People have passionately argued about whether people are more important than process or process is more important than people. Tune in; for instance, a colleague writes passionately about the triumph of people over process. Another colleague writes passionately about the importance of heroes. A pundit writes passionately about how great systems (process) are more important than great people. And yet another colleague writes passionately about a method that helps competent people perform better.

I can reveal a lot about my biases by answering the following question: How do I feel about the thought of being employed by a company with a great process?

When faced with a problem, I suggest considering three strategies:

• Coping
• Managing
• Solving

All work requires energy. Middle-managers who divert all energy to new actions fall into a common trap: They fail to reenergize existing actions, which may kill the success of new actions.

Middle management success depends on fueling both new and existing actions. How can appreciative feedback help you discover existing, effective actions and preserve them?

I surveyed ten of my colleagues from different high-tech companies about the state of employee rewards programs at their company. One colleague told me about the outstanding reward programs where he works. The other nine colleagues told me something much different. Their feedback is easily summarized as follows: "Our reward programs are pathetic!"

What's the difference in the thinking by managers at the company with the effective reward program and the managers at the companies with the pathetic reward programs?

In my first entry on employee rewards, I emphasized the importance of knowing the recipient well enough to reward them with something that is meaningful to them.

But there is more to effective reward programs than providing a meaningful award. Let's take a step back and explore answers to the questions: What is the purpose of a reward program? How can we innovate to make reward programs more effective?

My first post on rewarding employees explored the importance of providing a reward that is meaningful to the recipient. My second post explored the purpose of rewards, the timing of rewards, and my thoughts about rewarding all the members of a team rather than a few individual members of the team.

In this final post on rewards, I explore answers to the following questions: Do rewards work? Are they manipulative?

What is a measurement? 

Stand up meetings are popular in software development organizations now.

What makes a stand-up meeting more effective than a traditional meeting to socialize status information?

I argued in my first post about stand-up meetings that the "right" participants were the key to the success of a meeting rather than whether the participants were standing up or sitting down. Despite my dislike for the stand-up component, I did mention in my first post that there are components of a "stand-up meeting" that I do like.

What components do I like? Why do I like them? How can we innovate?

You have heard repeatedly that an agenda is a vital ingredient to a successful meeting. But little is ever heard about safety in meetings—the environmental variable that determines whether people participate or merely observe. How do you measure safety? What actions are available to leaders for creating a safe meeting environment?