by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Oct 14, 2013 | Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics
Sometimes definitions can help. In improving leadership talent, it really does matter.
In the classic movie “Princess Bride,” Vizzini was fond of saying “Inconceivable!” every time something occurred that surprised him. Not once, but three of four times before Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinton of Criminal Minds fame) finally said, “You keep using that word—I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Great word, sounded neat, not used correctly. The same frequently holds true when we use words like “Training,” “Coaching,” and “Development” interchangeably. They don’t mean the same thing, and their differences matter.
Training is foundational. It’s providing information, processes and methodology, in a controlled setting. It makes someone qualified to learn the job. Note I didn’t say “qualified to do the job,” but “qualified to learn the job.” Too often we like to think that Training = Qualified. It doesn’t. After training, people need relevant application and experience to actually master the skills trained. And they’ll need Coaching.
Coaching speeds up the experiential process, ensuring that an employee is gaining applicable skills as quickly as possible, and avoiding undue distractions in their growth. Sometimes remedial in nature, other times aimed at making good performance even better, coaching is always skill-specific, connecting the knowledge gained from Training to the relevance and proficiency acquired through practice and experience.
Development is preparation for growth and further success. It’s not about honing skills required currently, nor is it Coaching for improved performance, even for high performers. Development is providing new experiences and understandings in areas, topics, and focus not specific to an employee’s current job. Those last seven words are important: … not specific to an employee’s current job. (admit it, you went back and counted those words, didn’t you?). And unlike Training and Coaching —both specific, finite efforts—Development is programmatic, an ongoing process. Empowering to do part of a supervisor’s job could be development, as could be rotational assignments, higher-level skills training (leadership for non-leaders, for example), and most real mentoring efforts.
Development gets a lot more press than its brethren mentioned above, since most true empowerment effort are a form of development, and those frequently create that holy grail, “Discretionary Effort,” simply defined as those added efforts that employees are not required to give.
Now you get to say, “I do not think it means what you think it means.” And of course, you can carry a cool sword.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | May 28, 2011 | Brazen Leader, Human Resources, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
According to the DOL’s Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 12.5 percent of wage and salary workers were union members this year, unchanged from the year before. Union membership rate has continued its steady decline, from a high of over 20 percent in 1983.
Some additional tidbits:
— There are nearly 15.7 million union members
— Over 70% of all union members are public/government employees, including civil service, fire, police, teachers, etc.
— Private industry union membership remains less than 8%.
— Black workers were more likely to be union members than were white, Asian, or Hispanic workers.
— Men were more likely than women to be union members.
— Workers in the public sector had a union membership rate more than
four times that of private-sector employees.
The largest numbers of union members lived in California (2.4 million) and New York (2.1 million). Just over half of all union members in the U.S. lived in six states — California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, and New Jersey — though these states accounted for slightly less than one-third of wage and salary employment nationally.
Texas, though having the second-largest number of employees, had less than one-fourth as many union members as New York, despite having nearly 1.5 million more wage and salary employees.
So, that’s all good, right???
Though unions are certainly weakening in private industry, don’t fall asleep at the wheel just yet. The news of their death has been a little exaggerated.
For instance: “Change to Win” is a new coalition of seven unions (UNITE HERE, Teamsters, Laborers, UFCW, United Farm Workers, Carpenters, and SEIU. The “Change to Win Federation” was created in late 2005 when those unions split from the AFL-CIO over disagreements in spending — the AFL-CIO was focusing on politics and legislation, while the newly-formed Federation believes the focus should be on grass-roots, aggressive organizing, via targeted corporate campaigns.
The Change to Win plan of attack created at their recent convention in Las Vegas calls for an unprecedented organizing campaign aimed at “core industries” of the member unions. The Change to Win unions already represent workers in each of these industries, and include:
** Transportation
** Distribution
** Retail
** Construction
** Leisure and hospitality
** Health care
** Property services
** Food production and processing
The Las Vegas gathering created local multi-union teams that will work together to increase union density in each of these “core” industries on a local or regional basis.
