I get several questions each week, from various people across the country, on topics ranging from benefits administration, to compensation, to "I hate my boss, what should I do?" (Not sure how I get that one...)
Most, I simply respond to the email directly, as they don't have universal appeal. Some, however, do... hence this entry, of course.
I received an email, subject titled, "QUIT JOB." The sender asked, "If an employee gives notice they are quitting, can I fire them? If so, must I pay them out for their notice period?"
Now, as I've oft-said, I'm not an attorney, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. However...
Generally, yes.
In most states, a resignation is just that – a resignation. The employee then offers to stick around for a couple of weeks to help the employer transition. The departing employee, however, doesn’t set their resignation “date,” the employer does. The employer can accept their notice, or not.
Having said that, there are two reasons to accept or pay out a resignation notice:
1. Other employees are watching. This particular employee may not be important, but others may now believe that giving any notice is futile, so that when they resign, they may do so without notice. Consider if you are agreeable to NO employees giving notice.
2. You could be liable for unemployment compensation for that notice period, if the employee is otherwise eligible. Not likely for an extended period of unemployment, but possibly for those two weeks, or whatever the notice period given.
So, do you whack ‘em instantly or let them see through their notice? It’s a business decision that requires some thought. If they are truly a substandard performer – such that you would have fired them within 30 days anyway – then by all means, show them the door. If you may later WANT employees to give you adequate notice, and this is a satisfactory employee, then you may want to consider either allowing them to work their notice period, or paying them for the notice period regardless.
Just my considered, un-legal opinion…
Cheers,
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
 |
 D. Kevin Berchelmann View my profile here |
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Leadership Laws: #1
In this and 4 subsequent blog entries, I"m expanding on the "5 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership" I outlined in a recent article.
This first law is based on decision-making; one of the most significant things we must do, as leaders, is to make decisions. Some will be good, some require further decision-making.
Law #1: Never delay or abrogate a decision that must be made. Make it and move on. You may have to immediately make another decision; this doesn't mean your first one was wrong, merely that your second one had the benefit of additional knowledge.
Let me share a story...
I used to work for a 30-year General, a war veteran with a chest full of medals, ribbons, and other colorful accouterments. Great guy, razor sharp, did not suffer fools lightly. His name was Brigadier General Lawrence Bose.
General Bose, as many battle-hardened leaders (military and corporate) seem to be, was known to say some pretty profound things. The sorts of things you would tell yourself, "Hey, I need to remember that one..." Some actually stuck, which for me, is nothing short of miraculous. One, in particular...
"Shirt," he would say ("Shirt" was sort of slang for "First Sergeant" in the USAF), "Leaders don't really make good decisions or bad; they just make decisions. If they've done their job correctly, the people working for them make the results of those decisions good."
Now, never mind whether you agree that decisions are never classified as "good" or "bad." Set that part aside... more important is the leadership genius behind the comment. Our jobs as leaders is to make decisions. We've heard this a hundred times, so here's a hundred and one: A mediocre decision made promptly and unequivocally trumps a really good decision delayed and hesitant.
Another fairly well known General, George S. Patton, put it this way: "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week."
Consider this: If we've managed our talent appropriately, and developed our staffs as we should, most of our decisions will result in unmitigated success -- those people working with us will make sure of it.
Just make the damned decision...
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
This first law is based on decision-making; one of the most significant things we must do, as leaders, is to make decisions. Some will be good, some require further decision-making.
Law #1: Never delay or abrogate a decision that must be made. Make it and move on. You may have to immediately make another decision; this doesn't mean your first one was wrong, merely that your second one had the benefit of additional knowledge.
Let me share a story...
I used to work for a 30-year General, a war veteran with a chest full of medals, ribbons, and other colorful accouterments. Great guy, razor sharp, did not suffer fools lightly. His name was Brigadier General Lawrence Bose.
General Bose, as many battle-hardened leaders (military and corporate) seem to be, was known to say some pretty profound things. The sorts of things you would tell yourself, "Hey, I need to remember that one..." Some actually stuck, which for me, is nothing short of miraculous. One, in particular...
"Shirt," he would say ("Shirt" was sort of slang for "First Sergeant" in the USAF), "Leaders don't really make good decisions or bad; they just make decisions. If they've done their job correctly, the people working for them make the results of those decisions good."
