by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jun 2, 2015 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
A couple of my writings — one, the blog post below about fairness, equity and equality, and one of the articles in my recent newsletter, on employee engagement — bear some additional explanation, lest someone believe I feel that these ideas have no utility whatsoever…
First, regarding fairness. Organizations (and their leaders) that manage to the “lowest common denominator” will forever be relegated to mediocrity; you cannot create & retain talented performers in the face of “identical treatment for all,” nor can you survive frequent, necessary change efforts within that self-limiting process.
Further, I’m not certain that managing with “fairness” is the do-all, end-all for a manager. Effectiveness, yes; reasonably equitable treatment, yes; even reasonably consistent, yes. But fairness is an individualized concept that changes meaning with each employee. Trying to constantly pursue that would drive even the best manager crazy. Better to spend that effort ensuring that each employee is treated according to their value to the organization.
And to those who may feel that sometimes we must treat everyone the same, because a manager(s) doesn’t know how to do it correctly, either develop that manager effectively (and quickly), or hasten their departure. Anytime an organization feels it must spend significant time, effort and resources “guarding against” the actions or activity of any manager, that’s a leadership issue from the top.
Equity is a necessity for a business to succeed significantly. Strive for that; if a manager is incapable, that shouldn’t justify more “equal” treatment for all — it should justify whacking that manager.
Now, about employee engagement. I didn’t say it was necessarily a bad thing, nor is it necessarily anything significant. It is not, however, what should drive our efforts.
We aim to create a workforce that is productive and efficient; engagement, as defined by many, could certainly be a pleasant by-product of that higher performance, but it’s not the end goal. Nor, unfortunately, does employee engagement — in and of itself — create a high-performing workforce. It could certainly be a milestone along the path to high performance, but alas, will not assure superior performance by itself.
Let’s stay focused on the real direction, and not get distracted by today’s management fads.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | May 25, 2015 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement
The story you’re about to read is true. The names have
been changed to protect the innocent. Ok, you may not be old enough for that
line to make sense (Dragnet), so I’ll stop. Plus, these people weren’t
“innocent.” Further, I’m not changing the names, I’m simply omitting
the company name, and only because a client suggested I do so.
Moving on…
So, I was in Cedar Rapids, Iowa a while back working with
one of my largest clients–Archer Daniels Midland (ADM). I’d just spent the
last two days facilitating multiple half-day sessions with three separate
groups of up-and-coming leaders and was relaxing before dinner.
Sitting in the hotel’s lobby lounge, I couldn’t help but
overhear a fairly rowdy bunch next to me. They clearly worked together, or at
least for the same company, and were having quite a time. Several were
discussing where they would go to “continue the party” that evening.
Though I didn’t hear the initial exchange, apparently one
of the crew questioned the wisdom of a traveling party, since they all had to
get up a bit early the next day.
“We’re at management training this week — how awake
do we have to be??”
I kid you not, that’s the response that came from one of
the women in this group. At about nine kazillion decibels, lest someone in the
adjoining hotel couldn’t hear.
Obviously, this got my attention.
It was only then that I noticed the three-inch blue and
white binders sitting next to most of them. “Foundations of
Leadership” was embossed on the front; the name and logo of this large
defense contractor would be familiar to all reading this. Particularly since
there aren’t many of those in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
Apparently, not all of those revelers understood the
general concept of “Foundations of Leadership.”
Now we’ve all been bored stiff at one time or another by
a sleep-inducing, monotone-voiced facilitator or trainer (no one in my
sessions, of course — merely speaking hypothetically), droning on about one
thing or another for three or four consecutive butt-numbing days. That’s not
the point here. The points are:
- Leadership development is crucial for long-term
success of an organization. We must convey that those participating are there
for a reason. And that reason is not to reach consensus on the next bar
location. Having a good time is ok, maybe even encouraged (hey, I like a good
time); making learning adjunct to the party is not.
- The investment for leadership development is
substantial. Facilitators, facilities, materials, salaries… then add in loss
of productivity while in session and related costs. Save it for those who take
leadership — and their professional development — seriously.
- But my final point is this:The most important thing
we can do with emerging leaders is to develop them for the future.Not all, of
course, are worthy of the mantle, nor the cost of such development. Realizing
the importance of development must start with senior leadership, and we need to
get better at it.
If we take it seriously, and show its significance to the
organization, so will others. That whole “leading by positive
example” thing. Maybe then our emerging managers won’t use
“Foundations of Leadership” as an insomnia cure.
I’ll sleep to that.
But that’s just me…
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Apr 27, 2015 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement
In this and 2 remaining blog entries, I’m expanding on the “5 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership” I outlined in a recent article.
This third law is a reminder that development is essential for employee growth, and for your own well-being. In other words, it’s both selfish and generous; making someone else smarter while you do less work. This is a good thing, eh?
Law #3. If you always answer employee’s every question, you’ll forever be answering employees’ every question.
Questions are teaching moments–don’t rob employees of the opportunity.
Sounds trite, and I don’t mean it to (ok, maybe I mean it to be a little trite). If an employee is asking because they’re stupid, get rid of the employee. If they are a decent employee asking because they do not know, then teach them.
Next time, they’ll know how to do it — or at least the thought process behind it — and you won’t have to. How’s that for planned efficiency??
Now, you have time to go do something important. And to answer in advance: No, answering every employee’s every question is not something important you should be doing. If you’re doing that, you may as well just do it yourself…
Now that sounds fun, eh?
