by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Oct 28, 2019 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
Our folks make mistakes.
I know, that’s heresy, but it’s still true. We make mistakes all the time, we can only assume that the people working for us do as well.
So, when they do make that mistake, what do we do? Whack ’em immediately? Beat ’em up about it? Public humiliation?
How about, “Complete unequivocal support.”
WHAT??? You say…?
Now, of course I’m assuming that the mistake we are discussing isn’t patently illegal or unethical, and that it’s not so incredibly egregious as to start a trend of stupidity throughout the organization… so, given those broad parameters, how about we make this a learning event by:
1. Acknowledging the mistake. Let the employee or manager know that you know, and that we need to find a satisfactory way to get past the mistake.
2. Allow the employee or manager to find and/or create the resolution for the mistake, and
3. Support the manager publicly with his actions. Don’t torpedo a manager to his subordinates; when they come to you talking about the dumb decisions, claim ignorance of all the facts and circumstances, and state clearly — unequivocally — that you support the manager’s decision. If they have any issue with that, recommend they take it up with that manager.
After all, defending a wrong decision, or accepting responsibility for its correction, is part of management maturity, and needs to be learned through experience.
Let’s don’t cheat our folks out of our support, nor the opportunity to learn from mistakes. After all, as the old saw goes, they are the best teacher…
Besides, if they then make that mistake again, we can kill ’em with a clear conscience…
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Sep 27, 2019 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
Not too long ago, I worked with a group of executives for a fast-growing client.
Two things struck me as interesting, and somewhat of a paradox: First, they were all reasonably successful in their jobs (and their jobs were substantially the same, just different geographic regions). Second, they were all incredibly different. Yes, they each had similar core characteristics, such as intelligence and work ethic. In other areas, such as sales, marketing, people management, organizational skills, strategy, planning, and so forth, they were all over the charts.
So what? Well, I’ll tell you “so what.” You hear a lot about understanding your “strengths and weaknesses,” then you’re supposed to work on your weaknesses, right?? Sort of like the big Superdude combating kryptonite, right??
Bunk.
Let’s look at it differently. Let’s assume that succeeding in a position can be done in any of several different ways, using a variety of skills. With that reasoning, you don’t have strengths and weaknesses; you have learned skills and skills you have yet to learn.
Wow!
So, then, we should then simply “learn more skills,” right??
No, no, no…
We should, instead, clearly identify our skills, since we know that we can succeed with them, and work on improving our strengths! That’s right, improve our strengths, since we already know that they work for us. Learning new skills is time consuming, and depending on application, may or may not work for us the way they work for others.
Now, this logic assumes current success, so don’t confuse this with those managers who are clearly unsuccessful, though I would argue this could help them with their improvement also. In other words, as Bum Phillips (retired Houston Oilers coach) would say, “Dance with who brung you.”
Use the skills you have — improve and hone them to a razor’s edge — and continue your increasing levels of success. Over time, identify some additional skills you would like to pick up, and develop a plan to learn them in a reasonable time and fashion.
But don’t break what works…
Be Brazen.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jul 28, 2019 | Brazen Leader, Human Resources, Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
The most critical skill for managers today is finding, hiring, and keeping highly competent talent.
But frankly, we need to a significant amount of “weeding out” when we don’t make that perfect hire. Welch and GE received dubious press for their “forced rankings” process, but more organizations today are doing that same thing – directly or indirectly. Taking a hard look at the bottom 25% performers and asking, “can we do better?”
Additionally, some turnover is always “good.” When a hiring mismatch occurs, the discomfort and feelings of responsibility in hiring usually just create an uncomfortable environment, and both the company and employee are usually better served by finding a better match, whether that means resignation (voluntary turnover) by the employee, or termination (forced turnover) by the employer.
And sometimes it’s not simply performance on a 1-10 scale. If the business changes, restructures, or re-engineers, it may create an obsolete employee from one who was satisfactory before. Again, if the match isn’t “right,” the quicker the turnover, the better. Additionally, some of the old axioms about turnover are still true; we always need “some” rotation of talent to provide for new thinking, new ideas, and new approaches.
Also interestingly, I have a client that recently lost its top engineering manager. The leadership team had, for some time, realized that this person was not a good fit for the role, mostly for interpersonal (not technical skills) reasons. This engineer finally realized he was ill-suited and, frankly, not really welcomed, and he resigned. Is the organization better for it? Certainly. Is the employee? Probably, as he now has a position at a company that – hopefully – better matches his personal skills, knowledge and abilities.
Turnover isn’t necessarily bad — it just “is.” Manage the bad, make the “good turnover” happen timely, and it will all shake out in the end.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jul 19, 2019 | Brazen Leader, Kevin Berchelmann
I frequently am asked about an employee’s refusal to sign some document: a written warning, a performance review, a job description, etc.
What to do? What do you do when the employee looks you squarely in the eye and says “no,” when asked/directed to sign?
Many will advise to simply have another manager ‘witness’ the event or document, and sign as a witness. Others will say that signing is just not that big of a deal in the first place.
