Our folks make mistakes.
I know, that's heresy, but it's still true. We make mistakes all the time, we can only assume that the people working for us do as well.
So, when they do make that mistake, what do we do? Whack 'em immediately? Beat 'em up about it? Public humiliation?
How about, "Complete unequivocal support."
WHAT??? You say...?
Now, of course I'm assuming that the mistake we are discussing isn't patently illegal or unethical, and that it's not so incredibly egregious as to start a trend of stupidity throughout the organization... so, given those broad parameters, how about we make this a learning event by:
1. Acknowledging the mistake. Let the employee or manager know that you know, and that we need to find a satisfactory way to get past the mistake.
2. Allow the employee or manager to find and/or create the resolution for the mistake, and
3. Support the manager publicly with his actions. Don't torpedo a manager to his subordinates; when they come to you talking about the dumb decisions, claim ignorance of all the facts and circumstances, and state clearly -- unequivocally -- that you support the manager's decision. If they have any issue with that, recommend they take it up with that manager.
After all, defending a wrong decision, or accepting responsibility for its correction, is part of management maturity, and needs to be learned through experience.
Let's don't cheat our folks out of our support, nor the opportunity to learn from mistakes. After all, as the old saw goes, they are the best teacher...
Besides, if they then make that mistake again, we can kill 'em with a clear conscience...
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
 |
 D. Kevin Berchelmann View my profile here |
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Outsource or Die...!
Yep, no kidding...
If you are leading an in-house human resources effort today, and not currently or actively considering outsourcing much of your task-driven work today, get your resume polished up.
You'll be needing it.
No, this isn't merely because I'm a consultant hoping to win your outsourced business. It's because reality is slapping us in the face: We cannot accomplish these task-driven administrative minutiae efforts as cost-effectively as we can outsource them, nor can we maintain the level of talent necessary to be really good at it.
As a friend enjoys telling me, "This ain't rocket surgery."
Besides, you don't need to be doing those things anyway. Businesses need real HR talent doing things that contribute to the success of the business -- documenting a beneficiary change to someone's life insurance doesn't fit that definition.
Get out of the trenches, and go do something important.
Before you need that resume again...
Cheers,
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
If you are leading an in-house human resources effort today, and not currently or actively considering outsourcing much of your task-driven work today, get your resume polished up.
You'll be needing it.
No, this isn't merely because I'm a consultant hoping to win your outsourced business. It's because reality is slapping us in the face: We cannot accomplish these task-driven administrative minutiae efforts as cost-effectively as we can outsource them, nor can we maintain the level of talent necessary to be really good at it.
As a friend enjoys telling me, "This ain't rocket surgery."
Besides, you don't need to be doing those things anyway. Businesses need real HR talent doing things that contribute to the success of the business -- documenting a beneficiary change to someone's life insurance doesn't fit that definition.
Get out of the trenches, and go do something important.
Before you need that resume again...
Cheers,
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
I Want to Develop Somebody... but Who??
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?"
First, I believe skills & attributes (or competencies, if you prefer) are relatively unique to the positions involved. Having said that, my same triad for hiring easily applies to significant development.
A developmental candidate must bring to the table:
a. Moral and ethical foundations. By now, the person's character and belief/value system is pretty much locked in by past interactions with family, friends, colleagues, and school. They need to bring ethics appropriate for your position with them...
Look for evidence of successful, difficult decision-making, and drill into the thinking that took place. Uncover judgment errors and do the same drilling.
b. Work ethic. This is ingrained in people by the age of 4. Someone either has it or not. Bring it with you or move along. Examine evidence of "finishing what you start." Often times, well-intentioned people with a mediocre work ethic will promise the moon, and even begin subsequent implementation.
Many 'starts,' however, will die on the vine. Also investigate resourcefulness that shows a "can-do" sort of accomplishment attitude.
c. Intellect. Remember, you can't fix 'stupid.' You just can't. Many have tried in vain before you; learn that lesson quickly and judge accordingly. They must bring with them sufficient intelligence to perform future responsibilities without excess, preventable error.
Intellect possessed must match that required by the role. Repeated mistakes or errors in judgment, inability to grasp simple decision-making analyses, lack of confidence in personal actions and decisions frequently point to issues with intelligence.
So, spend some time and effort deciding who you really want to develop; a one-size-fits-all approach simply won't work, and will tire everyone out unnecessarily. Not every "Manager" has the wherewithal to be developed into a Director or VP, and certainly not every VP has the potential to become C-anything.
Cardinal rule of decision-making: Think, reduce, decide.
Don't make this any harder than it needs to be.
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
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?"
First, I believe skills & attributes (or competencies, if you prefer) are relatively unique to the positions involved. Having said that, my same triad for hiring easily applies to significant development.
A developmental candidate must bring to the table:
a. Moral and ethical foundations. By now, the person's character and belief/value system is pretty much locked in by past interactions with family, friends, colleagues, and school. They need to bring ethics appropriate for your position with them...
