Is It Really Just About Strengths?

Have you ever noticed people making excuses for poor performance or ugly behavior by invoking the "It's just who I am" defense?

Research (and common sense) show that focusing on peoples' strengths can have a positive affect on engagement and results.

But any approach or new , misunderstood, can actually cause negative side-affects.

 Have you seen any of these?

- Using  "strengths" research as an excuse for managers to avoid uncomfortable performance discussions with employees. ("Everyone knows that James is difficult to work with and shirks his responsibilities. No one wants to work with him and clients complain about him...but he's a really good analyst. Let's not rock the boat.")

- Hiding behind strengths as an excuse for bad behavior. For example, "I'm sorry that I snapped at you and called you a bumbling idiot. I have a short fuse. That's just how I am. Sensitivity is not my strength. You'll just have to accept that."

- Dumping mundane tasks (like paperwork, administration) on others because "it's not my strength." (For example, "Anne, you're so good at making the office coffee, cleaning out the pot and using the fax machine. Would you mind? I'm not good at that kind of stuff.") All jobs require doing some things we don't like, or aren't particularly good at...and most companies can't afford to give all of their employees an assistant to dump work on. Sometimes we just have to suck it up and do something, even though it's not our strength.

 All of that said, I'm still a huge believer in understanding one's strengths. I just get alarmed when I see a good concept spin out of control and become destructive.

What's Happening With The Strengths/Weaknesses Thing?

There are probably a number of reasons why, but I think there is a phenomenon that gets played out--at least in American business circles--whenever the latest and greatest thing hits the scene. And it's this:

What is actually a Principle is adopted as a Rule.

Instead of really taking time to understand all that lies underneath a principle, people run with the catch phrase and treat it as "the way." A book title becomes a buzzword that is then tossed around in meetings. It becomes problematic when the word doesn't have a shared meaning among the users. And that happens a lot. So it is with Strengths.

It's a lot easier to say "It's all about Strengths" than it is to live a life identifying and acknowledging our strengths; figuring out where we need to become at least adequate in some of our weaknesses; and respecting the people around us enough to behave unselfishly even when we "feel" like doing our own thing our own way.

When managers avoid uncomfortable performance discussions, they are showing disrespect for their employee. How can the person improve without hearing the truth, exploring ways to change, and growing as a result?

When we hide behind Strengths as an excuse for bad behavior, we're really saying "I don't respect you enough to bother to honor you with good behavior."

And when mundane tasks are dumped on someone else because "I'm not good at it," then I better ask myself just how I'm using my position power. Is one of my less attractive "strengths" the inclination to take advantage of others' weakness?

What I find ironic as I write this is: we're talking about Strength, yet the insidious culprit is Laziness.

What to do?

1. Take time to learn the "why?" behind the "what." When you can explain a concept accurately using everyday language, you've got it. If you or colleagues around you are still discussing things using buzzwords, stop and ask for an explanation of the meaning. That discussion could lead to shared meaning and deeper understanding.

2. When you hear a "performance excuse" disguised as a reason, follow up by asking: "What are you going to do about that? It's impacting other people and that's not acceptable." It's amazing how we'll make changes once we are called on our behavior and not allowed to explain it away.

3.  Make really bad coffee and jam the fax machine.

Related bonus post: From Lynn Mattoon: Millenials In The Workforce

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Managers Build Talent

You may already have the right people to enable your company to "win"--however you define the word.

We recently designed a leadership 'program' to develop the top talent in a global company. The model created used the executive management committee as coaches for the learning activities. First we coached the coaches on how to coach; then we turned them loose. It's been the most effective learning in nearly 30 years of leadership development and design.

 What's happening that works?

• The top leadership learns a lot about their own abilities.

• They learn about their people while developing closer relationships with them.

• The high potential participants receive coaching and company insight from the leaders who know it best.

• The participants also "step up" their game. How often do you see the top leadership in a company totally dedicate two full days to the talent beneath them?

You Can Do It, Too

Managers are the natural lighting rods for developing talent. Coaching isn't another job--it is their job.

Companies are always looking for ways to develop people economically but effectively. Every research study on the planet shows that employees are most influenced--pro or con--by their immediate boss. That's exactly why managers at every level have the ability to make the most difference when it comes to grooming people for the future.

The mission: Give them the capability.

Three things managers can start now:

Diagnose: Focus on identifying the very best talent in others.

Encounter:  Seek the truth then speak the truth, wherever that path will lead.

Build: Participate in the performance growth or your people.

When managers coach, we get "two personal bests" for the price of one.

Note: Even (smart) stars find a coach somewhere: Check out John Bishop's nice story at Leadership Is A Verb.