This “Change to Win Federation” also announced multiple targeted organizing drives at the convention. According to news reports, these priority campaigns included a company-wide corporate campaign led by the UFCW against a meat packing company to compel union recognition at a pork processing plant in North Carolina. The union has twice been rejected by the employees at that plant in NLRB-conducted secret ballot elections, and thus the union is reverting this time to the corporate campaign strategy to force “top-down” organizing.
New Tactics
Given free choice on union representation, exercised via secret ballot elections, employees reject unionization almost half the time. Because of this, unions have turned to a “less-friendly” approach, called the “corporate campaign.” Here, union organizers tries to pressure company executives to submit to the union’s demands. They attempt to force recognition via a “card check” instead of the normal election.
Get a load of this: One UNITE HERE union official dismissed the democratic election process spelled out by the NLRB, saying that “there’s no reason to subject the workers to an election.” Another union official actually said, “we don’t do elections.”
Incredible. Simply incredible.
So, “they could never convince me to accept union demands,” eh?? Some tactics they use include:
* Filing charges with the NLRB, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Labor (OSHA and wage-hour complaints), and other agencies that regulate the employer’s business.
* Filing class actions and other lawsuits alleging various trumped-up violations, discrimination, etc.
* Pressuring banks and other lenders, and others within the financial community, with threats of union boycotts against those lenders.
* Picketing at the homes, clubs, private gatherings and offices of corporate executives and board members.
* Purchasing stock and attending shareholder meetings to challenge top executives and board members regarding various policies.
It can get messy. As always, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Regardless of dirty tactics, unions will only work for strongholds where they believe they can effect publicly noticable change. We can immunize ourselves by simply managing. Manage your companies well, including proper oversight of policies, procedures, and practices that directly impact your employees. Remember that “details matter” to rank and file employees, and not every economic downturn or business cycle needs to be placed on their backs. It means remembering that almost 90% of your employees live paycheck-to-paycheck, so small percentages really do matter.
Pay attention and manage your business. Though I don’t subscribe to the axiom, “Companies get the unions they deserve,” I do believe that good managers can prevent unions — under any circumstances.
Stay focused…
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Oct 28, 2010 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
Leaders leading leaders… “Leadership Squared.”
I recently was at a board meeting, and the chair took a few minutes to recognize one of the directors (we’ll call her Linda). Instead of typical platitudes and nameless accolades, this chairman instead described this person in the highest possible manner. Taking some time to address the difficulties of leadership, the challenges we face today, and the issues confronting us as we lead our organizations, he finished with the ultimate compliment:
“Linda excels at the most difficult — she’s a leader of leaders.
Leading is hard, we all know that. Some of us can make it look easier than others, but we know we are just fooling the masses… it’s hard, takes work, thought, and purposeful action. Leading an organziation can be nearly thankless and fraught with issue — some trivial, some extreme. The most important thing we do isn’t managing earnings, driving new products/services to market, or even finding and developing “A” players (and I’ve weighed in on my feelings there).
The most important thing we do — defined by significance, impact, and long-term results, is leading leaders.
We set the stage, we act as the example, and we provide resources and break down obstacles. Then we get out of their way and let them lead. There is no higher purpose in leading an organization than ensuring your leaders can lead.
Help them, nurture them, even get out of their way at times… but lead your leaders. That’s how we get where we’re going.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Oct 2, 2010 | Brazen Leader, Human Resources, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics
I get several questions each week, from various people across the country, on topics ranging from benefits administration, to compensation, to “I hate my boss, what should I do?” (Not sure how I get that one…)
Most, I simply respond to the email directly, as they don’t have universal appeal. Some, however, do… hence this entry, of course.
I received an email, subject titled, “QUIT JOB.” The sender asked, “If an employee gives notice they are quitting, can I fire them? If so, must I pay them out for their notice period?”
Now, as I’ve oft-said, I’m not an attorney, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. However…
Generally, yes.
In most states, a resignation is just that – a resignation. The employee then offers to stick around for a couple of weeks to help the employer transition. The departing employee, however, doesn’t set their resignation “date,” the employer does. The employer can accept their notice, or not.
Having said that, there are two reasons to accept or pay out a resignation notice:
1. Other employees are watching. This particular employee may not be important, but others may now believe that giving any notice is futile, so that when they resign, they may do so without notice. Consider if you are agreeable to NO employees giving notice.
