During the last several months, as I travel around, I’ve been asking people I come in contact with two questions:
Do you like your job?
Why or why not?
Creates some interesting conversations, I’ll tell you. Almost missed a flight out of Baltimore when my conversation with the Hertz counter rep went into overtime.
I jotted down fairly copious notes for these discussions. And though I realize the lack of statistical “rigor” in my survey methodologies, I think the results were interesting nonetheless.
In about four months, I spoke with 56 people about this. Most readily answered my questions. Some, of course, seemed hesitant to respond candidly to such questions from an unknown traveler (go figure). Most, however, spilled their guts without a drop of hesitation.
16 people said “yes, I like my job.”
11 said “It’s OK,” or “It’s a job,” or something equally noncommittal and nonplussed.
26 replied “no,” or something equally negative. A few expletives were included in several.
(for you math whizzes, this doesn’t total 56; 3 would not answer the question at all)
The #1 reason given for “why?” with those 31 who said, “yes?”
They let me do my job.
Not “the money,” though most in this category did mention the pay was either “good” or that they felt paid “fairly.”
Not “it’s easy,” or “I don’t have to do much work.”
Nope, not those things we frequently imagine are in the minds of employees who seem satisfied, contended, or otherwise happy to work for us.
They let me do my job.
Never forget — the vast majority of successful leadership application is not some fancy buzzword, or the chapter title from some consultant’s new glossy book.
It’s the basics. It’s blocking and tackling.
So, what’s the take-away from this incredibly scientific, statistically strict employee survey?
Hire right. Attitude, integrity, intellect and work ethic… none can be trained, all must be hired.
Set and manage expectations. Keep it simple, folks.
Empower people to do their jobs, and expect that they will.
Training is essential for success—always has been, always will be. But like everything else, not all training is created equally. Nor is there a one-size fits all when it comes to teaching employees. And that’s true for leadership – technical, interpersonal or whatever it may be. But there are tried and true strategies for success that can lead to more effective employees, a happier workforce and a better organization. Here are 3 key strategies for training employees that can make the process more endearing for all those involved. (more…)
“Teamwork” has forever been a buzzword in our business world. It seems that the importance of having employees work as a team has been promoted in every available piece of management literature. Nevertheless, we at the top have routinely had a hard time “playing well together,” despite the fact that the need is more pronounced now more than ever.
I used to work for a CEO who believed that the definition of a “team” was a group of people doing things his way. It’d be funnier if it didn’t apply so well to so many…
Who cares?? Why does it matter, as long as I do my job and am good at it?? Some arguments for executive teamwork:
External Demands. Worldwide competition and changing financial markets make it necessary for the organization to be on the alert at all times – the pressure to innovate, apart from the company’s organizational health, are no longer the CEO’s sole purview.
Internal Demands. Diversifying businesses require differently-skilled managers leading varied business units. We can no longer be “all things to all people.”
Succession. An executive team is usually – and naturally – the best selection pool for future executives, as individual members would have first-hand knowledge of the essential competencies of a potential top leader within our current organization.
Exemplary Behavior. In addition, top executives working well together sends a potent signal down the line. Monkey see-Monkey do. ‘Nuff said. Your folks really do emulate your behavior…
So why, then, if we understand the need, do top executives often fail to form a team?
Consider the source: Managers who have climbed the ladder’s upper rungs are typically strong-willed, ambitious and are experts in their own right. These characteristics, though obviously allowing them to successfully rise in within an organization, may also pave the way for an unwillingness to show weakness, overprotective behavior for their functions, and viewing other executives as “competition” in their quest for the Holy Grail: The CEO’s chair.
Personality and behaviors can be difficult to change once they are really entrenched, so forming a true executive team becomes a difficult undertaking.
Ultimately, the CEO must establish a climate that is favorable to developing an executive team. S/He can do this by:
Selecting discriminately. Normally, “upper management” can be a big group, consisting of the CEO, COO, CFO, various heads of important functional areas, and other political savvy or otherwise valuable individuals. Limiting the number of total members to 8-10 enables all to develop healthier relationships, to say nothing of the success of subsequent meetings. And no, not making someone part of this group does not mean they are unimportant.
Communicating unequivocally. The CEO must ensure that all executive team members understand the vision, mission, strategies and goals of the organization in no uncertain terms. There can be no “highway” option here.
Ensuring Commitment. If there is no involvement, there is no commitment.