Look for evidence of successful, difficult decision-making, and drill into the thinking that took place. Uncover judgment errors and do the same drilling.
b. Work ethic. This is ingrained in people by the age of 4. Someone either has it or not. Bring it with you or move along. Examine evidence of "finishing what you start." Often times, well-intentioned people with a mediocre work ethic will promise the moon, and even begin subsequent implementation.
Many 'starts,' however, will die on the vine. Also investigate resourcefulness that shows a "can-do" sort of accomplishment attitude.
c. Intellect. Remember, you can't fix 'stupid.' You just can't. Many have tried in vain before you; learn that lesson quickly and judge accordingly. They must bring with them sufficient intelligence to perform future responsibilities without excess, preventable error.
Intellect possessed must match that required by the role. Repeated mistakes or errors in judgment, inability to grasp simple decision-making analyses, lack of confidence in personal actions and decisions frequently point to issues with intelligence.
So, spend some time and effort deciding who you really want to develop; a one-size-fits-all approach simply won't work, and will tire everyone out unnecessarily. Not every "Manager" has the wherewithal to be developed into a Director or VP, and certainly not every VP has the potential to become C-anything.
Cardinal rule of decision-making: Think, reduce, decide.
Don't make this any harder than it needs to be.
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
A Monster of a lesson...
Monster.com, the veritable cash-producing employment machine, is laying off about 15% of its workforce. Big deal, eh??
Actually, I believe there's a teaching moment here...
That monster is laying off, in itself is little news; the part that drives me nuts:
1. Q2 sales increased 25%, almost $60M,
2. Share price is up almost 2%, and
3. Earnings are down almost 28%, caused by a 34% increase in operating costs, driven almost entirely by legal fees associated with their options-backdating investigation.
In this age of Talent Management, these layoffs will be borne almost entirely by human resources & finance staff cuts -- seems "centralization" of sorts now makes more sense.
The restructuring should save $150M, less $70M in associated costs, and another $80M they'll use for additional product upgrades and advertising. In other words, first-year wash.
Creating intentional redundancy (decentralized support staff), then changing course on that (centralized), seems no different to me than poor decision-making in any other event; they merely needed a market-palatable basis for the decision to reduce staff.
Have you ever seen a company, on the eve of layoffs, say, "This reduction will hurt bad in many ways, and make it more difficult for us to accomplish our mission...?" Only with those near-death (then who really cares anyway?)
Short-term vs. long-term focus is obviously difficult. Senior leaders could have some relief from investors if they would merely personally commit to longer-term results. Most can't (or won't) do that, principally due to their lack of confidence in talent. A vicious circle, of course...
Too often, we view staffing "planning" as asking managers how many people they'll need -- effectively abrogating our responsibility for effective workforce management to an unskilled manager who believes -- rightfully so, for his/her world -- that vacancies should be filled, and more hands make for lighter work.
And though we (self included) popularly use words like talent management and such, much of this issue is best handled through good ol' staffing plans. The issue we have, I think, is becoming an uber-leader and activist for these plans.
For instance, a position left unfilled for 3+ months, with no subsequent business limitations, is a position that should go unfilled/canceled, or at the minimum, intensely scrutinized.
Further, I believe companies like monster -- who announces these layoffs about once every other year -- are hiding behind them as a subterfuge for inadequate ongoing performance management. In other words, every couple of years, they whack the deadwood that should have been managed earlier. This is far too common...
We all do that to some degree; think of the times we've participated in a layoff. Being the intelligent, non-union creatures we are, we use "performance" as the litmus for who stays/who goes. Remember how easy it is/was to select some -- if not all -- of those being laid off under that criteria. Sure, some are difficult; but many are simple to ascertain, since they've been under-performing unscathed for a period of time before.
That's "our bad."
If we manage more, we layoff less.
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Actually, I believe there's a teaching moment here...
That monster is laying off, in itself is little news; the part that drives me nuts:
1. Q2 sales increased 25%, almost $60M,
2. Share price is up almost 2%, and
3. Earnings are down almost 28%, caused by a 34% increase in operating costs, driven almost entirely by legal fees associated with their options-backdating investigation.
In this age of Talent Management, these layoffs will be borne almost entirely by human resources & finance staff cuts -- seems "centralization" of sorts now makes more sense.
The restructuring should save $150M, less $70M in associated costs, and another $80M they'll use for additional product upgrades and advertising. In other words, first-year wash.
Creating intentional redundancy (decentralized support staff), then changing course on that (centralized), seems no different to me than poor decision-making in any other event; they merely needed a market-palatable basis for the decision to reduce staff.
Have you ever seen a company, on the eve of layoffs, say, "This reduction will hurt bad in many ways, and make it more difficult for us to accomplish our mission...?" Only with those near-death (then who really cares anyway?)
Short-term vs. long-term focus is obviously difficult. Senior leaders could have some relief from investors if they would merely personally commit to longer-term results. Most can't (or won't) do that, principally due to their lack of confidence in talent. A vicious circle, of course...
