When I co-founded the Entertainment Software Human Resources Association what feels like lifetimes ago, one year we had the great pleasure of having our annual conference hosted by LucasArts.  The meetings were held at Big Rock Ranch, adjacent to the famous Skywalker Ranch.  As we walked past lifesized Storm Troopers, and original Princess Leia and Darth Vader memorabilia, we noticed there were very few people.  Upon asking where they were, we were informed by our tour guide that the Ranch allowed for approximately 1,300 square feet per person and that it might feel a little more empty than a typical office building.  1,300 square feet per person?  That is more space than each of the three apartments my husband and I shared when we were first married!

Starbucks was packed yesterday morning at 9:30 a.m. - and I don't mean packed in the sense of a long line out the door for coffees-to-go.  I mean packed in the sense of nearly every seat was taken (and it's one of the larger Starbucks), whether individuals with their laptops and headphones, dyads easily comparing notes and sharing reports, or triads soaking in the sun while discussing the minimum amount for which they were willing to sell their company.  Coffees were on each table for sure, yet the buzz of conversation had little to do with caffeine and everything to do with community.

Another patron was equally astonished at the number of people, and as she and I waited near the cream and sweetener station for our drinks, we struck up a conversation.  Marla is a mother of two and works part-time out of her house.  When she really wants to concentrate, she comes to Starbucks.  She described it as being 'trapped' - her compulsion to jump up and do laundry, pick up after the kids, or clean the showers was held at bay by removing her from that environment.  She could be around other adults - that is, be in the midst of community, while still getting her own work done.

Starbucks seems to have captured that 'fireplace experience' at LucasArts, whether or not there's an actual fireplace.  People have their own space (more likely through headphones than 1,300 square feet), yet at any moment a conversation could break out between four strangers, or three dyads, or two groups - and the possibility of creativity is born.

I think about Yahoo  and wonder if bringing their employees back into the office actually thwarted any of this organic creativity stemming from these types of 'fireplace experiences' within employees' own communities.  Understandably, Marissa Mayer is hoping to create the environment in which these experiences happen in-house to harness and leverage the innovation that emerges within this type of collaboration.  Yet I wonder how much credence and credit we give our employees working even part-time from home  that they're making their way toward connection, community, and creativity already.  They want it as much as organizations need it.

Yet not every organization can afford 100 square feet per person let alone 1,300.  And likely not all buildings are constructed nor legally coded for fireplaces.   As organizations great and small, for-profit and NGOs, what is it we can do to create the environment in which we enable this organic, "Let's stop here, have a coffee, and brainstorm about our next big challenge" moment?  Perhaps it's easier to look at what's getting in the way - furniture, walls, doors, stairs, coats and ties, or invisible boundaries like silos or lines of authority - and slowly begin to eliminate, or at least soften them one-by-one.

We were made to be with each other; relatedness is in our make-up.  And as odd as I first thought it was to see such a packed coffee house at 9:30 on a Wednesday morning - when people would typically be boxed up in their cubicles, heads down and flourescent lights aglow - looking back on my enlightening LucasArts experience, it made perfect sense.  More elbow room, only four large walls, natural light, outdoor seating, and sometimes even an indoor fireplace.  If Luke Skywalker would have been one of the employees to move from Big Rock to the Presidio, I'm guessing more often than not, we would have found him at the local Starbucks.

We have arrived at Reason 8 of 10 for leveraging the complementary competencies of Organization Development (OD) and Compensation.  These ten reasons for why OD and Compensation practitioners should not only be aware of each other but concerned and connected with one another come from Dr. Ed Lawler's seminal work on the subject, Pay and Organization Development (Addison-Wesley, 1981).  Reason 8: Pay is Visible and Tangible.

Dr. Lawler's argument for this particular reason is rooted in pay being quantifiable, having "a certain reality" to it.  While many of the variables OD works with are considered behavioral or "soft," compensation can be seen, touched, and felt by every single employee of an organization.  He goes on to say many cynics of OD complain that nothing real has been tackled; that nothing has really changed nor is a real difference being made.  Conversely, when pay or compensation initiatives change in association with an organizational change - regardless of how big or small - the tangibility of the direct impact on rewards received by employees deflates any argument that things have stayed the same.  Whether pay goes up or down, people know something has changed which can then help signal the broader organizational change.

Case in Point: I return to the large computer entertainment organization who had successfully institutionalized behaviors through the malleability of its rewards programs, targeting each years' primary goals as part of its management incentive plan.  Until we incorporated inventories into the rewards program, leadership gave it little thought.  "It will have to wait; I have bigger [and sexier] fish to fry."  However, when the company was willing to pay out significant sums of money for the return of  strengthened key financials that otherwise got overlooked, suddenly we had their attention.

Cut to the Chase: I can say from experience with this organization that other endeavors at organization-wide or even division-wide change were never so successful as when we associated them with compensation.  I do raise the issue of culture: this particular organization - industry - had a higher focus on rewards than some, and so I do encourage an assessment of cultural appropriateness.  Yet when the company needed to make a large-scale change in behaviors and focus, they were able to make sweeping changes more effectively and be taken more seriously when dollars were attached.

Including compensation in organizational change efforts can be akin to an organization "putting its money where its mouth is."  There is a level of gravity and significance that can trigger greater confidence in the organization and what it is attempting to change when rewards are combined appropriately with organization change.

Where has your organization successfully utilized the visibilty and tangibility of money to increase the success of a large-scale change?

We continue our series on the top ten reasons to join the efforts of Compensation and Organization Development (OD) for greater organization effectiveness.  I am not necessarily referencing a change in organization chart to have both disciplines report to the same manager (although I understand there have been a handful of cases where that has happened).  Rather, Compensation and OD have complementary competencies that, when leveraged together, enable greater, more successfully adopted large-scale change to help move an organization forward.  I am unpacking the top ten reasons Dr. Ed Lawler provided in his seminal work on the subject, Pay & Organization Development (Addison-Wesley, 1981).  Reason #5: Pay Policy & Pay Practice are Malleable.

According to Merriam-Webster, one of the definitions of malleable - best for this particular context of Compensation & OD synergy - is "having a capacity for adaptive change." Compensation strategies, design elements, pay practices, programs, and processes have nearly endless combinations to adapt to the business context - albeit constrained to some degree by legal and financial concerns.  That may be hard to hear given the constraints and given the, "that's how we've always done it" corner into which we sometimes paint ourselves.  Yet the truth is that, by and large, design elements within compensation initiatives can take many different forms.

Case in point:  A large computer entertainment organization had found a great stride in its business strategy, customer loyalty, and value proposition to shareholders and employees alike.  It was a very successful organization.  One of the reasons for its success was taking full advantage of rewards initiatives to help steer the rudder in the direction the company wanted to go.  Each year, key stakeholders would meet with HR, OD, and Compensation in a facilitated dialog to discuss The Next Big Thing (TNBT).  While there were both long- and mid-term plans charting the course, TNBT would help guide the next twelve months resulting in the development of healthy performance goals and custom rewards programs.

Cut to the chase: Each year, it was crystal clear where the emphasis had been placed.  The organization was able to run analytics to show the gains in margin, cost management, new product offerings, inventory reduction - wherever leadership had pointed TNBT.  They used the malleability of rewards programs in concert with getting the right people in the room to facilitate healthy dialog, to expertly steer the ship and its crew to their desired destination.  And because OD now knew the future direction toward which behaviors would be pointed, they could craft their efforts to complement, rather than conflict with, the business strategy.

How are you taking advantage of the malleability of rewards and the partnership with OD to help guide your organization in its desired direction?