Talent Management -- Dogs!!

In the beginning, there were standards for a job.

And the standards were so high, that none could abide them.

And the standards were lowered...

Terrible way to begin the Good Book of Talent Management, don't you think? We start out knowing the sort of candidate/employee we are seeking. Of course, since we didn't plan adequately, though, we really need them right now!

So, as we review, interview, and assess available and interested candidates, sourced through the fastest, easiest means possible, we begin making relative comparisons between them, instead of measuring each candidate against our requirements.

You'll recognize this trap when you catch yourself saying, "Well, she's certainly the best we've seen so far," or "He's got more experience in our industry than the last guy we interviewed." And it is, in fact, a trap.

Don't fall for it.

If you are looking for a cat, and all you are offered is dogs, remember that even if you get the pick-of-the-litter, you're still getting a dog. And that's not what you were looking for when you started.

Plan ahead, stay focused, and realize that -- usually -- we're better off when we hold out for the "cat" we need than settling for the best "dog" available...

Think about it.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Where have all the people gone...?

Here's an email I recently sent to my Houston-based clients. I'm adapting it for a nationwide article to the rest of my clients as well. Though it sounds regional (and in an extreme way, it is), the fact is that competent candidates are getting harder and harder to source nationwide.

More jobs were created in Houston between January 2006 and January 2007 than in any other metropolitan area in the nation, new figures show.

So, that’s great, right?? Maybe yes, maybe no…

A recent article shows Houston outpacing the nation in job creation, posting a 4.4% growth over 2006 (almost 250K new jobs), versus the nation’s ~1%. National unemployment is around 4.5%, while Houston’s is closer to 4.3% and DFW around 4.7%. Houston’s unemployment dropped almost 20% from 2007’s 5.4%.

Hardly 10 years ago, economists called a 6% unemployment rate “full employment.”

250,000 new jobs created in 12 months. These, of course, are in addition to jobs created through death, disability, retirement, and regular attrition/turnover. Business Services grew by almost 50,000 jobs, and Construction by almost 30,000.

Houston remains in the top 5 metropolitan areas for per-capita adjusted personal income.

What does this mean? It means we’re in a growing, vibrant, local economy. Certainly better than the alternatives, yet we cannot ignore how difficult this makes our efforts to source, recruit and retain competent talent. The competition for a dwindling pool of candidates is fiercer today than ever before.

What to do? Crying won’t help; begging is only marginally effective; whining is out, since there’s no unaffected peers with which to whine. Just for starters, I have 3 suggestions:

1. Create a longer-term talent management plan, including hiring, retention, and succession. Don’t wait until it’s operationally critical to start thinking about a new fill, replacement, or promotion.

2. Grow what you’ve got. If you spend the time, effort, and resources to hire and keep them, for heaven’s sake go the distance and develop them into a higher, better use for the organization.

3. Lead your managers, and make sure they have a long-term focus on talent management & development. You simply don’t have room anymore for the rogue manager that delivers performance while leaving a trail of bodies in his or her wake. Make them personally accountable for talent management within their responsibilities.

Not a do-all, end-all, but a start. This situation will continue for at least a couple more years, and may be our way of life for decades to come.

Let me know if I can help in any way.

Warm Regards,

KB


So, what do we do?? Throwing our arms up and complaining are probably not conducive to career advancement or professional success -- many operational managers don't yet "get' the severity of the candidate problem.

Is there any answer except cussin', commiseratin', and drinkin'??

(Please feel free to respond to that question -- use the "Ask Kevin" link on the left side of this page. I'll publish any responses that look good for all to see...)

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Talent Management -- Snakes!

There is an old joke/fable that most of you have probably heard... it goes something like this:

One day a manager was scouring the countryside for a solid candidate, but striking out everywhere. Lions were too lazy, elephants ate too much, monkeys wouldn't sit still. The eagles always wanted to be in charge. This manager, beaten and depressed, dropped down and sat in the middle of a field.

Shortly, he heard a hissing, and looked next to his foot... it was a 6-foot rattlesnake! "Hey, there," said the snake. "I hear you need help. Just hire me, and all your troubles will be over. I'm crafty, pretty fast, and not trying to climb any ladders."

"Wait a minute..." said the manager, "... you're a snake! I'll have to check your references first." So, the manager contacted people whom the snake had been with before, and sure enough, "You don't have a very good reputation," said the manager. "They all say that hiring you will just come back to bite me."

