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.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jul 12, 2017 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Human Resources, Organizational Effectiveness
Leadership development that works
This is always an interesting and pertinent topic to me, as the beginning stages – creation, if you will – of leadership development efforts are where success/failure is determined. Implementation is simple, as is (generally) curriculum development.
“How” and “Why,” then, are easy; the tough part is “What?” I’ve got leaders, I’ve got the resources to apply, what skills, then, do we “develop?” My take:
- It’s not the economy, stupid. Yes, current events and environments matter, to some degree. But don’t let a full development plan be overly influenced by current, uncontrollable events, or fads created by some renegade consultant or academic hawking a new book.
The only things that matter are those that directly and specifically impact your organization.
- Don’t ask, don’t tell. Don’t ask potential participants “what do you think you need?” They don’t know, from an organizational perspective. Speak to and interview those leaders’ boss if you want to know what behaviors work. Those folks feel the pain of under-developed leaders.
Discover what behaviors they wish their subordinates had, and why it would make a difference.
A major hospital system client had “challenges” within their senior team. Recent acquisitions and expansions left them with the “old” guard and the “new,” and determining – and supporting – what was really important to that group took multiple conversations with stakeholders above and beyond those directly affected. We can be too close to the forest…
- Line ’em up! This is crucial: make sure that any leadership development efforts align closely with business goals and objectives. If we missed some last year, what behaviors caused us to do so? If we have big, honkin’ goals for the future, what skills and behavior will our leaders need to reach them?
These are the things that matter.
And don’t forget – any effort like this requires some metrics in place to determine success. Before and after snapshots can help show “change,” as well as available business measurements.
Leadership development is crucial, though not necessarily difficult. Stay focused on what matters, avoid hype and fluff, and showcase the results. Everyone wins…
Be Brazen.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jun 29, 2017 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Organizational Effectiveness
What can we learn from leaders during disaster response efforts??
A few years ago, Houston, Galveston, and surrounding areas were hit head-on with a Category 2 hurricane; the surge and size of the storm more closely rivaled a Category 4. It was a big deal. Damage estimates exceeded $10B, and that’s excluding the impact across the Midwest as Ike continued its trek northward. I mention Ike only since I was “there,” in the thick of it.
So, without worrying one whit about the politics of this crap, what can we learn by demonstrated leadership during times like these? Three things…
If you’re in charge, be in charge. No, that’s not a “duh!” comment. It means realizing that the buck stops with you. People are expecting leadership… Lead! People are expecting decision-making… Decide!
Even during a storm — weather or business — leadership must be purposeful and well-thought, allowing for proper perspective. But delaying simply from panic is a failure in leadership. Leadership is not for the faint of heart; if you’re not prepared to stick your neck out, you can’t be in front. Step aside and allow someone else to rise to the occasion.
Lead now, panic later. When storms come along, it’s natural to worry. Maybe even be really concerned and a little scared. The emotions themselves are ok, as long as we realize they have no place in observable behavior.
People don’t need their leaders to panic; they’re doing fine with that on their own. We need leaders to be solid, confident, and maybe even a little bit stoic. People must be able to easily discern “who’s in charge,” and the most obvious way to do that is to act the part.
Calm begets calm; panic begets panic. Be the example of calm.
Nobody wins the blame game. While the storm is “in session,” there’s no reason — and no need — to worry about who is or could be responsible for anything that may or may not have occurred. Let’s first make sure we make it past today — this storm — before worrying about whose neck we’re going to string up.
There’ll be plenty of time after the storm has passed to determine how to prevent similar mistakes from being made. Plenty of time to throw rocks, then duck and cover ourselves, since one or more may be lobbed in our direction.
Right now, pay attention to challenges at hand. Stay focused and purposeful.
Storms come and go. We all face hurricanes — business or weather — from time to time. It is not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when. How we react as leaders when the debris starts flying will define how others see us, even in times of calm.
A favorite phrase of mine: “Leading by example is not a decision. As a leader, you have no choice but to be an example. Now, whether a positive or negative example… that’s the choice.”
This is never more true than in times of storms and hurricanes.
