Leadership and Retention: Keeping Top Performers
It’s not just the money!
We are staring down the barrel of impending poaching opportunities at a time when our most valuable employees are simply “tired.” What to do?
(more…)
Performance Management Simplified
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.
Success According to Karl
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.
“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Does Leadership Development
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.
Onboarding: The path to productivity, engagement and employee retention
Onboarding matters more than any other activity for speed-to-productivity and employee retention.
Onboarding employees today has taken on a new significance. No longer just “new employee orientation,” It can set the stage for long-term success, engagement and employee retention.
A recent SHRM report stated that Onboarding has four distinct levels, called the Four C’s: Compliance, Clarification, Culture, and Connection. The problem is the order—that model needs to be stood on its head, in exactly the reverse order.
Connection comes first. First employment days are wasted with forms and compliance… stop that! Spend that first day—the entire day—connecting with the newbie in a fun, meaningful way,
that lends value to the new employee first, the organization a distant second. Create an environment that someone wants to be a part of… demonstrate values today that will be reinforced tomorrow. Early connections are lasting connections. Later connections are just that—late.
Culture. Speaking of values… Included in that non-compliance first day, and possibly many more, is the weaving of culture norms and organizational values in demonstrable form, so that words and actions are immediately congruent, and new employees don’t have to wonder what things like “we value innovation” really mean.
Clarification starts assimilating that new employee into the organization and their specific role. Here we help these new folks understand their place in the company, their contributed value, and their significance in the long term for doing the job they were hired to do. It also reinforces their career direction and potential path—something critical for newer employees today.
Compliance events only occur after we have produced distinct connections, shown demonstrable culture and values, and provide some real job and career clarification. Compliance is an organization-only need, and as such brings up the rear in establishing long-term value to an employee. It’s important, but only to us. The employee doesn’t need it to realize his or her value. It must be done, but minimize its significance and distraction.
Onboarding today is the real deal. This is a challenge that can allow Human Resource professionals to play an absolute critical role in the long-term success of new talent. But you’ve gotta do it right, and focus on what’s important for the talent first.
I have a client where we just implemented a rigorous onboarding effort, that includes recruitment, orientation, and also the first several weeks of after-orientation employment. It’s already had a positive effect on retention and engagement, and both of those translate into significant organizational results.
Be Brazen.
Across the Board isn’t enough…
So, with CPIs hovering around 3-3.5%, and most surveys showing 3.5-4.0% increases in salary budgets for 2007, life’s a breeze, right? Just add the percentages into the Excel formula, press “Enter,” and you’re done, right?
Actually, wrong.
Enter “wage inflation.”
I’m going to avoid the ecomomist argument that higher wages do or do not cause inflation. That’s just not our relative concern here. What is clearly our concern is that our currently strong economic growth lowers general unemployment rate. This, theoretically, can cause businesses to bid up the price of labor and (hopefully) pass through those higher costs in the form of higher prices.
If only it were so easy. As the CPI shows general inflationary trends (e.g., our product/service cost increases), wage inflation is an additional cost on top of inflationary pricing. In other words, it’s a potential incremental cost.
Now, again theoretically, profit-conscious firms aren’t going to hire employees at a rate of pay more than his utilitarian or marginal value, or more than the additional revenue earned. Hardly rocket science, right?
The reality, however, shows that sometimes wages do increase faster than general inflation, particularly for individual functions, positions and/or jobs, rather than an overall employment market.
Enter compensation planning. It’s easy to get in a cyclical rut: analyze the jobs, survey the market, establish a range. Then adjust for infation a couple of years and start all over again. That’s simply not enough. We must pay close, specific attention to the inflationary movement of key positions within our organziations and adjust accordingly — or at least be acutely aware of the disparity. No reason for a surprise here.
Sometimes compensation planning takes foresight, analysis, and a real awareness of what’s going on in the world.
Don’t get caught napping…
