The most critical skill for managers today is finding, hiring, and keeping highly competent talent.
But frankly, we need to a significant amount of “weeding out” when we don’t make that perfect hire. Welch and GE received dubious press for their “forced rankings” process, but more organizations today are doing that same thing – directly or indirectly. Taking a hard look at the bottom 25% performers and asking, “can we do better?”
Additionally, some turnover is always “good.” When a hiring mismatch occurs, the discomfort and feelings of responsibility in hiring usually just create an uncomfortable environment, and both the company and employee are usually better served by finding a better match, whether that means resignation (voluntary turnover) by the employee, or termination (forced turnover) by the employer.
And sometimes it’s not simply performance on a 1-10 scale. If the business changes, restructures, or re-engineers, it may create an obsolete employee from one who was satisfactory before. Again, if the match isn’t “right,” the quicker the turnover, the better. Additionally, some of the old axioms about turnover are still true; we always need “some” rotation of talent to provide for new thinking, new ideas, and new approaches.
Also interestingly, I have a client that recently lost its top engineering manager. The leadership team had, for some time, realized that this person was not a good fit for the role, mostly for interpersonal (not technical skills) reasons. This engineer finally realized he was ill-suited and, frankly, not really welcomed, and he resigned. Is the organization better for it? Certainly. Is the employee? Probably, as he now has a position at a company that – hopefully – better matches his personal skills, knowledge and abilities.
Turnover isn’t necessarily bad — it just “is.” Manage the bad, make the “good turnover” happen timely, and it will all shake out in the end.
I frequently am asked about an employee’s refusal to sign some document: a written warning, a performance review, a job description, etc.
What to do? What do you do when the employee looks you squarely in the eye and says “no,” when asked/directed to sign?
Many will advise to simply have another manager ‘witness’ the event or document, and sign as a witness. Others will say that signing is just not that big of a deal in the first place.
Well, it is and it isn’t.
Signing is seldom a process deal-breaker; in other words, if your process doesn’t have a requirement for signing a lot of these things, their lack of signature likely won’t bring about an early Armageddon.
Another view, however, should you have a requirement in place for a signature:
This simply isn’t how good, dependable employees behave. Signing an acknowledgment is simply an adult action that can be required by the company. I’m referring here to notifications and receipt, not to agreement, per se.
Tell the employee to sign, or go home. Their lack of signature — when not stating agreement to something against their will — is clear and simple insubordinate conduct. And even more important, they are just being a pain-in-the-butt employee for no good reason.
I don’t know about you, but I have enough trouble making it through the day without regularly interacting with someone who is intentionally trying to frustrate me.
This isn’t a series of negotiations, it’s a workplace, and it has conditions. The request is reasonable; reasonable employees will sign, and unreasonable employees need to be shown the door.
Ok, so maybe the Beatles reference was a bit much…
We were two companies, someone decided merger was a good thing… then just one big, happy family… right??
Bain Capital. McKinsey. Deloitte… don’t take just my word for it; the single biggest reason for merger or acquisition failure is NOT costs, lack of synergy, shortage of capital, incompatible strategy, etc.
It’s people. Failure to integrate cultures, directions, leadership and communities within an organization result in more failures than any market disapproval could muster.
Pay attention here; you’re paying big bucks for – usually – more than a simple asset. Realistically, even simple “asset purchases” are hoping for more than a simple Return on Asset; we’re always hoping for bigger, better returns that can only happen through the newly combined workforce talent. Again, “people.”
Let’s get right to it. I’m assuming you’ve competently determined that the merger or acquisition is a logical addition to your business. The technical part is fairly simple… a bunch of spreadsheets, a month or two of due diligence to verify the lofty promises, assurances, and statements from management. Now, let’s work on the more fickle side…
The most important thing to remember is communication.
Frequent, informative, helpful communications. The initial merger time is the most critical, since many of the employees in the acquired company will “overthink” the event, and may believe they will be summarily replaced. Or, more important to key performers, that they’ll lose their “key performer” status.
Frankly, you may actually WANT to lose some of them, but don’t you want the opportunity, at least, to have some input to who stays and who goes?
If you intend to make cuts, announce them and do them quickly. The longer it takes, the worse the retention results. Be sure, if staff cuts will occur, that they occur on both “sides” of the merger equation, if you really want a successful post-merger story.
Read this closely: the longer you take to make the “who stays and goes” determination, the more high performers you lose. It really is that simple. Mediocre and poor performers simply fret endlessly, duck for cover, and hope to go unnoticed.
High performers don’t look at life – or their careers – that way.
And they have no intention of waiting around to see if you’ll give them a thumbs-up or thumbs-down. These people are infinitely employable, have probably got feelers out already, and in the absence of anyone helping them do differently, will look out for their own well-being.
Even to your detriment.
Next, assess the acquired company’s culture and strengths, and make the determination on what “works” for you, and what doesn’t. Once you determine what the “combined” culture will look like, no compromise — on either “side.”
Read that again. No Compromise. On the bus or off the bus. No one rides along for sightseeing. No one – particular if influential and/or in leadership – gets to publicly buck the “new deal. Like the three musketeers, it’s “All for One!”
Remember — and this is ultra-important — there can only be ONE culture. Anything else will lead to fragmented actions, loyalties, and lack of direction.
