by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Aug 29, 2017 | Brazen Leader, Miscellaneous Business Topics
I’m a military veteran. As such, I frequently read old military books, discourses, and papers in an effort to compare corporate leadership today with historical military leadership. The similarities are astounding.
A 1941 book published by the Military Service Publishing Company is one such work. Edited by the staff, it has no specific author, but is a compilation of thoughts, ideas, suggestions and directives from a stream of notable military leaders. Some — just as an example — include the likes of General J.G. Harbord, who began as a private in the Spanish-American war, achieved prominence as General Pershing’s Chief of Staff, and later commanding the USMC’s 2nd Division before assuming the Chairmanship of the RCA Corporation.
Just an example of the caliber of input for this book…
In this book, Chapter II discusses “Orientation.” Of course, it is meant to apply mostly to new officers at a new post or assignment. Truth is, the advice given there — some 65+ years ago to junior officers — is as appropriate today for first time managers as it is senior-most leadership.
Sections and brief summaries include:
Your Brother Officers: “The commissioned officers of the U.S. military are a cross-section of the American Public… as a group, they are subject to the same ambitions, variations in viewpoint, and human frailties as the people they serve.”
This, of course, matches up with our corporate situations today. Managers and leaders have different backgrounds and experiences, bringing different thought-processes and judgment. When harnessed for the common good, this is an excellent trait, one we should exploit, not suppress. Different thinking means more choices. More choices usually means better decisions. Or, as many would put it — embrace your wierdness.
Performance of Duty: “In the military, the performance of duty to the limit of one’s capacity is a fetish. Striving for perfection is more than a figure of speech… as you demonstrate your capacity for additional responsibility, it will come to you… be not impatient… there is much to learn.”
Wow, is this appropos or what…? Work hard, smart, and consistent. Do what you say you’ll do. Make well-thought decisions. Those of you who have achieved significant corporate rank: Did you get there through politics, trickery, and slight-of-hand, or was it hard work, diligence, and sacrifice??
This stuff really works.
Get Out, or Get in Line: “Mind your business. If the concern where you are employed is all wrong, and the Old Man a curmudgeon (I like that word), it may be well for you to go tell the Old Man, confidentially, privately, and quietly, that he is a curmudgeon. Explain to him that his policy is absurd and proposterous. Then show him how to reform his ways, and offer to lead the effort to cleanse the faults. Do this, or if for any reason you should prefer not, then take your choice of these: Get Out, Or Get In Line.
If you work for a man, in heaven’s name, work for him! Speak well of him, think well of him, stand by him and the institution he represents.
If put to the pinch, an ounce of loyalty is worth more than a pound of cleverness. If you must vilify, condemn, and eternally disparage, why, resign your position and, when on the outside, damn to your heart’s content.”
This quotation is so appropriate in corporate management today that it needs no explanation, segue, or pithy remarks from me. Simply put — work for whomever you work for. Grammatical errors aside, you get my point. Don’t we all get tired of those who work “for” us part of the time, and “against” us the rest?
Importance of the Word ‘NO’: “As an officer, many questions will come to you for decisions… the choice you make in the mere act of saying “yes,” or “no,” may constitute the measure of your success. A weak man can say “yes” to troublesome situations, dissipating the efforts of the whole. An unwise man can say “no,” and by mere obstruction, cause the failure of the unit. It takes a happy combination of courage and wisdom to be able to say “no” at the right time and place.”
Simply put, our most significant, regular responsibility — day to day and strategic — is making decisions. Anyone can make the easy ones… they seldom take forethought, intellect, or wisdom, since they are usually painfully obvious and accolades are near. No, they pay us for the hard ones. The lonely decisions. The times when we make the “right” decision in the face of dissent and conflict, and where the easier decision is to abide with consensus. That’s why they pay us the bucks, and give us these fancy business cards.
Adaptability: “Adaptability is required. Leadership is a new and different life. He must be equally quick to detect and avoid those things which are abhorrent to military life… the road to recognition and fame may lie ahead. How well and how quickly the opportunities are embraced depends upon the promptness of adapting himself to the new horizons the career provides.”
You can’t always spell out the details of a leadership role in a nice, convenient job description. Our worlds are dynamic, fluctuating, and ever-changing. We’ve got to know when to “stay the course,” and when to turn on a dime. All the while keeping those looking to us for leadership engaged in our path. This is what sets us apart.
I only provided these today for two reasons. First, a reminder: Leadership — it’s theories, concepts, and approaches, really haven’t changed since the beginning of man. Yes, some applications of principles have evolved over time, given our changing workforce, demographics, and societal norms. The real concepts and basis of leadership, however, remain constant.
And lastly, we can learn a lot from simplicity. Sometimes we make this stuff too hard, when we could get to the same place — maybe even a better place — with approaches that embrace simplicity and ease of thought.
Give it a try…
Be Brazen.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jul 27, 2017 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Human Resources, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
I coach several individuals; most at a fairly senior level, some in mid-management.
Some are remedial efforts; in other words, we’re trying to get an otherwise-valuable employee to step it up a bit in performance. These are challenging, but it’s positively great to watch the progress.
The rest are for those already operating near the top of their game. Those folks for whom we’re trying to give them that “extra” edge. That 1% improvement for which, in their hands, makes a significant difference in the success of the business.
(more…)
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jul 21, 2017 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Human Resources, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
It’s not just the money!
We are staring down the barrel of impending poaching opportunities at a time when our most valuable employees are simply “tired.” What to do?
(more…)
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jul 20, 2017 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Human Resources, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
It’s not about the paper…
Someone recently asked me why the Performance Management process seems so painful in many organizations. They further questioned how lower-level managers could possibly implement
effective performance management if the senior executive(s) are less than fully compliant themselves.