Whoa! Just as I was hitting the "publish" button an email came through from Fistful of Talent naming All Things Workplace in the Top 25 Talent Blogs again this year. Given their criteria and primo staff I'm truly honored. And if you are a seeker of talent info, be sure to subscribe to their feed.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

When Goals Can Get In The Way

Western society holds goal-setting in high esteem. But what happens if you decide to stick to your goal without seeing past it?

It came to me yesterday at the gym. It was cardio day and time for interval training. So I set the elliptical machine for a certain time, distance, and speed. This is what happened:

When I reached the goal I still had lots of juice left. What to do? If I stopped, I had reached the goal. If I decided to keep going I'd exceed it. (I kept going and stopped somewhere around "The Best of Otis Redding" on my iPod).

Here's the thing: You have to have something to shoot for at work and in life. I wonder how many of us who manage sometimes get so focused on "the plan" that we overlook its capacity to limit accomplishments?

All of us can, on a certain day, exceed what's been set.

I know a lot of places that have "stretch" goals. My observation: they cause confusion. Am I going to be rewarded or punished for the budgeted goals or the stretch goals?

For me, the decision was personal because it had a combination of achievement, satisfaction, and personal payoff.

What does your organization do to support those three inherent energizers?

It's what management is all about.

Are You Smart?

There's an interview with me in Investor's Business Daily about how to manage smart people. It's fascinating that "smart" people often present challenges to those managing them and those around them.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Leading: Meet People Where They Are

A client was of mine was told that he didn't jump in alongside his people to get new projects and improvements off the ground. As a result, things weren't getting done on schedule. So I asked him why he seemed to 'manage from a distance'. His response:

"My people are long time employees. They're highly educated and have a lot of experience. If I start managing too closely, they'll lose their motivation."

I'm thinking,"What motivation? Apparently they aren't getting much done!

His approach to the situation isn't at all unusual, is it? We live in a time when managers are getting messages that say they should be consultative and participative. OK. But what happens when the work group doesn't know what to do our how to do it?

When there is a change, people want clear, strong direction. We all want to know what, where, when, why, and then, if the situation warrants it, how. Think about it: when we face the unknown, we start to get a little insecure. What do we look for? Direction. Strong leadership. Clarity. Help.

It has nothing to do with longevity or advanced degrees. It has to do with diagnosing the willingness and ability of the people and then adjusting management style accordingly.

In the case of my manager friend, he used misguided assumptions instead of proven research in his initial approach.

Meet People Where They Are

I'm a big proponent of Situational Leadership and have been since it was introduced. Paul Hersey and Ken Blanchard teamed up to introduce the practical application of the Ohio State Studies.

The principle is this: Before you know how close to manage or how consultative to be with your people, you need to know where their willingness and ability is in relation to the task at hand. The less people know, the closer you manage. The more mature and effective they become, the less you have to direct and the more consultative you can be.

If you've ever taught a child to ride a bike, then think of that as the model. When they start, you have to demonstrate, help them on the bicycle, hold onto them, and not leave their side. As they get a little confidence and are able to go a short distance on their own, maybe you jog alongside if you have to catch them. When you see them smiling and riding a block or so on their own, you shout encouragement. And when they disappear from view; well, yell "I'm going to the house for a cup of coffee." That way they'll know where you are if they need you.

Managing people is a constant series of diagnoses and appropriate responses. It's never all of one thing. And it's never all direction or abdication. It's what people need from you in order to move along the performance curve.

And just to emphasize the point once more: Change=More Managerial Direction. Any manager who is introducing something new has to be prepared to work closer and harder than usual to get things off to the right start.

What's your experience? Are you giving or getting the right thing at the right time?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

How To. . .

I'll tell you how. How to build individuals and teams. How to create conditions for motivation and engagement.

Here it is: If you are a manager giving an assignment, be clear about the "what"--then let your people deliver on how it will be done.

Why? Because you hired them for the how. Think about it. You looked at resumes and then hired people who had something that seemed unique or different. When you tell people how to do their jobs, you take away their identity. We all want to contribute. And that contribution is in the form of the unique way--how--we do our jobs.

Action: Define and get commitment on what you want done--then let people use their unique talents to decide how to do it. They'll grow by using their own trial-and-error process to perfect their methodologies.

You'll be seen as the manager who knows how to develop and engage your team. Suddenly, you'll find people approaching you and asking "Hey, how do you do it?"

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

When You Delegate, You're Still In It Together

One of the joys experienced by a new manager is having an array of people to call on to "get it done."

One of the challenges experienced by a new manager is having an array of people to call on to "get it done."

I can't think of a role that's more challenging than managing, at any level. One of the traps, though, is a mistaken sense of what delegation is all about.

What Successful Managers Do

1.Help people perform.

That means you have to spend time focusing on the people who do the task, not just the task.

Who needs help? How much? How much is too much? How often do you need to follow up to see how things are going? When you follow up, what do you really need to do to be helpful? (It may be to get out of the way, explain how to do something in detail, or something in between).

