by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Oct 28, 2010 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
Leaders leading leaders… “Leadership Squared.”
I recently was at a board meeting, and the chair took a few minutes to recognize one of the directors (we’ll call her Linda). Instead of typical platitudes and nameless accolades, this chairman instead described this person in the highest possible manner. Taking some time to address the difficulties of leadership, the challenges we face today, and the issues confronting us as we lead our organizations, he finished with the ultimate compliment:
“Linda excels at the most difficult — she’s a leader of leaders.
Leading is hard, we all know that. Some of us can make it look easier than others, but we know we are just fooling the masses… it’s hard, takes work, thought, and purposeful action. Leading an organziation can be nearly thankless and fraught with issue — some trivial, some extreme. The most important thing we do isn’t managing earnings, driving new products/services to market, or even finding and developing “A” players (and I’ve weighed in on my feelings there).
The most important thing we do — defined by significance, impact, and long-term results, is leading leaders.
We set the stage, we act as the example, and we provide resources and break down obstacles. Then we get out of their way and let them lead. There is no higher purpose in leading an organization than ensuring your leaders can lead.
Help them, nurture them, even get out of their way at times… but lead your leaders. That’s how we get where we’re going.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Oct 2, 2010 | Brazen Leader, Human Resources, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics
I get several questions each week, from various people across the country, on topics ranging from benefits administration, to compensation, to “I hate my boss, what should I do?” (Not sure how I get that one…)
Most, I simply respond to the email directly, as they don’t have universal appeal. Some, however, do… hence this entry, of course.
I received an email, subject titled, “QUIT JOB.” The sender asked, “If an employee gives notice they are quitting, can I fire them? If so, must I pay them out for their notice period?”
Now, as I’ve oft-said, I’m not an attorney, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. However…
Generally, yes.
In most states, a resignation is just that – a resignation. The employee then offers to stick around for a couple of weeks to help the employer transition. The departing employee, however, doesn’t set their resignation “date,” the employer does. The employer can accept their notice, or not.
Having said that, there are two reasons to accept or pay out a resignation notice:
1. Other employees are watching. This particular employee may not be important, but others may now believe that giving any notice is futile, so that when they resign, they may do so without notice. Consider if you are agreeable to NO employees giving notice.
2. You could be liable for unemployment compensation for that notice period, if the employee is otherwise eligible. Not likely for an extended period of unemployment, but possibly for those two weeks, or whatever the notice period given.
So, do you whack ‘em instantly or let them see through their notice? It’s a business decision that requires some thought. If they are truly a substandard performer – such that you would have fired them within 30 days anyway – then by all means, show them the door. If you may later WANT employees to give you adequate notice, and this is a satisfactory employee, then you may want to consider either allowing them to work their notice period, or paying them for the notice period regardless.
Just my considered, un-legal opinion…
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jul 9, 2010 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann
I recently presented “Leadership is Easy… until it isn’t: Successful leadership in challenging times“to six or seven hundred of my closest friends in San Diego at SHRM’s annual conference.
Both at the conference, and via email since then, I’ve received a hundred or so comments regarding the presentation. All positive so far, thankfully, but that could be misleading. More importantly, some of the specific comments included:
“Great presentation — the part on ‘no whining‘ was really relevant, and HR leaders would do well to take heed.”
“I liked the part about the Three Stupids; took notes on that part for sure.”
“I agree — Stupid should hurt!”
“My biggest take-away was the coaching advice: ‘you don’t really know the limits of your authority until you exceed it.’”
…and many more, with similar positions.
My biggest learning?
We need to spend more time “telling it like it is,” and facing reality head-on. This politically-correct garbage we get entangled with is stifling our abilities to lead with any real success. Stop it! If someone is acting stupid, how about saying “Hey — stop acting stupid!” instead of taking two 20-minute ‘counseling sessions’ to talk around it and make the person feel good in the process?
Why should I care how an idiot feels?
How about “Stop acting stupid — you’ll feel better.”
See, I can be sympathetic.
But that’s just me…
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | May 6, 2010 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann
Management has been around a while, to be sure.