Now, never mind whether you agree that decisions are never classified as "good" or "bad." Set that part aside... more important is the leadership genius behind the comment. Our jobs as leaders is to make decisions. We've heard this a hundred times, so here's a hundred and one: A mediocre decision made promptly and unequivocally trumps a really good decision delayed and hesitant.
Another fairly well known General, George S. Patton, put it this way: "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week."
Consider this: If we've managed our talent appropriately, and developed our staffs as we should, most of our decisions will result in unmitigated success -- those people working with us will make sure of it.
Just make the damned decision...
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Thursday, June 14, 2007
A Pig in a Dress... is Still a Pig!
Leadership is authentic. You can't fake it, folks.
So, I recently attended my niece's wedding in San Antonio. Since we frequently travel there to spend time on the Riverwalk, I thought this a wonderful opportunity to evaluate a new hotel for future stays.
Enter The Hotel Contessa.
Lots of staff, all looking like they were in the right places. Classy decor, reasonably upscale. All-suites, and the one we had -- a "King" suite -- was quite nice.
For all appearances, this was the real deal.
The Hotel Contessa, however, suffered from a problem. In Texas, we have this phrase (ok, in Texas we have a lot of 'phrases,' but I'm just using one):
All hat and no cattle.
Looked good, had all the appearances of the "real deal;" I'll even go as far as to say that, for the price, it wasn't a complete disaster. They simply failed to execute. In every way, when given the opportunity to have delivery (service) match their appearance, they failed miserably. Time and time again.
Realize that there were many, many instances over the 2+ days we were there. I'm only sharing a few here for examples.
They promised my sister that the wedding party could check in PRIOR to their absurdly late 4:PM check-in time. When pressed, they stated that "someone made a mistake -- we cannot promise anyone an early check-in." This ridiculous travesty went on for 30 minutes, until finally they just gave in and gave them the rooms. That's right... they had the rooms available for early check-in; they simply wanted my sister to know that they couldn't promise anything!
No less than a half-dozen staffers opening the doors and welcoming people; my sister, hands full with wedding "stuff," slips and falls on the steps. They watch, but do not move a muscle. My sister collects herself, and moves toward the door. Courteously opening the door, the nearest bellman says, "be careful, the steps can be slippery."
Ya think??
When I checked in, I needed the front desk to break a $20 bill. The guy (Tommy) says, "I'm sorry, I can't make change." WHAT? "Yes," he says, "I don't have access to cash. Perhaps you can go over there and ask a bellman." I needed the change FOR the bellman, and had no intention of walking anywhere to get it. I exclaimed how surely some people still actually use cash, and perhaps he should find a manager.
Manager comes over, takes my $20 bill, opens a cash drawer and makes change. Complete with "have a nice day!"
Sunday morning, we're running late (I have a wife, remember?), so I call the operator to get a late check out. I say, "I'll need a late check-out, say, until 12:30." Guy says, sorry, 12:00 is best he can do. I respond, "whatever, but I'll be here until 12:30." He asks me to hold... a manager comes on the line, repeats my request to me, taps a few computer keys, and says, "There you are, sir. All set!"
No execution. No one, save a few poorly positioned managers, seemed capable of making even rudimentary customer service decisions.
Did I even mention the part about the newlyweds reaching their room around midnight, to discover they had twin double beds?? Don't get me started again...
Great looking hotel, lots of dinero spent on staff, money leaking out like a drain because of the real, obvious, lack of leadership authenticity.
All hat and no cattle.
Now, no, this isn't turning into a travel review site (I give the Contessa one of four stars); I merely wanted to demonstrate how leadership must be applied -- it must be authentic -- to make a difference. Otherwise, it's just an act.
And not a very good one.
Cheers.
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
So, I recently attended my niece's wedding in San Antonio. Since we frequently travel there to spend time on the Riverwalk, I thought this a wonderful opportunity to evaluate a new hotel for future stays.
Enter The Hotel Contessa.
Lots of staff, all looking like they were in the right places. Classy decor, reasonably upscale. All-suites, and the one we had -- a "King" suite -- was quite nice.
For all appearances, this was the real deal.
The Hotel Contessa, however, suffered from a problem. In Texas, we have this phrase (ok, in Texas we have a lot of 'phrases,' but I'm just using one):
All hat and no cattle.
Looked good, had all the appearances of the "real deal;" I'll even go as far as to say that, for the price, it wasn't a complete disaster. They simply failed to execute. In every way, when given the opportunity to have delivery (service) match their appearance, they failed miserably. Time and time again.
