by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jun 2, 2015 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
A couple of my writings — one, the blog post below about fairness, equity and equality, and one of the articles in my recent newsletter, on employee engagement — bear some additional explanation, lest someone believe I feel that these ideas have no utility whatsoever…
First, regarding fairness. Organizations (and their leaders) that manage to the “lowest common denominator” will forever be relegated to mediocrity; you cannot create & retain talented performers in the face of “identical treatment for all,” nor can you survive frequent, necessary change efforts within that self-limiting process.
Further, I’m not certain that managing with “fairness” is the do-all, end-all for a manager. Effectiveness, yes; reasonably equitable treatment, yes; even reasonably consistent, yes. But fairness is an individualized concept that changes meaning with each employee. Trying to constantly pursue that would drive even the best manager crazy. Better to spend that effort ensuring that each employee is treated according to their value to the organization.
And to those who may feel that sometimes we must treat everyone the same, because a manager(s) doesn’t know how to do it correctly, either develop that manager effectively (and quickly), or hasten their departure. Anytime an organization feels it must spend significant time, effort and resources “guarding against” the actions or activity of any manager, that’s a leadership issue from the top.
Equity is a necessity for a business to succeed significantly. Strive for that; if a manager is incapable, that shouldn’t justify more “equal” treatment for all — it should justify whacking that manager.
Now, about employee engagement. I didn’t say it was necessarily a bad thing, nor is it necessarily anything significant. It is not, however, what should drive our efforts.
We aim to create a workforce that is productive and efficient; engagement, as defined by many, could certainly be a pleasant by-product of that higher performance, but it’s not the end goal. Nor, unfortunately, does employee engagement — in and of itself — create a high-performing workforce. It could certainly be a milestone along the path to high performance, but alas, will not assure superior performance by itself.
Let’s stay focused on the real direction, and not get distracted by today’s management fads.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Mar 28, 2015 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Human Resources, Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
I recently surveyed about 35 chief executives (CEO & COO), who nearly unanimously considered Talent Management, as I describe it below, as their number one priority on a go-forward basis.
Think about it: Not market share, pricing demands, or even concerns over recent burdensome legislation. Talent Management.
So, no real news there, right? After all, unless you’ve been living on Pluto (I like picking on the new “non”-planet), we’ve only read about this “talent management” thing for about 2-3 years, in every conceivable business publication.
No new news… Big deal, eh?
Actually, it is a big deal, because I’m not at all certain we actually get it yet. In other words, if — just for the sake of argument — we agree that talent management is so all-fired important, what exactly are we doing about it? Have we got the execution figured out? If we do, I haven’t seen it.
Talent Management is simple. I know I say that a lot, about a lot of things, but really… it’s simple. It takes 3 things:
1. Recruitment. This, of course, involves determining competencies and qualifications, effective sourcing, and successful hiring/employment.
2. Development. If we find an “A” player, let’s keep him or her and use them in the role they can best help the organization succeed. That may or may not be what they do today. And don’t forget about future skill development (management, leadership, executive). Important.
3. Retention. Damn… it seems like it costs a small fortune to recruit and hire solid talent today — lots of resources come to bear on a single focus. It’s a shame that we don’t continue some of that effort to purposefull retain; retention includes a modicum of motivation, which makes these employees even more productive. Effective retention, then, becomes a “two-fer;” the same efforts that effectively retain also tend to motivate good performers to higher levels of performance and productivity. A bargain at twice the price.
So, talent management is an all-hands-on-deck exercise. To be effective, we need solid human resources guidance and resource management, general management’s sincere participation, and direct involvement by the CEO and other senior-most leaders.
It’s just too important to be entrusted to anything less.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Jan 28, 2015 | Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics, Organizational Effectiveness
But, Kevin, that’s his job!
An exasperated client exclaimed this to me after hearing—again—that she should get better at recognizing her folks, and to consider using regular accomplishments as the impetus, versus waiting for the one-off spectacular event.
She disagreed strongly, obviously. She felt that if people were just doing their job, they weren’t doing anything exceptional, ergo no recognition warranted or expected. “Their paycheck is a reward for satisfactory behavior,” she said. I’m sure no one reading this has ever uttered those words.
“Wrong,” I told her. “That’s just flat wrong.”
Since she is a football fan (assuming you actually consider the Jacksonville Jaguars “football,”), I used a football analogy…
I started playing school football in 8th grade. Mine was a small school, so most of us played both ways; I played right-side offensive guard and defensive linebacker. This is Texas school football, so believe me, they took it as serious then as they did through later years in high school.
Our starting quarterback was a guy named Gordon Williams, the son of our football coach (I’m sure that was just a coincidence). Gordon and I were friends before football came along, as we lived about 8 houses apart in a town of 4,500 people.
Anyway, we were playing La Grange, Texas (yes, the home of the famed “Chicken Ranch”), and we were trailing by a good margin. Gordon called a running play, handing the ball off to Albert Cubit (at the time, the fastest human being I’d ever seen), who headed straight for my right leg. My job was to pick up the middle linebacker who had been coming across unscathed most of the game.
