Did you ever wish your employees would come to work singing that tune! Well maybe not, but I’m sure you can conjure the image in your mind and I’m sure it has a certain appeal. After all, your employees are the ones you create the value in your products and services; so it makes sense to want to keep them motivated.
As the industrial and then electronics revolution evolved work evolved along with it. Today’s employees are less relied on for labour and manual operation than their grand parents. As machines and equipment replaced manual operations the employee’s role changed along with it. Today’s employees are relied upon to keep the machines and process running. At first it was with wrenches and screwdrivers now it’s with a touch screen. Work simply evolves along with technology. Nowadays, if you want to stain competitive, you need to invest in people. You may go out and get some specialist for a certain task but technology is changing so fast nowadays that today’s specialist is tomorrow’s dinosaur. So hiring employee with learning skills and development potential is your real insurance policy to sustained growth.
If we look at one of the best, if not “the best”, employer of our times, Google, we can learn something interesting. It ‘s not what you might think. When asked what made employees at Google happy, the number one reason was:” they feel that the work itself is rewarding”. Google provides meaningful work for its employees. Sure it also goes out of it’s way to provide a conducive environment that fosters creativity and it encourages the creative process. By it’s actions Google the three key ingredients to happy and motivated employees:
-Meaningful work that is rewarding
-An opportunity to participate and contribute
-Feedback for good work in the form of perks, freedom and a good remuneration.
Are you providing the same to your employees?
Turn on your TV or open a newspaper and you are bombarded by messages. Every one fighting for your attention and hard earned money. There used to be something called journalistic ethic, papers of records or a trusted face on the nightly news. But with the advent of advertorials and the repeal of the Smith Mundt act, in the USA, it’s becoming harder to sift the seeds from the chaff. There are enough examples of political corruption and dubious laws that work in favor of large corporations rather than the public at large that most people don’t trust their politicians anymore. Even doctors and health care in general have eroded the trust of the public; we are told to get flu shots only to end up with the flu and be told that the shot is ineffective this year but that we can fight the flu by buying so extra medicine, really?
In the mean time geopolitical games are being acted out and we are fed false or incomplete information about what is really happening. Take the example of Ukraine: we are led to believe that evil Russia is trying to destabilize it; when in essence it is the western expansion of NATO that has destabilized the region. And now with the appointments of “instantly naturalized foreigner” as finance minister in the new Ukrainian government, it has become quite clear the west is behind the movement. Oh yes, there was also that infamous phone call conversation from the US state departments own Victoria Nuland where is clearly states her views on the EU and who is behind the whole Maidan revolution. Who can you trust nowadays?
This is why I believe that trust, in your person, in your product, in what you or your company says has the potential of becoming the true currency of the 21st century.
Is it just me or does it seem that, lately, a week does not go by without a policeman shooting some poor kid. I believe that the black victims tend to make the news as this smells of racialism, keeps viewers glued to their television sets and sells newspapers. Whether it’s “hands up don’t shoot”, toy guns or “I can’t breath” the slogans have captured people’s attention and the likes of reverend Manning are quick to capitalize on the incident to advance their own agendas. However the situation is tragic, these events are fanning the flames of racism and young people are dying.
Now, I can understand that it is not easy being a police officer. They put their lives on the line every day for the good of the community and we have to respect that. But why do they have to shoot to kill? What happened to shooting people in the leg, or the arm/shoulder that reaches for a presumed weapon?
Is it necessary for them to unload their guns into the perpetrators? It would seem to me that if they were unsure about a situation, especially situations involving teens, wounding would be the appropriate choice of action.
Having listened to my father talk about his experience as a policeman in the early fifties, it also appears that the car has transformed the relationship between policemen and citizen. Before police cars came to be, policemen walked their beat and were much closer to the people. By walking around they had time to talk to the citizens on the street, building relationships. By being more accessible, they were more respected and trusted. They were more likely to personally know the kids, and their parents, and therefore less likely to pull out their guns on anyone.