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Mar 28, 2015 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Human Resources, Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
I recently surveyed about 35 chief executives (CEO & COO), who nearly unanimously considered Talent Management, as I describe it below, as their number one priority on a go-forward basis.
Think about it: Not market share, pricing demands, or even concerns over recent burdensome legislation. Talent Management.
So, no real news there, right? After all, unless you’ve been living on Pluto (I like picking on the new “non”-planet), we’ve only read about this “talent management” thing for about 2-3 years, in every conceivable business publication.
No new news… Big deal, eh?
Actually, it is a big deal, because I’m not at all certain we actually get it yet. In other words, if — just for the sake of argument — we agree that talent management is so all-fired important, what exactly are we doing about it? Have we got the execution figured out? If we do, I haven’t seen it.
Talent Management is simple. I know I say that a lot, about a lot of things, but really… it’s simple. It takes 3 things:
1. Recruitment. This, of course, involves determining competencies and qualifications, effective sourcing, and successful hiring/employment.
2. Development. If we find an “A” player, let’s keep him or her and use them in the role they can best help the organization succeed. That may or may not be what they do today. And don’t forget about future skill development (management, leadership, executive). Important.
3. Retention. Damn… it seems like it costs a small fortune to recruit and hire solid talent today — lots of resources come to bear on a single focus. It’s a shame that we don’t continue some of that effort to purposefull retain; retention includes a modicum of motivation, which makes these employees even more productive. Effective retention, then, becomes a “two-fer;” the same efforts that effectively retain also tend to motivate good performers to higher levels of performance and productivity. A bargain at twice the price.
So, talent management is an all-hands-on-deck exercise. To be effective, we need solid human resources guidance and resource management, general management’s sincere participation, and direct involvement by the CEO and other senior-most leaders.
It’s just too important to be entrusted to anything less.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Mar 13, 2015 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement
In this and 3 subsequent blog entries, I’m expanding on the “5 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership” I outlined in a recent article.
The second law focuses on open communications; too often, usually in the misplaced interest of correctness or conflict-avoidance, we tap-dance around topics, subjects, and even direction. We assume — often incorrectly — that someone “knows what we mean,” though we didn’t come out and say it.
Law #2. If you want something specific done, say so specifically, using clear, plain language. Employees, generally, have some difficulty doing their basic jobs; adding “mind-reading” to their description is just plain unfair.
No hints, implications, or innuendos. Say what you want, and use English! Directness counts.
I was recently doing some coaching with a client executive who was lamenting the poor “listening skills” of his Operations VP. Seems he had told the VP that one of his director-level staffers was not fully competent, and that the VP should “do something about that person.”
3 days later, that VP fired that director. My client executive was shocked — he told me, “I told him to do something with her, you know, like coach, train, or develop. Maybe even warn her of her performance.” He said, “I didn’t tell him to fire her…”
The VP, of course, simply said, “The boss said ‘do something with her, so I did.”
“Problem fixed.”
Not really… I don’t need to tell those of you reading this the difficulty in replacing an experienced mid-level manager in a specific industry. Especially without even making an effort to change her performance or behavior in some way.
Of course, the senior executive felt his comments were sufficient… obviously, they were not. English would have prevented this misunderstanding… simply telling the VP that he should “improve her performance or behavior” would have been sufficient; perhaps even simply asking the VP what he’s done to work with the director would have jogged a reasonable conversation.
Instead, a miscommunication — caused solely by incomplete/indirect language — has created yet another “situation” at the company.
As if we didn’t already have enough to do, we go out creating challenges to deal with.
So, like the doctor when the patient says, “Doc, it hurts when I do ‘this,’ and the Doc says simply, “Stop doing that.”
Stop doing that.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Mar 11, 2015 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement
Leaders–born or made?
I get this a lot. And though it seems like “the question of the ages,” it’s really not.
Leaders are made, not born.
I believe this with all my being, and have evidence of perpetual non-leaders “turning a corner” in their professional lives and developing the leadership presence that many only dream of.
I believe they are made because I’ve seen them made.
Having said that… I’ve been playing golf for 30 some-odd years. I’m a solid “business-golfer,” never embarrassing myself completely (well, there was this one time…), and also never being eligible for a U.S. Open run. I play to a 12-15 handicap, and enjoy the game. Others pick up the sticks, get a few pointers, and then display an immediate proclivity to the game, joining the single-digit ranks in less than a year. I try and run ’em over with my golf cart… wait, did I write that out loud?
Anyway, these “12-month-wonders” weren’t born knowing how to golf. They didn’t grow in the womb with spikes and a leather glove, knowing then that a downhill lie requires a closed clubface. They were, however, born with the propensity to learn the game that I was not. They picked it up faster–it fit their physicality, their mental grasp, even their character or persona.
Here, then, are your born leaders. They knew nothing of active listening, feedback and decision-making during their mom’s first ultrasound; they simply pick up the principles and applications so much faster than we mortals that they appear–like the irritating golfers above–to have been “born” with those traits.
They weren’t. They just learned ’em faster than most of us.
I also think that the “born, not made” mantra is promoted mostly by (a) those who weren’t born with that propensity mentioned above and need some emotional salve to keep their ego whole, or (b) those who were born with that propensity, and can’t understand why others don’t “get it.”
A bigger question, to me, is what can we do to identify those innate leadership learners sooner, rather than later?
But that’s just me…