2. Invest in people, not use them.

We agonize over how to invest our earnings so that we reap personal financial growth.

When we delegate are we asking, "How can I invest in this person during this task in order to benefit all of us over the long run?"

Or is the question "What can this person do for me?"

Each question leads to very different outcomes. One is personal and organizational growth. The other is a sense of using and being used.

3. Be alongside, in front of, or close behind--but never absent.

No one--no one--is successful alone. However, it's really easy and unbelievably common to fail by thinking we can do it alone.

So the best managers I know live out a model that clearly shares responsibility. They provide direction and support; their people ask questions easily as a result of the "we're in this together" atmosphere.

What's up in your management/delegating life?

_________________________________________________

How about Static Leadership?. Find out more from Jim Stroup.

What happens when new leadership and cultures clash? Wally Bock dissects the clash at Home Depot with simplicity and clarity.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Employees or Contractors: Who Gets The Most Feedback?

I don't know for sure. But you probably do.

Performance Speaks For Itself. . .  drew  comments that raised the debate about this question.

Becky Robinson is a freelancer who writes about leadership for Mountain State University. She feels that freelancers and consultants  "have to continually prove their worth to keep clients and work"--so it's important to be able to solicit performance feedback from clients.

That's certainly true. But management authority, consultant, and writer Wally Bock says: "As for freelancers needing it more, it seems to me they need this kind of support less. Most freelancers are paid by the project and there's usually feedback on each one. Folks on the payroll tend to slip into the background."

If that's the case, then "contractors" get more information about their performance--and how to improve it--than employees.

Can that be?

Performance improvement is directly linked to the timeliness, frequency, and quality of feedback. If Wally's observation reflects reality in the workplace, then "outside" people are the recipients of better performance management than those on the payroll.

It would be helpful to know what's really happening out there. If you are an employee or a freelancer/coach/consultant, what's your experience? The answers could be quite fascinating--and revealing. Weigh in with a comment below.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Which Comes First For You. . .

Job performance or job satisfaction?

Depending upon your own inclination, you may marvel--or frown--at the opposite choice. If you want to "get it" as a manager or as an individual contributor, then think about this: Statistically it's a 50/50 split. About half the population wants to work toward a specific goal in order to achieve satisfaction. . .

The other half wants to make sure that the elements of their job offer a "good fit" so they can perform well.

I do a lot of individual assessments for organizations and have found that the inclinations are quite inherent. However, each type can learn how to adapt to what is required at the moment. Here's what to do:

1. Increase your awareness. Look at your own preference and then start watching those around you. Who has to work before they can play? Who is making sure that the group is in harmony before moving forward?

2. What does it take to achieve the goal? If you're in a crisis or up against a deadline, feeling-good-first may put you out of business. Get it done! When you are focused on long term projects which require a lot of cooperation and solid relationships, then take the time to build them. People will need to trust each other a lot in order to get through the inevitable difficulties that will take place. That can't happen if people are only allowed to pay attention to a checklist.

3. Both types want some sense of acknowledgment when goals are achieved. I have more than one client who has told me, "They get to keep their jobs. What else should I have to do?"

Well, human beings look for recognition of some type when they know they've done a really good job. It doesn't cost a thing to publicly acknowledge people by name and what they specifically contributed to a project.

And it might just create performance and satisfaction for everyone involved.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Managers, Tough Conversations, and Training

Does your company provide solid, "how-to" training for supervisors and managers? I'm talking about the kind of training that helps them become good, effective managers of people, not just tasks. You know: the people who make and get your product/service out the door.

Experienced manager and training authority Wally Bock has some pithy thoughts related to the two posts here and here regarding Honesty, Boldness, and Sins of Omission:

Making Thing Worse By Trying Not To Make Things Worse

I think most of us have been raised to avoid/minimize confrontation. That's bad enough in the situations you describe. But it is corrosive if you have a supervisor who won't step up and call attention to behavior or performance that are not acceptable. Sadly, very few companies even consider this when they promote someone from individual contributor to a boss. Even fewer offer training in how to do confrontation well. This leaves us with a legion of bosses who are making things worse by trying not to make things worse.

I think the issue is different at work and in personal relationships. In the latter, there's a context and a history that is part of every honest conversation, whether it's specifically evoked or not.

At work, rank is always either part of the discussion or casting a shadow across it. So if you're going to talk about behavior or performance at work, you need a bit of a script to achieve the outcomes you describe above.

1. Start with What the conversation is about. Be specific. Describe behavior or performance without adjectives. Adjectives trigger emotions.