Be Brazen…
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jun 22, 2017 | Brazen Leader, Miscellaneous Business Topics
Travis Kalanick is a jerk. Got it. His behavior was often juvenile, sometimes egregiously so. Got it. He got whacked because of that harassing and intimidating behavior. I got it—he’s a tool. But what does all that mean?
I’m reading all these articles and newly-minted pundits jump on the Uber-is-dying bandwagon. “The culture is shot.” “The entire management team must go.” “No way they can recover.” The list of attacks is endless, and helps us all understand the real meaning behind “blood in the water.” Some people smell it, and they want to help that alternative reality materialize.
Yeah, rotsa ruck with that.
To paraphrase Mark Twain, methinks the rumors of Uber’s demise have been greatly exaggerated.
Yes, some things need to change—as is true with all large organizations, particularly in the tech space. A brief google search reveals current lawsuits and EEOC claims for sexual harassment (and other employee transgressions) against Apple, Microsoft, Tesla, google, facebook, twitter, and just about every other deep-pocketed company, many of those name some very senior (C-level) executives.
This doesn’t normalize or excuse Kalanick’s boorish (and potentially unlawful) behavior, but frankly, Silicon Valley doesn’t have the best reputation for stellar employee treatment. Their diversity records suck, women and minorities are routinely marginalized, and I believe they routinely hide behind outlandish peripheral perks and a designer office environment (oops, I mean “campus”) to mask otherwise toxic behaviors and cultures. Kerry Flynn, writing for Mashable, says it better:
Silicon Valley’s worldview tends to applaud when founders move fast and break things. To this crowd, issues like gender discrimination are acceptable roadbumps for companies that are going to change the world. That’s why much of the industry tends to treat discrimination and harassment claims with a sense of dismissive detachment.
Props to Kerry – perfectly stated. All of this just goes to say that Kalanick was a tool, his personal behavior certainly didn’t represent Uber well, and his transgressions were neither new nor unique to the seemingly outraged observer community. Unsure why that translates into a complete destruction of an otherwise fast-growing company. Frankly, it shouldn’t.
Some things to consider…
Kalanick led the commercialization of real-time ridesharing. No, he didn’t actually invent the concept, his partner did (the obscure partner), but Kalanick is the one who made it viable and a household name. Who knows Ted Dabney? No one. He founded Atari Computers, but everyone knows Steve Jobs, who came along well afterwards and made it work. Similar to Kalanick.
Has he screwed up some of that? Hell yes. He’s had to change course with drivers, cities, legislators, et al, a dozen times. But he kept Uber growing.
Uber employs over 12,000 with revenues exceeding $6B. It’s currently worth nearly $70B. Kalanick did that, like it or not.
Michael Wolff in USA Today called Uber the Tech Company of the Year in 2013.
This allegedly evil company consistently (even today) outscores Lyft, Tesla, twitter and facebook on glassdoor.com. Whouldathunkit??
Uber ranks 4th in LinkedIn’s Top Companies 2017 Global Edition list, published just one week ago; trailing only google (actually “Alphabet.” who thought of that moronic name?), Facebook and Amazon. In fact, they improved their position from 5th in 2016. The Human Rights Campaign named Uber in their Best Places to Work 2016.
The company still has zero problems recruiting… People self-select where they want to work, oblivious to punditry and hater attacks.
It is – and remains – one of the most valuable startups in the world. 10 times larger than the nearest competitor, it’s growing rapidly in unchartered waters within a space being developed as we go. They are cutting edge, in almost every part of their approach and technology.
It’s a kick-ass company, and it’s not going anywhere.
Kalanick was a problem, no doubt. I don’t often support a founder in high-growth leaving, under almost any conditions, but I do understand it in this case. Not ideal for the business, but poorly managing media, PR and affected stakeholders can be a terminal error, as big as the harassing behavior that created the hooplah.
Anywhoo, he’s gone, Uber’s still here. To those who support, stay the course. To those who think the company has one foot in the grave… well, get used to disappointment.
Take the good, when available. Kalanick is gone, those who remain have a job to do, a company to run and a life to live. Take the good when you can, learn lessons from others, and at the risk of overuse of idiotic idioms, don’t throw the baby out with the bath water…
Be Brazen.
effective performance management if the senior executive(s) are less than fully compliant themselves.