Too often, we view staffing "planning" as asking managers how many people they'll need -- effectively abrogating our responsibility for effective workforce management to an unskilled manager who believes -- rightfully so, for his/her world -- that vacancies should be filled, and more hands make for lighter work.
And though we (self included) popularly use words like talent management and such, much of this issue is best handled through good ol' staffing plans. The issue we have, I think, is becoming an uber-leader and activist for these plans.
For instance, a position left unfilled for 3+ months, with no subsequent business limitations, is a position that should go unfilled/canceled, or at the minimum, intensely scrutinized.
Further, I believe companies like monster -- who announces these layoffs about once every other year -- are hiding behind them as a subterfuge for inadequate ongoing performance management. In other words, every couple of years, they whack the deadwood that should have been managed earlier. This is far too common...
We all do that to some degree; think of the times we've participated in a layoff. Being the intelligent, non-union creatures we are, we use "performance" as the litmus for who stays/who goes. Remember how easy it is/was to select some -- if not all -- of those being laid off under that criteria. Sure, some are difficult; but many are simple to ascertain, since they've been under-performing unscathed for a period of time before.
That's "our bad."
If we manage more, we layoff less.
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Monday, August 6, 2007
Tip BIG for the deserving, and drop coal in the tip jars!
Ok, this is a bit of a reach for a Leadership blog, but not really. Tipping -- gratuities for service employees -- has reached entitlement status, not much different than many current, regular employees.
This is interesting to me, as my wife and I are active consumers. We eat out frequently, do the Starbucks thing, and utilize service providers all the time in our daily lives -- as do many of you.
Tips are extra – something on top of a bill for receiving something, literally, “extra.” I’ll tip 20-30% for outstanding service in a nice restaurant, particularly one that we frequent regularly. The level of service provided, then, is truly top-notch.
I’ll even tip 15% for mediocre restaurant service. If the server is neither abusive nor neglectful, I assume they are simply poorly trained, and will mention something to the manager – but still leave a respectable 15% tip. Let them be abusive or (in my mind) purposefully disrespectful, and fuhggetaboutit. I’ll leave the big “0” when necessary to make a point. No more scaling down from 15% or so.
We tip regular service providers, such as stylists, delivery people, etc., usually around 10%, depending on level of service and extenuating circumstances. Tips are both a reward for current service, and a notice of future tips for FUTURE service, so we use them judiciously.
But, and here's the crux of this post, those tip jars in all the coffee joints and related places… are you kidding me??? I’m going to get out of my car, walk into the shop, wait in line, order and pay, then wait in line for my $4.25 triple-venti-nonfat-no-whip-mocha, and then put money in a tip jar??
What the hell for??
When pigs fly…
They recently opened a new Starbucks in my small hometown of Spring, Texas. The drive-in window – YES, THE DRIVE-IN WINDOW – has a tip jar on the little ledge that sticks out.
After giving my order, I tapped on the glass. The nice young lady slid open the window, and I said, "Excuse me, it seems you're out of mints," while gesturing toward that ridiculous tip jar.
IN THE DRIVE-IN LANE OF STARBUCKS!
And we wonder if this "entitlement" thing is real??
<<...stepping off soap box...>>
Cheers, and enjoy your coffee.
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
This is interesting to me, as my wife and I are active consumers. We eat out frequently, do the Starbucks thing, and utilize service providers all the time in our daily lives -- as do many of you.
Tips are extra – something on top of a bill for receiving something, literally, “extra.” I’ll tip 20-30% for outstanding service in a nice restaurant, particularly one that we frequent regularly. The level of service provided, then, is truly top-notch.
I’ll even tip 15% for mediocre restaurant service. If the server is neither abusive nor neglectful, I assume they are simply poorly trained, and will mention something to the manager – but still leave a respectable 15% tip. Let them be abusive or (in my mind) purposefully disrespectful, and fuhggetaboutit. I’ll leave the big “0” when necessary to make a point. No more scaling down from 15% or so.
We tip regular service providers, such as stylists, delivery people, etc., usually around 10%, depending on level of service and extenuating circumstances. Tips are both a reward for current service, and a notice of future tips for FUTURE service, so we use them judiciously.
But, and here's the crux of this post, those tip jars in all the coffee joints and related places… are you kidding me??? I’m going to get out of my car, walk into the shop, wait in line, order and pay, then wait in line for my $4.25 triple-venti-nonfat-no-whip-mocha, and then put money in a tip jar??
What the hell for??
When pigs fly…
They recently opened a new Starbucks in my small hometown of Spring, Texas. The drive-in window – YES, THE DRIVE-IN WINDOW – has a tip jar on the little ledge that sticks out.
After giving my order, I tapped on the glass. The nice young lady slid open the window, and I said, "Excuse me, it seems you're out of mints," while gesturing toward that ridiculous tip jar.
IN THE DRIVE-IN LANE OF STARBUCKS!
And we wonder if this "entitlement" thing is real??
<<...stepping off soap box...>>
Cheers, and enjoy your coffee.
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