2. Say Why it's important to have the conversation. Describe the impact of or reaction to the behavior or performance.

3. Then Wait. Waiting is crucial. Without it, a conversation is unlikely to happen.

I believe Wally's observation and suggestions are dead-on. There was a stretch of time from the late 1970s through the mid 1990s where supervisors and managers were required to participate in training that gave them skills focused entirely on managing, guiding, and building people. That mandate has clearly diminished. Now we hear:

Two of My Favorite Myths

1. "Everyone is a leader!" 

Really?

Then explain the volumes of books, articles, and speeches lamenting the fact that there is a lack of leadership in (you name the organization, company, or government). Also: I've never seen someone lead effectively who didn't first know how to follow effectively. 'Following' isn't a weak, one-down posture. It's an entire set of thoughts, behaviors and skills that help a person understand how best to navigate an organization and what it means to serve and perform.

2. "We don't train people, we train dogs. We educate people."

Very cute.

Did you get "educated" in order to pass your driving test and parallel park? Do airline pilots and Space Shuttle commanders simply wave around their Ph.D's on "Aerodynamics and the Meaning of Life" or do they practice the right things over and over again before being allowed to fly? And is there some reason why you and your spouse look at each other and say, "Why does Duke the Dachshund behave better than Ashley and Jared?"

I'm sounding the trumpet call for "Here's how you do this" training for anyone who has to supervise anyone else.

Why?

Because it's the direct link to performance, retention, and creating an organization filled with people who know how to do the right things the right way.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Engagement, Performance, and "The Right Things"

There is a bogus debate happening in employee engagement circles.

In reality, it is the opposing viewpoints of two different vendors whose products focus on one and not the other. One claims that “management” is the solution to engagement; the other says that its research reveals that organizations, not managers, are the cause of poor engagement.

Sound Somewhat Familiar?

This is reminiscent of the 20-year argument about the difference between management and leadership.  That argument has not, in my observation, contributed to anything substantive in the behavior, performance, or results of organizations. It probably has been useful in helping people identify when to wear their vision-casting, big picture hat and when to put on the “Let’s sit down and talk about how you/we are doing on this project” beanie.

The truth: If you are the person out in front, you are doing both. Every effective CEO with whom I’ve worked constantly toggles back and forth between “rallying the masses” and “managing performance”.

What’s the Issue?

Organizational rules, procedures, and processes certainly can get in the way of day-to-day engagement (as can a change of mission and purpose). So, it is possible for “the organization” to get in the way. That's why it's valuable for managers to  sit down with people regularly and find out what kinds of organizational stuff is interfering with success--then, take steps to remove it.

Forget the either/or debate. People are simply more likely to engage and perform when the organization’s policies and systems don’t get in the way. This frees up their managers to help them focus  their efforts at the intersection of talents, goals, and results.

What to think about: In business, as in life, people commit to a mission but they engage with people.

For more, join me at 1 pm ET today when we extend the conversation the HR.COM webcast; sign up for free here.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

What, Really, Is Employee Engagement?

How do you define Employee Engagement?

It's easy to toss the phrase du jour around in meeting rooms and cubicles; but when it comes to commitment and action, there has to be a common understanding of what we're really talking about.

The more I watch Employee Engagement discussed, the more I realize that the people in the room are coming at it from different viewpoints.

The Conference Board researched the issue of definition and came to the same conclusion: different studies reflected different definitions of Employee Engagement. So they came up with a "blended" definition and some key themes that represented all of the studies.

The definition of Employee Engagement: "a heightened emotional connection that an employee feels for his or her organization, that influences him or her to exert greater discretionary effort to his or her work".

That makes sense and is easily understood.

What I think is truly helpful to those involved in creating Employee Engagement is the Conference Board's synthesis of 8 key drivers of engagement. These offer concrete targets for development:

• Trust and integrity – how well managers communicate and 'walk the talk'.
  
  
• Nature of the job –Is it mentally stimulating day-to-day?
  
  
• Line of sight between employee performance and company performance – Does the employee understand how their work contributes to the company's performance?
  
  
• Career Growth opportunities –Are there future opportunities for growth?
  
  
• Pride about the company – How much self-esteem does the employee feel by being associated with their company?
  
  
• Coworkers/team members – significantly influence one's level of engagement
  
  
• Employee development – Is the company making an effort to develop the employee's skills?
  
  
• Relationship with one's manager – Does the employee value his or her relationship with his or her manager?

What Do You Think?

For those of us who have to turn theory into practice, I like simple and concise one-liners that can lead to purposeful action.

How do you define Employee Engagement?

__________________________________

But there's more!

The ever-growing Employee Engagement Network begun by my friend David Zinger is a vibrant source--and discussion--of all things EE. If you haven't found it already, have a read...you'll want to join in once you get there.

Engagement by Mom: Wally Bock shows just how smart moms really are when it comes to keeping their kids engaged.

