Treating Employees Like People Makes Them Work Like Machines
The truly awesome part of Facebook's company culture isn't the unlimited holidays or the free lunches, says Stuart Crabb, former Global Head of Learning. It's something much deeper.
Stuart Crabb founded and created the Learning & Development function at Facebook while serving as its Global Head of Learning. As chief architect of Facebook’s now famous strengths-based high-performance culture, he was part of the force that rocketed Facebook to the top of Glassdoor’s Best Places to Work in Corporate America. Crabb built the company's Sales Training function, co-founded its Diversity & Inclusion work, and supported employee information and education programming when Facebook become a public company. A veteran of the tech industry, he led HR & Learning at startups during the last two cycles of hyper growth and innovation, most notably at Portal Software and Facebook, as well as Yahoo!, Siemens, Compaq/HP, and British Aerospace. He also was a senior consultant with The Marcus Buckingham Company, a world leader in strengths development. Crabb is now a founding partner in Oxegen Consulting LLC, a Palo Alto-based consulting practice that helps late-stage startups and small companies develop their performance cultures. Stu has traveled, lived, and done business in more than 40 countries. Originally from England, he now lives in Palo Alto, California with his husband Brian, and their three daughters, Lydia, Phoebe, and Esther.
Stuart Crabb: We live in a world that is completely fascinated by weaknesses and takes strengths and positive emotions for granted. You only have to pick up the newspaper to see that. You only have to see the way people slow down on a freeway when there’s an accident. To understand your credit worthiness, we look at the amount of debt you carry. To try and understand what makes a happy customer we go talk to angry ones. Everywhere you look you’ll see this focus upon weaknesses as a basis to understand performance excellence. Now I think there’s lots of reasons for that. Some of that speaks to the human condition and the way in which the brain interprets external information and external threats. We’ve only told half the story about performance inside organizations. We’ve really cracked the code around understanding how to identify and really overcome those areas that people struggle in. But most organizations are not having conversations about how to build a positive engaging work culture. And they’re not having conversations about how to leverage people’s strengths at work.
This is an enormous game changer for organizations and for Facebook what we found is that those employees that felt that they had the opportunity to engage their strengths most of the time at Facebook were more likely to be high performing. They were more likely to be part of a higher performing team. They were more likely to stay longer with the company and it was also a key driver of fulfillment. In other words, their experience of work is a meaningful experience was massively promoted by the experience and the opportunity to be able to leverage their strengths every day.
We did it in a number of ways. There’s no question that the consequences of many performance problems can be traced back to a poor hiring decision. So hiring for strengths is critical right out of the gate. If you create the right conditions for candidates to share and reveal their strengths to you then you have the right opportunity to determine whether or not they’re going to be successful in this role. But it goes beyond just the hiring process. Starting an internal conversation within the culture of the organization was something that we also did very, very early on. Encouraging all new employees that came through the new hire orientation to take the Clifton Strengthsfinder so they could start to understand their strengths and what they may mean. Training managers to help managers understand how to have a conversation when it came to setting goals or giving feedback or sitting down and talking about longer term creative element were all essential ways in which we inculcated this message. We also launched a strengths based coaching program for all people managers and leaders in the organization which specifically focused on the better half of where they were having impact and helping to bring some balance to what is in many respects an obsession with weaknesses and a focus on fixing ourselves which can be important if it has the potential to derail us. But in most cases is a really, really poor place for you to be investing your time and energy when it comes to your own development.
You know that Facebook is one of the world’s best companies to work at. You’ve heard the heavenly details, right? We all have. Some of the less lucky ones dream about them while they scrape the bottom of their company's instant coffee can with a teaspoon, hoping to gather enough dehydrated crumbs to stay awake through the next team meeting.
But the real success of Facebook’s company culture goes deeper than free granola, segways, and ping pong tables. Stuart Crabb – founder of Oxegen Consulting, and Facebook’s former Global Head of Learning – was the chief architect of this legendary work environment, solidifying its reputation and talent during a crucial period in the company’s development. All those recreational gadgets and perks that are part of Facebook’s folklore are really only the most visible layer of a culture that is anchored in something more important: people’s strengths.
According to Crabb, we are unhealthily obsessed with weaknesses and negativity. Bad news headlines are more clickable than good news stories, and out in the real world you only have to observe people slowing down on a freeway to look at a traffic accident to know it’s true. Great novels aren’t written about happy people. A film about the perfect couple will never sell.
There is a negativity bias that pervades our personal, artistic, and corporate worlds: job interviews are often exercises in concealing your weaknesses, and an impending job review brings on a weighty stress about the areas you might be failing, rather than achieving.
Crabb turned that attitude on its head while at Facebook and championed the philosophy that people are at their best when they are allowed to access their strengths. Tapping into an employee’s brilliance and allowing them the opportunity to customize their role results in higher performing teams and individuals, longer employee retention, and a greater sense of fulfillment. Tom Rath, author of the best-selling book StrenghsFinder, also supports this idea: "People who have the opportunity to focus on their strengths every day are six times as likely to be engaged in their jobs and more than three times as likely to report having an excellent quality of life in general."
Employee engagement is also key, and a lot of that comes down to investing in thoughtful training of managers. "Managers play a key role in driving engagement and we know that the relationship to the manager will always trump the brand," Crabb says, in Strategic Leadership Review. "Doesn’t matter how great your company is or how awesome your product is, if your manager sucks, you don’t want to be there. And so the appointment of managers and the training of managers is something we take very seriously."
Crabb encourages all employees to take the Clifton StrengthsFinder test so they can identify their assets and play to their strengths.
To know more, visit Oxegen Consulting
To boost your self-esteem, write about chapters of your life
If you're lacking confidence and feel like you could benefit from an ego boost, try writing your life story.
