The Illusion Of Competence: Multitasking Our Way To Mediocrity

Date: March 1st, 2012  by William Stinnett Ph.D. L.E.T. Master Trainer GordonTraining International

“Excuse me, I have to take this call.

I will be back to this article on multitasking right after I check my e-mails, see what updates I have on Facebook, Linkedin, Twitter, and Yelp, and order those materials for my upcoming team-building workshop, decide on which airfare is best for the trip, see what that “beeping” is, check to see if the laundry is done, and listen to my daughter explain how she just has to go to another all-night party with her friends.” No problem, right? “Now, where was I? Oh, yeah! The article on multitasking! Or was it team-building? And what about that new phone that lets me download my apps faster than ever? And that little, online TV news feed in the upper corner of my computer that is keeping me constantly up-to-date on world events.”
We don’t, technically, ever really “multitask.” We switch back and forth between multiple tasks. The faster we are able to do that, the more it seems like multitasking. Does the ability to do that, however, translate into more productivity or greater efficiency? The overwhelming conclusions from scientific research indicate “no.” In fact, most studies report a decline in effectiveness on most tasks when people try to multitask. As with most skills, some people are better at “multitasking” than others. But, overall, even those who are best at it perform worse than people who attempt the same tasks without the distractions encountered with multitasking. The danger of trying to do too many things at once is, of course, less when the tasks are relatively simple and have few consequences (walking and chewing gum). But, as the complexity of the task increases and the stakes become higher (making important business decisions, driving a car), the “multitasking deficit” becomes increasingly treacherous. Some of the consequences include:

• Poor recall. People simply do not remember as much or as accurately. Information “learned” while multitasking is often forgotten or recalled incorrectly. Much of this research was done on college students preparing for exams but also has considerable application to leaders in the workplace.

• Longer time to complete tasks. It may seem counter-intuitive but multitasking actually slows people down. It takes longer to get things done. A mundane example comes from an experiment in which people were asked to perform two tasks: the first, count to 10 as fast a possible, the second, recite the alphabet from “A” to “J” as quickly as possible. Each task typically requires about two seconds. So, a person can perform both tasks in about four seconds. Next, they were asked to switch between tasks (A1, B2, C3, D4, etc.). The time to complete the task increased tremendously (15 to 30 seconds or more). There is, apparently, a certain amount of time that the brain needs for “switching.” When you leave one task, then come back to it later, it takes the brain a little time to readjust. Those little bits of time add up and when you are constantly switching back and forth, it can add considerably to the amount of time devoted to each task as well as the total. Bottlenecks are created. This is, essentially, the same thing that happens to your computer when you have too many windows open at the same time. The time required for “switching” eventually accumulates to the point that the computer slooooooooowwwwwwws dooowwwwn and eventually you have to reboot.

• Less ability to understand concepts. In some experiments, participants performed relatively well on tasks while multitasking but failed to understand the task fully. They were less able to use the information that they had “learned.” “In 2006 a team of scholars led by Karin Foerde, reported on an experiment suggesting that distraction during learning can be harmful, even if the distraction doesn’t seem to injure students’ immediate performance on their tasks….Their “weather forecasts” [their performance] under distraction were roughly as accurate as they were during the other three trials. But when they were asked afterward to describe the general probabilistic rules for that trial…, they did much worse than they did after the undistracted trials. Foerde and her colleagues argue that when the subjects were distracted, they learned the weather rules through a half-conscious system of “habit memory,” and that when they were undistracted, they encoded the weather rules through what is known as the declarative-memory system—information that is encoded in declarative memory is more flexible—that is, people are more likely to be able to draw analogies and extrapolate from it.

• More easily distracted by new, incoming information. If you saw an animated movie called “Up,” there was a talking dog who could carry on a conversation with considerable skill until distracted. In the middle of the conversation, he would suddenly say, “Squirrel!” When he returned to the conversation, he would be on a completely different subject. The same thing happens at work. During a meeting, the cell phone beeps or a new e-mail comes in on the laptop or iPad (“Squirrel”) and suddenly everyone is off on a new tangent. The original thread of the conversation is lost. The team must start over.