Realize that there were many, many instances over the 2+ days we were there. I'm only sharing a few here for examples.
They promised my sister that the wedding party could check in PRIOR to their absurdly late 4:PM check-in time. When pressed, they stated that "someone made a mistake -- we cannot promise anyone an early check-in." This ridiculous travesty went on for 30 minutes, until finally they just gave in and gave them the rooms. That's right... they had the rooms available for early check-in; they simply wanted my sister to know that they couldn't promise anything!
No less than a half-dozen staffers opening the doors and welcoming people; my sister, hands full with wedding "stuff," slips and falls on the steps. They watch, but do not move a muscle. My sister collects herself, and moves toward the door. Courteously opening the door, the nearest bellman says, "be careful, the steps can be slippery."
Ya think??
When I checked in, I needed the front desk to break a $20 bill. The guy (Tommy) says, "I'm sorry, I can't make change." WHAT? "Yes," he says, "I don't have access to cash. Perhaps you can go over there and ask a bellman." I needed the change FOR the bellman, and had no intention of walking anywhere to get it. I exclaimed how surely some people still actually use cash, and perhaps he should find a manager.
Manager comes over, takes my $20 bill, opens a cash drawer and makes change. Complete with "have a nice day!"
Sunday morning, we're running late (I have a wife, remember?), so I call the operator to get a late check out. I say, "I'll need a late check-out, say, until 12:30." Guy says, sorry, 12:00 is best he can do. I respond, "whatever, but I'll be here until 12:30." He asks me to hold... a manager comes on the line, repeats my request to me, taps a few computer keys, and says, "There you are, sir. All set!"
No execution. No one, save a few poorly positioned managers, seemed capable of making even rudimentary customer service decisions.
Did I even mention the part about the newlyweds reaching their room around midnight, to discover they had twin double beds?? Don't get me started again...
Great looking hotel, lots of dinero spent on staff, money leaking out like a drain because of the real, obvious, lack of leadership authenticity.
All hat and no cattle.
Now, no, this isn't turning into a travel review site (I give the Contessa one of four stars); I merely wanted to demonstrate how leadership must be applied -- it must be authentic -- to make a difference. Otherwise, it's just an act.
And not a very good one.
Cheers.
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Monday, June 11, 2007
Who's on First?
Who’s on First??
Abbot & Costello (if you must ask, then ‘never mind’) had this brilliant baseball comedy skit where it was difficult – if not impossible – for Abbot to actually determine which player was at which position.
This should not be a natural lead-in for succession planning today; alas, it’s the perfect entré.
We simply must determine, in advance, “Who’s on first.” We have to know – at a minimum – who is capable of assuming our significant (“Key”) leadership roles. Real people, with names and plans behind them.
The Philadelphia-based Hay Group surveyed their “150 Most Admired Companies,” and discovered that almost 80% of these firms’ Boards have a preference for internal CEO candidates. 80 percent!
These companies (and their Boards) recognize two things:
1. Selecting replacements for key positions is one of the most critical tasks of board or senior leadership, and
2. That when done correctly, companies can better create succession replacements from within, instead of hiring from the outside.
And, unlike a previous blog post that describes settling for "the pick of the litter," these companies purposefully develop their internal talent to be prepared when "called up." They don't simply settle for "best available."
Want a specific take-away action? Ok, how's this for a 2-parter:
Part 1:
Identify, via a logical, involved process, those positions (not people) that are or will be essential ("Key") to the future success of the organization.
Part 2:
Meet, discuss and name -- by NAME -- the likely successors to those roles at least twice per year.
Even better, determine the skill gaps that still exist and create a plan to make sure your "chosen ones" are headed down the path for preparedness.
Then execute, execute, execute.
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Abbot & Costello (if you must ask, then ‘never mind’) had this brilliant baseball comedy skit where it was difficult – if not impossible – for Abbot to actually determine which player was at which position.
This should not be a natural lead-in for succession planning today; alas, it’s the perfect entré.
We simply must determine, in advance, “Who’s on first.” We have to know – at a minimum – who is capable of assuming our significant (“Key”) leadership roles. Real people, with names and plans behind them.
The Philadelphia-based Hay Group surveyed their “150 Most Admired Companies,” and discovered that almost 80% of these firms’ Boards have a preference for internal CEO candidates. 80 percent!