In truth, so much of what happens to us in life is random – we are pawns at the mercy of Lady Luck. To take ownership of our experiences and exert a feeling of control over our future, we tell stories about ourselves that weave meaning and continuity into our personal identity.
Yale scientists restore brain function to 32 clinically dead pigs
Researchers hope the technology will further our understanding of the brain, but lawmakers may not be ready for the ethical challenges.
- Researchers at the Yale School of Medicine successfully restored some functions to pig brains that had been dead for hours.
- They hope the technology will advance our understanding of the brain, potentially developing new treatments for debilitating diseases and disorders.
- The research raises many ethical questions and puts to the test our current understanding of death.
The image of an undead brain coming back to live again is the stuff of science fiction. Not just any science fiction, specifically B-grade sci fi. What instantly springs to mind is the black-and-white horrors of films like Fiend Without a Face. Bad acting. Plastic monstrosities. Visible strings. And a spinal cord that, for some reason, is also a tentacle?
But like any good science fiction, it's only a matter of time before some manner of it seeps into our reality. This week's Nature published the findings of researchers who managed to restore function to pigs' brains that were clinically dead. At least, what we once thought of as dead.
What's dead may never die, it seems
The researchers did not hail from House Greyjoy — "What is dead may never die" — but came largely from the Yale School of Medicine. They connected 32 pig brains to a system called BrainEx. BrainEx is an artificial perfusion system — that is, a system that takes over the functions normally regulated by the organ. The pigs had been killed four hours earlier at a U.S. Department of Agriculture slaughterhouse; their brains completely removed from the skulls.
BrainEx pumped an experiment solution into the brain that essentially mimic blood flow. It brought oxygen and nutrients to the tissues, giving brain cells the resources to begin many normal functions. The cells began consuming and metabolizing sugars. The brains' immune systems kicked in. Neuron samples could carry an electrical signal. Some brain cells even responded to drugs.
The researchers have managed to keep some brains alive for up to 36 hours, and currently do not know if BrainEx can have sustained the brains longer. "It is conceivable we are just preventing the inevitable, and the brain won't be able to recover," said Nenad Sestan, Yale neuroscientist and the lead researcher.
As a control, other brains received either a fake solution or no solution at all. None revived brain activity and deteriorated as normal.
The researchers hope the technology can enhance our ability to study the brain and its cellular functions. One of the main avenues of such studies would be brain disorders and diseases. This could point the way to developing new of treatments for the likes of brain injuries, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, and neurodegenerative conditions.
"This is an extraordinary and very promising breakthrough for neuroscience. It immediately offers a much better model for studying the human brain, which is extraordinarily important, given the vast amount of human suffering from diseases of the mind [and] brain," Nita Farahany, the bioethicists at the Duke University School of Law who wrote the study's commentary, told National Geographic.
An ethical gray matter
Before anyone gets an Island of Dr. Moreau vibe, it's worth noting that the brains did not approach neural activity anywhere near consciousness.
The BrainEx solution contained chemicals that prevented neurons from firing. To be extra cautious, the researchers also monitored the brains for any such activity and were prepared to administer an anesthetic should they have seen signs of consciousness.
Even so, the research signals a massive debate to come regarding medical ethics and our definition of death.
Most countries define death, clinically speaking, as the irreversible loss of brain or circulatory function. This definition was already at odds with some folk- and value-centric understandings, but where do we go if it becomes possible to reverse clinical death with artificial perfusion?
"This is wild," Jonathan Moreno, a bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania, told the New York Times. "If ever there was an issue that merited big public deliberation on the ethics of science and medicine, this is one."
One possible consequence involves organ donations. Some European countries require emergency responders to use a process that preserves organs when they cannot resuscitate a person. They continue to pump blood throughout the body, but use a "thoracic aortic occlusion balloon" to prevent that blood from reaching the brain.
The system is already controversial because it raises concerns about what caused the patient's death. But what happens when brain death becomes readily reversible? Stuart Younger, a bioethicist at Case Western Reserve University, told Nature that if BrainEx were to become widely available, it could shrink the pool of eligible donors.
"There's a potential conflict here between the interests of potential donors — who might not even be donors — and people who are waiting for organs," he said.
It will be a while before such experiments go anywhere near human subjects. A more immediate ethical question relates to how such experiments harm animal subjects.
Ethical review boards evaluate research protocols and can reject any that causes undue pain, suffering, or distress. Since dead animals feel no pain, suffer no trauma, they are typically approved as subjects. But how do such boards make a judgement regarding the suffering of a "cellularly active" brain? The distress of a partially alive brain?
The dilemma is unprecedented.
Setting new boundaries
Another science fiction story that comes to mind when discussing this story is, of course, Frankenstein. As Farahany told National Geographic: "It is definitely has [sic] a good science-fiction element to it, and it is restoring cellular function where we previously thought impossible. But to have Frankenstein, you need some degree of consciousness, some 'there' there. [The researchers] did not recover any form of consciousness in this study, and it is still unclear if we ever could. But we are one step closer to that possibility."
She's right. The researchers undertook their research for the betterment of humanity, and we may one day reap some unimaginable medical benefits from it. The ethical questions, however, remain as unsettling as the stories they remind us of.
Ashes of cat named Pikachu to be launched into space
A space memorial company plans to launch the ashes of "Pikachu," a well-loved Tabby, into space.
- Steve Munt, Pikachu's owner, created a GoFundMe page to raise money for the mission.
- If all goes according to plan, Pikachu will be the second cat to enter space, the first being a French feline named Felicette.
- It might seem frivolous, but the cat-lovers commenting on Munt's GoFundMe page would likely disagree.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.
