Leadership Laws: #5

In this final related blog entry, I'm closing out the "5 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership" I outlined in a recent article.

This fifth law is something we all wrestle with mightily. It's caused many a manager or leader to be ineffective, or less than fully effective, and robbed many an employee of the benefits of nearby, accessible leadership.

Law #5. Employees need their managers to be leaders; they don't need a shoulder, a buddy, a simpatico, or a commiserator. If you want a friend, buy a dog.

We really do struggle with this. Everyone wants to be liked, and it always seems difficult to decline a beer after work, or something similar.

I’m not advocating a monk-like existence, disallowing any contact with your troops; merely reminding you that they would like to have a friend, but they need a leader if they are to be successful.

You do want them to be successful, don’t you?

Thanks for your patience as I moved through these 5 irrefutable laws (at least in my opinion). These laws are fairly intuitive, and certainly not rocket science… or brain surgery… or rocket surgery.

They are simple management and leadership axioms that have passed the test of time.

Sometimes, it's the simple things that work. Try it sometime -- you just might like it.

Cheers,

KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Leadership Laws: #4

In this and the final remaining blog entry, I'm expanding on the "5 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership" I outlined in a recent article.

The fourth law should be unnecessary -- make your expectations -- as a manager and leader -- clear. And that's "clear" as in crystal, not mud.

Law #4. Make your expectations clear, then back up a bit and give employees room to do their job. That doesn't mean "never look back;" to inspect what you expect isn't micro-management, it's just good-management.

Employees – even top performers – need clear expectations. In fact, especially top performers. Give ‘em a target, provide resources and guidance, remove obstacles when necessary, then let them do their job.

Check back later, since you still have the real management responsibilities and accountability. Hate to quote Ziglar again, but there's a lot of truth in remembering to inspect what you expect.

Tell your staff what you expect -- in clear language; inspect the results of their efforts toward those expectations, then hold them accountable for that performance.

Let's keep this simple -- it doesn't have to be difficult.

KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Leadership Laws: #3

In this and 2 remaining blog entries, I'm expanding on the "5 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership" I outlined in a recent article.

This third law is a reminder that development is essential for employee growth, and for your own well-being. In other words, it's both selfish and generous; making someone else smarter while you do less work. This is a good thing, eh?

Law #3. If you always answer employee's every question, you'll forever be answering employees' every question.

Questions are teaching moments -- don't rob employees of the opportunity.

Sounds trite, and I don’t mean it to (ok, maybe I mean it to be a little trite). If an employee is asking because they’re stupid, get rid of the employee. If they are a decent employee asking because they do not know, then teach them.

Next time, they'll know how to do it -- or at least the thought process behind it -- and you won't have to. How's that for planned efficiency??

Now, you have time to go do something important. And to answer in advance: No, answering every employee's every question is not something important you should be doing. If you're doing that, you may as well just do it yourself...

Now that sounds fun, eh?

KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Fees, Fees, Everywhere, Fees!

I received the following question from an HR Director in the midwest:

Contingency Fees: What's the value? It seems that the fee percentage in permanent placement ranges from sometimes less than 20% to 30%+ of the candidate’s first years salary.

So, what's the diff??

Where's the value change between the 20% firms and the 30% firms?

Though I do not conduct contingency searches today, I spent many years in the Director/VP desk wondering much the same thing...

The answer, however, isn't mysterious.

The difference is frequently just timing. If a recruiter or firm's current production is down, volume low, or revenue a bit off for the week/month/quarter, a firm may take closer to 20% for that particular search, instead of their customary 25-30%.

Perhaps they already have a couple of ringer candidates in the hopper, and they low-ball just to close a quick sale.

Maybe, they're new at the business, and right now they just need to pay the bills (surely I don't have to make all the obvious cautions here...).

Maybe, they're just stupid. I doubt that, but let's include all possible answers.

Now, having said that...Here's the part that really gets me:

I spent a good many years in senior-most HR roles. A manager/company that will quibble over 5-10% on a $100K search for a valuable contributor to their organization, is so colossally short-sided and pound-foolish that it takes my breath away.

A hiring company's bigger concern should not be whether the fee is 20%, 25%, or 30%; or whether the fee includes just base comp, base plus bonus, etc... The hiring company's sole concern -- SOLE concern -- should be "Can this firm deliver one or more solid, successful candidates to fill my serious need?"

If not, then 15-20% is certainly no bargain; if yes, then we're spending way too much time quibbling over a few thousand dollars.

Just my thoughts...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

I Don't DO Mediation...

Yup... a colleague of mine in corporate Human Resources told me he never, ever, goes to the EEOC's proffered mediation sessions.

Says he has no reason to go; says he's right, the claimant is wrong, and he can prove it. Therefore, in his mind, no reason to attend whatsoever.

What a loser...

Listen to me carefully: Go to each and every EEOC mediation offered by the EEOC, forever and ever, amen.

Look, the EEOC wants the employer there to potentially provide an economic or related reason for the plaintiff/claimant to relinquish their claim. They closely track statistics for successful mediation; though the EEOC is always (and never forget this), ALWAYS the employee's advocate, they have vested, personal interests in resolving via mediation.

Additionally, it's a chance to "see all the cards," in case -- just in case, mind you -- there is a "smoking gun" or something similar of which you were unaware.

It happens, folks. At one time or another, we've all been blind-sided, BS'ed, exaggerated to, and just plain lied to. Better to find out in a non-discoverable venue like mediation, than from the EEOC when they file a "friend of the plaintiff" brief or worse, decide to support by suing in direct support.

You make better decisions with better information. Get all the information you can. You can still say "no." You can still leave the mediation with your checkbook intact (if you want to), but go to the mediation.

While I'm at it, don't get me started on the business case of early, inexpensive settlements. They have a viable place in the process -- but that's for a later entry.

Cheers,

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com

Leadership Laws: #2

In this and 3 subsequent blog entries, I'm expanding on the "5 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership" I outlined in a recent article.

The second law focuses on open communications; too often, usually in the misplaced interest of correctness or conflict-avoidance, we tap-dance around topics, subjects, and even direction. We assume -- often incorrectly -- that someone "knows what we mean," though we didn't come out and say it.

Law #2. If you want something specific done, say so specifically, using clear, plain language. Employees, generally, have some difficulty doing their basic jobs; adding "mind-reading" to their description is just plain unfair.

No hints, implications, or innuendos. Say what you want, and use English! Directness counts.

I was recently doing some coaching with a client executive who was lamenting the poor "listening skills" of his Operations VP. Seems he had told the VP that one of his director-level staffers was not fully competent, and that the VP should "do something about that person."

3 days later, that VP fired that director. My client executive was shocked -- he told me, "I told him to do something with her, you know, like coach, train, or develop. Maybe even warn her of her performance." He said, "I didn't tell him to fire her..."

The VP, of course, simply said, "The boss said 'do something with her, so I did."

"Problem fixed."

Not really... I don't need to tell those of you reading this the difficulty in replacing an experienced mid-level manager in a specific industry. Especially without even making an effort to change her performance or behavior in some way.

Of course, the senior executive felt his comments were sufficient... obviously, they were not. English would have prevented this misunderstanding... simply telling the VP that he should "improve her performance or behavior" would have been sufficient; perhaps even simply asking the VP what he's done to work with the director would have jogged a reasonable conversation.

Instead, a miscommunication -- caused solely by incomplete/indirect language -- has created yet another "situation" at the company.

As if we didn't already have enough to do, we go out creating challenges to deal with.

So, like the doctor when the patient says, "Doc, it hurts when I do 'this,' and the Doc says simply, "Stop doing that."

Stop doing that.

KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com