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.
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.
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…
What can we learn from leaders during disaster response efforts??
A few years ago, Houston, Galveston, and surrounding areas were hit head-on with a Category 2 hurricane; the surge and size of the storm more closely rivaled a Category 4. It was a big deal. Damage estimates exceeded $10B, and that’s excluding the impact across the Midwest as Ike continued its trek northward. I mention Ike only since I was “there,” in the thick of it.
So, without worrying one whit about the politics of this crap, what can we learn by demonstrated leadership during times like these? Three things…
If you’re in charge, be in charge. No, that’s not a “duh!” comment. It means realizing that the buck stops with you. People are expecting leadership… Lead! People are expecting decision-making… Decide!
Even during a storm — weather or business — leadership must be purposeful and well-thought, allowing for proper perspective. But delaying simply from panic is a failure in leadership. Leadership is not for the faint of heart; if you’re not prepared to stick your neck out, you can’t be in front. Step aside and allow someone else to rise to the occasion.
Lead now, panic later. When storms come along, it’s natural to worry. Maybe even be really concerned and a little scared. The emotions themselves are ok, as long as we realize they have no place in observable behavior.
People don’t need their leaders to panic; they’re doing fine with that on their own. We need leaders to be solid, confident, and maybe even a little bit stoic. People must be able to easily discern “who’s in charge,” and the most obvious way to do that is to act the part.
Calm begets calm; panic begets panic. Be the example of calm.
Nobody wins the blame game. While the storm is “in session,” there’s no reason — and no need — to worry about who is or could be responsible for anything that may or may not have occurred. Let’s first make sure we make it past today — this storm — before worrying about whose neck we’re going to string up.
There’ll be plenty of time after the storm has passed to determine how to prevent similar mistakes from being made. Plenty of time to throw rocks, then duck and cover ourselves, since one or more may be lobbed in our direction.
Right now, pay attention to challenges at hand. Stay focused and purposeful.
Storms come and go. We all face hurricanes — business or weather — from time to time. It is not a matter of if, it’s a matter of when. How we react as leaders when the debris starts flying will define how others see us, even in times of calm.
A favorite phrase of mine: “Leading by example is not a decision. As a leader, you have no choice but to be an example. Now, whether a positive or negative example… that’s the choice.”
This is never more true than in times of storms and hurricanes.
Intentional leadership takes time, and there are already plenty of demands on the 24 hours we have. Our jobs certainly aren’t getting easier, and I’m betting that most of your day isn’t consumed by core leadership tasks like motivating, developing and mentoring.
So, how much of your job as a leader should you delegate? I would argue almost none of it, since leading more effectively will bring the most benefit to both your people and your organization.
On the other hand, when it comes to management tasks, I think you should delegate virtually everything that someone else can do. This is how I learned it: (more…)
Finding and keeping talented employees is at or near the top of nearly every senior leadership survey I’ve seen lately. Seems like the time is right for the talent management gurus to show off their stuff and make a bundle – which would be a huge waste of your money.
Why? Well, guess what leaders? Your talent doesn’t want to be managed any more than you do.
They want you to put your leadership pants and skirts on and create a work environment where they’re motivated and challenged to do exceptional work.
In short, lead them!
I’ve got the stick for a minute.
A couple of times in my military career, I was fortunate to be able to selectively recruit people for my group. Counterintuitively, I didn’t go after the fair-haired wonders out there. No, I looked for the under-utilized and under-appreciated talent from other groups that I thought could fit into our can-do culture. And they jumped at the chance because they knew they would trusted with challenging (and sometimes dangerously exciting) jobs, flexibility in their working conditions, plenty of recognition and appreciation, and opportunities to grow and develop.
You already know this, but I’m going to remind you: Your employees chose your company because they thought they wanted to be part of what you’re doing. Your talent is leaving because they don’t like the way their boss treats them.
And I’m not stereotyping by gender or generation, although it appears that the younger talent is even less willing to stay in an environment that reeks of “old school” management than a middle-age guy trying to juggle a mortgage, car payments, and college tuition.
No, I’m talking specifically about your most talented employees – from any generation and at any level of the organization. They’re the ones who can’t stand to be treated the same as your employees who only deliver the minimum required to keep their jobs. The ones who give the extra effort because of who they are, and will give you even more if you motivate them. The ones who know that work is something you do, not somewhere you go.
So what does your talent want? What motivates and inspires them? It’s not about the money, and you’ll never keep the ones who really believe it is.
Here’s an idea: ask them!
I did just that with a client’s high performers recently, and the answers were anything but surprising (to me, anyway). Every single suggestion they had for improving their company was a leadership issue – things like more development opportunities, more communication, less favoritism, more follow through and respect – the free stuff that leaders ought to be doing anyway.
It’s not that difficult, folks!
You want to keep your talent? First, get rid of your dead wood. Our experience is that as involuntary attrition goes up, voluntary attrition goes down. Not theoretically – in actual practice, because your talent hates that you tolerate underperformance.
Next, here’s what the high performers said made leaders great (really, I didn’t make this up): “Be approachable, act like you care, follow up, encourage, trust, motivate, give recognition, be open to feedback, communicate more, be willing to help, listen, be humble, build teamwork and rapport.”
Not exactly rocket science, is it?
While loyalty to a particular company may be a thing of the past, loyalty to a particular leader is not. Your talent won’t leave leadership like that.
The same high performers then said they’d bail on a boss who “shows favoritism, lacks trust, lacks integrity, lacks professionalism, is selfish, unfair, unengaged, closed minded, or a micromanager.” Try a few of those, and you’ll be stuck with a bunch of Donny Do-Nothings. Count on it.
I doubt this is new information for any of you, but if you’re having a problem keeping talent these days, your organization’s leaders aren’t doing what you’re paying them to do. Or maybe you’re not.
effective performance management if the senior executive(s) are less than fully compliant themselves.
