Managing Problem Employees

Managing Problem Employees

 

One of a manager's toughest jobs is dealing with problem employees. No matter what the problem - tardiness, sloppiness, poor performance - the best course of action is always immediate. Allowing the problem to continue or escalate is counterproductive for the employee, for you and for the rest of your staff.

 

The first step in dealing with a problem employee is to identify the trouble. One of your employees may be consistently late or spend more time socializing with coworkers than doing their job. They may be difficult to manage or lack the proper skills to do their job. The problem may be incompatibility with other employees or their supervisor. Or they may break company rules or deliberately defy company policies.

 

Many times, a simple, honest talk with an employee will dissolve issues such as occasional tardiness or minor attitude problems. But chronic behavior or performance problems usually require more than conversation.

 

There are two courses of action you can take with a problem employee. The most obvious is disciplinary, which may consist of issuing the employee a written warning or reassigning them to other duties or to another department. This action is most appropriate for serious infractions, such as ongoing problems and issues where company policies or rules have been broken or ignored.

 

The second choice is coaching or mentoring. This is usually the best choice for first-time offenses or work-performance problems with entry-level or nonprofessional employees. Coaching requires a manager to work one-on-one with problem employees or to assign another employee to work with the employee to overcome their shortcomings. The mentor should provide the employee with feedback and solutions for improving their performance. Coaching requires patience and a substantial time investment, but it can help modify an employee's behavior.

 

Successfully managing problem employees requires you to quickly identify and get to the root of the problem. Consider the following common problems with employees and the suggestions for dealing with them.

 

1. Poor performance.

Poor performance is not always due to a lack of skills; the employee may simply be disorganized or sloppy. These habits can usually be corrected with proper guidance. If performance difficulties relate to a lack of skills, consider coaching or additional training.

 

2. Job incompatibility.

In some cases an employee becomes a problem because their skills aren't compatible with their assigned tasks or regular duties. In this case, offering the employee additional training or assigning them a different set of tasks is usually the most appropriate course of action.

 

3. Sloppy work.

Errors and sloppiness aren't always easy to detect. When you notice that an employee has made some errors, point out the mistakes to the employee and monitor their work more closely. If the problem persists, speak with the employee and detail the most serious examples of problems with their work. Remember to remain positive and focus on how important the employee's contribution is to the company. You don't want to berate the employee; you want to provide them with constructive criticism.

 

4. Disruptive behavior.

Try to get the employee on your  side. Take the employee out for lunch or a cup of coffee in a casual setting and give them the opportunity to express their feelings and concerns about what's troubling them. It may be a personal problem or a simple case of feeling unappreciated.

 

If the problem is more serious, conduct a closed-door meeting with the employee and show them documented examples of their problem behavior. Discuss the possible consequences they face - change in responsibilities, demotion or termination - if their behavior does not change.

 

When managing a problem employee, it's critical that you document the problems and record all discussions and actions you've taken. Employees often consider written warnings more seriously than verbal reprimands. Creating a paper trail that documents problems and history is important, especially if you decide to terminate the employee.

 

 

[Source: AllBusiness.com]

 

Managing Change

Managing Change

 

The Internet, mergers and acquisitions, and a highly competitive and growing business landscape have changed the structures of many businesses. Companies that succeed and survive in today´s marketplace must anticipate change, adapt and thrive.

But change - whether it relates to management structure, fast growth or radical changes in your industry - can be difficult to manage, especially when your employees don´t have a clear understanding of what´s going on or how it affects them. To help employees through any transition, you´ll need to take a proactive role in managing and communicating change to your staff.

Be up front with employees. Make sure that employees first learn about changes from leaders rather than through the grapevine. If your employees hear rumors around the water cooler about restructuring, spin-offs, or new products, or read speculation in the local business media, your job of communicating change will be much more difficult. After all, resisting change is natural - it´s human nature to avoid the unknown and maintain familiar work patterns. Overcome this resistance by talking to your employees before rumors begin to fly.
Involve key communicators. While having the CEO speak to the entire staff in a company-wide meeting sounds like a good idea, he or she may not be able to share enough detail to satisfy employee questions at all levels. Let your company´s front-line supervisors address each of their employees and answer their questions. Giving employees the high-level vision and the hands-on detail will help them better understand and accept potentially upsetting news. 

Create an effective message. Consider the specific informational needs of executives, middle managers, supervisors and employees, and tailor your message to fit each audience. Often companies communicate only what´s happening at the corporate level and neglect the things that are really important to employees, such as how the change affects their future.

Remember, employees don´t think about the company the way executives do. They want to know about things that you may find unimportant, such as how future plans will affect their personal work area. Whoever communicates change to employees needs to understand their concerns.
An effective message should also explain how your employees´ day-to-day duties directly impact the company´s performance and should touch on the values and pride of the employees. A direct, face-to-face interaction can help reinforce positive attitudes, inspire employees and help them adapt to the change.
Listen to your employees. Employee feedback is critical in managing change. Holding focus groups with employees is a great way to gauge reaction and monitor the progress of change. You also can encourage employees to provide feedback through email or the company intranet. This shows them that you care and provides a forum for employees to share their thoughts (by name or anonymously), which is hard for some employees to do in person.
Communication is the cornerstone to successful change management. Talking to your employees is not a one-time event, and you need to reinforce your message by communicating early and often.