These companies (and their Boards) recognize two things:
1. Selecting replacements for key positions is one of the most critical tasks of board or senior leadership, and
2. That when done correctly, companies can better create succession replacements from within, instead of hiring from the outside.
And, unlike a previous blog post that describes settling for "the pick of the litter," these companies purposefully develop their internal talent to be prepared when "called up." They don't simply settle for "best available."
Want a specific take-away action? Ok, how's this for a 2-parter:
Part 1:
Identify, via a logical, involved process, those positions (not people) that are or will be essential ("Key") to the future success of the organization.
Part 2:
Meet, discuss and name -- by NAME -- the likely successors to those roles at least twice per year.
Even better, determine the skill gaps that still exist and create a plan to make sure your "chosen ones" are headed down the path for preparedness.
Then execute, execute, execute.
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Stars that, well... Aren't
From my previous post, we sort of just "woke up" and clearly realized we had a star in our midst. Cool... when it happens.
Just as frequently, we discover they are really "near-stars," "wannabes," and/or "pretend-stars." Those names fit them well, since at their core, well, they simply aren't stars.
Let's look at them more closely...
Near-Stars are just that -- nearly a star, but still coming up short. They work hard (sometimes, even 'too' hard), always struggling mightily to be a strong #2 performer, or to get that eventual promotion.
They likely are solid, loyal employees; as such, they have great value... but alas, will likely never make it to starhood. They don't have that "next level" sort of thinking; that "give me a problem I'll solve it" attitude, or the "lead, follow, or get out of the way" demeanor.
Keepers, to be sure; just not Stars.
Wannabes, well, they really "wanna be" a star, but just don't have it in them. They'll occasionally show up where stars lurk, buddying up with the big boys (and girls), and really wanting to get their own secret decoder ring. Their biggest challenge is bridging the cavernous gap between "here" and "there."
In other words, they simply just don't want it badly enough. Oh, they do want to be a star -- it just looks so easy when real stars do it, these wannabes feel like it should be easy for them as well. And frankly, it's easier to hang out comfortably with stars and enjoy some of their fame, than it is to actually put forth the effort to try -- or fail -- to become one themselves.
These wannabes can be management challenges: people who may or may not have the potential, want the glory, and are always needing a senior leader's attention.
Pretend-Stars are a problem. You know these people well. They are the ones that just don't seem to fit easily into your organizational structure; They may very well be capable of higher-level performance, but only when the epicenter of events and attention.
These are prima donas on steroids.
On the surface, they almost look like a real star, but when placed in a role requiring team play, eventually the team somehow won't pass muster, and they'll blow the team up or simply ignore them going forward, opting to "do their own thing" instead. Every conversation seems to be a negotiation, and every negotiation leaves both sides frustrated.
You can never do enough, and they'll let you know that constantly. Give them an ounce more responsibility, they are in your office the next morning wanting to discuss their new compensation package. You know these guys...
Real stars are great, when we can find, nurture, and keep them. Near stars are essential for any successful business. Wannabes are a pain -- usually harmless -- that can strain your patience but may offer a decent gallery for your real stars.
Pretend stars are, as I said above, a problem. You know that, their peers know that, and most of the organization knows that.
So, what are you doing about it??
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Just as frequently, we discover they are really "near-stars," "wannabes," and/or "pretend-stars." Those names fit them well, since at their core, well, they simply aren't stars.
Let's look at them more closely...
Near-Stars are just that -- nearly a star, but still coming up short. They work hard (sometimes, even 'too' hard), always struggling mightily to be a strong #2 performer, or to get that eventual promotion.
They likely are solid, loyal employees; as such, they have great value... but alas, will likely never make it to starhood. They don't have that "next level" sort of thinking; that "give me a problem I'll solve it" attitude, or the "lead, follow, or get out of the way" demeanor.
Keepers, to be sure; just not Stars.
Wannabes, well, they really "wanna be" a star, but just don't have it in them. They'll occasionally show up where stars lurk, buddying up with the big boys (and girls), and really wanting to get their own secret decoder ring. Their biggest challenge is bridging the cavernous gap between "here" and "there."
In other words, they simply just don't want it badly enough. Oh, they do want to be a star -- it just looks so easy when real stars do it, these wannabes feel like it should be easy for them as well. And frankly, it's easier to hang out comfortably with stars and enjoy some of their fame, than it is to actually put forth the effort to try -- or fail -- to become one themselves.
