D. Kevin Berchelmann, Author at Triangle Performance

Teams, Gaggles, Flocks and Org Charts–The first rule of the leadership team is…

by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Aug 1, 2022 | Executive Improvement

Just because we lump a bunch of people together at work and call them a “team,” doesn’t make it so. A group, gaggle, bunch, or flock just requires box similarities on an org chart.

Most identified teams, simply put, aren’t.

A couple of decent authors have stated “teams are a group of people that trust each other.” That doesn’t go far enough.

Teams are a group of people that trust each other to do their jobs even when absent. In other words, I know you’ll do what’s best by me, even if I’m not in the room.

Teams aren’t created, they’re formed. Even better, they’re forged.

So, as the leader of this heretofore mislabeled enterprise, how do you know if you are forging this team, as opposed to just creating it? Ah, young Jedi… the perfect question.

There are a few things to look for, both good and not-so-good.

Good:

Do team members ask questions/offer opinions (in meetings) on other team members’ responsibilities?
In other words, are they capable (and willing) to offer their opinion based on non-technical judgment or experience, in areas where they are not a subject-matter-expert?
Do team members disagree (in meetings), and then LISTEN to the responses?
Can they ask questions of each other without getting a perfunctory “jeeez,” and an eye roll from the owner of the topic?Well-intentioned devil’s advocates can sometimes be helpful.
Are most decisions made by team members OUTSIDE of team meetings?
Meetings should NOT be the place for a ton of brand-new information-sharing. It should be the place for actions and decisions that cannot be made between one or multiple members outside of a boardroom, on discussion items that have already been mostly hashed before the meeting.
Do they regularly engage outside of required operational discussions?
Are their routine drive-by conversations about kids, football scores and home remodeling (sorry, just can’t let that one go)? Periodic lunches, maybe even a dinner or other mostly social gatherings?
People are forever trying and tell me that outside interactions are unnecessary for a high-performing team – to that, I say bullshit. It is
Does the team keep team conflicts strictly within the team?
If I can go to your subordinate and find out what you really think of your teammates, you aren’t doing your job.The first rule of the leadership team is that you don’t talk about the leadership team outside of the leadership team. No exceptions, unless you want to say fantastically complimentary things about someone, or perhaps praise the dickens out of the teams executive and leadership coach (Oops! How’d that get in there?).

Not-so-good:

Do team members disagree silently in meetings, then caucus with the Grand Poobah afterwards?
A sure sign of a dysfunctional team is the inability to offer contrary opinions, and the need to convince the boss outside the arena where decisions should be made, and actions agreed on.This ain’t a political primary – it’s a business and you’re a leader within it. Act like one. Have the guts to offer your opinion, even if not fully developed, where others can hear it and react.
Do team members routinely speak to you about other members’ shortcomings or challenges?
If the only way you, as team lead or senior-most leader, know that a subordinate is underperforming is for another subordinate to come and tell you… both you and that tattle-tale subordinate are key parts of the problem.If a colleague is performing sub-optimally, tell him or her directly. “Use your words,” as many parents tell their kids. Be respectful and direct, and come armed with specific examples. Ask me about our “Difficult and Courageous Conversations” for leaders. It’s a necessary skill.Or drop it and don’t mention it at all to anyone. Telling the boss first, however, is not option #3.
Do others in the organization know about specific team conflicts?
An extension of #2. When disagreements exist – when the consensus (including you) is to make Decision “A,” but you still fundamentally disagree – do you shuttle around your subordinates having “keep this between you and me” conversations with each of them about how yours is the best way?Stop that.
Do next-level employees know which team members are “liked” or not by their boss?

They shouldn’t.There is zero reason for someone who works with you or for you to know that you think less of teammate Brian in HR than of Lynn in Operations. The organization is hurt when this occurs, since those subordinates then carry some of that baggage with them, collaborating less, sharing less, and developing unfounded heartburn for someone merely because of their tribe.And that is because of you.
Don’t do that.

There’s not an absolute litmus test for high-performing and high-functioning teams, as much as a continuum. One of the highest performing exec teams I’ve ever worked with continues to “work on” being better as a team. It’s a continuous process, requiring proactive efforts by all.

The team leader sets the tone and basic non-negotiables (CPA — condone, permit, allow). All else is done by the team at large and can’t be delegated.

Other than that – easy-peasy.

Stupid should hurt… Learn from your business mistakes.

by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jun 22, 2022 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness

I was recently involved (as a participant) in a strategic planning event; the facilitator, Alan Pue, was discussing many of the ways that planning — and its subsequent implementation — can go wrong.

In part of that commentary, he mentioned as an example a firm’s inability to adapt to a necessary change in the market, and how that inability adversely affected their performance. Alan wasn’t sympathetic to their plight, nor even empathetic. In fact, he made it clear that the problem was their own doing, and the resultant pain was of their own creation. They did it to themselves, have no one else to blame, and these lessons — though valuable — can be painful.

I agree.

When we act so dumb in business that we can’t get out of our own way, the resultant pain is our own doing. Sort of like touching a hot stove, we hopefully learn that we shouldn’t do that again.

Stupid should hurt.

Span of Control

by D. Kevin Berchelmann | May 28, 2022 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness

What’s the optimum number of direct reports? How many people should a single manager have working for them? What we are referring to, of course, is “Span of Control,” and though there can be unique situations in some organizations, there are also decent historical guidelines.