[Source: AllBusiness.com]

The Benefits of Skill-Based Training

The Benefits of Skill-Based Training

 

Training your workers can be a tremendous drain on your time and resources. But before you dismiss the idea of helping your employees learn new skills, consider the ways that skill-based training can positively affect your employees and your company.

Training increases employee productivity. In addition to learning how to complete new tasks and take on more responsibility, employees can learn advanced techniques to help them complete everyday tasks more efficiently. For example, sending your bookkeeper to an advanced Excel class may help him or her learn shortcuts to simplify the accounting processes.

Training reduces turnover. Employees who don't receive guidance or have difficulty learning the ropes are much more likely to leave your company. Employees are less likely to leave if they have the opportunity to learn new skills and keep up within their industry.

Training improves job satisfaction. Investing time and money in employees' skills makes them feel valued and appreciated, and it challenges them to learn more and get more involved in their jobs. Higher job satisfaction ultimately results in reduced turnover and higher productivity. 

Training aids in the recruiting process. If you're committed to training, you'll be more willing to hire a desirable candidate who lacks a specific skill. Training also makes your company more attractive in the eyes of potential employees because it shows them they have room to grow and accept new challenges.

Training rewards long-time employees. You'll be more willing to promote existing employees who have learned new skills and are ready to take on new challenges.

Training reduces the need for employee supervision. Not only does skill-based training teach employees how to do their jobs better, it helps them work more independently and develop a can-do attitude.

 

 

[Source: AllBusiness.com]

 

Don't Let Internal E-mail Destroy Team Unity

Don't Let Internal E-mail Destroy Team Unity 

by Doug Kennedy
 

As regular readers of my articles know, I have always been a strong proponent of training your staff to use external e-mail effectively for sales and service inquires. It has been great hearing the success stories about increased e-mail inquiry conversion ratios and an overall improvement in hospitality and service efficiency for all guests who prefer to communicate via this medium.
Likewise, most hotel and lodging companies can benefit greatly from training their staff on proper etiquette for internal e-mailing. A little attention to this topic can help team members communicate more efficiently and also have a positive impact on both inter- and intradepartmental relations.
There is no doubt that overall, e-mail has made hotels run much more efficiently, enabling us to better serve our guests. When properly deployed, internal e-mailing has provided a clear channel of communication between any and all members of the management team. Before, a g.m. had to dictate memos to his or her administrative assistant, who then had to type and distribute the memos, but now anyone with internal e-mail access is but one click away from reaching pretty much everyone on the org-chart. When used most effectively as a communication tool, internal e-mailing can help all stakeholders stay in sync with the countless details necessary to run a hotel operation.
Unfortunately, at most hotels (and especially hotel companies) I work with today, I see e-mailing becoming more and more of a detriment to team unity. Rather than being a tool for keeping everyone in the loop, improper e-mailing chips away steadily at the interpersonal relationships between team members, who spend countless hours responding back and forth with too-carefully-worded messages.
The problem is that most people have received little or no direction on how to best use e-mail to the team's advantage, and more importantly, when NOT to use e-mail. Instead, un-enlightened hotel executives are spending hours sniping away at each other, exchanging slow but steady rounds. And the sniper analogy really does work well for unity-destroying internal e-mailing.
Just as snipers don't have to face their victims, destructive e-mail senders can volley over rounds of personalized barbs and insulations, and "say" things that they would have the wisdom to withhold in a face-to-face meeting or phone call. These cleaver-sharp word shooters know just whom to copy on what to snipe away at their target's credibility. Yet unlike sniper victims, e-mail sniper victims can fire back their own "rounds" to further escalate the cyber shoot-out.
Here are some training tips and other considerations for ensuring that e-mail works for and not against your team unity:

• Develop and convey your company philosophy for e-mailing. Make sure that acceptable e-mail etiquette for internal e-mailing is outlined clearly in your standards and manuals. Most manuals provide little direction beyond forbidding illicit e-mailing, harassment and/or other inappropriate personal uses.
  
• Outline examples of when to best-use e-mail communications. Remind everyone that e-mails are ideal for disseminating information such as schedules, system upgrades, policy updates and other fact-based messages. Encourage the team to think about not overcommunicating, saving everyone time reading unnecessary details and to help them focus on the really important e-mails in their in-boxes.
  
• Give examples of when not to communicate via the medium of e-mail. E-mail is never the place to address topics that are likely to generate lots of questions, controversy and discussion points. Meetings, conference calls or Web presentations are much more effective because they allow for feedback and interaction.
  