And pick him up I did. Nailed him in the chest, likely surprising the daylights out of him, since I’d been something of a slug the whole game until then. Ended up laying squarely on top of him, while Albert pranced merrily into the end zone. Touchdown, Luling Eagles.
Now we were all happy, jumping up and down, slapping each other’s helmets (this was well before chest bumps and man-hugs), but Gordon cut through the crowd and the noise to reach me, grabbed me by both shoulders and said — yelled, actually—”Great job! Your block made this happen!” I beamed, I’m sure, like some stupid-looking 8th grader.
It wasn’t that I didn’t know I blocked, because I did. It wasn’t that I didn’t know we scored, because of course I knew. It was because I didn’t know how what I did actually affected the outcome.
You see, I was face down on top of that linebacker, and just assumed that Albert had done whatever magic he did when he had the ball. I didn’t realize that the team’s success at that moment was a direct result of my efforts. And all I had done was what I was supposed to do. I didn’t block two or three people, or chase down some errant interceptor. I simply blocked the one person I was tasked to block for that play.
And the team’s leader made me feel damned good about it. It’s been over 40 years since that game; I don’t remember any other play, game, or conversation. Heck, I have no idea of whether we won or lost to La Grange that afternoon. What I do remember, like it was yesterday, was Gordon Williams grabbing my shoulders, looking me in the eye, and saying “Great job!”
For “just” doing exactly what I was supposed to do.
“That which is rewarded is repeated.” It’s a basic tenet of compensation, and the foundation in changing human behavior. Don’t delay or save recognition in hopes of rewarding some heroic, superhuman event. Remember that blocking and tackling—the business kind, not the football kind—is what makes organizations and their leaders successful today. Show ’em some love.
But that’s just me…
(…and thanks, Gordon)
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Oct 29, 2014 | Brazen Leader, Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Organizational Effectiveness
Recently, when discussing the details of succession planning (uh, oh, here he goes again…!) I was asked the following by a colleague:
What general competencies, skills, attributes or potentials should we be seeking in someone worthy of developmental efforts, and how do we determine them in candidates? Are those things different for potential departmental/functional heads versus those being considered for C-level responsibilities?
My shorter version: “Who the hell do I develop?”
(more…)
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Sep 24, 2014 | Brazen Leader, Organizational Effectiveness
Self-improvement gurus often look at productivity from a
“time management” perspective. Absolute malarkey. BS. Balderdash. Pure
unadulterated bunk.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Productivity isn’t
about managing time, it’s a about discerning among options. In short, it’s
about prioritization, not time.
Here are 3 productivity techniques I drill into my
stretched-too-thin executive coaching clients :
- Decide in advance what’s important, but don’t build a list out of concrete. I know that sounds like a paradox, but we need to know, in calm times, what we believe is important—let’s identify that. But don’t be such a slave to your list that you cannot adapt opportunistically. Needing to read some staff-driven emails may be momentarily important, but don’t close your door when a highly-engaged, usually productive asks “do you have a minute?”
- If it isn’t important enough for a calendar, it’s not important enough to do. Deep-six the countless, burgeoning lists that inevitably create a monument for failure at the end of the day. If something needs to be done, put it on your calendar. Then, of course, pay attention to deadlines.
- My quote above from Star Wars’ Yoda is appropriate for individual productivity, particularly as it relates to procrastinating. Either do it, and do it now, or DON’T do it, and either do something else or give yourself permission to just relax, surf the web, or stare at the ceiling. Worrying incessantly about something you’re “supposed” to be—but not—doing is simply a time-sucker and entirely unproductive.
Identify and focus on what’s important, let your calendar
then drive your day, and don’t beat yourself up when you can’t (or simply
won’t) get to something. As a friend of mine is fond of saying, “sometimes it’s
ok to delay… if you wait until the last minute, it only takes a minute.”
But that’s just me…
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Aug 21, 2014 | Brazen Leader, Organizational Effectiveness
I mean really…
You only have 2 kinds of employee turnover: Involuntary (we whack ’em; this is a good thing) and Voluntary.
With Voluntary turnover, we then have Uncontrollable (planned relocations, illnesses, things like that, nothing we can do) and Controllable.
Controllable, the purview of leadership, has still 2 more categories: Inconsequential (no heartache here, good riddance, “see-ya,” “Don’t let the door hit you on the butt”) and Consequential (Oh, crap, what do we do now??).
The only issue, from a turnover perspective, is the Consequentials. Losing those people we truly do not want to lose, and whose loss will significantly impact our organization. How big is that percentage?
I’d argue fairly small. It had better be small, or our organization’s survival is in jeopardy. The rest of the turnover is fundamentally a hiring/sourcing/recruitment issue…
I mentioned in an earlier At C-Level that we needed to hire more “A” – players and fewer “C” – players. If we’re losing “C” employees, good riddance. If we lose even ONE “A” player, we need to find out what went wrong and do something different. “A” employees are too difficult to recruit and hire – their loss is clearly Consequential.
So, don’t just blindly track “Turnover” as this holy grail of a metric. Track the turnover that matters. Another clear example of “measurement is easy; understanding those measures is hard.” We have way too many measures and an insufficient understanding of how those measures translate into something actionable. But that’s for another edition of At C-Level…