• Younger people who multitask a lot are no better at it than those who don’t. (Carrier, L Mark, Cheever, Nancy A, Rosen, Larry D, Benitez, Sandra, & Chang, Jennifer (2009). “Multitasking across generations: Multitasking choices and difficulty ratings in three generations of Americans”, Computers in Human Behavior, Volume 25, p483–489). Even though young, multitaskers believe that they are superior at doing many things at once, the evidence does not support that confidence. Clifford Nass, Eval Ophir, and Anthony Wagner in a classic study done at Stanford say, “We kept looking for what they’re [high multitaskers] better at, and we didn’t find it.” They say that heavy multitaskers not only are not as efficient as low multitaskers at almost everything, but they are possibly doing long term damage to their cognitive ability. They are actually becoming less capable of filtering out distracting, non-useful information than low multitaskers.

All of these ideas point to an organizational culture where there is less thinking, less understanding, less attention to detail, less mindfulness, and, ultimately, less productivity. Like many “new” things, multitasking seems desirable until it is better understood. Who wouldn’t want to get more things done in less time? But, like many gimmicks, multitasking doesn’t really deliver on its promise.
What, then, do we do with all of these devices that “help” us get more done. Like all technology, the utility of the tools depends on our ability to use them properly. Any parent who has watched his or her teenager do homework in front of the TV with the iPod attached and texting her friends at the same time understands that something has to change. Any facilitator who has tried to conduct a workshop while the participants are checking their e-mails and responding to “urgent” text messages understands that there must be a better way. There have been many articles written that give pretty good advice.

Some of the time-tested “truths” are summarized below. If you really want to get things done and produce good quality work, here are a few thoughts:

• Do one thing at a time. This doesn’t mean that if you have a project that requires twenty hours to complete that you need to work twenty hours straight. Break the task down into smaller chunks of a few minutes or a couple of hours and stay focused for that time. If it’s an article you are writing, finish gathering all of the reference material or complete the opening paragraph, etc. But, don’t stop and check your e-mail until that segment is done.

• Eliminate distractions. Don’t have the news going in the background. Don’t be carrying on a conversation with a new hire. Don’t write while you have the phone stuck to your ear. Close the door. Wear the sound reducing earphones.

• Rest occasionally. One of the reasons multitasking doesn’t work is that the brain has no time to recover. The brain is an organ that uses energy. It takes it at least a few seconds to refresh after intense usage. Sometimes even thirty seconds can go a long way toward preparing you for the next task.

• Eat right. Exercise. Etc. All of the things we have learned about fitness apply to the healthy functioning of the brain. The evidence suggests that too much multitasking not only lowers our productivity but actually reduces our IQ.

As the leader of your team, don’t encourage people to multitask. If they are going away to a training workshop, make sure that their work is covered by someone else. Don’t call them on the cell phone or send “emergency” e-mails. Don’t pull people out of meetings to ‘trouble-shoot” another project. Encourage them to plan ahead so that work doesn’t pile up. Don’t reward team members for doing a lot of things at once. When they come to you, listen to them and only to them. Don’t send the wrong signals by half listening and half checking your e-mails. Don’t make heroes of team members who work 70 hours a week. They are probably not getting any more work done than the team members who work 40 hours but set priorities and concentrate on the one or two most important things every day. It is also probable that the 70-hour-a-week team member may not be exercising the best judgment. Set the example. Learn to say “no” to new assignments once in a while. Don’t try to do everything and certainly don’t try to do it all at once.
You should also avoid the temptation to pack your leadership training with every topic you can possibly imagine. “Hey, let’s add a module on work-life balance. Great. Let’s add another one on benchmarking. Don’t forget networking and social media. We can work them all in and do it in a half-day.”
The workplace is becoming increasingly complex. In a way, the idea that we need to concentrate on fewer things at once seems counterintuitive. Shouldn’t we learn to think in more complex ways? It is seductive to believe that we will gain an “edge” by being able to do more things at once. But, so far, the evidence does not support that idea. No one knows if, in the future, we will learn to think about more than one thing at a time or at least reduce the “switching time” to near zero. But, there is nothing in the current research that indicates that as a real possibility. Human beings are just not designed that way.
© 2012 William Stinnett, Ph.D., L.E.T. Master Trainer for Gordon Training International

Do Your People Trust You?