• Bad news should never be conveyed via e-mail. In the event that you have bad news to share with others on the team, make sure it is done in person or at least on the phone. This helps convey sensitivity and minimize overreaction to sensitive issues.
  
• Never use "CC" e-mail for the sole purpose of making others look bad. This very common practice might be the single most destructive use of e-mail. Before you add someone to the cc list, make sure they really need to be in the know. Avoid being an "e-mail tattle-taler."
  
• Coach individualized senders directly. When your colleagues and subordinates are using e-mail improperly, provide some personalized feedback the old-fashioned way, by phone or in person, to encourage their future compliance. It's not always so easy to coach your superiors, but sometimes they need it the most, so send the feedback upward in your organization as well.

By successfully using internal e-mailing, you'll be fostering fast and efficient communications throughout all levels of your organization. More importantly, you'll ensure that your best people aren't wasting countless hours each day writing and reading hurtful and disruptive e-mails, and instead that they pick up the phone or walk over to talk things through with someone and make it work.

The Art of the Difficult Conversation

Tough Talks / The Art of the Difficult Conversationby Margot Carmichael Lester [Monster Contributing Writer]

We've all had to have a tough conversation with someone we work with or for, and none of us likes it. Generally, we recognize that open, constructive communication is crucial to business success. But many dodge these chats at all costs. Others charge right in loaded and ready. Others try to dance around the topic and not hurt feelings. None of these strategies is likely to accomplish your goal, so you end up where you started.
Joel Sparks, a freelance writer and owner of Original Copy in Silver Spring, Maryland, knows the feeling. "The hardest was firing a client," he recalls. "Every assignment was turning out to require unlimited revisions and meetings for a single low fee. It was also in a subject area that I was trying to phase out, but the projects just wouldn't end. Finally, in mid-deadline, I just had to tell them that I couldn't do it anymore; I had too much other stuff going on."
The result: "Now they won't speak with me," he says. "On the other hand, I'm writing the kinds of things I want to write now. I kept trying to be accommodating and nice, and that only made things worse in the end."
Lesson learned: "Say what you mean, and say it right away," advises Sparks.
Here are five additional tips for having effective and constructive conversations in difficult situations:
1. Give Fair Warning: The element of surprise won't work in your favor, says Loren Ekroth, Las Vegas-based founder of National Better Conversation Week. "You don't want to blind-side the other person, so ask them to get together at another time in a private, confidential place to clear up some issues. Let them know what you see as the issues and give them some time to reflect and prepare their thoughts for when you get together."
2. Have a Plan of Attack: "Consider what you want to say, write it down, and sit with it for awhile," says Suzanne Bates, author of Speak Like a CEO: Secrets for Commanding Attention and Getting Results and president of Bates Communications in Wellesley, Massachusetts. "Writing it down will help you act, instead of react. If you're not sure what you want to say, discuss it with someone you trust. Be sure that person can be trusted not to disclose it. Confidentiality is critical. You don't want to complicate the situation."
3. Be Prepared for an Ongoing Process: Be ready to have to continue the conversation later, cautions Alexander Grashow, director of the consulting practice at Cambridge Leadership Associates in Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Difficult conversations are iterative and most often require the people involved to negotiate changes with their people, departments or communities."
4. Call for a Mediator: If you think the conversation will become heated, ask that a mutual, trusted colleague be present to mediate and keep things civil, Ekroth suggests. "Often the simple presence of another puts antagonists on their best behavior so differences can be worked out with civility."
5. Check Assumptions at the Door: Making too many assumptions is a common mistake, Bates says. "It's easy to assume we fully understand the other person's motivation. We are too quick to jump to conclusions about people's actions, behaviors and attitudes." To avoid that, forget about who is right and focus on understanding the other person. "Be genuinely curious. This will help you get clarity. Separating fact from assumptions is the key to arriving at real understanding. Questions also interrupt the blame game and create an atmosphere of trust instead of suspicion."
Armed with these tips, you'll be ready the next time you have to have a tough talk with a colleague or client. And you'll be more likely to achieve a positive outcome for everyone.

 

How Do We Make Ourselves an Employer of Choice?

