Coaching Slugs… the uncoachable. Also sometimes known as:
Light’s on, nobody’s home.
She just doesn’t get it.
How’d he slip through HR?
The 80/20 rule…
Or, my personal favorite…
A waste of time.
As egalitarian and “fair” as we sometimes hope to be, there’s no getting around it — some employees can be a waste of our development time, and we should stop doing that the instant we realize that condition. Make an effort, to be sure, but get better at knowing when it’s time to fish or cut bait.
Perhaps they were mis-hired to begin with; perhaps they were promoted well past their ability to grasp new concepts; perhaps they simply don’t want to do what’s required… I don’t know, and at this stage I wouldn’t spend a ton of your time digging into the “why.” The “what,” is “I’m spending my time for no return, when I could be spending it on someone else for recognizable value.”
Not really much of a choice, is it?
Quality guru Joseph Juran said (loosely paraphrased) that we tend to spend 80% of our time on those things that deliver 20% of our aggregate value. I would argue that, when discussing employee performance, motivation, and one-on-one development or coaching, that figure is much closer to 90/10. Maybe even higher.
Really, how much time do you spend with your highest performers… your top 5%? I’m not talking MBWA face-time, drinks after work, or breakfast forced-marches. Nor am I describing time spent at those infernal time-wasters called “staff meetings.” I’m talking about working with that A-player one-on-one, investing your personal time, counsel and expertise, and making sure that those “A’s” receive more emphasis than the “C’s.”
Let’s be clear: time spent growing top performers is never, ever wasted time. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for lesser beings.
I know this sounds harsh, and decidedly un-empathetic. I assure you it’s not. It’s simple pragmatism wrapped in what’s best for both organization and employee. Let’s face it, if you’re spending an untoward amount of time with an under-performing employee, it’s unlikely that same employee is “living the dream” at work.
Yes, we should do an appropriate amount of development for those employees who don’t quite “get it,” but seem to have both the wherewithal and the give-a-$h!t to grow significantly with some well-thought attention. But be wary, critical, and skeptical; prepare to cut the cord the instant you realize you are repeating yourself, notice issues of ethics or integrity, or that the employee’s “light” just hasn’t “turned on.”
Remember, development — coaching, training, appropriate responsibilities — are a vital part of growing our future leaders. But they must bring a few things to the table that you simply cannot coach in. You can’t train them to have a work ethic, for example. They must bring that with them when hired. You cannot train them to be honest or ethical — someone well before you influenced that past repair.
And most important: some people, no matter how much we want to believe the best, just don’t have the intellect to handle the work at hand. I don’t mean high IQ scores; they just need to have enough gray matter to learn and perform the job at hand.
To quote that master of pithy responses, comedian Ron White, “no matter how hard you try… you can’t fix stupid.”
CNNMoney.com recently reported the results of a surprising survey: Year-to-date CEO departures are up almost 10% from 2005.
Up almost 10%. That’s a big increase.
Ford Motor Company, HP (God, what a mess!), Viacom… all these are high profile organziations with recent chief executive changes; the truth is, however, that many of the almost-1,000 CEOs that left their jobs this year were from companies much like yours. Not necessarily a newsworthy event to CNNMoney.com, but significant nonetheless.
Why are these CEOs leaving, I wonder? The CEO job is, purportedly, the pinnacle — the crowning achievement of a management professional. Why, then, the departures? Is it disappointment? Apathy? Lack of motivation? Excessive oversight?
Hard to say, since it’s likely all this and still more. The attention on the CEO’s office has never been greater; the penalty for failures, even short term ‘blips,’ can be painful. New SEC oversight for publicly-traded companies has supported short-term positions in leadership — an unintended consequence of recent legislation.
During a recent CEO search, most candidates are sizing up my opportunity much more closely than I’ve ever seen in the past. they want details on the predecessor’s successes and failures, reasons for leaving, and detailed background on Boards of Directors. All this is good, of course, as it increases the likelihood of a solid match. It also, however, points out that the CEO position is no longer this “holy grail” of an opportunity; people are evaluating it much more for personal fit and likelihood of success, regardless of short-term financial value.
Regardless, it’s an issue we must contend with. Short-term results begats short-term leadership… no way around that. Should our focus really be so close-in, or should we create, manage, and lead our organizations for the longer haul??
Can we do that with frequent changes at the CEO chair?
Investment in training is growing faster than any other human capital or HR-related expenditure. That’s according to Mercer, a ridiculously large consulting firm connected to Marsh.
Their recent survey showed that 51% of profitable firms (there’s a criteria for you) were planning on increasing their investment in Leadership and Career development in 2008. That’s more than for cash-incentives, base salary increases, and even health care.
If you’ve been waiting for leadership development to become really popular; to make the investment decision a near no-brainer, then now’s the time. In other words, everyone is doing it.