Linda A. Hill & Kent Lineback March 2, 2012 www.blogs.hbr.org

When we talk to managers, we often ask, "Do your people trust you?"
Most are taken aback. It's not something they're often asked or a question they've even asked themselves.
After some thought, most eventually say something like, "Well, I think so. I hope so. No one's said he doesn't." In fact, as they ultimately admit, they don't really know for sure.
It's a question worth asking. Do your people trust you?
Chances are, you don't know for sure, either. If so, that's potentially a problem because your ability to elicit people's best efforts depends on their trust in you — their confidence that they can count on you to do the right thing. Your basic job as a boss is to influence others, to make a difference in what they do and in the thoughts and feelings that drive their actions. Yet, even as the person in charge, the one with authority, you can ultimately influence people only to the extent they are willing to be influenced by you. And that willingness will depend on whether they trust you. Without trust, why should people do what you ask, especially if you're asking something difficult? Why should they accept your judgment? Above all, why would they devote the care and extra effort that quality work requires? As the boss, you can demand compliance but you must earn commitment, and the coin of that realm is trust.
As we explore this topic with managers, we find it's a subject both familiar and unfamiliar.
Most people don't know how to think about it constructively. Why?
First, they often don't realize how context-sensitive trust is. Your people certainly wouldn't trust you, say, to do brain surgery on one of their children, and you would find that lack of trust completely understandable. You're not to be trusted in that context. So, when we ask, "Do your people trust you?" we're not asking about people's confidence in you as a person in general — whether, for example, they think you will repay them promptly if you borrow $10. Instead, we're really asking, "Do your people trust you as a boss?" For them to accept you as a boss, they must trust you in that context. When we delve later into the components of trust, you'll see why context is so important.
The second reason most managers feel a little lost when they think about trust is that most of us resist the idea that trust is something you can actively and consciously encourage. To say it can and should be fostered feels manipulative and self-serving. We instinctively distrust the person who exclaims, "Trust me!" We usually don't consider trust an outcome we can or should try to control directly. Sure, if we outright lie, cheat, steal, and fail to keep our word, others will consider us untrustworthy. But most of us don't consistently or purposely behave that way. We try to tell the truth, abide by the rules, honor others' rights and belongings, and if we cannot keep a promise, we explain why. For most of us, that's how we were brought up. It's who we are and so we think of trust as the outcome of simply being who we are. It's only when we occasionally — usually inadvertently — break someone's trust that we worry about it. Otherwise, trust just happens and we think that's how it should be.
But believing as a boss that trust will somehow take care of itself may not work out the way you want. You do need to think about it. And you may need to take conscious steps that make clear to others that you deserve their trust. None of those steps involves dishonesty or manipulation — on the contrary — but they do involve your being explicit about yourself, about what you know, and about the reasons behind your decisions and actions. In other words, it may require that you be more open as a boss than you might personally be inclined to be.
Indeed, the need for such openness may cut against the grain of many managers, especially new managers, who believe that as the boss they're able to take action without having to explain it to everyone involved.
What this means and how you do it will become more clear in the next two blogs, in which we will explore each of the two components of trust — competence and character. For people to trust you as a boss, they must believe you know what to do as a boss. At one time or another, we've all had bosses of whom people said, "He doesn't know the business" or "She doesn't understand what we do." No one would trust you to do brain surgery because you're incompetent in that context.
Character is equally important. It refers to your intentions — what you're trying to do, your goals and values as a boss. If, for example, people think you're only out for yourself, driven by blind ambition, and don't care about them, the group, or the work, they will distrust your character, no matter how much you know. You need competence and character both to earn your people's trust.
In the next blog, we'll explore competence, what it means to "know" as a boss and what you can legitimately do to demonstrate competence. (No, it doesn't mean you're supposed to be the expert.) And in the blog after that, we'll delve into character, a much more elusive concept that obviously can vary greatly with the context. But we'll try to say some constructive things about it, and how you can foster it, that apply broadly.

Don't take trust for granted, or believe it just happens, because virtually all you do as a boss begins with people's trust in you.