How Do We Make Ourselves an Employer of Choice?
	How do we promote our company as an employer of choice to our employees? We are trying to develop an internal communications plan and are searching for a solid strategy.—Path Seeker, finance/insurance/real estate, Singapore
	Promoting your company as an employer of choice to your employees won't work if they don't believe it. So the first step is basic: Determine whether your people really choose to be there, or would change jobs if given an opportunity. When workers have the requisite education and skills training, they will make conscious choices about their employment, including where to apply and whether to stay. When we wrote our book about the employment-choice concept, we researched how people make decisions about where they work. We learned that eight criteria are used by the majority of respondents to our surveys: The company: Is the employer financially strong, respected and focused on the future? Culture: Are employees empowered, engaged, accountable? Do they look forward to coming to work because of the relationships between co-workers? Enlightened leadership: Are leaders accessible, communicative and sensitive to internal and external factors influencing corporate success? Do they 'get it'? Care of people: Is work/life balance valued? Are employees encouraged to take care of themselves (wellness) and their families? Do policies regarding where, when and how people work emphasize flexibility? Meaningful work: Do all employees feel that their work is significant? Do they receive recognition for the difference they make in the lives of others? Growth and opportunity: Are training and education valued? Do all employees have an opportunity to learn and grow? Does the employer offer career growth potential? Compensation and benefits: Are people paid fairly for the work they do? How well tailored to the needs and interests of the employees are benefits programs? Making a difference: Does the employer facilitate opportunities for employees to volunteer their time and expertise to improve life for others--in the local community, around the country, around the world? With these criteria in mind, do your research. Employee interviews, focus groups and attitude surveys will help you evaluate your situation. Listen carefully for areas in which employees feel your company is not up to par. Fix those problems. As people become more satisfied, they will choose to stay and deliver high performance. SOURCE: Roger E. Herman, Herman Group , Greensboro, North Carolina., author of How to Become an Employer of Choice, April 3, 2006.

Rethinking Company Loyalty

Rethinking Company Loyalty

by Lauren Keller Johnson

 

