Talent Management -- Keep it Simple...

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.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Ivory towers are everywhere...

I mentioned earlier that leaders must lead from the front. I observed something last week that reminds me that they must also lead "from the ground."

No matter who we are, what title we have, how many people are working for us, or how much money we make... we can never forget that we lead others, and that those others are the ones who are on the ground -- the front lines -- of our organizations. Making money.

You may be able to manage from your office on the 32nd floor, or the front corner of your plant, or from A-space, downtown offices detached from the real operations. You can manage from there, but you cannot lead from there.

To lead, you've got to come down the elevator, go to the back of the plant, or hop on an airplane and head to "where the action is," on the ground.

An example: I was in Dallas last week on business. While there, I stayed at a Marriott Suites close to Love Field. At the time of my visit, there was also a national sales force meeting there (I'll let the company remain nameless... for now). On the 12th (top) floor, this hotel had a "concierge" lounge; you know, the ones with a small bar, free food, quiet atmosphere to end a day.

Only it wasn't quiet today. The management -- only the senior management -- of this sales force was staying on the top floor where they had concierge access. And they were a bit rowdy, to say the least. That's neither here nor there, as my stay was going to be brief regardless. Afterwards, I went downstairs to the lobby lounge to wait for a client of mine... we were going to go have dinner.

So, here I am in the lobby lounge, twiddling my thumbs and people-watching. It's strangely crowded for a Thursday night. The group nearest me is almost a dozen strong, mostly men, and they quite obviously were part of this same sales organization I mentioned above. Only these guys were ground-level troops, not uppity-ups like the ones in the concierge lounge. These guys were the ones who just woke up every day, went to work, and made that company money. Lots of money.

And they were not happy. They were railing on about the VP and Manager who, apparently, were otherwise too occupied to go to dinner with them. Like me, they obviously knew where they were. One of these sales guys had a neat idea: seems his buddy back home (same company) had recently been recruited by a competitor, and that recruiting executive, coincidentally, was in Dallas. Why don't we, he said, call this guy and see if we can get together for a drink?? All but 2 of the guys agreed, so he made the call.

The competitor executive, probably reeling in surprise at his incredibly good fortune, agreed to meet the guys -- at a fairly upscale steakhouse to buy them dinner. To heck with a couple of drinks, this guy was going in for the kill.

All but the 2 dissenting voters went to dinner.

My client showed up shortly thereafter, so I had to leave, or I might have stayed in that lobby bar until those guys came back, just hoping to pick up on some more of that conversation.

The folks staying on the 12th floor were so self-absorbed that they forgot to lead. They didn't realize that leaders do so from in front and on the ground -- managers can manage from a distance (though even with managers, I'd argue about their effectiveness in doing so).

Did they lose their entire sales force? Unlikely. These things are always easier to discuss than to pull off successfully (that's experience talking). Regardless, those sales guys now had a great contact -- on a personal, first-name basis -- at a competitor. And they were interested enough to spend their free time while at a company-sponsored sales event.

Pretty bold.

And damned foolish on the part of those managers in that 12th floor lounge.

We lead; as such, we are essential for successful, growing organziations, to be sure. But never, ever, forget who actually makes the money on a daily basis. It's them, those contributors on the ground, fighting the fight each and every day, and we must stay focused on caring for, providing for, and recognizing their worth to our organziations.

Always.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Some clarification for my sensitive readers...

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.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Minimum Wage... Get real, but get ready

First, the fiasco in Chicago was averted -- we should all stand and cheer.

For those living on Pluto (the new "non'-planet), Chicago attempted to vote in a "big box" minimum wage, a wage higher than what all other employers must pay, as a penalty for simply "being" a big box retailer.

Mayor Dailey vetoed the bill -- his first such veto in his million years in office. Smart man.

Having said that, and against my personal beliefs and desires, minimum wage is going to change from its paltry $5.15 per hour. 10 states have enacted minimum wage laws in 2006 alone, making their state's minimum wage some level above the Fed's. That brings to 23 the total number of states with such legislation, and another 6 states have pending legislation awaiting November voting.