"C'mon," said the snake. "Those people are just disgruntled, and maybe even a little jealous. Trust your gut -- you need me."

So, the manager finally acquiesced and hired the snake, who turned out to be a super employee. The manager began thinking he nearly misjudged, and that the references were misguided. Then one day, of course, the snake simply slithered up alongside and bit the manager on the leg.

"WHAT???" cried the manager... "You promised that if I would just give you a chance, this wouldn't happen."

"Yes, I did," said the snake, "but you knew I was a snake when you hired me."


Now, the real joke is much longer, but you get the idea. In this war for competitive, competent talent, it's easy to ignore our instincts and available proof, and succomb to the belief that, "maybe they'll work out after all."

If something looks too good to be true, or you are convinced through judgment, history, or instinct that it's wrong... run away from it.

It's not worth the snakebite later...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Leadership Orientation

I'm a military veteran. As such, I frequently read old military books, discourses, and papers in an effort to compare corporate leadership today with historical military leadership. The similarities are astounding.

A 1941 book published by the Military Service Publishing Company is one such work. Edited by the staff, it has no specific author, but is a compilation of thoughts, ideas, suggestions and directives from a stream of notable military leaders. Some -- just as an example -- include the likes of General J.G. Harbord, who began as a private in the Spanish-American war, achieved prominence as General Pershing's Chief of Staff, and later commanding the USMC's 2nd Division before assuming the Chairmanship of the RCA Corporation.

Just an example of the caliber of input for this book...

In this book, Chapter II discusses "Orientation." Of course, it is meant to apply mostly to new officers at a new post or assignment. Truth is, the advice given there -- some 65+ years ago to junior officers -- is as appropriate today for first time managers as it is senior-most leadership.

Sections and brief summaries include:

Your Brother Officers: "The commissioned officers of the U.S. military are a cross-section of the American Public... as a group, they are subject to the same ambitions, variations in viewpoint, and human frailties as the people they serve."

This, of course, matches up with our corporate situations today. Managers and leaders have different backgrounds and experiences, bringing different thought-processes and judgment. When harnessed for the common good, this is an excellent trait, one we should exploit, not suppress. Different thinking means more choices. More choices usually means better decisions. Or, as many would put it -- embrace your wierdness.

Performance of Duty: "In the military, the performance of duty to the limit of one's capacity is a fetish. Striving for perfection is more than a figure of speech... as you demonstrate your capacity for additional responsibility, it will come to you... be not impatient... there is much to learn."

Wow, is this appropos or what...? Work hard, smart, and consistent. Do what you say you'll do. Make well-thought decisions. Those of you who have achieved significant corporate rank: Did you get there through politics, trickery, and slight-of-hand, or was it hard work, diligence, and sacrifice??

This stuff really works.

Get Out, or Get in Line: "Mind your business. If the concern where you are employed is all wrong, and the Old Man a curmudgeon (I like that word), it may be well for you to go tell the Old Man, confidentially, privately, and quietly, that he is a curmudgeon. Explain to him that his policy is absurd and proposterous. Then show him how to reform his ways, and offer to lead the effort to cleanse the faults. Do this, or if for any reason you should prefer not, then take your choice of these: Get Out, Or Get In Line.

If you work for a man, in heaven's name, work for him! Speak well of him, think well of him, stand by him and the institution he represents.

If put to the pinch, an ounce of loyalty is worth more than a pound of cleverness. If you must vilify, condemn, and eternally disparage, why, resign your position and, when on the outside, damn to your heart's content."

This quotation is so appropriate in corporate management today that it needs no explanation, segue, or pithy remarks from me. Simply put -- work for whomever you work for. Grammatical errors aside, you get my point. Don't we all get tired of those who work "for" us part of the time, and "against" us the rest?

Importance of the Word 'NO': "As an officer, many questions will come to you for decisions... the choice you make in the mere act of saying "yes," or "no," may constitute the measure of your success. A weak man can say "yes" to troublesome situations, dissipating the efforts of the whole. An unwise man can say "no," and by mere obstruction, cause the failure of the unit. It takes a happy combination of courage and wisdom to be able to say "no" at the right time and place."

Simply put, our most significant, regular responsibility -- day to day and strategic -- is making decisions. Anyone can make the easy ones... they seldom take forethought, intellect, or wisom, since they are usually painfully obvious and accolades are near. No, they pay us for the hard ones. The lonely decisions. The times when we make the "right" decision in the face of dissent and conflict, and where the easier decision is to abide with consensus. That's why they pay us the bucks, and give us these fancy business cards.