Finally, be frank and open with the process. The worst thing that could happen is that the acquired employees lose trust in your integration process – they already ‘suspect’ you may not have their best interests at heart.
If my concepts above aren’t specific enough, here’s some detail on crafting a successful integration:
Create an employee integration plan immediately. It takes hours, not days, don’t dilly-dally. Communicate that plan to others (both ‘”sides”).
Execute to that plan immediately, quickly, and strongly. Patton was correct: “A good plan, violently executed now, is better than a perfect plan next week.”Time is not on your side here. The longer it takes, the worse the outcome… guaranteed.
Decide where you’ll compromise — and where not — and hold firm.
Communicate, communicate, and over-communicate. Rinse and repeat. Even “nothing new to report” is better than silence.People fill ‘unknowns’ with their own “knowns,” and they are generally not the information you’d prefer them using to make decisions.
Clearly define roles, accountabilities, reporting relationships, and performance expectations. It’s the very core of the employee agreement.
“It ain’t over ’till it’s over.” Don’t declare integration ‘victory’ too soon.Prematurely hailing success has killed many an integration, as a couple of key people/groups look around and say “not from where I sit, bubba.”
Good luck. Fun but challenging stuff.
Come to think of it, most of this applies to any substantial organizational change effort as well. I’ll be damned; surely must be just a coincidence…
How many times have we heard–or uttered ourselves–this common lament? I’m guessing “lots” is a fairly accurate response.
The better answer, however, is “way too often.” The performance management process (of which some variation of an appraisal is essential) is the key to organizational improvement. To give that process the short shrift simply because someone has abused the effort sometime in your lifetime (maybe right now) is to say that, in effect, improving organizational performance is best accomplished by guesswork, hope, and good intentions. And by believing every supervisor who tells you, “Oh, yeah, I’m having regular performance feedback conversations with everyone who works for me.”
I was born at night, but not last night.
One of the scariest things I’ve read lately–in the long list of ill-advised approaches to leadership–is this talk of “getting rid of performance reviews.”
What a load of bunk.
We don’t need to, nor should we, get rid of them. In fact, it’s about time we doubled down and sharply increased the attention and use of this valuable process.
A puzzling part to me, is that most organizations attribute a poor performance review program or process to their Human Resources function. Another load of bunk. I’m not defending your HR department per se, but if your performance review efforts are anything less than successful, senior leadership–up to and including the chief executive–are squarely accountable.
A reminder… your HR shop is not an independent, self-employed entity, and if they haven’t heard you say differently, they are meeting your expectations.
Managing organizational performance is a leadership issue, not an HR function.
Some brief points to ponder:
Why do them? Done correctly, performance reviews align individual efforts with organizational goals and objectives, provide a scorecard or barometer for performance (think pay, promotion, development, succession, training), and act as a solid vehicle in an employees’ developmental journey.
Who leads this process? Senior leadership. It must–simply must–begin at the top. This top-down responsibility is as much a core responsibility as cost control and managing margins. Let’s be clear: If you, senior leader, don’t take this process seriously; if you don’t complete them timely; if you don’t enthusiastically support these efforts within your organizations, then their ineffectiveness is on your shoulders, no one else.
Best practices include casting due dates in stone–no exceptions. The latter part of the review should spell out and discuss–in clear, unambiguous language–the expectations for the future review period. More is better than few. Use objective measurements whenever possible. Subjective analysis should be a severe exception, not a rule. If you really can’t measure it yourself, what makes you think an employee can?
Performance reviews are dead. Long live performance reviews. I’m fine with burying the old, HR-driven process that included so many cumbersome “extras,” provisos and “qualifications,” as long as we replace it with something that clearly defines expectations, provides measurements for those expectations, and follows up on the performance to those expectations.
Anything else is simply accountability avoidance. Let’s don’t do that, ok?
Outsourcing is a viable business option, and it’s here to stay. And it’s nothing new — we’ve been outsourcing some or all of the human resources functions for decades (think 401k admin, for example). Having said that, to what criteria do we manage these providers? More importantly, what criteria do we/should we use when selecting outsourcing partners?
Normally, outsourcing human resources — at any level — is a balanced combination of task management and results measurement. In other words, we typically outsource those high-volume, repeatable tasks, and measure a provider’s efficacy on the demonstrated success of accomplishing those tasks.
And, from my view, we need to keep 3 things in mind when selecting these outsourcing partners:
Task management. Are they capable of accomplishing the full range of tasks that we require, specifically as we require them done?
In other words, will they, can they, do it “our way,” or will our employees have to adapt to “their way,” out of provider convenience and consistency?
Results measurement. How will we measure the success of task accomplishment mentioned above? Again, will those measurements be a subset of what we already use and are accustomed to today, or will the measurements for success be those determined or offered solely by the new provider?
Best results, of course, come from integrating an outsourcer into OUR organization, including using established, valid measurements.
What else can they offer, that creates value in our world, that we may not have specifically been seeking? I have a large client who wanted to outsource virtually all task-driven efforts within benefits, compensation, and even some employee relations. The provider, however, demonstrated a method for outsourcing full-cycle recruitment that my client had never before considered. This value-added offering put that provider over the top.
In short, measure current and future outsourcers as you would any other business function: by a combination of the things they do measured against the results they deliver.
And hold their toes to the fire…
(I have no idea of the origins of that phrase…!)