Reminder: Join me at 1 p.m. Eastern Time on May 12th at Performance Management Practices that Boost Employee Engagement.  HR Leader Kathy Anthony, of O’Sullivan Creel and I will tie together the software and people process elements of effective performance management and engagement. You can sign up here for free. The event is hosted by HR.COM and sponsored by Halogen Software.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Purposeful Passion and Managing Engagement

No one I've ever met is actually against the idea of being passionate about one's work. But how passion is related to results, how it is channeled, and what keeps it going can generate a lot of buzz.

A good, hard look at passion shows that it is generated in great part by one's view of the value of that work, and not a mindless onslaught of emotional overload. As a result, the responsibility for channeling passion in organizations is the purview of managers and leaders.

Dr. Peter Vajda of SpiritHeart once noted that the soulful nature of a person's passion is "akin to an alchemic reaction that bubbles up from engaging activities."

Purposeful Passion and Engagement

What we're seeing here is the truth coming to the surface. Although passion may be an individual  experience, in the workplace it's the manager who is the mediator of passion.

Matching the right tasks with the right people breeds the kind of productive experience that offer satisfaction as a result of accomplishment. That kind of matching means that managers have to know their people well enough to know what their individual talents are--then use them accordingly. This does at least four things (you may want to add more):

1. It offers the opportunity for the company to benefit from the strengths that it supposedly hired.

2. It shows the employees that their talents are, indeed, recognized, and that they (the employees) aren't just "human" resources.

3. It shows the employees that their managers know "who they are and what they are all about."

4. It offers a genuine chance at a reality of "excellence" rather than "excellence" as a buzzword.

Maybe we should start referring to this as "guided passion": understanding the best of what people bring to the job and  managing  more deliberately  to help people become productive in satisfying ways.

Note: Look, there are tasks that all of us have to do, regardless of the work we've chosen. We not only aren't passionate about them, we don't like them. It's part of life and being an adult. Managers aren't there to "make people happy." Happiness is a personal choice. But managers get paid to produce excellent results. They can't achieve that goal without bringing about excellence in their people. And I don't think I've ever heard anyone express disappointment at the opportunity to excel.

Management Engagement

That's what has to happen to make all of this a reality: management engagement. Employee engagement implies that there are vast numbers of workers malingering on the job--and we have to "get them engaged."

I would suggest that there are vast numbers of managers who don't know their people well enough to orchestrate work in ways that lift people's desire to engage. There are too many mismatches going on out there.

It ends up being, in great part, a relational issue.

Managing is not an easy job to do well. But it's impossible if a manager doesn't take the time to build relationships that allow insight into individuals' strengths and desires when they show up for work.

The employment agreement is a contract: We, the organization, need to accomplish this; and we're hiring you, the employee (regardless of level), because you bring this to the organization

The manager's job is to orchestrate all of this.

I like the idea of Purposeful Passion.

_____________________________

I hope you'll join me at 1 p.m. Eastern Time on May 12th at Performance Management Practices that Boost Employee Engagement.  HR Leader Kathy Anthony, of O’Sullivan Creel and I will tie together the software and people process elements of effective performance management and engagement. You can sign up here for free. The event is hosted by HR.COM and sponsored by Halogen Software.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Management by Subtraction

The older more mature I get, the more convinced I am that really good managers spend a lot of time getting rid of things.

Most people actually do know how to perform their jobs. What gets in the way are outdated procedures, internal struggles, missing/incomplete communication between department heads, and a million other things that organization dwellers run into each day.

Want to Be A Management Hero?

If you are a manager, your job is to pave the way for your people's performance. Sure, you have to give out assignments, follow up on tasks, and sit down to discuss performance. But good management isn't additive; it doesn't "pile on" until groups crumble under the weight of "more". Good management thrives as a result of focusing on what's important and then using your position power to help people deal with the right things in the right ways. Sometimes that equals "less". 

My management thought for today: Managers Are the Mediators of Success.

How would that single thought impact how managers operate?

Coming on Thursday: Mary Jo Asmus weighs in with a guest post on "When Silence Can Be Golden." Mary Jo's comment on Silence Is Not Golden Unless You Are A New Parent deserved some expanded coverage. I'm pleased that she's taking the time to serve it up!

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Caution: Your Self, Your Systems , and Quaker Parrots

You and I may have something in common (in addition to work).

Anytime I come across a parrot, I try to strike up a conversation to see if the bird will talk back. Don't you? For some reason, it's perfectly acceptable for humans to be seen in public attempting to talk with parrots. And if they talk back, it's a treat.

At least for a while.

The problem that arises is this: the darned bird has no idea what it's saying or why it's saying it. Parrots aren't into context. Which is why they, uh, "parrot" things.

What does this have to do with you and systems?

Workplaces are all about systems, and rightfully so. Without systems we would waste time doing the same task differently at each attempt. Makes no sense.

So systems are good. Excellent, in fact. Learning what works and replicating it is a wise thing to do. All of you 5S, GTD, SAP, and PDQ Bach people know that.