Well, it is and it isn’t.
Signing is seldom a process deal-breaker; in other words, if your process doesn’t have a requirement for signing a lot of these things, their lack of signature likely won’t bring about an early Armageddon.
Another view, however, should you have a requirement in place for a signature:
This simply isn’t how good, dependable employees behave. Signing an acknowledgment is simply an adult action that can be required by the company. I’m referring here to notifications and receipt, not to agreement, per se.
Tell the employee to sign, or go home. Their lack of signature — when not stating agreement to something against their will — is clear and simple insubordinate conduct. And even more important, they are just being a pain-in-the-butt employee for no good reason.
I don’t know about you, but I have enough trouble making it through the day without regularly interacting with someone who is intentionally trying to frustrate me.
This isn’t a series of negotiations, it’s a workplace, and it has conditions. The request is reasonable; reasonable employees will sign, and unreasonable employees need to be shown the door.
But that’s just me…
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jun 15, 2019 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
Outsourcing is a viable business option, and it’s here to stay. And it’s nothing new — we’ve been outsourcing some or all of the human resources functions for decades (think 401k admin, for example). Having said that, to what criteria do we manage these providers? More importantly, what criteria do we/should we use when selecting outsourcing partners?
Normally, outsourcing human resources — at any level — is a balanced combination of task management and results measurement. In other words, we typically outsource those high-volume, repeatable tasks, and measure a provider’s efficacy on the demonstrated success of accomplishing those tasks.
And, from my view, we need to keep 3 things in mind when selecting these outsourcing partners:
Task management. Are they capable of accomplishing the full range of tasks that we require, specifically as we require them done?
In other words, will they, can they, do it “our way,” or will our employees have to adapt to “their way,” out of provider convenience and consistency?
Results measurement. How will we measure the success of task accomplishment mentioned above? Again, will those measurements be a subset of what we already use and are accustomed to today, or will the measurements for success be those determined or offered solely by the new provider?
Best results, of course, come from integrating an outsourcer into OUR organization, including using established, valid measurements.
What else can they offer, that creates value in our world, that we may not have specifically been seeking? I have a large client who wanted to outsource virtually all task-driven efforts within benefits, compensation, and even some employee relations. The provider, however, demonstrated a method for outsourcing full-cycle recruitment that my client had never before considered. This value-added offering put that provider over the top.
In short, measure current and future outsourcers as you would any other business function: by a combination of the things they do measured against the results they deliver.
And hold their toes to the fire…
(I have no idea of the origins of that phrase…!)
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | May 29, 2019 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Human Resources, Organizational Effectiveness
So, do you grow your own leaders from within, or hire someone new with – presumably – the leadership skills you need are unable to find inside your organization? What do you tell yourself to justify not developing those skills from within your organization? How about these? See if any sound familiar…
“I don’t have anyone ready to ‘step-up.’”
“Leadership development is expensive.”
“If I train them, they’ll just leave and join the competition.”
Please. I’ve heard them all, and many more just like these. Some are urban myths, some are akin to the business version of “old wives’ tales.” All are dumb. Worse, however, is that some are actually damaging to your organization.
For example:
I don’t have anyone ready to step up. Really?? You have no one on your staff, or available to you, who with proper development, coaching, and mentoring could step into a more responsible role?
My first comment is “not likely.” If you really believe that, though, here’s some free advice: Whack ’em all and start over. Simple statistical odds are that some should be ready or capable of becoming ready; if not, our hiring process is so remiss that blowing it up and starting over may be the only option.
It costs too much. Again with the “really??” How much does it cost, in revenue, earnings, and your time, to re-tell, re-advise, re-answer, and re-work? How about the conflicts that apparently only you can resolve? Aren’t you tired of having to make every decision yourself?
What sort of productivity gains are you missing by not having competent and skilled managers and supervisors at all levels of the leadership food chain?
If I train them, they’ll just leave. So then, your choices seem to be either train someone who may eventually leave, or keeping that person without the necessary, relevant knowledge. You’re not seriously weighing this, are you?
Why “grow our own” leaders? In my mind, there are three simple reasons:
- It ensures continuity. Someone who has seen, experienced and “lived” the functional day-to-day may better understand what issues and challenges are significant. Yes, sometimes we need an outsider to provide some new-blood thinking, but not at the expense of continuity and corporate memory.
- It sends a positive message. Advancement opportunities are a big reason that good people stay – including you. Promoting a deserving candidate trumps and external hire 24×7 in that regard.
- They already know, understand, and more importantly fit our culture. Let’s face it — though valuable, skills are a dime a dozen on the open market. They just aren’t that difficult to find (including mine and yours). What’s difficult is finding those skills wrapped up in someone intelligent enough to learn our jobs, and who also fits our current culture.
Except in very unique circumstances, developing current staff to assume future leadership roles always, always, benefits the organization in big ways. Many of you reading this have been promoted into your roles, so you clearly understand the value. We can – we really can – teach and develop the skills necessary to “grow your own,” so keep that in mind before thinking there’s “greener grass” in a newly hired manager…