Clarifying Roles. The CEO must clearly set the mandate for each executive team member. This involves defining strategic responsibilities (not operational), areas of cooperation, interdependence, information-sharing and decision-making processes.
Ensuring safety. Establishing an atmosphere where members can show their weaknesses, disagree and express their opinions openly without fear of losing face and authority can induce team creativity. It also promotes increased trust among the members.
Emphasizing Shared Accountability. Rewarding solely individual performance undermines the formation of a cohesive executive team whose performance is supposed to be assessed collectively. Collective measures of profitability and other gains are crucial.
Having Courage to weed out non-performers. It’s perfect, of course, if all executives would deliver on their responsibilities – but, nobody’s perfect. If an executive hinders the team’s progress or is disrupting the team’s process, then it might be time to let that member go. Make that decision as certain as it would be if s/he were functionally incompetent.
I worked with the CEO of a large services company. A VP member of his senior staff was a brilliant P&L manager — but entirely destructive to the team. We coached, cajoled, taught, pleaded and begged. This senior manager would not be swayed — he was clearly “on the dark side,” and wanted to stay. He wielded his P&L performance as a Kevlar vest.
The CEO fired him, and you could hear the air being sucked out of all the collective guts of the senior team. The boss was serious, and now the team was, too.
Creating a synergestic team of top leaders in an organization is tough work. Selecting, managing personalities and relationships, establishing and enforcing norms, and developing executive team members is a complex process – but it can be done.
The payback is huge. You know that, of course, if you took the time to read this whole posting. Stop looking for a magic bullet — it takes effort and commitment, and in all likelihood, some tough decisions.
How many of you are growing weary of pundits and advice-givers obsessing over Millennials taking over the workplace?
You can put your hands down. Me too.
And we Boomers and Gen Xers aren’t the only ones. A very unscientific poll of 100% of the Millennials in my immediate family reveals that they’re both sick and tired of being stereotyped with the Millennial label as one big spoiled, needy, homogeneous cliché. Their reasons are valid: they’re not all the same, and they generally want the same things from work that generations before them have wanted. (more…)
Don’t get caught with your pants down.
That idiom has its origins in the Roman Emperor Caracalla, later known as Marcus Aurelius.
He was known as one of the bad-ass Emperors somewhere before 200AD. Legend has it he was killed while relieving himself, hence “with his pants down.” Though it may actually have been a robe. Or chainmail. Whatever he was wearing, he had it down and he was killed. Going forward, warriors took care of their business with sword in hand, so not to be “caught with their pants down.” (more…)
So, let’s talk about references. Recently, I heard an HR generalist ask about references. They wanted to know:
a) If they were limited to the references provided by a candidate,
b) What to do if they could not contact someone because the candidate wouldn’t give permission…, and
c) What good were references anyway since past managers and HR shops can’t give out any info??
Hang on to your seats, my answers may get rough… I’m just doing some free-wheeling here, so stay with me.
Managers/HR won’t give out information? Sure they can, and from my experience, usually do. I sometimes have great conversations, and make long-term acquaintances through these calls. I have friends today whom I met as I was speaking to them about a reference. Can’t shut them up sometimes.
I do, however, ask candidates for references for 2 reasons:
1) To make my life easier in finding telephone numbers, and
2) To get an idea of whom they would prefer I call, versus not.
Neither of those reasons is to get permission. I will always talk to immediate supervisors for at least 5 years back. Always, whether listed as reference or not.
Did you get that part?? Whether they list as references or not.
I will honor a request — it IS a request — to not call a currently-employed candidate’s current employer, as long as they realize I must do so either before an offer is made, or after a “contingent” offer is made. 100% of the time. No matter what the impact may be — no current reference, no job.
Now, some opinionated rambling…
There is no legal requirement, per se, for giving/not giving references or even employment verification (for future employment).
Further, though I realize many in HR choose — on their own — to limit their reference responses, I believe that practice is both limiting and detrimental to both employers.
This whole “name, rank and serial number” thing began as HR managers became afraid (unjustifiably, in my mind) of saying something malicious that they could be held to later.
In playing this self-inflicted “don’t tell” game, we encourage people to circumvent HR in the reference process, making operational/functional managers the go-to for adequate references.
And make no mistake — regardless of policies, most managers WILL give references, good and bad.
I believe our organizations would be better served if we controlled the real reference information, instead of simply sticking our collective heads in the sand.