Besides just generally good for business, there’s other reasons to develop your managers and leaders:
1. You’re working with another small compensation increase for 2008 (see article on my website). You simply cannot afford to “buy” productivity and effectiveness. Alas, we must manage…
2. Better managers and leaders allow you to succeed in multiple areas of the business; more spending on training and less on base pay to attract, retain, and even engage a competent workforce.
3. Better management is a differentiator, higher pay is not.
4. Promotion and development opportunities are frequently cited as one of the top 3 reasons that high performers leave organizations.
So, your business will be better, key employees will stay longer, and base pay budgets don’t get blown out of whack — and we still can’t understand the significance of leadership development…?
I received the following question from an HR Director in the midwest:
Contingency Fees: What’s the value? It seems that the fee percentage in permanent placement ranges from sometimes less than 20% to 30%+ of the candidate’s first years salary.
So, what’s the diff??
Where’s the value change between the 20% firms and the 30% firms?
Though I do not conduct contingency searches today, I spent many years in the Director/VP desk wondering much the same thing…
The answer, however, isn’t mysterious.
The difference is frequently just timing. If a recruiter or firm’s current production is down, volume low, or revenue a bit off for the week/month/quarter, a firm may take closer to 20% for that particular search, instead of their customary 25-30%.
Perhaps they already have a couple of ringer candidates in the hopper, and they low-ball just to close a quick sale.
Maybe, they’re new at the business, and right now they just need to pay the bills (surely I don’t have to make all the obvious cautions here…).
Maybe, they’re just stupid. I doubt that, but let’s include all possible answers.
Now, having said that…Here’s the part that really gets me:
I spent a good many years in senior-most HR roles. A manager/company that will quibble over 5-10% on a $100K search for a valuable contributor to their organization, is so colossally short-sided and pound-foolish that it takes my breath away.
A hiring company’s bigger concern should not be whether the fee is 20%, 25%, or 30%; or whether the fee includes just base comp, base plus bonus, etc… The hiring company’s sole concern — SOLE concern — should be “Can this firm deliver one or more solid, successful candidates to fill my serious need?”
If not, then 15-20% is certainly no bargain; if yes, then we’re spending way too much time quibbling over a few thousand dollars.
In this final related blog entry, I’m closing out the “5 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership” I outlined in a recent article.
This fifth law is something we all wrestle with mightily. It’s caused many a manager or leader to be ineffective, or less than fully effective, and robbed many an employee of the benefits of nearby, accessible leadership.
Law #5. Employees need their managers to be leaders; they don’t need a shoulder, a buddy, a simpatico, or a commiserator. If you want a friend, buy a dog.
We really do struggle with this. Everyone wants to be liked, and it always seems difficult to decline a beer after work, or something similar.
I’m not advocating a monk-like existence, disallowing any contact with your troops; merely reminding you that they would like to have a friend, but they need a leader if they are to be successful.
You do want them to be successful, don’t you?
Thanks for your patience as I moved through these 5 irrefutable laws (at least in my opinion). These laws are fairly intuitive, and certainly not rocket science… or brain surgery… or rocket surgery.
They are simple management and leadership axioms that have passed the test of time.
Sometimes, it’s the simple things that work. Try it sometime — you just might like it.
I was speaking with a group of HR folks last week, and the subject of candidate questions (when interviewing) came up. Someone said, “I only ask how much money the candidate wants, not how much they have made. That’s all that matters to me.” Many others agreed.
Say what??? That ranks up there as one of the more ridiculous comments we can make. To enter into a relationship with a potential employee with no idea how much money they are accustomed to making is nearly pure negligence.
First, let’s get something straight: Money matters. Money always matters. It may not be the only thing, but it always, always, matters. Zig Ziglar said it best: “Anyone that says ‘money doesn’t matter…’ well, they’ll lie about other things as well.”
There are a million reasons why simply asking for a desired number is a dumb way to ascertain wage needs. I’ll just rattle off a few randomly, in no particular order.
The candidate heard you paid well. So, they ask for more money than they normally would, hoping for some of that largesse. Oops, priced out of your range, candidate rejected.
The candidate heard you didn’t pay well. But they need a job to pay bills today, so they’ll use your underpaying position as leverage for that better job 3 months from now. Lost another one…
The candidate didn’t understand the role as was described. Lucky you — she underbid it, and you got something for nothing. You are one smart cookie… wait a minute, whaddya mean ‘you’re leaving??’ I gave you what you asked for!!
These (above) are some of the more common, intangible reasons for determining current/recent/accustomed compensation. Want something a bit more logic-based?? Ok, how’s this…
The number one — primo, primera, ultimate, top — source for market-based salary information and data is what organziations today are paying for that position in the marketplace. In other words, you should be constantly gauging and comparing your compensation ranges internally to those in the market in which you compete.
This isn’t rocket science, folks. Candidates expect to be asked, you have a duty to know, and there’s no reason not to… ask the question.