You can bet that all, or most, will pass.

Make sure you prepare accordingly, as minimum wage adjustments -- particularly significant adjustments -- impact more than just your unskilled entry workers. Minimum wage tends to be the benchmark by which other positions base their rates. In other words, you'll likely face the need to adjust the rate ranges for multiple low and semi-skilled positions within your organziation.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Process beats promise any day...

One corner of my Performance Triangle is Process. These are what - and how - things happen within your organization. They include things that are formal, informal, in writing, unwritten, etc. Some of the more obvious include:
• Organizational structure
• Policies and procedures
• Existing culture, and maintenance of that culture
• The decision-making process
• The process for employment decisions and performance management

What you say you’re going to do, through mission statements, vision statements, verbal or written promises, or whatever, matters little if your processes can’t support that talk.

Your processes must support your talk.

In other words, to say that you intend to hire only the best – the top of the food chain, so to speak – yet your process for sourcing, recruitment and hiring is petty and insignificant, and managed entirely by someone outside the general management chain, creates a conflict.

You are saying one thing, but your words – your promise – are conflicted by your process. In other words, you don’t realy want that; you just like to say you want that. Sort of like the tired phrase, “People are our most important asset.” What people (employees and others) really hear is, “Blah, blah, layoffs, blah, blah, costly benefits, blah, blah…”

You get the picture.

Make sure your talk – the organizational promises you make – match your processes.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Wherefore art thou, CEO??

CNNMoney.com recently reported the results of a surprising survey: Year-to-date CEO departures are up almost 10% from 2005.

Up almost 10%. That's a big increase.

Ford Motor Company, HP (God, what a mess!), Viacom... all these are high profile organziations with recent chief executive changes; the truth is, however, that many of the almost-1,000 CEOs that left their jobs this year were from companies much like yours. Not necessarily a newsworthy event to CNNMoney.com, but significant nonetheless.

Why are these CEOs leaving, I wonder? The CEO job is, purportedly, the pinnacle -- the crowning achievement of a management professional. Why, then, the departures? Is it disappointment? Apathy? Lack of motivation? Excessive oversight?

Hard to say, since it's likely all this and still more. The attention on the CEO's office has never been greater; the penalty for failures, even short term 'blips,' can be painful. New SEC oversight for publicly-traded companies has supported short-term positions in leadership -- an unintended consequence of recent legislation.

During a recent CEO search, most candidates are sizing up my opportunity much more closely than I've ever seen in the past. they want details on the predecessor's successes and failures, reasons for leaving, and detailed background on Boards of Directors. All this is good, of course, as it increases the likelihood of a solid match. It also, however, points out that the CEO position is no longer this "holy grail" of an opportunity; people are evaluating it much more for personal fit and likelihood of success, regardless of short-term financial value.

Regardless, it's an issue we must contend with. Short-term results begats short-term leadership... no way around that. Should our focus really be so close-in, or should we create, manage, and lead our organizations for the longer haul??

Can we do that with frequent changes at the CEO chair?

I don't know for sure... but I doubt it.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Real leaders “Lead.” That’s right, folks, and you read it here first…

Real leaders “lead.” No, I’m not just stating a simpleton observation. I mean they truly “lead.” You know, from the front… not the middle or the rear.

Good employees want to be led. Great employees need to be led. Both need a leader in front for them to follow, not to be drug along as if a lead weight, nor pushed and prodded like a reluctant mule.

To lead, there’s no option – you must be out front.

I once worked with a Chairman/CEO who appeared, for all intents and purposes, to be a collaborative and participative leader with his senior staff. He would get them together frequently, solicit and facilitate their ideas, then act only on their consensus.

That’s not leading, it’s managing. Worse, it’s managing by committee, and we all know the perils there.

Let’s be clear; soliciting input, direction, and advice is critical for successful leaders to make decisions . But when all is said and done, the leader needs to make the decision, and then hold him or herself accountable for the results. Yes, we hold other managers and professionals accountable for their pieces of the decision’s outcome, but “group” accountability is tantamount to no accountability at all.