These wannabes can be management challenges: people who may or may not have the potential, want the glory, and are always needing a senior leader's attention.
Pretend-Stars are a problem. You know these people well. They are the ones that just don't seem to fit easily into your organizational structure; They may very well be capable of higher-level performance, but only when the epicenter of events and attention.
These are prima donas on steroids.
On the surface, they almost look like a real star, but when placed in a role requiring team play, eventually the team somehow won't pass muster, and they'll blow the team up or simply ignore them going forward, opting to "do their own thing" instead. Every conversation seems to be a negotiation, and every negotiation leaves both sides frustrated.
You can never do enough, and they'll let you know that constantly. Give them an ounce more responsibility, they are in your office the next morning wanting to discuss their new compensation package. You know these guys...
Real stars are great, when we can find, nurture, and keep them. Near stars are essential for any successful business. Wannabes are a pain -- usually harmless -- that can strain your patience but may offer a decent gallery for your real stars.
Pretend stars are, as I said above, a problem. You know that, their peers know that, and most of the organization knows that.
So, what are you doing about it??
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
It's in the Stars...
"Stars." "Key Employees." "High Performers." " 'A' players." "Studs."
A million names for those people, who by most measures, are bigger, better, stronger, faster than the rest.
The top-of-the-employee-food chain.
So, everybody wants 'em, but do we really??
Sort of like a dog chasing a car, what do we do when we catch them?
What to do with Superstars?
1. How do we know one when we see one?
Part of this is always going to be gut feel. This is why I believe true Talent Management is about the highest-level skill a leader can have. Formal assessments can be helpful, as are well-defined, observable performance and competency characteristics (i.e., good Performance Management helps here, too).
In other words, if they look like a Star, act like a Star, and work like a Star, they probably quack like a duck. Or they're a Star.
2. Then, what do we do with them?
Turn 'em loose with important stuff, let them know they are being turned loose with important stuff, then act as a principal resource for obstacle removal, resource acquisition, and general guidance. Don't look over their shoulder, but do stay in reasonably close contact.
Availability and oversight aren't the same thing.
3. How do we keep them?
See #2 above, for starters.
Let them know, in English language words, of their known value to the organization. Stop short of actually saying "Star" to their face, but not too short. Ask them -- again using English language words -- why they stay, what they need to continue their success, and what sorts of career plans do they feel they have for themselves.
Blow off your textbook "management development" plan, and design something incredibly specific just for them. Don't worry about scalability; you don't have that many real Stars...
...and you thought this stuff was hard.
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
A million names for those people, who by most measures, are bigger, better, stronger, faster than the rest.
The top-of-the-employee-food chain.
So, everybody wants 'em, but do we really??
Sort of like a dog chasing a car, what do we do when we catch them?
What to do with Superstars?
1. How do we know one when we see one?
Part of this is always going to be gut feel. This is why I believe true Talent Management is about the highest-level skill a leader can have. Formal assessments can be helpful, as are well-defined, observable performance and competency characteristics (i.e., good Performance Management helps here, too).
In other words, if they look like a Star, act like a Star, and work like a Star, they probably quack like a duck. Or they're a Star.
2. Then, what do we do with them?
Turn 'em loose with important stuff, let them know they are being turned loose with important stuff, then act as a principal resource for obstacle removal, resource acquisition, and general guidance. Don't look over their shoulder, but do stay in reasonably close contact.
Availability and oversight aren't the same thing.
3. How do we keep them?
See #2 above, for starters.
Let them know, in English language words, of their known value to the organization. Stop short of actually saying "Star" to their face, but not too short. Ask them -- again using English language words -- why they stay, what they need to continue their success, and what sorts of career plans do they feel they have for themselves.
Blow off your textbook "management development" plan, and design something incredibly specific just for them. Don't worry about scalability; you don't have that many real Stars...
...and you thought this stuff was hard.
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Monday, June 4, 2007
HR 2.0 -- Logical connection to Web 2.0??
I see HR 2.0 as a real phenomenon, but not necessarily an adjunct to Web 2.0; actually, it's formative predecessor was likely closer to HR 1.0.
If we see HR 1.0 as an Ulrich-like emphasis on "seat at the table," more business focus, competency-based development of HR talent, less ombudsman-centric, and creating meaningful, relevant HR strategy to match the business, then HR 2.0 must the next iteration or evolution.