Linda A. Hill is the Wallace Brett Donham Professor Business Administration at Harvard Business School. Kent Lineback spent many years as a manager and an executive in business and government. They are the coauthors of Being the Boss: The 3 Imperatives for Becoming a Great Leader (HBR Press, 2011).

Selling Commodities

By Dave Kahle  Copyright MMXII

"How do you create a perceived value to differentiate yourself from the competition when you are both selling a commodity?"

That's a question I'm often asked in my seminars. It uncovers a problem that is spreading to almost every industry. The rapid pace of technological development and our ultra-competitive global economy means that no one can keep a competitive edge in their product for very long. Develop a hot new product or service and before you can take your first check to the bank, a competitor has a hotter or cheaper version. As a result, customers are more and more inclined to view your product or service as a commodity - no real difference between you and the next guy.

This complicates life for the sales person. In some cases, you are selling exactly the same thing as your competitor. In other cases, your product may not be exactly the same, but the customer views your product as a commodity with no real differences between what you sell and what your competitor offers. How much real difference is there between Coke and Pepsi after all?

Regardless of the situation in which you find yourself, the problem for the sales person is the same - getting the business in the face of the customer's perception of your "me too" product or service.

So, what do you do?

To put it simply, you must detail and communicate the important ways your offering differs from your competitor's offering.

That's easier said than done. To do so effectively, you need to spend some time thinking and preparing. And that means that you must carefully consider the two most important elements of the sale - your offering, and your customer. In this column, we're going to focus on one part of that equation - your offering.

Granted, your product may be exactly the same as the competition, but the totality of your offering may be dramatically different. I use the word "offering" to indicate every aspect of the purchasing decision - not just the product. For example, the customer buys the product from a company - yours or the other guys. The customer buys it from a sales person - you or the competitor. Your company and you are part of the "offering." In addition, there may be differences in your terms, delivery, your customer-service capabilities, your follow-up, your return policy, your value-added services, etc. All of these are part of your "offering."

The product may be identical, but everything else about your offering may be different. For example, let's say you are contemplating purchasing a new Taurus. You have identical price quotes from two dealers. The product is the same, and the price is the same. However, one dealer is close by, the other across town. One dealer has a reputation for great customer service; the other has no such reputation. The sales person for the first dealer is the brother of an old high school friend, while the sales person for the second dealer is a bit cocky and pushy. The first dealer has a clean, comfortable establishment, while the second one is cramped, cluttered and dirty.

From whom do you buy your Taurus? Of course you buy it from the first dealer. Not because of any differences in the product or the price, but because of differences in the offering. Got the idea? There is a whole lot more to a decision to buy than just the product or the price.

Your first job is to identify those differences. Here are some very specific steps you can take today.

1. Think about everything that is associated with the product when a customer purchases it. Create several categories, and label columns on a piece of paper with the names of those categories. For example, the first column could be headed with the word "company," the second with the word "sales person," the third with "terms." Continue in this way, identifying every aspect of the offering and placing each of those components at the top of a column.

2. Now, consider each column one at a time, and list all the ways that your offering differs from your competitor's in that column. For example, your company may be locally owned as opposed to your competitor's branch of a national company. Or you may be physically closer to the customer, or larger, smaller, newer, older, etc. After you've exhausted one column, move on to the others, filling in the details as you go.

3. This exercise will typically reveal dozens (and in some cases hundreds) of specific, detailed differences. Far too many than you can easily communicate to the customer. So, your next step is to pick out those differences that are most important to your customer. Keep in mind that often what you see as important may not be viewed that way by your customers.

At one point in my career, I worked for a company that celebrated its 100th year anniversary. That was unusual. No other competitors had been in business nearly that long. The company decided to make a big deal about it. A history of the company was written, brochures printed, even murals depicting significant moments in the company's history were painted on the walls of the corporate office. We all thought it was important.

Our customers, however, didn't care. After respectfully listening to our boasting, their response was some form of "So what?" In other words, our 100 years didn't mean anything to them. In no way did it make their jobs easier, simplify their lives, or make them more important to their companies. What we thought was important turned out to be irrelevant from our customers' perspective.