Don’t forget to really lead.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

That's not fair

One thing I find myself telling newer managers (and almost all newer HR professionals) is this: It’s not about fairness or equality. It’s about equity.

In other words, we are under no compunction to treat each employee the same. In fact, I would strongly advise against anything that looked like “identical treatment for all.”

Why? Your “A” players would hate it, and your “mediocres” would love it. Whom would you prefer to satisfy??

Equity, equitable treatment, means that identical circumstances, with identical people, track records, etc., should be treated similarly. For instance: “A” employee with 10 years employment, who’s never missed a day of work for illness, is out for 6 days due to pneumonia. Your policy says anything over 3 days, they should file for short-term disability, since paid-time-off is unavailable. What do you do?

If you want a retained, loyal, hard-working “A” player to know you “give a heck,” you pay him or her as if nothing ever happened. They tell you “thank you,” you say “you’re welcome,” and we all go back to work.

Do that with a mediocre performer? Not on your life. It wouldn’t be equitable, though the mediocre performer would feel it would be “fair.”

Don’t let anyone convince you that we must treat all employees the same. Nothing could be further from the truth.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Make wrong decisions

Success is usually pretty simple, really. Particularly in executive leadership. Note, I did not say success was “easy,” merely that it’s simple.

As in, “not complex.”

The secret? Make more “right” decisions than “wrong” ones. That’s it – the answer you’ve been waiting for all these years.

See, I told you it was simple.

Now, pulling this off may take some work. Work that, by the way, explains why you’re paid what you’re paid, and why your business card reads “leader,” or some variation thereof.

In my military leadership days, I worked under a Colonel, Scott Atkins, who would frequently tell me that, “If 25% of your decisions aren’t wrong, it’s just because you’re not making enough decisions.”

That same Colonel would also tell me that most decisions aren’t really “right” or “wrong,” or “good” or “bad;” they’re just decisions. Sometimes, after making a particular decision, we must immediately make another one, seemingly contrary to the first. This doesn’t necessarily imply that the first decision was incorrect; merely that, when making the second decision, we did so with new, superior knowledge.

They key, usually, is to make enough well-thought, educated decisions so that the 25% that are less than perfect go nearly unnoticed because of the 75% that are driving your success.

Make enough decisions.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Just say "no" to "yes"

That’s right, just say “no” to “yes…” “Yes men,” that is. And don’t give me any grief about my use of gender. “Yes men” come in all shapes, sizes, genders, and flavors. And are frequently disguised – quite well – as competent managers.

They aren’t.

During my first VP-level job (seems like a while ago…), I worked with a chief executive who made it quite clear to me: “If you and I always agree, then one of us is unnecessary, and I’m keeping my job!”

As it should be. As leaders, we need divergent thinkers around us to test and validate our ideas, plans, reasoning… our own thinking. What we don’t need is a gaggle of grown-up wannabe’s chiming “great idea, boss” like a parrot in a cage hoping to get a sunflower seed.

They give us momentary gratification (let’s face it, we do like it when we’re right), but longer term disaster.

Force your staff to think, to challenge you (wisely and professionally, of course) as you should be doing with them. Refuse to accept instant agreement without solid reasoning; ask for an explanation on “why” someone thinks you are right.

Then, sit back and listen…

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Pay them, they will come...

Well, not exactly. But close…

So, you feel that your organization’s culture – its core behaviors, mannerisms, decision-making processes and “way things are done” – is a bit less that desired. How do you change it?

The most effective and efficient way to change and guide desired culture and organizational behavior is through compensation. Not just “pay more, they’ll do more,” since most of us have tried that and know it’s a crock. But behavior-driven compensation does work.

So, how do we go about this? Well, it’s easier than you think, though I must warn you: be careful what you wish for, you may just get it. A basic tenet of compensation is “that which is rewarded is repeated.” I’ll say that again: That which is rewarded is repeated. In other words, you don't get what you want, you get what you compensated for.

So, compensation is certainly the best route to culture maintenance and change, and behavior modification. But make sure what you want is what you are trying to pay for…

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com