HR 2.0, then, is creating and managing a workforce focusing on an organization’s business efforts, and driving real behavioral change -- through myriad of related strategies -- to effectively attain those organizational goals. It's holistic, combining all elements seamlessly, including Talent Management, Compensation, Development (leadership & employee), and most importantly, NEEDS TO STOP FOCUSING ON 'HR,' AND FOCUS SOLELY AND INTENTLY OUTWARD.
Sorry for the caps, but this cannot be overstated.
In other words, HR 2.0 is not necessarily "about" HR. In fact, it may not even be led or managed by HR. I've oft said that, now that we've elevated HR's importance in the organization, it may just become too important to be left with HR...
More on this to come...
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
If we see HR 1.0 as an Ulrich-like emphasis on "seat at the table," more business focus, competency-based development of HR talent, less ombudsman-centric, and creating meaningful, relevant HR strategy to match the business, then HR 2.0 must the next iteration or evolution.
HR 2.0, then, is creating and managing a workforce focusing on an organization’s business efforts, and driving real behavioral change -- through myriad of related strategies -- to effectively attain those organizational goals. It's holistic, combining all elements seamlessly, including Talent Management, Compensation, Development (leadership & employee), and most importantly, NEEDS TO STOP FOCUSING ON 'HR,' AND FOCUS SOLELY AND INTENTLY OUTWARD.
Sorry for the caps, but this cannot be overstated.
In other words, HR 2.0 is not necessarily "about" HR. In fact, it may not even be led or managed by HR. I've oft said that, now that we've elevated HR's importance in the organization, it may just become too important to be left with HR...
More on this to come...
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
I can't do what I don't know...
The final point on the Performance Triangle is Knowledge.
Regardless of your personal (intrinsic/extrinsic, I don't care) motivation, and no matter how well your organization has created sound, repeatable processes, they gotta know what they are doing to do it.
Not exactly rocket surgery, eh??
Give a manager or employee the correct environment; set the stage by establishing processes that promote the behavior you are seeking; provide ample tangible and intrinsic motivation...
...all these mean nothing if that person doesn't have the skills or knowledge to accomplish those actions. Knowledge sets the very foundation for determining the final level of performance success you can expect from a manager or employee. It's the single point that, generally, you cannot work past.
Remember from an earlier blog entry: You can't fix stupid. That's probably more harsh than needs to be to describe the knowledge component, but the concept holds true.
Knowledge can include:
** Process skills
** Technical training
** Interpersonal skills
** Management and leadership skills
** Individual and management development
Knowledge includes education, such as undergraduate degrees, training - as in technical skills, on-the-job training - and real development, which can include job or project enrichment, mentoring, coaching, and personalized development.
Don't underestimate development; the single biggest cause of manager failure is lack of appropriate development. We take our best screw-turner, and assume that -- if we make him a manager -- it's a logical progression and he'll do fine.
Surprise!
Screw-turning has absolutely nothing to do with those behaviors and characteristics that will make him successful as a manager of screw-turners.
This Knowledge component -- it's a biggee.
Cheers.
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Regardless of your personal (intrinsic/extrinsic, I don't care) motivation, and no matter how well your organization has created sound, repeatable processes, they gotta know what they are doing to do it.
Not exactly rocket surgery, eh??
Give a manager or employee the correct environment; set the stage by establishing processes that promote the behavior you are seeking; provide ample tangible and intrinsic motivation...
...all these mean nothing if that person doesn't have the skills or knowledge to accomplish those actions. Knowledge sets the very foundation for determining the final level of performance success you can expect from a manager or employee. It's the single point that, generally, you cannot work past.
Remember from an earlier blog entry: You can't fix stupid. That's probably more harsh than needs to be to describe the knowledge component, but the concept holds true.
Knowledge can include:
** Process skills
** Technical training
** Interpersonal skills
** Management and leadership skills
** Individual and management development
Knowledge includes education, such as undergraduate degrees, training - as in technical skills, on-the-job training - and real development, which can include job or project enrichment, mentoring, coaching, and personalized development.
Don't underestimate development; the single biggest cause of manager failure is lack of appropriate development. We take our best screw-turner, and assume that -- if we make him a manager -- it's a logical progression and he'll do fine.
Surprise!
Screw-turning has absolutely nothing to do with those behaviors and characteristics that will make him successful as a manager of screw-turners.
This Knowledge component -- it's a biggee.
Cheers.
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