2. You could be liable for unemployment compensation for that notice period, if the employee is otherwise eligible. Not likely for an extended period of unemployment, but possibly for those two weeks, or whatever the notice period given.
So, do you whack ‘em instantly or let them see through their notice? It’s a business decision that requires some thought. If they are truly a substandard performer – such that you would have fired them within 30 days anyway – then by all means, show them the door. If you may later WANT employees to give you adequate notice, and this is a satisfactory employee, then you may want to consider either allowing them to work their notice period, or paying them for the notice period regardless.
Just my considered, un-legal opinion…
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jun 14, 2009 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Human Resources, Miscellaneous Business Topics
Who’s on First??
Abbot & Costello (if you must ask, then ‘never mind’) had this brilliant baseball comedy skit where it was difficult – if not impossible – for Abbot to actually determine which player was at which position.
This should not be a natural lead-in for succession planning today; alas, it’s the perfect entré.
We simply must determine, in advance, “Who’s on first.” We have to know – at a minimum – who is capable of assuming our significant (“Key”) leadership roles. Real people, with names and plans behind them.
The Philadelphia-based Hay Group surveyed their “150 Most Admired Companies,” and discovered that almost 80% of these firms’ Boards have a preference for internal CEO candidates. 80 percent!
These companies (and their Boards) recognize two things:
1. Selecting replacements for key positions is one of the most critical tasks of board or senior leadership, and
2. That when done correctly, companies can better create succession replacements from within, instead of hiring from the outside.
And, unlike a previous blog post that describes settling for “the pick of the litter,” these companies purposefully develop their internal talent to be prepared when “called up.” They don’t simply settle for “best available.”
Want a specific take-away action? Ok, how’s this for a 2-parter:
Part 1:
Identify, via a logical, involved process, those positions (not people) that are or will be essential (“Key”) to the future success of the organization.
Part 2:
Meet, discuss and name — by NAME — the likely successors to those roles at least twice per year.
Even better, determine the skill gaps that still exist and create a plan to make sure your “chosen ones” are headed down the path for preparedness.
Then execute, execute, execute.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | May 28, 2007 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
As you probably know by now, Ken Lay (Enron Founder, Chairman) passed away early this morning. There are many who would cheer in the street. I’d like to offer this small group a counter-perspective…
I knew Ken Lay personally. Not intimately, but I met and sat with him a half-dozen times or so at board meetings (not Enron), and he and Linda were at the same table as Traci and I at a couple of not-for-profit gigs in Houston.
I knew him as a good man. He seemed kind, caring, and thoughtful. Personally brilliant, he managed loosely from the start — an employee autonomy that made Enron successful, and was also his undoing. I won’t opine on his guilt or innocence; he was tried and convicted with evidence I could not see. To give you pause for thought, however, just consider (religious or not, consider the meaning):
There, but for the grace of God, go I.
Just think about it for a minute. Can everything you’ve ever done in business withstand that sort of scrutiny? Not simply “doing the right thing,” but can it withstand harsh, hostile scrutiny from an entity with unlimited resources, hell-bent on destroying you??
What if that entity could coerce — threaten — tens of witnesses to either testify against you or spend many more years in jail? Would all your supporters hold up?
What if, those who weren’t convicted via plea deals, all your purported “business friends,” those who could present fact and testimony that could make a difference, were threatened as well. Called “unindicted co-conspirators,” and threatened with indictments if they testified? Would they still rally to your defense and support, knowing it won’t simply cost them their jobs, but their freedom??
What if “I discussed with my attorney” meant nothing to those attacking you?? How about “our auditors approved it,” or “my board voted on it with full knowledge??” What if NONE OF THOSE could stand as a defense… could your entire business life withstand that level of scrutiny and accountability??
I’m not sure… it sure does give one pause, though, doesn’t it?
It’s easy to say “we should be held to a higher standard.” Frankly, I agree. But to how high a standard do we manage?
Whatever level today, it needs to be higher tomorrow. This degree of scrutiny, oversight, and transparency isn’t simply “going away,” or temporary. It’s here to stay, and we should be prepared to manage accordingly. We must. It’s the right thing, and we have clear marching orders.