These days, your best workers are likely to show more loyalty to their careers than the company. What's needed, says thisHarvard Management Update article, is a new view of loyalty and its meaning to employers and employees.
Few business leaders would deny the importance of organizational loyalty; perhaps fewer still believe they can achieve it the way they once did. After all, the lifetime contract expired long ago, and your people—especially your best people—are more likely to display loyalty to their careers than to you, their employer.
The very nature of the relationship between employers and employees has undergone a fundamental shift: Today, workers not only don't expect to work for decades on end for the same company, but they don't want to. They are largely disillusioned with the very idea of loyalty to organizations. But, at the same time, they don't really want to shift employers every two to three years for their entire careers. Similarly, companies would grind to a halt if they had to replace large portions of the workforce on a similar schedule.
So where does this leave us? Is there a way for both employers and employees to strike a brand-new balance when it comes to loyalty—one that gives organizations the focus and expertise they need to compete and employees the career development opportunities they demand?
According to the experts interviewed by Update, the answer is yes, but only if companies are willing to rethink how they define loyalty and how they manage their people.
Reevaluating loyalty
Loyalty should not be viewed as an either/or proposition. It's true, the experts say, that to produce their best work, employees must be loyal to the company and what it stands for. But "employees can give their employers 100 percent and provide great performance while furthering their own careers," says Joyce Gioia of The Herman Group, a consultancy based in Greensboro, North Carolina "The two aren't mutually exclusive," especially when the skills that a person masters to further her own career are also what the company needs.
And when firms help workers acquire new skills that support their professional advancement, they often win those workers' commitment—and attract loyal new employees. This gives rise to another important point: Employers can promote company loyalty by helping people grow out of their jobs—ideally, into new ones within the company.
But even when you can't retain talent, it doesn't mean departing employees weren't loyal. Indeed, another mistaken assumption is that loyalty has to mean "forever." "One of my students expressed it well," says Harvard Business School professor Linda Hill. "He said, 'It's like dating: You can be faithful to the person you're seeing now while you're involved with him or her, but that doesn't mean you won't move on to dating someone else later.'" Nor should companies strive to keep all employees forever. "You don't want blind loyalty," says Scott Brooks, an executive consultant at Minneapolis-based Gantz Wiley Research. "The best kind is when both parties are benefiting." Leigh Grantham, VP of marketing and administration at DeFuniak Springs, Florida-based electricity provider CHELCO, agrees: "I'd rather have a star performer for three years than a dud for life."
Balancing career and company loyalty
If an employee's loyalties to his career and to an employer aren't mutually exclusive, how can leaders ensure that the employee-employer relationship pays off for both parties? The most effective executives and managers are applying these strategies:
1. Align career growth with company goals. When a company helps its employees develop expertise that furthers their professional development and enables the company to address its thorniest challenges, both types of loyalty align powerfully. How to achieve this alignment? "Encourage managers to discuss their direct reports' career goals with them as often as possible," advises business coach Gayle Lantz. "Managers need to help their people identify links between their own professional goals and the company's goals. When people understand the larger business context in which the company is operating, they can more easily define ways to advance their own careers."
Of course, frank and frequent dialogue about careers can sometimes lead employees to part ways with their employer when they discover that they won't be able to achieve their career goals. But if the process is handled skillfully, all parties profit in the long run.
Grantham says that her company uses assessment tools and career coaches to identify employees' strengths and decide how to best leverage those talents for the company's good. The company also encourages employees to initiate conversations about how their strengths and talents might be best used in the organization. "When our employees are using their strengths," she says, "they find their work more satisfying and feel that they're supporting their own career paths. Everyone benefits; it's the best way to do business." At CHELCO, employees are encouraged to initiate meetings with their supervisors, their bosses' boss, and career coaches to discuss career-path possibilities at the company. "These meetings are separate from performance reviews," says Grantham.
According to Grantham, one staff accountant at CHELCO recently benefited from this process. When the accountant expressed interest in a management position, her coach reminded her that her assessment indicated strengths in areas other than management. The accountant then acknowledged that her interest in management stemmed primarily from managerial positions' earning potential. "She saw no other way to earn more," says Grantham. Based on her interest and commitment to furthering her career, as well as on her educational background and strengths—including attention to detail, adherence to rules, and persistence—the company offered her the position of revenue analyst. In this role, she provided more value to the organization and took on new challenges. She also increased her earning potential because the new position rated several grades higher than her former position in CHELCO's job-factoring system.
It's difficult for some managers to see the value in supporting a prized employee's development, says Gratham. "They want to keep their stars. But if we get some resistance, we have managers talk with business coaches to better understand the long-term payoff of supporting employees' development." Grantham also notes that it's in managers' best interest to encourage development, since another manager's star employee most likely wants to transfer into their departments.
2. Design work with variety and autonomy. Jobs that provide variety and the freedom to make decisions and mistakes engender extensive loyalty, the experts note. Allowing people to take ownership of projects gives them the opportunity to develop new skills and, just as important, the chance to show what they can do.
A commitment to variety and freedom takes some organizational discipline—at the very least, firms must let employees know they can exercise choice. "When new account opportunities come along, we describe them at our Wednesday-morning staff meeting and ask, 'Who has the interest and time to tackle this?'" says Garry Curtis, executive vice president at Washington, D.C.-based public relations firm Hager Sharp. In his earlier years at the firm, Curtis seized opportunities to master new skills such as creating television ads and public-service announcements by joining teams formed to serve new accounts.
3. Focus on relationships. For many employees, loyalty is born or cemented through relationships with supervisors and colleagues.
"The number one reason people leave an organization isn't inadequate pay or benefits," says business writer John Putzier. "It's the day-to-day relationship with their immediate superior." Leaders seeking to secure employees' loyalty must work to create a positive bond.
How? "Be fair in distributing rewards and punishment," advises Donald P. Rogers, professor of international business at Rollins College in Winter Park, Florida. John Chappelear, a professional coach and trainer, says, "Clarify your expectations, and make sure people have the resources and skills they need to fulfill those expectations."
Fostering supportive relationships among employees can further enhance their loyalty to your organization. "Enable people to work through conflicts constructively," says Kenneth Sole, president of Durham, New Hampshire-based consultancy Sole & Associates. "Many managers find this concept counterintuitive. But positive conflict resolution gives people the sense that 'We're in this together; we're a team.'"
To leverage this principle, Sole advises managers to model effective conflict resolution as well as educate their teams about this powerful skill. "Read books on various conflict-resolution techniques," he suggests, "and regularly practice at least one technique that fits your style. As your comfort with conflict resolution grows, at least some of your direct reports will begin emulating you."
4. Highlight the link between employees' values and your company's mission. "The lifetime employment contract was never the only way to build employee loyalty," says Rogers. "Emphasizing a company's purpose—why we create wealth—also engenders loyalty," especially when employees see the connection between their values and the company's mission.
At Medtronic, a medical-device developer in Minneapolis, the most important meeting every year isn't the shareholders' annual gathering. It's the holiday program, broadcast to Medtronic's 30,000 employees worldwide, featuring the stories of patients who have benefited from the company's products. "Our people end up feeling personally involved in our company's mission to restore people to full life," says Paul Erdahl, vice president of executive leadership and development. "They can see the end result of their work. Many of them are profoundly moved by the patients' stories."
By putting a human face on its mission, Medtronic has achieved employee-retention rates above the industry average, says Erdahl. And it gets a whopping 95 percent favorable response rate to the employee-survey item "I have a clear understanding of Medtronic's mission" and a 93 percent favorable response to "The work I do supports the Medtronic mission." Erdahl agrees that a company's mission is especially compelling when patients' lives are at stake. But organizations in any industry, he says, can find ways to help employees see how their daily work affects customers.
[Lauren Keller Johnson is a Massachusetts-based business writer.]

What Is Your Management Style?

What Is Your Management Style? | By NP Chandra Shekhar, CHA, MHCIMA

One would have studied various management styles or leadership qualities in schools autocratic, democratic, beaurocratic, laissez-faire etc. These theories often become less useful when it comes to the real application at the place you are working. When a person joins an organization, it takes lot of time in understanding the ideology of the place and then starts applying the skills that is suitable to the place.

Management style or leadership quality required in an organization depends on various factors such as, the owners, the industry, the employees, the location etc. The policies and procedures of the organization that guides the managers to adopt a leadership style that is suitable for the organization.

Apart from the organization's style, each individual Manager must also adopt a style that helps him in getting the job done from his subordinates. Many times one type of style may not help a manager to get the job done. One has to use different techniques and combination of styles to achieve what the organization wants. Of course, what one studies in schools are the base knowledge that helps in the practical application. When one comes to practice, learns the art of management.