Don't make the mistake we made. Instead, take the time to critically analyze your list, and eliminate those items that are not important to your customer, that don't impact their jobs or make a difference to them. You should be left with a handful of items.

4. One more step to the preparation. Translate each of those items into statements of benefit to the customer. For example, your company may be local, while your competitor ships from 50 miles away. So what? What does that mean to your customer? You could translate that item of difference into a benefit by saying something like this: "As opposed to some other suppliers, we're just 15 minutes from your plant. This means that you can get quick delivery of emergency shipments, as well as rapid response to any problem that might develop. So, you'll have potentially less downtime in the plant, and of course, less stress and pressure on you."

Now that you've professionally prepared, you are ready to communicate those differences to your customer. You need to point them out in an organized and persuasive presentation.

Prepare a sell sheet with each of the differences noted as a bullet. Next to each bullet, have a few comments that capsulize the benefit statements you prepared. Then, meet with your customer, lay the sheet down in front of him/her, and talk down through it, explaining each point as you go.

Treat it like you would any other well-done presentation. Be sensitive to your customer's reaction, and ask for feedback as you work down through the list. Say, "How does that sound?" or "Does that make sense to you?" and emphasize those things that seem to be more important to your customer. Then, leave that sheet with your customer.

I'm always amazed at the number of sales people who are confounded over the customer's perception that their product is just like the other guys, when those sales people have done nothing to show the customer how it is different.

As always, if you have done a good job of analyzing, preparing, and communicating, your customer's perception should be altered, and you gain the business.

If you haven't done well at this, then your customer will continue to see no difference between buying it from you and buying from the next guy. And, if you haven't shown him/her sufficient reason to buy it from you, then he shouldn't.

From the customer's point of view, if your offering is just like the competitor's, then the customer is absolutely correct in buying from the cheaper source. However, if there is any difference between your offering and your competitors', then the responsibility is totally yours to show the customer that difference. Follow the process described here, and you'll have far fewer customers treating you like a commodity.

You can reach David at www.davikahle.com

11 Reasons You May Want to Raise Prices in 2012:

From my good friend Joe Ellers, March 5, 2012

Hi!  So, I've been getting some questions in from your fellow sales pros out in the field, about my recent emails concerning raising prices in a "down economy"

Here's some helpful ideas incase you're struggling with this: 

If You're on the fence about raising prices or don't think you need to, Consider these:

10 Reasons You May Want to Raise Prices:

1. You need a nice way to Fire lower tier or problem-customers you would rather not even sell to.

2. You're 'busting at the seems' but don't want to expand your company.

3. Your raw material prices are going up and you need to pass along the increase.

4. You're already selling at lower prices than your competitors are when you know that 'price' is not the deciding factor for your customer base.

5. Everyone else is raising prices so you want to jump on the bandwagon.

6. You know your customers will pay 'anything'and you want the opportunity to cash-in by raising prices a bit.

7. You want to add more value to your customers but need to bump up your prices a little to cover the costs.

8. You want to raise prices on NEW customers so you attract a more desirable type of customer base.

9. You want higher quantity orders, so you're raising prices on smaller orders to encourage orders of larger quantities.

10. You're an opportunist and just want more money! 

11. You've just now figured out that the reason your company is going under is because you're not charging enough, so you need to raise prices just to stay in business.

Ok, Having said all this, raising prices is NOT for everyone. Some companies simply can't justify raising prices.

Hope this helps...

Visit Joe at www.JoeEllers.com 

Don't Dismiss Your Gen X Talent

Sylvia Ann Hewlett Feb. 16, 2012 www.blogs.hbr.org

Is the tide finally turning?

