by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Nov 6, 2019 | Brazen Leader, Kevin Berchelmann
Once again, the spotlight continues to shine brightly on senior executives. Not that it shouldn’t, mind you, but some focus is deserved — some may not be.
For instance, we’ve all heard about Bob Nardelli’s $210M “severance” from Home Depot, amid falling stock prices. What you have to dig to discover, of course, is that Bob was #2 or #3 behind Welch at GE, in line for succession. When Immelt got the nod (deservedly), Nardelli and a couple of others “passed over” sought and accepted CEO jobs elsewhere. Not uncommon in the world of succession, is it??
So, to entice Nardelli to join HD, the board offered him hiring incentives — that’s right, hiring incentives — of about $180M in stock, options, deferred comp, and retirement benefits. So, $180M of this so-called “severance was, in fact, a sign-on bonus to entice Nardelli to leave an incredible opportunity and security at GE.
$20M was pure “severance,” and over $18M was in exchange for promises not to compete or poach employees/customers. Money well spent.
Get your facts straight, media.
Then, there’s Lawrence Jackson at Wal-Mart. Hired as HR chief a couple of years ago, he led global procurement and apparently didn’t quite “get it” regarding Wal-Mart’s cost reduction strategy. Jackson marks the 4th — count ’em, FOUR — senior executive to get whacked at Wal-Mart in less than a few months.
So, how about that pressure? Challenger, Gray, and Cristmas’ annual survey shows CEO departures at almost 1,500 for 2006. Almost a third has less than 3 years, and over 10% had less than a year.
Cushy job, eh??
Stay the course. The race is won by those who stay focused and don’t get caught up in things that don’t matter.
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…!)
