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.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | May 28, 2007 | Brazen Leader, Human Resources, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
So, what does 2007 hold for the human resources community? More of the same (fortunately and unfortunately), and some new things to consider. Using my Kreskin-like powers (age-check…?), my crystal ball, and reading the Earl Grey leaves in the bottom of my Costa Maya coffee cup…
E-Learning will finally take hold. Content is rich, lower lost productivity costs are necessary and reasonable, podcasts and videoblogs make distribution inexpensive.
The war for talent will get worse. Executive talent is in high demand for the fourth consecutive year; companies must continue to add more incentives, including bigger bonuses, to their compensation packages in an effort to lure top talent from competitors and keep key leaders from walking out the door. Developing existing managers, via succession planning and professional growth initiatives, will be crucial.
Increased focus on non-executive staff development. In the face of the growing war for talent all industries, companies are spending more money to develop formalized training programs to ramp up staff more quickly. These programs can also help improve the odds of retaining employees, make companies more attractive to potential recruits, and can help firms get as much productivity as possible from a staff that may not be as large as they would like.
Outsourcing will continue to increase, particulary specific Business Process Outsourcing. Big market, getting bigger. Mid and small markets are underserved (or not served at all) by the big players, yet cost efficiencies are greater there.
Demographic issues will become even more important. Hispanics are our largest minority, immigration non-reform is emotion-laden, boomers are retiring (the workforce is aging), generational issues continue to grow, and work-life balance is becoming more important — all of this in the face of the second prediction above. Medical cost increases will continue at a double-digit clip.
Continued M&A activity will lead to further downsizing/talent shifts, and significant bankruptcies will continue.
Employee productivity must increase. Talent shortages, earnings demands, heavy M&A activity… add to that a growing need for a positive link between pay and performance, a demand for flextime, and idiotic CA laws that potentially mandate additional time off. All point to the need for increasing indiviual employee productivity.
Ethics and social responsibility are replacing “cutthroat” as the official corporate badge of honor. Transparency in dealings, pressure on corporate socialism and philanthropy… ethics are no longer “soft” skills relegated to those who can afford them. They now include CEOs, sales people, and others previously exempt. The world is watching…
HR strategy will become a business unit objective. HR has become too important to be the sole purview of human resources. Strategic-focused HR initiatives — staffing, development, succession, and performance — will become part of general managers’ lexicon. Corporate HR staffs could shrink accordingly, caught between increased strategy ownership in the GM’s office and outsourcing at the transactional levels.
Measurement of all things — including people-focused initiatives — will become a necessity, not simply a differentiator. Someones’ got to explain why we should do this over that, and when I can expect to see a return on my investment of limited capital. Measure or die.
EXCLUSIVE PREVIEW
I interviewed several hundred senior executives — all C-levels, and over 20% were CEOs. In order of significance, their top-5 short-term priorities came in as:
1. Talent management & acquisition.
2. Revenue & earnings enhancement.
3. Performance management, employee productivity.
4. Management/leadership development, performance and motivation.
5. Market pricing, share, and new product/service development.
I don’t offer these things as private or special knowledge of mine; undoubtedly, many of you have arrived at some of these same thinkings. I wanted to put this in writing since that helps me, and maybe offer as help to you as well.
Pay attention to what’s happening around you, your company, the country. It’s not important whether you agree or disagree with my predictions; just arrive at your own thinking by using something other than simple “hope.” As the author said, that’s a lousy business strategy.
Stay alert, focused, and continue to add value.
Happy New Year…!
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Feb 5, 2007 | Brazen Leader, Miscellaneous Business Topics
Penelope Trunk is a freelance writer with a column in the Boston Globe, and calls herself “The Brazen Careerist.” She recently wrote an article that was published on Yahoo!’s personal finance page, entitled Steer Clear of Bad Job-Hunting Advice.
The article lists 8 currently “Bad Rules” for job hunting/hunters, and includes some known HR staples such as resume misspellings, complete disclosure, etc. Then, a littany of comments follow her article, likely many of them from human resources professionals. As Penelope has given me her permission to do so, I’ll list the 8 “Bad Rules” here for convenience:
Bad Rule No. 1: Draw a clear picture of yourself
A résumé is not an autobiography, it’s a marketing document. So the goal is not to tell every single thing about yourself, but rather to get an interview. This is why a résumé should be a tease, not treatise.
Bad Rule No. 2: Don’t be too narrow
If you’re not narrow, then what are you selling? If you want to stand out, you have to stand for something. This is your unique selling proposition…
Bad Rule No. 3: Don’t job-hop
BLS reports that people under 30 switch jobs every 18 months. …who cares about loyalty? You know what it got the baby boomers? Layoffs. Job-hoppers are generally happier in their work. They have more passion for their career because their work changes before it gets boring.
Bad Rule No. 4: Don’t have gaps in your résumé
This is a good piece of advice if you’re going to make work the only thing in your life.
Bad Rule No. 5: Don’t have typos in your résumé
I’m not recommending that you misspell words on purpose, but I am recommending that you chill out about the typos. How can you possibly send out perfect résumés every time?
Bad Rule No. 6: Honesty is most important
Résumés are marketing documents, so write yours that way. Give an employer exactly what they want without saying something false. The bottom line about honesty: Don’t be more forthcoming in your own marketing materials than the marketing manager for Pop-Tarts would be in hers.
Bad Rule No. 7: Clean up your online identity
Stop stressing about the stupid stuff you posted when you were drunk (or worse, not drunk). It’s out of your control.
Bad Rule No. 8: Treat a job hunt like a project and be a project manager
That’s great advice if you look for a job four times in your whole life. But today, job hunting is so frequent that often there’s no downtime — not even while you start a new job.
I share these with you as a warning — agree, disagree as a matter of personal choice. But please, please don’t be the HR professional today who actually makes hiring decisions in this labor-shortage world we live in by excluding otherwise viable candidates for simple transgressions.
A misspelling is poor form, perhaps. But it isn’t the end of the world. Short timeline gaps, common exaggerations that don’t misstate a technical requirement, a short job tenure or two… these should not be forever auto-exclusionary. Consider the entire candidate first. Grill mercilessly, if you must, to ascertain the details you feel could be problematic. But do not simply screen out — at the resume stage — a candidate who seems otherwise qualified.
Just don’t be a total, narrow-minded schmuck who excludes potentially qualified candidates from hiring manager review merely because of a personal quirk. Get past it, get over it, or simply ignore it. Your organziation deserves that from you.
Look to screen in during the resume phase, not out. Start with the biggest possible pool of apparently-qualified candidates before winnowing; you may find out you were about to toss out a keeper…