So why is "Caution" up there in the headline?

There is a distinct difference between replicating successful systems and trying to mindlessly copy the behavior of managers or management "techniques" that have worked before. 

Take  inspiration from your mentors and models, but become a person who manages upon a foundation of guiding principles. Learn and understand why something worked in the past, taking into account the context in which it worked. That context will help you build a set of principles on which to base your management, your organizational life, and your career.

Use the best models out there to gain a better understanding of management and why you do what you do.

The caution?… None of your people really wants to speak with a managerial parrot.

Oh, why Quaker Parrots? According to this, they are "charming (with)comical personalities and a willingness to learn human speech; the Quaker Parrot is an excellent choice for those who want all the fun of a large parrot in a smaller package. They adapt well to living in a "human flock" setting, and enjoy spending time with their owners."

Could be better than having the teenagers around.

Bonus Alert: Dan McCarthy will get you TORC-ed up about what's most important to your career as well as a related hiring process. This is a primo post.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

"Happy Face" Performance Reviews Zap Everyone

Joane Bintliff-Ritchie, experienced HR and Talent pro, contributes this about "A" Players, Layoffs, and Missing Data:

 "I've actually lived this scenario with one exception. There were annual performance reviews for everyone but those employed <1year. However, the distinctions driving the 'who to cut' list were not matched in the reviews. Everyone had a performance rating of Acceptable or better, and the majority were better. So the legal eagles still stepped in and said our data was inconclusive and weak. We then had to fall back to data like time in position and years of service to identify the layoffs. We lost many strong performers and several new hires we had spent a great deal of $$ to recruit and onboard."

Now You Know, So. . .

Managers: Start talking straight during performance reviews if you aren't already doing so. Everyone isn't "Acceptable" or better, unless your criteria for "Acceptable" are exceedingly low. If that seems to be the case, re-visit the level of your standards and look at the actual performance of your group. If everyone consistently has these ratings, you aren't looking closely enough at what "good" really is.

Then, document the reviews.

Employees: If you aren't getting a review, demand one. Those of you who know you are top-notch performers can help protect yourself in the kinds of situations we've addressed these two days. If your boss doesn't/won't document, then you write out the salient points of the discussion, send it as an email attachment noting the date of the meeting, and keep the file for later access.

This can help you in the event of a layoff scenario or, better yet, when an opportunity arises and you have the concrete information that reflects your outstanding performance.

Many of you are managers and HR professionals. What else can everyone be doing to avert problems down the road?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

"A" Players, Layoffs, and Missing Data

Here's a real-life situation that I'll bet is getting played out in more than one company:

1. Company X identifies a  legitimate need to reduce headcount

2. Managers are asked to do an "A-B-C" performance ranking activity, with A being the stars and C being the lowest 10% (or whatever system is decided).

3. It is announced that retention decisions will be made based upon performance

4. It is then discovered that the "C" players (as well as others), many of whom have been with the organization since the first Reagan administration haven't received a written performance review since then, either.

5. All of those newly-identified low performers have also received regular pay raises over the years.

Ooops. I'm From Legal: Don't Do This.

• No performance review means no supporting written documentation,

• Regular pay raises imply satisfaction with performance.

The result? Your corporate legal eagles tell you that, absent defensible data, your downsizing will be done based on seniority--with the newest hires leaving first, regardless of performance.

If your organization hasn't demanded regular performance feedback and documentation, I hope this will cause all of that to change. In addition to the positive developmental aspect, having the data can protect your from what happened to the above organization:

1. Needing to manage lean in tough times.

2. Needing the very best people to do that.

3. Seeing some of the best people laid off while some of the lowest performers remain, hindering the ability to survive and hopefully thrive.

What's happening in your organization?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Strengths, Weaknesses, and Genuine Growth

I decided to take a break for the past week, enjoy my family during the Thanksgiving holiday, and return renewed.

Doing What Comes Naturally was about paying more attention to what comes easily to us. Too often we ignore our talents because it doesn't "feel" like we are working very hard.

The reason I emphasized this is because of a tendency--beginning with elementary school education--to point out the deficiencies in one's performance based upon another's perceived sense of what is important, worthwhile, and desirable. We tend to hear more about our downsides than our inherent gifts. Later on in life, organizations tend to do the same thing with gap analyses based upon competencies. That's not bad at all if the competencies are related to your desired professional development. It works better if the gap analysis is tied into agreed-upon goals. That way, you are looking at performance vs. results instead of performance vs. behaviors which may not, in fact, have anything to do with your success. My experience with a number of competencies is that they fit into a textbook, social-engineering "this is how you should be" framework that can be inaccurate and merely reflect the fad-du-jour in management.