A good manager will set defined Goals and objectives of the organization. He also communicates these down the lines. He forms a team which thinks one goal and one objective. He allows his subordinate Managers and staff to do their departmental plans according to the set goals and objectives of the organization. He applies the management principles of planning, organizing, direction and control throughout the organization. He creates an atmosphere where checks and balances are made without causing much friction within the organization.

A good manager appreciates the success of his team and allows them to make critical analyses of their work. He allows them to find out their mistakes and makes them happier by giving the freedom of finding their own mistakes. He gives the corrective direction. He shares his views with all and listens to their concerns. He consults his team member before taking a decision that gives the sense of involvement of his subordinate managers or staff. He must also encourage his subordinate managers to take decision and institute exceptional reporting.

A good manager will give high concern for both task and human. This will ensure high employee morale leading to higher achievements of the organizational goals. He will reward all those who achieve. This will ensure reward and task are co-extensive. He will encourage creativity, new ideas, innovations and promotion from within. This will ensure the visibility of employee development and future plans. This will also ensure highly motivated employees and competent people will come forward to join the organization.

A professionally managed organization would give importance to such communication throughout the organization so that everyone in the organization is aware of the goals, objectives, contribution, returns and their future plans for development. This runs through from top to the junior levels of the organization. In such organizations, management style flows through from top to the bottom making it uniform although individual managers may have to apply their skills depending on the situation.

When one talks of management, it is basically talking about managing the people. It is managing the behavioral pattern of the people. Behavioral pattern of people is always in a flux and keeps changing depending on the task, working environment, competition, management, human consideration etc.

Each organization gives different levels of consideration to task and human concern. These levels are important in order to understand the management style adopted by an organization. The level of importance given to the task and human concern through the policies and procedures signifies the kind of management style the organization has adopted. Eventually, success of an organization also depends on the kind of management style it has adopted.

Carrot and stick method followed in the early days are no more valid. Managers need to have a consultative approach with their subordinates in decision making process. This does not mean Manager has to decide based on what subordinates say, but, he has to listen to what they also say and final decision can be taken collectively or by him. Every organization needs managers (to plan, organize, direct and control) with leadership qualities (inter-personal relationship) to achieve the goals and objectives successfully.

It is important to understand that Managers are appointed with formal authority through which they accomplish the tasks from their subordinates. Leaders do not have formal authority. A good manager is a person able to influence subordinates without using formal authority and thus becomes good leader as well. Formation of leader is when there are followers. Subordinates follow the leader willingly on their own accord and they follow the manager because they have to. Hence, leader can be a manager but manager cannot be a leader – where do you stand?

 

[Written by NP Chandrashekhar, Group Financial Controller, Chelsea Group, Dubai.]

 

Executive Compensation Trends You Need to Know

 

Executive Compensation Trends You Need to Know

by Natalie Morera | Talent Management

 

Proxy season is in full swing and CEOs are awaiting shareholders' votes so they can open their compensation packages. Shareholders and board members across the United States are gathering to determine, among other things, what their CEOs will be compensated.

 

Recent government reforms, such as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, have made moves to regulate compensation and increase transparency after shareholders called foul over executive pay. Under Dodd-Frank's Section 951, also known as "Say on Pay," shareholders now have an advisory vote in what executives get paid and what their golden parachute looks like.

 

Paul R. Dorf, who has been an executive compensation consultant for more than 40 years, said there has been an improvement with government regulations, but that isn't the only change he's witnessed.

 

"One of the things is the amount of compensation has gone up exponentially," Dorf said. "If you look back into the early '70s, it was a rare, very rare occurrence that an executive made more than $1 million. In fact, I've seen articles written about the one individual who broke a million, and it was an exciting time."

 

What was once salary, benefits and bonuses has turned into a much larger array of cash compensation, such as bonuses, incentives, equity programs, long-term programs and severance programs, along with perks and benefits.

 

"The new term in the field is the total rewards package," Dorf said.

 

Given the changes, there are multiple methods boards consider when evaluating their executives' pay, and of course, not all methods are created equal.

 

Many extraneous things - such as company jets, cars and executive medical plans - are becoming less and less common, explained Ted Buyniski, senior vice president of Radford, a company that provides compensation market intelligence to the technology and life sciences industries. To this, he credits disclosure.

 

"Getting rid of those made a lot of sense for everybody," Buyniski said, adding that this is a positive trend because most of the extraneous items were holdovers from the 1980s, when there were tax benefits attached to them. Once the tax benefits ceased, companies began holding on to those things to convey status, he explained.

 

"[Now,] the overall executive compensation market is becoming more uniform," Buyniski said.

 

There are three parts to considering what an executive should be paid, he explained.

 

1. The first is looking at the competitive landscape to know what the market pay is.

 

2. Winning, which refers to the company's goals and objectives, should be defined within the company - whether it be revenue growth, profit growth or stock price appreciation.

