and many brands made a clear pivot to conveying more "authenticity" in their brands. I would like to think this is a good thing, but there were a few brands who...well, let's charitably say they didn't do this very well.

The worst sequence of ads reminded me of the characteristics of dysfunctional project teams. It came from InBev's Anheuser-Busch who managed to turn themselves in a bully with three commercials. I couldn't help but think how emblematic they were of my least favorite managers and implementation partners. Let's go through their sequence:

First, they aired a commercial intended to convince people to return to Budweiser by mocking craft beers and the people who drink them. Full disclosure: I am a bit of a craft beer fan. What you'll usually find in my fridge is either from Two Roads (Probably their "Road 2 Ruin" double IPA) or from our local Stamford brewery, Half Full. Let's first say that this campaign doesn't make any sense: Budweiser is in the process of aggressively buying craft breweries and marketing them as "craft" brands trying to win back some of the 15% of the market that hundreds of local breweries have taken from them. But then, they try and do that by mocking - without any relevant content - the people who enjoy these products. It's a really unfortunate, bullying approach.

This is Heidi. See, we love dogs!

This is Heidi. See, we love dogs!

Then, that lost puppy commercial. Trust me when I say that my wife and I love puppies like everyone else in America. We have a dog. She was a puppy once and we enjoyed that. I "like" puppy pictures on Facebook when my friends welcome new canine members of their families. I legitimately enjoy puppies. Despite this, my wife and I looked at each other after this Budweiser ad and said "That was basically offensive." It felt like Budweiser was trying to manipulate us into liking them - not that they were making an authentic connection. It was focused on creating a tenuous emotional connection to their logo rather than anything to do with their product. It didn't work for us.

Finally, AB aired the obligatory "drink responsibly" commercial also containing, for some inexplicable reason, a dog. How about a wife and kids? Maybe families of someone else on the road that night? Anyway, I actually didn't have much of an issue with this ad in isolation but found it to be problematic in their sequence.

So, in about 90 total seconds, InBev AB:

  1. Mocked everyone who doesn't like their product
  2. Tried to emotionally manipulate us into liking their corporate logo with a commercial that had nothing to do with their product
  3. Insisted that they are good guys because they want people to be "responsible" with their product and protect their dogs or families, or something.

Insult your opinion. Try to break you down emotionally with messaging unrelated to the main topic at-hand. Protect themselves from blowback by insisting they are good guys and only have your best interests at the top of their mind. Sound familiar?

This happens on big, hard projects all the time and it's the best leaders and managers who can craft a culture that redirects these tendencies. It only takes one person on the team who embodies AB's approach to damage everyone on your team. This will not only damage the mentalities of the people on your team, but create an unhelpful, unproductive and highly political environment that will make it difficult to get meaningful things done. 

There are many approaches to avoiding this type of team culture, but I'll outline five of my favorites here:

  1. Repeat early, often, and in every venue, that all opinions are important. Thank people for sharing their opinions even when they are not necessarily productive. Eventually be direct (and nice) about your viewpoint, but during the process of developing it be thoughtful about every idea and opinion. Avoid mockery or belittlement at all costs and never, ever condescend someone because of an opinion they provide. Assume they arrived at their opinion thoughtfully and probe it - don't seek to discredit it.
  2. Avoid the blame game. Things will go wrong. People will make mistakes. At least once (probably more), someone on the team will make a mistake that requires everyone else do a lot of work to correct it. That's unfortunate, but it will happen. These projects aren't hard because they require everyone to work hundreds of hours towards linear goals: they are hard because there are hundreds of interlocking decisions, ideas and goals that have to interact perfectly. The biggest sentence to avoid: "How could this happen?" There is almost never a productive answer that will help you move forward. The answer is that it's because people are people and you're asking them to do something difficult. One of my favorite quotes to use here comes from HBO's "Too Big to Fail" - [paraphrased] "If you want to go back in time and figure out what happened we can do that later, but right now we need a solution and we need it quickly."

