Don't be fooled -- most leadership characteristics (and all behaviors) can be learned, taught, and developed. Self-confidence in leaders is a very real and actionable area for development.
First, whomever identifies someone with apparent self-confidence challenges as also someone having potential should get some kudos -- it can be difficult to spot growth potential in someone with true self-confidence issues.
Next, realize that -- assuming self-confidence is the real issue -- training or other programmatic initiatives are seldom the answer. Self confidence is a deeply personal characteristic, and usually requires a more personal approach to be most effective.
Coaching (in-house or 3rd party), close mentoring, one-on-one sessions, etc. are generally the best approach. I've coached numerous senior leaders and managers with self-confidence problems, some of them significant.
Finally, If you want some view into the depth of challenge, ask the employee to respond to a few questions, like:
"A few things I do well include..."
"My biggest achievements this past year include..."
...and others like this. these can provide some insight as to how much work needs to be done. Someone with extreme self-confidence challenges may be unable to formulate ANY response to these questions at all; others, some degree of difficulty.
But that's just me...
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
 |
 D. Kevin Berchelmann View my profile here |
Monday, January 31, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Incentive Compensation Tidbits and Thinking
For incentive compensation geeks (of which “I are one”), to quote Charles Dickens: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”
Not only has emphasis been placed on compensation strategies that link pay to performance recently, but I predict it will continue and intensify. By an order of magnitude...
An Incentive, of course, is the payment for an “if-then” statement. If you do this, then I’ll pay you that. If you exceed an EBITDA target, then we’ll pay you xx% of your annual salary. I know what I did to get it, and presumably know what to do to get it again. And incentives are expected. We had an agreement, and I expect you to honor it with payment.
So, if we want to encourage behavior with compensation, it’s clearly going to be through Incentives. But we must use caution; it’s easy for the “law of unintended consequences” to creep into incentive efforts. So, what makes an appropriate, effective Incentive Plan (regardless of payment medium – cash, deferred, stock, etc.)?
First, it must reward correctly. In the compensation world, it’s not what you want, wish for, hope for, or manage to; it’s what you pay for. Many an incentive plan short-circuited when it was discovered it promoted behavior we did not want just to get to results we did.
Next, it must influence behavior. By that I mean a couple of things:
1. It must be understandable, e.g., I must realize what I can do to reach the incentive, and
2. It must be sufficient to warrant a behavior change. Make it chump change if you want, but don’t expect your best and brightest to get on board. Realize that, if you get it right, it doesn’t really matter anyway, does it?
Finally, it must, must, must be kept simple. Complicated plans create two significant issues: One, they become too onerous for people to comprehend. No understanding, no change in behavior. Two, employees –of all levels – believe that complicated plans are simply corporate subterfuge.
Incentive/bonus plans work when organizational needs are aligned with employee needs and capability. Anything else and the “Law of Unintended Consequences” rears its ugly head…
Let’s avoid that last part, shall we?
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Not only has emphasis been placed on compensation strategies that link pay to performance recently, but I predict it will continue and intensify. By an order of magnitude...
An Incentive, of course, is the payment for an “if-then” statement. If you do this, then I’ll pay you that. If you exceed an EBITDA target, then we’ll pay you xx% of your annual salary. I know what I did to get it, and presumably know what to do to get it again. And incentives are expected. We had an agreement, and I expect you to honor it with payment.
So, if we want to encourage behavior with compensation, it’s clearly going to be through Incentives. But we must use caution; it’s easy for the “law of unintended consequences” to creep into incentive efforts. So, what makes an appropriate, effective Incentive Plan (regardless of payment medium – cash, deferred, stock, etc.)?
First, it must reward correctly. In the compensation world, it’s not what you want, wish for, hope for, or manage to; it’s what you pay for. Many an incentive plan short-circuited when it was discovered it promoted behavior we did not want just to get to results we did.
Next, it must influence behavior. By that I mean a couple of things:
1. It must be understandable, e.g., I must realize what I can do to reach the incentive, and
2. It must be sufficient to warrant a behavior change. Make it chump change if you want, but don’t expect your best and brightest to get on board. Realize that, if you get it right, it doesn’t really matter anyway, does it?
Finally, it must, must, must be kept simple. Complicated plans create two significant issues: One, they become too onerous for people to comprehend. No understanding, no change in behavior. Two, employees –of all levels – believe that complicated plans are simply corporate subterfuge.
Incentive/bonus plans work when organizational needs are aligned with employee needs and capability. Anything else and the “Law of Unintended Consequences” rears its ugly head…
Let’s avoid that last part, shall we?
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Human Resources and the Ethical Dilemma
The ethical dilemma facing Human Resources -- the function as well as the leader -- is significant.
Typically, when people start in HR, they view their roles as more employee-centric; part ombudsman, part "good cop" manager-surrogate. They enjoy doing things that enhance "morale" and "feel-good," and create perceived contentment within the organization, regardless of these things' real value to their firm.
Then, we expect them to grow into "business partners." Never mind the ludicrous nature of that moniker, the fact is they are ill-prepared. Their stereotypical nature of nurturing, consensus, and conflict-avoidance is clearly at odds with the profession's current emphasis on strategic contributions.
In trying to meld the two, I do believe ethics are sometimes abrogated, or at least marginalized by HR professionals. Believing they know what managers "want," they may be too eager to deliver that, versus spending the time, angst, and conflict to drill down to actual "needs." In not trying to be a "typical HR person," they may skirt those very things that allowed them to perform ethically.
A common "compliment" these days to an HR professional is to tell them that they don't ACT like one... this implication is that they are less intrusive, less employee-centric, and less prone to slow things down for appropriate process management (e.g. "compliance"). Not that “over”-attention to process and compliance is necessarily good, but “all things in moderation” can apply here.
Lastly, of course ethics can be taught. Ethics is a topic, a subject matter. It can be taught to anyone with the desire and ability to learn. Ethical BEHAVIOR, however, is something different.
Just like you can teach law to criminals, you can teach ethics to the unethical. Just don't expect behavior changes.
Remember, you can't train for honesty, integrity, or work ethic, and you can't fix "stupid."
But that's just me...
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Typically, when people start in HR, they view their roles as more employee-centric; part ombudsman, part "good cop" manager-surrogate. They enjoy doing things that enhance "morale" and "feel-good," and create perceived contentment within the organization, regardless of these things' real value to their firm.
Then, we expect them to grow into "business partners." Never mind the ludicrous nature of that moniker, the fact is they are ill-prepared. Their stereotypical nature of nurturing, consensus, and conflict-avoidance is clearly at odds with the profession's current emphasis on strategic contributions.
In trying to meld the two, I do believe ethics are sometimes abrogated, or at least marginalized by HR professionals. Believing they know what managers "want," they may be too eager to deliver that, versus spending the time, angst, and conflict to drill down to actual "needs." In not trying to be a "typical HR person," they may skirt those very things that allowed them to perform ethically.
A common "compliment" these days to an HR professional is to tell them that they don't ACT like one... this implication is that they are less intrusive, less employee-centric, and less prone to slow things down for appropriate process management (e.g. "compliance"). Not that “over”-attention to process and compliance is necessarily good, but “all things in moderation” can apply here.
Lastly, of course ethics can be taught. Ethics is a topic, a subject matter. It can be taught to anyone with the desire and ability to learn. Ethical BEHAVIOR, however, is something different.
Just like you can teach law to criminals, you can teach ethics to the unethical. Just don't expect behavior changes.
Remember, you can't train for honesty, integrity, or work ethic, and you can't fix "stupid."
But that's just me...
KB
Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
