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 | 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 28, 2019 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
Should we use 360-degree evaluations to determine how well our managers are “managing?”
My answer will be brief, followed by some applicable humor (well, it’s funny to me…)
Management efficacy should be evaluated by measurement, not popularity. Don’t ask the question if the answers aren’t actionable. In other words, if the manager is kicking butt on all measurable fronts, what would you have him or her change if a survey came back with suggestions?
The right answer, of course, is nothing.
Having said that…
What would you like to hear them say?
Three friends of Thibodeaux’s from the local Cajun congregation were asked, “When you’re in your casket, and friends and congregation members are mourning over you, what would you like dem to say?
“Jacque said: “I would like dem to say I was a wonderful husband, a fine spiritual leader, and a great family man.
Ovide commented: “I would like dem to say I was a wonderful teacher and servant of God who made a huge difference in people’s lives.
“Then it was Boudreaux’s turn to said somethon: “I’d like dem to say, “Look at dat!!!!, he’s moving!”
Measure managers by results, not popularity or wishful thinking.
KB
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | May 28, 2019 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Uncategorized
Bullies. Jerks. Egomaniacs.
All have been used to describe domineering bosses. Leaders who are abusive, raise their voices, and intimidate. Personally, I call them something else.
Failures.
A leader who resorts to intimidation, brow-beating, threats and coercion is self-admitting the inability to successfully lead. I call it “business card leadership.” The sole source of this leader’s authority comes form a business card that says “you must obey me.”
Remove the business card, and these unsuccessful leaders couldn’t get a wolf to follow them while carrying raw meat.
Here’s a suggestion: “Be nice.”
For movie fans, remember the movie “Roadhouse” with Patrick Swayze? He’s a “cooler” (apparently some bigwig bouncer), and in one scene is giving other bouncers the rules. His commentary goes something like this:
All you have to do is follow three simple rules. One, never underestimate your opponent. Expect the unexpected. Two, take it outside. Never start anything inside the bar unless it’s absolutely necessary. And three, be nice.
He ends this conversation with the parting statement, “I want you to remember that it’s a job. It’s nothing personal.”
We could do well to internalize those three instructions above:
1. Expect the unexpected. “Stuff” happens. Remember that leading is only difficult “when it’s difficult.” When everything is running smoothly, all playing well with each other, everyone working at full competency, leading is easy. When something breaks down — and it will — it takes some skill.
2. Take it outside. Reprimand in private. Coach in private. never get emotional in a crowd. When you force defensiveness, career-altering emotions come into play. If you yell with others around, it’s apparent to others you are incapable of leading effectively. is that what you want?
3. Be nice. That’s right, be nice. At the end of the day, if someone simply refuses to be coached, comply with suggestions, etc., you can always fall back on “because I said so.” Don’t lead with that. Be nice. Calm voice. Phrase your demands as a question; reasonable (read :”keepers”) employees don’t really think a task question from their boss actually has a “no” potential response. It’s just courtesy. be nice.
And finally, remember this isn’t your life… it’s a job. It’s not a calling (for most of us), it’s employment. A way to make a living. A way to pay for the things we do when we AREN’T working. Think of it that way, and remember when you lose control, “your leadership is showing,’ and it’s not the best example to set.
…and be nice.
Cheers.