  3. Keep the main thing the main thing. Be the person to redirect the conversation. People will try to use their version of Labrador puppies to sway others to their point of view. Don't let them. You need to be the person to (again, nicely) redirect the conversation to the main question you are trying to answer. There will be lots of good stories, lots of interesting ideas and lots of ways to never solve your hardest problems. State the intent of every conversation or meeting and make sure the dialogue is productive and stays on track.
  4. Meet people where they are. Make authentic connections by being interested in their interests. Do not force generic tropes or mindless sentimentality on them - make an impact by listening to their stories, picking up on queues about their interests and openly expressing interest. I had a client with a division in the Netherlands during the 2010 World Cup. Many of us Americans knew very little about soccer, but some of our team members talked to our Dutch colleagues about the game, its cultural implications, why it was important to them, etc. Many of those discussions turned into real friendships which, in turn, led to a wonderful, productive work environment. It's only because those were real conversations. 
  5. Own it. This is repeated so frequently that I hesitated putting it on this list, but I've seen this at so many clients I feel it still needs to be said. After Russell Wilson's game-ending interception last night, Pete Carroll went to the media and completely owned the turnover. It wasn't a bad pass, there wasn't anything wrong with the route or the receiver, it was a play that he wanted to run that just didn't work out and that was his decision. I loved that. When things go wrong and it starts to point back to you or one of your team members, don't say "well yeah but I'm a good guy because I want you to drink responsibly and I do nice things for people all the time and I give my time to charities and I donate to my alma-mater and...and...and." Just own the mistake, apologize and move on. People will respect it and forgive the mistakes.

No matter what AB's Superbowl ads were, I wasn't going to suddenly start drinking Budweiser. But I could have at least enjoyed the ads and not thought less of the company. Instead, they embodied everything bad about poorly run projects.

Poorly run projects are just awful: they wreck careers, they destroy people's self-confidence, they industrialize an organization's worst cultural tendencies. They represent horrible opportunity cost because good projects can serve as the spark to turn companies around.

Don't run your projects like Anheuser-Busch. Run them like a carefree Labrador puppy trekking back to his best horse friend after sleeping on a not-so-smart craft-brew fan's couch the night before because he had integrity and cared about being responsible.

See what I mean?

Subscribe to Ronan Consulting Group - Steve's Blog by Email

Three ways to think differently in 2015, Part 3 of 3: Technology and Talent

Technology and Talent: The under-rated link between simple tools and employee happiness

In the running of a company of whatever size, the hardest thing to manage is usually this: the delicate balance between the necessity for centralized control and the equally strong need for employees to have enough autonomy to make maximum contributions to the company and derive satisfaction from their work. To put it another way, the problem is exactly where within the company to lodge the power to make different kinds of decisions.”
— Thomas McCraw, American Business, 1920–2000: How It Worked

The tools organizations use have a direct impact on the quality of life of their employees. Good tools make people’s work lives better; bad tools make them much worse. Yet, hard-to-use tools continue to take center-stage for a significant portion of companies’ users. Why are we still accepting poor usability as a matter of course in the enterprise? Today we will discuss some of the reasons for this and look at several techniques to help you and your peers in leadership prioritize their people when making technology decisions.

The McCraw quote above is a broader expression of why companies often choose to implement technology: the need to establish control over business processes. This is most transparent in ERP implementations where the very concept is rooted in establishing more controlled business processes. Something we used to say about ERP systems is that even though they make some individual jobs more difficult, there is benefit to the overall organization that outweighs it. This type of thinking is still used to justify avoiding customizations or third-party bolt-ons that would make an individual’s job easier. These turn into “process fixes” which, translated to normal human language, means shifting unpleasant burdens away from the tool and onto the people doing the work. [I redacted an Uber joke that was here – we’ll open that can of worms another day]

Big technology implementations are really hard and take an enormous amount of people’s personal attention and effort. The reason people are generally ok with this is because they think they will benefit from the changes. But too often, when you look at less successful implementations, you see that things actually became more difficult for a substantial number of people.