Strengths vs. Weaknesses: It's Not An Either/Or

If you are going to be really good and really satisfied with your life's work, you need to pinpoint--and accept--your talents and strengths. I say "accept" because they may not be what you want or what you had hoped for (or what your parents, teachers, and friends believe you ought to have).

Yet in order to reach star status, you'll need to bump up your game in other areas. I like this addition from Dr. Peter Vajda:

Focusing on one's strengths alone supports one to move from good, to better to best where they "are." Focusing on one's weaknesses, potential, ares for development, etc., supports one to move the action of their life forward, beyond where "I am"....towards a deepening self-actualization, and holistic sense of growth.

It's also well to remember that one's virtues often become one's vices...as when one becomes an "expert" at some ability, skill, or talent and often becomes overbearing in the way they feel they need to manifest that talent, etc. "When all you have is a hammer..."

Here are three related examples I've seen in the past month:

1. A PowerPoint pro unwilling to teach colleagues a few tips and tricks that would help them save time and improve the quality of their visuals. The issue is not blatant selfishness--it is unwillingness to stretch a bit in order to stand in front of a small group and "teach." However, the unwillingness is perceived in some circles as "not helping the team."

2. Global manufacturing manager not initiating conversations with boss in order to keep him up-to-date. When asked "Why not?", the response was, "It's just not me."

Fact: This guy is unbelievably knowledgeable and experienced.

Fact: He is perceived that way by the boss.

Fact: The boss needs information and will not allow this to continue, even if it means getting a replacement who is not quite as experienced but is more forthcoming with information.

3. Engineer using "I am an engineer, not a people person" as an excuse not to cooperate with others whose points of view are different. His posture: "This is what I was trained to do, this is why you hired me, this is my opinion, I don't need to 'defend' it to non-engineers."

Unfortunately, this example is one that has become more common. Technical prowess has been increasingly allowed to hold hostage the most basic elements of effective organizational behavior. In this case, the individual will retain a technical role but will end up losing managerial status. He's not willing to acknowledge weaknesses which, if addressed, could put him at the level he believes he "deserves" to be.

None of these people is using their talent to move their lives forward and contribute in bigger ways to their organizations. Each is talented, yet each is choosing not to broaden the impact of their talents. They don't have to be "as good" in the areas desired by others. They need to reach what may be considered, like vitamins, a "minimum daily requirement."

A good question to ask yourself is: "What else do I need to develop in support of my strengths?"

It may only be a minimum daily requirement.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Thanks to everyone who has been adding to this discussion:

Jackie Cameron at Jackie Cameron-Coaching and Communication

Entrepreneur Karin H. at The Kiss Business

Tom Magness, LeaderBusiness

Dr. Peter Vajda, partner at SpiritHeart

Michelle Malay Carter, consultant at Mission Minded Management

The talented Meg Bear at Talented Apps

Brain-based Dr. Ellen Weber at her new site Brain Leaders and Learners

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Feedback, Truth, and Love

Sodium is an active element found naturally only in combined form; it always links itself to another element. Chlorine is the poisonous gas that gives bleach its strong and offensive odor. When sodium and chlorine are combined, the result is sodium chloride--the common table salt that we use to preserve meat and bring out its flavor.

Love and truth are a lot like sodium and chlorine. Love without truth is erratic, often blind, and even willing to attach itself to anything that seems desirable in the moment. On the other hand, truth by itself can be quite offensive, even poisonous. Spoken without the intent of kindness or a spirit of love, it can turn people away from what they really need to hear.

Feedback is a big deal in organizations. It can be used to guide people to greater heights of performance or break someone's spirit in an instant.

Before delivering what you know to be true, check out your mental salt shaker and let your heart catch up with your mind.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Are You Using Professional Assessments Professionally?

How is your organization using professional and leadership assessments?

Self-assessments, 360 degree feedback, assessment centers, and other similar tools are widely used in the workplace. What's your experience with them?

A lot of information is generated during the assessment process. I was reviewing some feedback that was coming in for a client and realized that there are many good uses for it. We may not always be taking the best advantage of the information and the potential process. So. . .

Would Some of These Help You and Your Organization?

Assessment feedback, by definition, is given to the subject of the assessment. That person is often asked to reflect  and decide what, if anything, to do with it. That's fine. Making changes is a choice. But here are some other ways to get the most from the data. You may be doing some are all of them now. If not, here are some thoughts that I hope you will find helpful:

1. In the case of 360 feedback, encourage the recipient (I'll use the word "Manager") to get together with the group that generated the data. It's an opportunity, at minimum, to acknowledge the time and energy they put into the activity.

Suggest that the Manager share the themes and take-aways from the data. 360 activities have some of the same dynamics as surveys. Participants want to know what happened with their input--and what will change as a result. This is a chance to do just that. And, if the Manager has misinterpreted something, the group can add clarity.