 

3. Then there is the matter of how the company is performing in its market.

 

"As I say to all of my clients, the market is simply a starting point, it's not a decision," Buyniski said. "You need to know where the market is. The market is hundreds of data points. You as a [compensation] committee are dealing with an individual."

 

Ultimately, it's up to that compensation committee to determine the best method of evaluation for their company.

 

"One thing I caution everybody on is, that as much as everyone would like to find the holy grail so that everybody is paid correctly, there are at this point no simple solutions," Buyniski said.

 

 

[About the Author: Natalie Morera is an associate editor for Talent Management magazine.]

 

Make Yourself Fit to Lead

Make Yourself Fit to Lead

by Richard McKnight | Human Resource Executive Online

 

Many business leaders today are failing. This book excerpt offers some tips for HR leaders.

 

This is excerpted from Leading Strategy Execution, by Richard McKnight with Tom Kaney and Shannon Breuer:

 

Many business consultants, scholars, and HR professionals have pointed to leadership as what is required to compete in today's business environment. They note that only through highly skilled leadership can businesses maximize the most expensive and potentially beneficial asset they have: people. As former Herman Miller Chairman, Max DePree (2004) put it, "The signs of outstanding leadership appear primarily among the followers."

 

This is an appealing formulation, but there is a problem: recent polling data reveals that, as a class, many of today's business leaders are failing. Consider this headline in a report from The Center for Public Leadership (2010): "Business Leaders Are Out for Themselves, Americans say."

 

According to the underlying study, "In 2005 through last year, Americans' confidence in their leaders marched steadily downward." In 2010, the report says, "Only 10 percent of Americans believe business leaders generally work for the greater good of society; the majority (52 percent) believe corporate bosses work mainly to benefit themselves."

 

Ouch.

 

Clearly, if you wish to be effective as a leader of strategy execution, you have to induce quite a different perception in the minds of those who look to you for leadership. If there is any good news at all in this study, respondents were speaking of business leaders in general. We know from other studies that when people rate leaders as a group, they are more critical than when they rate their own boss.

 

Still, if you wish to implement a strategy, and to the extent that your strategy departs from the status quo, you must gain the trust of those whose support you need. Thus, our first requirement for the personal art of strategy execution:

 

1. Learn to listen and to reflect.

 

Most business leaders do not have to work on being more decisive. Rather, becoming more effective entails learning to listen better, a component of trust and respect. In our experience, the higher you go in the organizational hierarchy, the less you're apt to find people -- either men or women -- who are good listeners.

 

This is a problem for at least two reasons. For one thing, if you don't listen well to others, you can't pick up useful clues about how to influence them. For another, it makes learning more difficult because you overlook feedback about the effects of your own efforts and you think you know it all.

 

We have stated that strategy execution requires both leading and managing. Each involves getting groups and individuals to want to do things in a particular way and on a given schedule, often to make sacrifices in the pursuit. The leader/manager, therefore, must continually discern the needs of those people and find ways to meet them, if possible, within the realities and limitations of objectives and resources. This is impossible without careful listening.

 

The closer you get to the top of most organizations, the more you find the psychological profile of a type of leader that is notably deficient at both listening and reflecting. Psychologist David Keirsey, in his classic book, Please Understand Me, summed up this type: "If one word were to be used to capture this style, it would be commandant [his emphasis]. The basic driving force and need ... is to lead, and from an early age they can be observed taking over groups (1978, p. 178)."

 

Noting that this type will strive to reduce inefficiency, ineffectiveness, and confusion, this type of leader is also quite willing to dismiss employees who don't go along. In an update of this book 20 years after the first edition, Keirsey (1998) did not change his view.

 

He said, "For [this type], there must always be a reason for doing anything, and people's feelings usually are not sufficient reason (p. 198)." Question: How can you win the hearts and minds of people if you are indifferent to their feelings? Answer: You can't. (Readers who are familiar with the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator will recognize this as the ENTJ. According to the Myers-Briggs Foundation [2010], less than 2 percent of the general population are of this type while 11 percent of managers, administrators and executives score this way on the MBTI.)

 

Some people think that doing so is a sign of weakness, that leadership is a matter of making bold decisions in isolation then announcing them. In fact, for most business decisions, "two heads are better than one," i.e., the data required for effective decision making is distributed and a variety of perspectives are beneficial. Good listening skills enable you to get all the data on the table.

 

Going along with listening, of course, is the companion habit of reflection, i.e., turning over in your own mind what you've heard while all that listening was going on. A reflective person not only hears, but also comprehends and makes sense of what is heard. Reflection is a nonjudgmental process of discernment. To discern is to derive meaning and direction through reflection.

 

Both listening and reflecting are most difficult when the subject matter is your own behavior, especially when you've been told that your behavior is slowing things down or eroding teamwork. Carefully attending to the concerns and objections of others about you is the ultimate test of ego strength. But the reward is learning and the greater potency that comes with it, so stick in there.

