Jennifer Prosek: An interview by Bob Morris

Jennifer Prosek

Jennifer Prosek is the founder and CEO of CJP Communications (CJP), where she leads many of the firm’s key accounts. Under her leadership, the firm has become a leading international public relations and financial communications consultancy with offices in New York, Connecticut and London. With more than 70 professionals, the firm ranks among the top 35 independent public relations firms in the US, and among the top five financial communications consultancies in the UK. The secret to CJP’s success has been Prosek’s ability to develop, motivate and deploy her employees to be more entrepreneurial within their own positions. This strategy is the premise of her first book, Army of Entrepreneurs: Create an Engaged and Empowered Workforce for Exceptional Business Growth, which is based on the unique business model of CJP and is now available from AMACOM, a division of the American Management Association.

Prosek received her MBA from Columbia and is a frequent lecturer at leading business schools, including Columbia, and entrepreneurial and business groups. Recent speaking engagements include the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute, Forté Foundation, The Royal Bank of Scotland Marketing Summit and British-American Business, Inc. She is on the board of directors of the New York City Partnership for the Homeless.

*     *     *

Morris: Before discussing your book, a few general questions. First, when and by what process did you formulate the management strategy (i.e. Army of Entrepreneurs) based on a military model?  Was CJP Communications founded before or after that?  To what extent (if any) are the strategy and the firm related?

Prosek: CJP was founded before the Army Model was born.  The Army model was started after a few frustrating years of failing to grow the business at the desired pace, and coming to the realization that perhaps we had not tapped our employees to the greatest degree.

We asked ourselves whether we could teach our staff to think more like owners and encourage them to contribute to the business in new ways.

We started with the notion that, if they understood more about how the business ran and were included in idea generation and decision making at all levels, they could be more effective.  This premise led to the “Army of Entrepreneurs^TM” model, which helped us achieve the business growth we were seeking.

At this point, we have been engaged in the model for more than 10 years so it’s hard to separate the company from the model.  The company is the model.  I am a big fan of Malcolm Gladwell, who talks about something called the “talent myth.”  He says that it is important to make the system the star in a company; I couldn’t agree more.  This is what we have tried to do with the Army of Entrepreneurs^TM.

Morris: What are some of the most common – and perhaps dangerous – misconceptions about employee empowerment?

Prosek: Among the most dangerous misconceptions is that a program or model can empower all employees.  True empowerment is authentic and individual and is expressed differently by each employee.  Too many companies launch campaigns and slogans that are more “flavor of the month club” empowerment programs rather than true commitments.  Employees are smart, they will respond when employee empowerment efforts are real.

Morris: Much has been said and written in recent years about “followership.” My own opinion is that there are times when supervisors lead and other times when they defer to direct reports who then “take the lead.” What are your own thoughts about it?

Prosek: When people are confident and inspired enough to handle new tasks – whatever the level – they should be empowered to do that, with guidance from a supervisor. It’s tricky because you need supervisors, but those supervisors must be talented enough to know when to pull back and let someone run, and when to step in. As an entrepreneur I’d rather give them a long rope and if they trip, let it be a teachable moment. Great people almost always avoid tripping; they simply surprise themselves by being able to do things they never expected they’d be able to do.

Morris: Opinions are divided (sometimes sharply divided) about 360º feedback. Some want it to be transparent, others want it to be anonymous, and still others want to have nothing whatsoever to do with it. Your own thoughts?

Prosek: I think feedback is essential. We do like 360-degree feedback and generally keep it anonymous so that it is indeed authentic.

*     *     *

To read the complete interview, please click here.

Please click here to visit her firm.

Please click here to visit her book:

Twitter:

http://twitter.com/EmployeeArmy

360º feedback: anonymous or transparent?

The concept of 360º feedback is deceptively simple: Obtain performance evaluations from a variety of different sources. One of the most common methodologies is to have all direct reports complete a questionnaire about a supervisor and the supervisor also completes one about each of them.

Almost everyone agrees that there is a direct correlation between the accuracy and reliability of the responses and the length of time the respondent has known the person whose performance is evaluated. However, there are sharp differences of opinion as to whether the respondents should be anonymous or identified. The trend now seems to favor the latter as organizations become more transparent. As in other debates, both positions have merit but I prefer that respondents be identified and so indicate that to clients who retain me to conduct a 360 feedback program. Ultimately, of course, it is the client’s call, not mine.

Whether or not respondents are identified, here are the essentials of a 360º feedback program:

1. All of its objectives must be positive and carefully explained in advance to everyone who participates.

2. Respondents should express honest opinions without fear of retribution and to offer constructive criticism that will be beneficial to those evaluated.

3. Responses should be processed by an independent third-party who is viewed as objective, fair, neutral, and trustworthy. That person should be well qualified to identify any consensus of opinion and suggest its possible significance.

4. Recipients of the feedback must be receptive to constructive criticism and both willing and able to take appropriate action, based on what the feedback suggests.

As indicated earlier, I think the concept of 360º feedback is deceptively simple. Effective design and execution are not. If done well, it can generate a wealth of information of incalculable value, both to the organization and to individual participants.

If those asked to participate do not trust each other, there are other, more serious problems that must immediately be addressed.