The Problem with Complexity

Making people's jobs harder, of course, creates problems with “efficiency” and “effectiveness” and “productivity” – the pinnacle of talent management insight. All of these certainly suffer as a result of lackluster tools. The nice thing is that all three can be measured and discretely improved and they’ve been discussed extensively in research related to technology projects. In my mind, they also are only important to a point. Many companies who are focused on these metrics have reached a point of diminishing returns by now anyway.

There is an outcome that you cannot really measure: the connection between the tools and people’s happiness in their jobs. In most situations, people will not draw a direct connection between the clumsiness of their jobs and why they aren’t terribly happy performing them.

There are many reasons for this. Job happiness doesn’t represent a single factor – there is a complex matrix of factors that are weighted differently for different individuals. There are personal and professional reasons, tangible and abstract; physical and metaphysical; social and individual. Talent surveys do their best to pinpoint the source and quality of employee satisfaction, but even the people who create those surveys will tell you that establishing causality through them is an inherently flawed science. Fundamentally, most research agrees that a primary source of people’s job happiness (“satisfaction” is a loaded and misleading buzzword that I try to stay away from) is their feeling of personal connection to the overall mission of the company, and their belief in that mission.

Rosabeth Moss Kanter (@RosabethKanter), a professor at Harvard Business School, has done some wonderful research in this area. Among my favorite of her quotes is the following from a 2011 article called “How Great Companies Think Differently” (which won the McKinsey award for best business article that year). Kanter posits:

…people can be trusted to care about the fate of the whole enterprise—not just about their own jobs or promotions—and to catalyze improvements and innovations without waiting for instructions or sticking to the letter of a job description.
— Kanter, “How Great Companies Think Differently”

She prefaces this with a lengthy examination of why self-organization is desirable and why you don’t want to pigeonhole your people into overly rigid work structures. When the tools and processes people are using consume most of their time, they do not have capacity to accept change, let alone drive it. When those activities become visibly disconnected from the overall institutional mission, we need to expect they will lose a feeling of connection with the enterprise, experience less happiness about their jobs, and this will likely snowball into a number of symptoms of disconnected employees.

Arguments in Defense of the Status Quo

There are common responses to this critique I have had client leaders use as an argument against disruptive change. None of them are focused on the user. 

  • “Our retention rates are above industry averages, therefore our employees’ job satisfaction is acceptable.”

This is an incorrect attribution of causality. The assumptions in this statement include a) industry average retention rates are acceptable. Industry benchmarks can be directionally helpful, but some industries are way behind when adopting change; b) there is adequate mobility in the local market for people to change jobs at will. This is not true for many areas. Retention rates are important for a lot of reasons, but unless your tools are so bad that they are driving people away (which at this point in history would mean using UNIVAC-cards), they don’t really indicate satisfaction with tools one way or the other.

  • “Our HR surveys say our satisfaction rates are high!”

Great! This is important. It also probably means you’re compensating for your weaknesses in other areas. Like you’re giving lots of compensation and a whole bunch of PTO to people may be masking the fact that they really don’t like their jobs. The dimensions these surveys measure tend to move as a group. This doesn’t discredit the importance of the surveys and your ratings, but we need to recognize there are limits to measuring human attitudes. 

  • “Our leaders have many years of experience at our company – we promote from within so they understand the complexity truly required in our business.”

This is also great for many reasons, but it doesn’t really speak to the potential problem. This can also mean that people have accepted your processes and tools as “normal” even more and may be less likely to think changing them is feasible.

What do we do about it?

In general, enterprise technology is too complicated. There are young companies trying to change that (@Netsuite, @Zuora, @Zendesk, @SlackHQ, @Asana just to name a few), but solutions that are currently used at most organizations are overly complex. The complexity of those solutions is made up of three factors:

  1. Business processes
  2. System capabilities (including their relationships with each other)
  3. The cycle of inertia

Business process and system capabilities are complexities that most business leaders understand well. The cycle of inertia is harder to grasp and what, in my experience, leads to the least user-centered enterprise systems. Paradoxically, it’s often the users themselves who advocate for this cycle and their leadership that promotes it. 