Yes, I know that the feedback is anonymous, blah blah. However, the act of inviting the respondents to come together also invites a deeper level of candor. And the fact of the matter is: These are people with whom the Manager has to work. Sooner or later it will be time to increase the honesty of conversations. This is an ideal framework in which to do that.

2. A Good Reason For A Good Conversation with "The Boss."

If you're the Manager, make an appointment with your boss. Tell what you think you want to do differently. Ask if the boss sees the data and your intended changes in the same way. Or differently. Here's the principle: Giving straight feedback is difficult for a lot, if not most, people. Including the boss. If you provide the data and ask for suggestions, you've done the work that your boss my find tough. It may be the most meaningful conversation you've had with that person.

3. A Good Reason For a Good Conversation with Your Reports.

If it's a 360, some or all of those folks provided feedback. I wouldn't call a departmental meeting and declare "Let's share." I would do one of these two:

• Make it a point to informally share what you learned and are working on with each person. Do it in the course of normal conversation.

• If you have a full group meeting coming up soon, take 10 minutes to talk about the assessment, the process, what you learned, what you are working on, and what kind of support you need to do those things. The payoff? You get help. You set the model that getting feedback and doing assessments is a valuable activity.

4. Self Assessments. Any or all of the above will be helpful to validate your self perception. We have ways of deceiving ourselves on both scales: positive and negative. Have the conversations that will give you an accurate picture.

Let's assume that you--or whoever is being assessed--will use the info for development. Here's the payoff you don't want to miss: the data provide an "objective" reason to have a "subjective" conversation. When you rally around the information, you are in an arena that's focused on performance factors and not necessarily you as a person. (That may be a result. Why not find out while you still have time to make changes?).

Most of all: an assessment offers  a legitimate reason to have the kind of conversation you've been missing.

Go for it!

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Want Effective Management? Check Your Paperwork.

Check this from Management-Issues:

According to a study of nearly 1,300 mid-level managers around the world by consultancy Proudfoot, vast swathes of the average manager's working day are spent on unproductive activities.

The Global Productivity Report found managers spent 34 per cent of their time on administrative tasks and just a tenth of their time on training and active supervision of their workers.

Their workers, too, were not exactly buzzingly productive. More than a third of their time – 34.3 per cent – was spent on unproductive activities, up from just over 32 per cent recorded the year before.

This meant workers were spending 1.7 days a week on unproductive workplace activities, it concluded.

Managers spent in total 18.5 per cent of their time on unproductive activities, or the equivalent of just under a full working day per week, it added.

Yet, for every five point increase in the share of time managers spent on active supervision, the productivity of their workers, or at least the amount of time they spent on unproductive activities, improved by one point, the survey also found.

The managers were also asked to list their top six barriers to improving productivity.

Topping the list was a shortage of skilled workers, followed by a lack of good internal communication, red tape, rules and regulations, poor employee morale, high staff turnover and, lastly, the quality of their own supervisors.

Chickens, Eggs, and People Who "Get It"

Let's assume that the survey results are valid and that the 1300 managers represented a scientific random sampling with an acceptable +/-% margin of error.

The managers' list of 'barriers to improving productivity' is formidable. I couldn't help but notice:

1. The quality of their own supervisors. Productive workplaces are all about effective bosses. If this a universal problem then there is a systemic management issue at work globally.

2. Assuming the data are true, managers often aren't required to manage and develop people. They are administering the businesses instead.

3. An emphasis on paperwork would be consistent with red tape and rules and regulations.

4. I never know what good internal communications really means. I've written about it before. "Communications" is a catch-all phrase and one needs to ask probing questions to find out what is really underneath.

5. Well, if there is too much paperwork and not enough management it's not a stretch to see that employee morale would be down, prompting thoughts of leaving the company.

6. I intentionally saved 'skilled workers' for last. The skilled workers thing pops up constantly (think, "war for talent"). There are gazillions of talented people graduating from universities each year along with gabillions of experienced workers looking to make a move (see the research above).

Would someone please tell me:

a. What skills are absent to the extent that there is a seemingly universal crisis?

b. If these skills are in fact absent, what are companies and educational institutions doing--individually and in concert--to impact the situation.

All of the above are so behaviorally interrelated that one has to ask the, "What came first, chicken or egg?" question.

BTW: The answer is good management. In organizations, everything flows from that. If managers can't or won't manage, then one would expect to see this kind of survey result.

What I Am Seeing

Finally, an observation based on daily experience in organizations.

I'm not seeing a shortage of skills. I'm seeing a shortage of people who "get it."

• People who come into work, scan the horizon, and say, "What's happening and how can I be most helpful?"

• People who look at the bigger picture and the connectedness of themselves to the whole.

• People who ignore the fine print in their job descriptions and look at "all other duties as may be assigned" as the operative part.

What's going on in your working world?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.