The Labor Department recently reported that the number of Americans quitting their jobs has begun to rise. Although the number is still quite low, it is a tentative sign that labor market mobility, which had petrified during the recession, has started to recover. Employers trusting a stagnant economy to keep top talent from leaving would do well to pay attention.
One particular demographic poised to jump is Generation X. At just 46 million in the U.S., Gen X is small compared to the 78 million Boomers and 70 million Millennials, but they wield a disproportionate amount of influence. Born between 1965 and 1978, they are the bench strength for leadership, the skill bearers and knowledge experts corporations will rely on to gain competitive advantage in the coming decades. Approaching or already in their prime of their careers, they are ready and willing to lead.
Yet their career progress has been threatened by leapfrogging Millennials and blocked by Boomers, who are postponing retirement to bulk up recession-ravaged 401(k)s. They had been promised the keys to the kingdom but are now in danger of turning into the Prince Charles of the American workforce: perpetual heirs apparent.
Unlike Prince Charles, though, Gen X'ers don't plan to stick around and hope for the crown. A recent survey from the Center for Talent Innovation (CTI) shows that 37% have "one foot out the door" and are looking to leave their current employers within the next three years.
With promotions only a scant possibility, what can employers do to keep their talent engaged and on board? Here are five options:

• Develop corporate chameleons. "Once I've learned my job, I like to move on," says one X'er interviewed for the CTI report. "I need something new to keep things fresh." To prevent X'ers from feeling stalled and browning out, companies are rotating promising employees through different functions on a regular schedule. A Sibson Consulting survey (PDF) shows that more than half of Fortune 500 companies say they've begun shuffling potential leaders around to give them broad experience.
• Let them learn. "I really like my company. It's a great fit," says another X'er. "But having said that, if it's the right thing, I'd jump. I won't stop learning or growing just to have a job." That's why even in the middle of a recession, smart companies are maintaining their tuition-reimbursement programs, as well as instituting mentoring and sponsorship programs that pair Boomer managers with Gen X'ers.
• Bring them out of the shadows. Mentoring and sponsorship programs serve another purpose: They match mid-level managers with senior-level executives who can provide opportunities to enrich their career experience. Placing Xers in charge of high-visibility projects is also a way to spotlight their abilities.
• Test their wings. Many X'ers would agree with one of their cohort who declares, "I have an entrepreneurial spirit that won't shut up." With many having been brought up as latchkey kids, Gen X is highly self-reliant; today, 70% of X'ers surveyed by CTI prefer to work independently, and 34% aspire to be an entrepreneur. Why not let them test their wings with a company-sponsored venture than risk having them fly the coop?
• Promote partnerships. It's easy for X'ers to demonize Boomer managers as intransigent dinosaurs and Gen Y subordinates as self-aggrandizing upstarts. Break down the barriers through intergenerational partnerships and teams. Each cohort has its own strengths and gifts; sharing them will enhance everyone's abilities.

Although Gen X has been overshadowed by the demographic behemoths bracketing them, no company can afford to ignore them. Until recently, economic constraints have kept them in their current jobs. But as the recession loosens its grip, well-qualified X'ers will soon have many suitors vying for their abilities and ambitions. Smart organizations will seek to understand what motivates them in order to sustain, retain, realize, and maximize their potential.

Sylvia Ann Hewlett is president of the Center for Talent Innovation and Sylvia Ann Hewlett Associates. She is the author of 11 books, including Winning the War for Talent in Emerging Markets. Follow her on Twitter at @sahewlett.

8 Things Your Employees Need Most

by Jeff Hayden, feb, 2, 2012 www.inc.com

Forget about raises and better benefits. Those are important -- but this is what your staff really wants

Pay is important. But pay only goes so far.