Adaptability: "Adaptability is required. Leadership is a new and different life. He must be equally quick to detect and avoid those things which are abhorrent to military life... the road to recognition and fame may lie ahead. How well and how quickly the opportunities are embraced depends upon the promptness of adapting himself to the new horizons the career provides."

You can't always spell out the details of a leadership role in a nice, convenient job description. Our worlds are dynamic, fluctuating, and ever-changing. We've got to know when to "stay the course," and when to turn on a dime. All the while keeping those looking to us for leadership engaged in our path. This is what sets us apart.

I only provided these today for two reasons. First, a reminder: Leadership -- it's theories, concepts, and approaches, really haven't changed since the beginning of man. Yes, some applications of principles have evolved over time, given our changing workforce, demographics, and societal norms. The real concepts and basis of leadership, however, remain constant.

And lastly, we can learn a lot from simplicity. Sometimes we make this stuff too hard, when we could get to the same place -- maybe even a better place -- with approaches that embrace simplicity and ease of thought.

Give it a try...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Let's Benchmark!

I have a better idea... Let's not.

Personally, I think "benchmarking," much like its sister phrase, "best practices," means "waste of time." Time better spent analyzing and improving your internal processes.

Benchmarking is supposed to mean looking inside other organizations, and comparing their results, methodology and metrics of a practice or process with your own. Supposedly, this has some meaning to us, and we can use that to adjust and improve our own processes and practices.

Therein lies the problem -- our processes and practices, not theirs. We cannot simply reach into another organization -- similar in scope or not -- and extricate several of their unique processes to overlay on our organization. Taken so out of context, we may actually do much more harm than good.

One size doesn't fit all, what works for you may not for me, templates are useless... pick a phrase, they all apply. Studying another's process to determine if there are pieces of it that you can use, within your own, well-defined structure and practice, may indeed have some value. Benchmarking entire processes, practices, and methodologies does not.

Sure, compare all you like. But take the results of that comparison and ask why there is a variance. There are so many variables within organziations -- people, structure, geographic, cultural, you name it... a firm can have "better" metrics than you, but not necessarily execute that particular process nearly as well.

Don't benchmark... analyze and improve.

But, that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Different Thinkin'

There clearly are several significant workplace trends looming in front of us that we would do well to recognize. I've mentioned many of them here in this blog. Additionally, other authors, consultants, and practitioners have also done a good job of trying to predict the future.

As with all pseudo-science, however, some of it is pure bunk.

For instance:

Baby-boomer retirement, and its purported “sucking sound” on available talent, is quite possibly much ado about nothing. Let’s look at it logically: The definition of a baby-boomer is someone born between 1947 and 1963 – spanning almost 2 decades. Couple that with the current trend of later retirement, and you have a group of people born over a 20-year timeframe, retiring individually 55-75 years later at various ages. At best, it’s a non-event; at worst, it’s generational in nature, and very specific to population demographics -- for instance, it's clearly more prevalent in the midwest than in either coast, or in the top 10 most populated metroplitan areas.

Organizations are realizing that generational issues are not materializing as expected. No big surprise, really. We’ve been dealing with diverse workforces for a hundred years, including race, gender, and age -- “generational” differences aren’t any more significant, and merely require purposeful thought to overcome. Workers do not have to view society, the world, and the workplace equally to be productive. Frankly, I believe we’ll see more of employees just “coming to work to work,” and less senseless attention on those things that don’t directly effect their ability to be productive.

So, when futurists write columns and books, and read the tea leaves to determine where we're headed, use your noodle and some common sense before blindly drinking the Kool-aid.

A big trend that does needs attention – there is clearly a growing dearth of leadership talent available. This isn’t as much a function of baby-boomers leaving as it is our desire for new, fresh leadership at a time when the leadership “bench strength” is at its weakest. Many hyper-performing employees don’t necessarily view management as a logical progression from their current assignment, and we haven’t done a good job of painting a favorable picture of becoming a leader (think SOX requirements, jail terms, bad publicity for poor performance, etc.). Further, many of those extended-career boomers don’t necessarily want to work that “extension” as a high-stress leader. We better start growing managers and leaders – and fast!

In short, many real trends, contrary to those consistently broadcast like chicken little’s falling sky, are as much a “movement” in the workplace as they are trends.

Changes – they are a’comin’…

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com