Man, oh man, do I have an opinion on this…
First, lower level leaders in an organization don’t get a free pass simply because some senior executive isn’t up to par. Leadership accountability is bigger than a simple reporting relationship.
If subordinate managers got an accountability “walk” every time more senior leaders were errant, we’d have but one or two accountable people in every organization, followed by a bunch of well-paid drones.
Sorry, Charlie. You have the position, you cash the check, and you have the personal accountability.
Next, performance management isn’t really difficult at all; most reasonably successful leaders/managers do some form of this on a regular basis. Think about it – for those who do not have a real formal process, do you still work on employees to improve their performance? For those who are late turning in those annual reviews to HR, have you been ignoring your employees all this time?
Of course not.
It’s the review process that’s typically broke all to hell. And frankly, that’s a system issue, not (necessarily) a leadership failing. In other words, most performance reviews exist, not for performance management, but for performance management documentation.
That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but we too often attempt to have those reviews do so much more than documentation. And if we do that without training all involved (both sides of the review equation) and without fully institutionalizing the process, well, we get what we usually get.
GIGO at its finest.
If an organization is reasonably successful, there’s probably a decent amount of effective performance management occurring.
Further, if that reasonably successful organization has a painful performance review process, then we should stop that right now… the review process should aid in performance management, not merely memorialize it for posterity.
What a concept, eh?
Be Brazen.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jul 18, 2017 | Brazen Leader, Kevin Berchelmann
In the beginning, there were standards for a job.
And the standards were so high, that none could abide them.
And the standards were lowered…
Terrible way to begin the Good Book of Talent Management, don’t you think? We start out knowing the sort of candidate/employee we are seeking. Of course, since we didn’t plan adequately, though, we really need them right now!
So, as we review, interview, and assess available and interested candidates, sourced through the fastest, easiest means possible, we begin making relative comparisons between them, instead of measuring each candidate against our requirements.
You’ll recognize this trap when you catch yourself saying, “Well, she’s certainly the best we’ve seen so far,” or “He’s got more experience in our industry than the last guy we interviewed.” And it is, in fact, a trap.
Don’t fall for it.
If you are looking for a cat, and all you are offered is dogs, remember that even if you get the pick-of-the-litter, you’re still getting a dog. And that’s not what you were looking for when you started.
Plan ahead, stay focused, and realize that — usually — we’re better off when we hold out for the “cat” we need than settling for the best “dog” available…
Think about it.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jul 17, 2017 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Human Resources, Organizational Effectiveness
The broader impact of performance management…
The ability to make good decisions regarding people represents one of the last reliable sources of competitive advantage, since very few organizations are any good at it.”
— Peter Drucker
Two senior managers are competing for a coveted job or responsibility. Both have solid, well-known B-school credentials, blue-chip resumes, and social/personal skills that make them a real pleasure to be around. On their staffs, one of them has one A-player, a couple of B-players, and the rest Cs. The other has a handful of A-players, 2-3 B’s, and no Cs.
Who wins?? The answer is simple, isn’t it…? Hiring and firing well, though not for the faint at heart, are at the center of every successful executive and organization.
Hiring Well
When hiring. determine what an “A” player looks like for you and your firm, and don’t settle for anything less than that. If you are diligent in that regard, the worst case is you end up with a high “B” employee, not some bottom-feeding loser.
If you can’t find any of those, simply do not hire. The cost of hiring poorly is so much greater than the cost of not filling any position, including those deadly sounding “lost opportunity” costs. If your candidate pool doesn’t offer up a hirable option, blow them all up and start again, versus picking the best of the bad. Remember, even if you got the pick of the litter, you still got a dog…
Develop a new-hire profile that outlines what the candidate must look like, including skills, knowledge, and proven ability, and then add in “characteristics.” It’s usually those characteristics that divide the good-looking from the good-performing.
Fire Well
This one is so much tougher since we feel some degree of failure for that employee’s substandard performance. Rightfully so.
Truthfully, however, we probably “hired” wrong more than we “managed” wrong. In staff development and evaluation, it pays to be critical and resolute; decide what performance is required, coach as necessary, even get them additional help… but at the end of the “period,” whatever that is, hold them personally and completely accountable for delivering – or not delivering – those results.
Then act accordingly. Even when it hurts. We’re a business, not a social services agency, and we can’t fix everyone.
The problem with keeping deadwood or sub-standard performers is that it does exactly the opposite of what you may think. The deadwood loves you; the sub-standard performing crowd calls you a friend.
Your superstars, however – those whom you are relying for the current and future success of the organization – see your lack of action as a direct slight to their abilities. You pay the sub-standard performer $XX dollars per year; you pay the superstar, hopefully, $XX+Y. You are screaming to your superstar that the sole difference between them and the deadwood is that small delta between the two of them.
And we wonder why they leave??
A story… I was recently at O’Hare, in the Hertz bus going from the terminal to the car lot. The driver, Karl Levi, was nothing short of outstanding. Those who travel frequently know that those shuttle bus drivers are frequently… well, “less” than outstanding. I struck up a conversation with Karl (easy to do – he’s a “talker”).
Karl had been with Hertz for 18 years. Folks, that’s a long time for a job that historically has high turnover. Since he was obviously good at his trade, I asked him why he stayed with Hertz all these years. His reply? Three things: (1) “They take care of me – they appreciate and recognize my work;” (2) “They are good people; those in charge seem to care;” and (3) “They don’t put up with poor performers.”
Think of the significance; this guy has been there 18 years, known me for about 3 minutes, and is responding to a reasonably personal question. One of his three reasons — over 18 years of employment — is that they don’t tolerate poor performers.
Thanks, Karl.
Be Brazen.