Getting a raise is like buying a bigger house; soon, more becomes the new normal.
Higher wages won’t cause employees to automatically perform at a higher level. Commitment, work ethic, and motivation are not based on pay.
To truly care about your business, your employees need these eight things—and they need them from you:
1. Freedom. Best practices can create excellence, but every task doesn't deserve a best practice or a micro-managed approach. (Yes, even you, fast food industry.)
Autonomy and latitude breed engagement and satisfaction. Latitude also breeds innovation. Even manufacturing and heavily process-oriented positions have room for different approaches.
Whenever possible, give your employees the freedom to work they way they work best.
2. Targets. Goals are fun. Everyone—yes, even you—is at least a little competitive, if only with themselves. Targets create a sense of purpose and add a little meaning to even the most repetitive tasks.
Without a goal to shoot for, work is just work. And work sucks.
3. Mission. We all like to feel a part of something bigger. Striving to be worthy of words like "best" or "largest" or "fastest" or "highest quality" provides a sense of purpose.
Let employees know what you want to achieve, for your business, for customers, and even your community. And if you can, let them create a few missions of their own.
Caring starts with knowing what to care about—and why.
4. Expectations. While every job should include some degree of latitude, every job needs basic expectations regarding the way specific situations should be handled. Criticize an employee for expediting shipping today, even though last week that was the standard procedure if on-time delivery was in jeopardy, and you lose that employee.
Few things are more stressful than not knowing what your boss expects from one minute to the next.
When standards change make sure you communicate those changes first. When you can't, explain why this particular situation is different, and why you made the decision you made.
5. Input. Everyone wants to offer suggestions and ideas. Deny employees the opportunity to make suggestions, or shoot their ideas down without consideration, and you create robots.
Robots don't care.
Make it easy for employees to offer suggestions. When an idea doesn't have merit, take the time to explain why. You can't implement every idea, but you can always make employees feel valued for their ideas.
6. Connection. Employees don’t want to work for a paycheck; they want to work with and for people.
A kind word, a short discussion about family, a brief check-in to see if they need anything... those individual moments are much more important than meetings or formal evaluations.
7. Consistency. Most people can deal with a boss who is demanding and quick to criticize... as long as he or she treats every employee the same. (Think of it as the Tom Coughlin effect.)
While you should treat each employee differently, you must treat each employee fairly. (There's a big difference.)
The key to maintaining consistency is to communicate. The more employees understand why a decision was made the less likely they are to assume favoritism or unfair treatment.
8. Future. Every job should have the potential to lead to something more, either within or outside your company.
For example, I worked at a manufacturing plant while I was in college. I had no real future with the company. Everyone understood I would only be there until I graduated.
One day my boss said, "Let me show you how we set up our production board."
I raised an eyebrow; why show me? He said, "Even though it won’t be here, some day, somewhere, you'll be in charge of production. You might as well start learning now."
Take the time to develop employees for jobs they someday hope to fill—even if those positions are outside your company. (How will you know what they hope to do? Try asking.)
Employees will care about your business when you care about them first.

Jeff Haden learned much of what he knows about business and technology as he worked his way up in the manufacturing industry. Everything else he picks up from ghostwriting books for some of the smartest leaders he knows in business. @jeff_haden

Illegal job interview questions

by Dave Johnson Feb. 27, 2012 www.cbsnews.com

If you are a manager at a large corporation with a well-staffed HR and legal department, you've probably gotten a wealth of training on how to conduct a job interview. But if you own your own company or are a manager in a small business, it might be up to you to keep yourself out of trouble when you start the hiring process. Do you know what kinds of questions you're legally allowed to ask? Knowing the limits will help you avoid lawsuits and make smarter hiring decisions.

First of all, there are a limited set of topics that are protected -- in other words, you may not make hiring decisions based on these considerations. The good news is that the list is quite short and is mostly obvious stuff that common sense would dictate is off limits:
Race
Color
Sex
Religion
National origin
Birthplace
Age
Disability status
Marital status

Sometimes, though, applying this list in real-world situations can be confusing, and it's easy to ask something out-of-bounds when it's possible to get the information you really want with a slightly reworded query. Networking site Excelle put together a list of illegal questions and their re-worked legal alternatives.
Illegal question: How old are you?
Legal version: Are you over 18?

Remember that while you can't ask someone's age, it's perfectly legal to ensure they're legally old enough to work for you.
Illegal question: Do you have kids?
Legal version: Are you willing to travel for this position?

You can't ask if someone is married, divorced or has kids. But if you are trying to determine if they can manage travel or flexible hours, go ahead and ask that directly.
Illegal question: Are you a U.S. citizen?
Legal version: Are you legally authorized to work in the U.S.?

Where your candidate is from is immaterial; the real question is if they can legally work here. Just don't directly ask if they have a work visa -- it's HR's job to ensure all the paperwork is complete before the start date.
Illegal question: Have you ever been arrested?
Legal version: Have you ever been convicted of [fill in the blank]?

Perhaps surprisingly, you can't ask someone about their general criminal background. But it's appropriate to ask about criminal behavior that's directly related to the specific field or career in which the person is applying.