Span of control isn’t simply dependent on individuals; it’s a basic limitation of all managers as it describes only their direct reports. Though any manager can control any number of people if there are enough levels in between, not so when it comes to direct reports.

Research (mostly military-based) has shown that a leader can directly control about three to six persons effectively. Additionally, the “relationships” among those supervised are as important as their actual number.

Managing four people who interact constantly might be harder than supervising five or six who work largely independently.

Generally, an executive (someone managing managers) should supervise a maximum of four or five people.

In real practice, you don’t have to be an expert to know if you’re in trouble with span of control. If you have more than half a dozen people reporting to you, it’s probably too many.

Even six could be too many if those six have consistent dealings with each other. The reason of course, is that in addition to managing relationships with each subordinate, managers have to get involved to an extent in their relationships with each other.

In simple terms, going from four to five direct reports, each with four direct reports of their own, potentially doubles your effective workload while increasing your output (productivity) capacity by only 20 percent.

If the people you supervise don’t interact, you can handle more of them.

Remember, too, that I’m discussing managerial span of control — managers managing managers. The numbers can increase significantly when managing individual contributors, particularly if highly skilled.

Just some thoughts…

Yooo-hoooo… Here I am!!

by D. Kevin Berchelmann | May 28, 2022 | Brazen Leader, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness

I didn’t disappear, just fell victim to the “wait until the end of the year to do that” disease.

I did, and it hurt. Traveled 6 out of the last 8 weeks out of the year… and remember, I’m one of those that doesn’t even like to travel. Simply brutal.

Further, with the growth of my business, I’ve been in something of a “hiring” mode, and that’s equally difficult to do — personally — while traveling.

Speaking of hiring… now that the new year is upon us, it’s a great time to do some cleaning up. And I mean the really difficult stuff. Have that performance conversation with the under-performing employee; hire that new sales or marketing pro; stop doing those things that don’t create enterprise value, and focus on those things that do.

I’ll be back soon with something to write home to mom about — thanks for tuning in.

Hammers and Paint and Tile, oh My! …and renovations suck

by D. Kevin Berchelmann | May 18, 2022 | Uncategorized

Today marks day 81 of a 3-week home renovation project.

I hate everyone. Especially contractors.

Not hate really, though at a minimum, I am significantly miffed. We’ve been without normalcy at home for going on three months. As someone who works from that home, it’s no small diversion.

Fired first contractor, then lamented because the second one – though faster and more experienced – lacked many of the attributes held by the fired first contractor. Tidbits like honesty, reliability, and integrity, you know, small stuff. /s/

Partly my fault (described below), partly undependable contractors (again, below), but blame isn’t high on my list right now.

Now, it’s just get the damned thing done.

In all fairness, the initial time estimate was aggressive, and I knew it. It went downhill from there. But there are some solid leadership lessons to be learned from the depths of my pit of despair:

Expectations need to be clear, well communicated, and reasonable. I was solid on the first two, weak on the last one.

When someone overpromises, and you know it, have those iterative discussions where we work out a more realistic deliverable timeframe. Most people don’t want to under-deliver, but we allow many to over-promise.

We in leadership can become complicit in their over-promise/under-deliver death spiral.

Know that people will at times disappoint you. We’re all human (well, most of us – you know who I’m talking about), we all make mistakes, and showing some grace allows us, as leaders, to actually demonstrate some of that fancy empathy we’re always reading about.

Miscalculating a deliverable shouldn’t be grounds for a firing squad; it should, however, be a time for discussions, dialog, even negotiations. Now would be the time to get real, and our discussions must allow someone to feel comfortable “coming clean.”

Repeating from above, most people really don’t want to under-deliver; they simply wanted to show competence, gain our confidence, and demonstrate they can do what they promised. Unfortunately, when they “miss,” it can sometimes display just the opposite of those characteristics.

Don’t fall for “the next guy/gal will be better” trap. The first guy under-delivered. His work quality was great, he was reasonably dependable (he’s still a contractor, after all), but I never doubted that he had our best interests at heart.

He only became noncommunicative when it became clear he was going to miss his deadline, by a huge measure. That should have been a clear indicator for me to dive in, but I didn’t.

I had become complicit in his death spiral.

The second contractor was faster, clearly more experienced (and knowledgeable), but we always felt we had to ask him he right questions to get an obvious answer. It didn’t feel like he was our advocate.

We had taken for granted the first contractor’s positive traits, and exacerbated his weaknesses.

Don’t do that.

Having Courageous Conversations. And sooner rather than later.

The first contractor got in over his head; Traci and I discussed it, we made a light, non-specific comment or two to him, and then continued to stew about his slow delivery. It didn’t end well.

The lesson there is three-fold:

Know when you need to have those difficult discussions,
Have them at the onset of difficulties, not when you start getting perturbed, and
Allow the person the opportunity to correct based on the conversation.

Those difficult and courageous conversations are, well, difficult. It does take a measure of courage to dive in and get them done. But we need to do just that. And do it when we first notice something off-track.

Ironically, difficult discussions seem easier when we get angry, but that’s precisely the time we should not be having them.

Fast-forward to today.

I’m writing this as I prepare to go to my daughter’s house to have a few zoom meetings today and tomorrow. We rehired the first contractor (clean slate) who is now doing an incredible job and are keeping the second contractor on a short leash to make sure he does as promised with no corners cut.