The cycle of inertia is as follows:

  • Evolution: Organizations do things in a certain way and change it gradually over time to accommodate immediate business needs
  • Stabilization: Because they are no longer immediate needs, they stop simplifying and innovating how they do these things which eventually leads to an unnecessary amount of complexity in the business. This complexity is absorbed by the people who do the work as it is integrated into their jobs
  • Improvement: When the time comes to evaluate “improving” these things, there is resistance to change because people know how to do the more complex processes really well and they perceive the change as risky to their personal value. The improvement is stripped down to accomplish incremental benefits in the areas of most immediate importance to the users.
  • Inertia: Once the “improvement” is implemented, it ends up creating even more complexity because the incremental improvements add variation to the number of processes, data or systems. Since the organization has convinced themselves it is required for their business, they interpret this complexity as maturation. The cycle starts again.

The bigger the project and more people are involved, the harder it is to avoid this cycle. The only really effective way to overcome fully counteract inertia is by strong leadership support, but there are a few questions you should ask that can make it more likely you will be successful.

Key Questions to Ask

When talking about a prospective project, planning the project, and undergoing design, always ask these questions:

  1. Is this process absolutely necessary for our business? Can any steps be removed or variations be eliminated? The goal is to simplify. Even if the business says they need a certain process, make sure you understand what the intended outcome of that process is. Users are usually correct in insisting they need to do things in a certain way to meet their requirements; the real question is are the requirements important in the first place.
  2. What part of our business mission does this feature, software or process support? If it can’t be easily mapped – if it’s clumsily shoehorned into a part of the mission statement or if its relationship to strategy is heavily assumption driven (e.g. the strategy says we’re growing our services division and we’re assuming those services may be custom products, but that has never actually been established) then it’s not important enough to put effort into.
  3. Is the new system, bolt-on or customization required to make the system easier to use or to support a critical business process? Do not purchase additional software if it doesn’t make things significantly better from a usability or functionality standpoint. If it’s going to be supporting a specific business process, refer to question #1. It it’s critical for the business process but doesn’t make things easier, look for another option. Every additional piece of your ecosystem makes things become geometrically more complex to support. Make sure it’s justified by making the business processes simpler.

And one special question. You know if this applies to your organization. For systems that are replacing Excel or Access: Is the new system going to be easier to use than Excel and/or Access? Excel-intensive operations yield really smart Excel users. People who are great at Excel are not going to want to switch to a system with basically the same functionality they have today but without the flexibility Excel provides. Make sure the system adds value to the user experience – not just to the enterprise.

Technology Characteristics to Prioritize

These three technology characteristics have the most substantial impact on usability and the perception of usability. Weigh these strongly when evaluating a new solution anywhere in the business.

  1. User interface: Does the interface look like something employees use at home? This is too often minimized in the interest of functionality or cost. Make no mistake: for systems, form is function. If the interface isn’t as friendly as Amazon or Zappos or Zillow, it will not be considered user-friendly. Be specific and don’t be afraid to be critical. As a side-note, when working with smaller vendors don’t be afraid to communicate your ideas on how the products can be improved. Many startups will work with you on improving their products and actually rely on that type of feedback.
  2. Mobile: Will the system by available to my employees on more than one platform and does it at a minimum allow, at a maximum encourage mobility? This assumes you have a hardware policy that allows laptops, tablets and smartphones for these employees. If you have any group that is still tethered to their desks, think very long and hard about whether it is truly necessary. Mobility doesn’t just mean working from home; mobility means the ability to work in flexible teams around the office, hold group working sessions and, when necessary, work from home, hotels, airports, etc.
  3. Integration: Do the activities supported by this software interact with other groups or systems? If so, is that integration native or at least buildable? It needs to be. If you are integrating a system that will require users to complete dual entry or run reports to make the data portable you’re purchasing the wrong system.

In Summary

Improve people’s tools and give them a path, a method and a reason to continue to improve them and they will be happier with their jobs. Happy people yield positive results for them and for you and good tools multiply improvement. Strive for simplicity, humanity and continuous real improvement in your tools. Who knows – maybe your job satisfaction ratings will even improve.

Subscribe to Ronan Consulting Group - Steve's Blog by Email