In fact, I’m quite fond of saying that “Management theories, principles, and concepts haven’t changed much since Moses.” I stand by that. Applications may have been modified, to allow for changing demographics, stilted legislation, excessive competition, etc. But the basics? Nope, no real change in a couple thousand years…
Throughout modern years, there always seems to be a movement afoot to “professionalize” management; to make it a “legitimate profession,” like you do specialty fields such as medicine law, and accounting.
(more…)
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jun 14, 2009 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Human Resources, Miscellaneous Business Topics
Who’s on First??
Abbot & Costello (if you must ask, then ‘never mind’) had this brilliant baseball comedy skit where it was difficult – if not impossible – for Abbot to actually determine which player was at which position.
This should not be a natural lead-in for succession planning today; alas, it’s the perfect entré.
We simply must determine, in advance, “Who’s on first.” We have to know – at a minimum – who is capable of assuming our significant (“Key”) leadership roles. Real people, with names and plans behind them.
The Philadelphia-based Hay Group surveyed their “150 Most Admired Companies,” and discovered that almost 80% of these firms’ Boards have a preference for internal CEO candidates. 80 percent!
These companies (and their Boards) recognize two things:
1. Selecting replacements for key positions is one of the most critical tasks of board or senior leadership, and
2. That when done correctly, companies can better create succession replacements from within, instead of hiring from the outside.
And, unlike a previous blog post that describes settling for “the pick of the litter,” these companies purposefully develop their internal talent to be prepared when “called up.” They don’t simply settle for “best available.”
Want a specific take-away action? Ok, how’s this for a 2-parter:
Part 1:
Identify, via a logical, involved process, those positions (not people) that are or will be essential (“Key”) to the future success of the organization.
Part 2:
Meet, discuss and name — by NAME — the likely successors to those roles at least twice per year.
Even better, determine the skill gaps that still exist and create a plan to make sure your “chosen ones” are headed down the path for preparedness.
Then execute, execute, execute.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Apr 20, 2009 | Brazen Leader, Human Resources, Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
I’ve worked with many organizations, both as the in-house compensation expert as well as an outside consultant, and determining the economic return for incentive plans is clearly a significant effort – and there’s sometimes nothing simple about it.
Incentive plans do not work in a vacuum; even with potentially great compensation plans, outside forces can be such that the results are almost anecdotal. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t make every effort to measure the results, but it does mean that any specific measurements will have “assumptions” built in to the equation.
Some client examples:
I implemented an extensive gainsharing plan for a $100M division of a $1B manufacturer/smelter of zinc ingot. In less than 18 months, we reduced the average production cost per pound by well over 35%, and split the dollar savings evenly with employees, some of them nearly doubling their typical hourly wage. Now, was it simply the incentive plan? Well, as part of that effort, we conducted extensive training, constant follow-up, intense metric evaluation and trending… in short, we implemented a process “around” that incentive effort.
So, did the gainsharing “cause” the improved performance?
It certainly played a significant part.
With a small, fast-growing bio-tech firm, we implemented significant incentives for management’s leadership in driving research & development and time-to-market. The incentives paid out fairly handsomely, and time-to-market for new products was reduced by almost 15% in less than 12 months.
Was that caused entirely by incentives?
Hard to say; time-to-market had become an incredible focus before implementing the incentives, and was reflected in many management efforts, hiring, etc. Clearly, the incentives played a part, but how much?
Finally, with a $120M industrial services firm, we implemented sales incentives that had the most generous “upside” in the industry. 12 months later, we realized an increase in revenue of almost 15%, with margins equal to or better than before. Yet the company still entered into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and the strategic buyers immediately discontinued the plan, saying it was too “rich.”
Did it play a part in the company’s slide into Chapter 11, or did it stave off that bankruptcy for several more months? Again, it’s difficult to determine, given the pressures on the entire organization at the time to reduce costs, increase revenues, and bolster margins. It certainly made more in earnings than it cost in incentives, by a factor of almost 13x.
Again, these plans don’t work in a vacuum, and are usually part of an organization’s current strategic focus. As such, measuring ROI aimed squarely and solely at a particular incentive plan will always be difficult.
Can we measure the total impact of the effort, INCLUDING incentive plans? Of course, and that’s likely the most successful way to run a railroad anyway.