 

2. Strategy execution can be hard, taxing work -- gird yourself.

 

The good news about having a vision is that life feels exciting, but the bad news is that unless you do everything right, you are the only one excited by it. Recently, a client, back in his office with us following a very successful meeting with all of his management staff, look drained. He said, "I'm thrilled at how this meeting went, but, my god, this is hard work."

 

Asked what he was referring to specifically, he said, "To effect change, you have to do everything right and you have to be patient! You don't know how many times I had to bite my tongue in that meeting. Holding back is not my strong suit!"

 

3. Be credible and trustworthy; be worth following.

 

In Chapter Five, we summarized the findings of David Maister, whose research showed the causal linkage between acting in accord with a set of values and principles and subsequent financial success in service-delivering firms.

 

The title of the book we cited is, Practice What You Preach: What Managers Must Do to Create a High Achievement Culture (Maister, 2003). The essence of his findings was this: when managers show respect and cultivate trust, morale ensues. And higher morale leads to greater financial performance. We urge you to take a look at this book and learn its lessons.

 

Bear in mind that one of the reasons why people sometimes drag their feet at the first sign of change is that change begins with an ending. While the leader's own drive to make change happen can be a powerful force, there are countervailing restraining forces. Our counsel is, "Don't be discouraged, but do be prepared."

 

There are any number of excellent books available today that address the connection between physical fitness and stamina and creativity. Get and keep yourself in good physical shape. If you're over 50, like we are, you might especially enjoy the wise, insightful, and funny book, Younger Next Year (Crowley & Lodge, 2007).

 

(The first three chapters of this book are available free for the asking from McKnightKaney.com.)

 

 

[About the Author: Richard McKnight, Ph.D., of McKnight Kaney, is a Philadelphia-area consultant and coach who helps senior executives formulate and execute strategy. With his business partner, Tom Kaney, he provides services to HR professionals and officer-level line executives. He has written extensively about strategy execution and is the author of Victim, Survivor, or Navigator: Choosing a Response to Workplace Change and co-author, with Tom Kaney and Shannon Breuer, of Leading Strategy Execution.]

Avoiding the Trickle of a Leaking Pipeline

 

Avoiding the Trickle of a Leaking Pipeline

by Natalie Morera | Chief Learning Officer

 

Leadership pipelines at some companies are still under construction, according to a survey conducted by AMA Corporate Learning Solutions.

 

"For a long time we were talking about [how] the boomers would all retire [and] we wouldn't have enough people slotted to fulfill the roles," said Sandi Edwards, senior vice president of AMA. "Well, at this point in time the boomers haven't retired, and yet we still don't have an adequate source of a pipeline."

 

In December 2010, AMA surveyed 1,098 senior managers and executives and released the results late last month. AMA found that 43 percent said their senior management team is "sporadic in its commitment" to succession planning, 34 percent said their team is "genuinely committed," and 14 percent said their teams just "pays lip service" to succession planning.

 

According to William J. Rothwell, president of Rothwell & Associates and professor at Penn State University, this is a problem. He said that one in five of all the Fortune 500 senior executives are currently retirement eligible. But after years of downsizing, there are no successors properly groomed to take their places.

 

"Many companies think, 'Oh we'll just go outside the company and if we pay enough money we will be able to find a qualified successor,'" Rothwell said. "That strategy may have worked at one time, [but] it is less likely to work today because every other company has also been downsizing. The training ground for senior executives is middle management, and the group most affected by downsizing has been middle managers."

 

Edwards said developing future leaders, not just replacement leaders, adds to innovation, creativity and critical thinking. She also noted that current leaders may want to focus in on middle management to develop as leaders since it's the part of the organization that's productive, yet vulnerable to disruption.

 

According to Edwards, having a strategic and well-thought-out leadership pipeline helps everyone in the organization have a stronger sense of engagement. It also gives employees knowledge of where they contribute and lets them know that they have already been tapped for future development.

 

"People who are involved feel that they are valued [and as a result] are much more highly productive, so there's a business case for it," she said.

 

Edwards noted that planning for who will take over vital roles and what skills they will need in the future is important as well. Learning leaders should ask themselves: Where is the company now and where do they see themselves in a few years?

 

"What are the expectations of the growth, the productivity, the range of products [and] the geographies that the company will be touching?" she asked. "All those need to be taken into consideration as you look at future leaders."

 

Edwards noted that it's also important for any kind of leadership development program to be in sync with the strategic business objectives and initiatives.

 

"Succession planning does not do well if it's in isolation, like a leadership program that isn't linked to the strategic and business objectives of the organization," she said. Edwards stated that succession planning not only helps the organization run smoothly, but also helps employees be identified, developed and recognized. In all, it helps employees understand what part of the big picture they're in and feel good about the "placeholder that they occupy."

 

"Essentially, it enhances the productivity of the organization [and] the performance of the people inside the organization," she said. "You're going to get a much healthier, much more robust organization and much stronger creativity, collaboration and better critical thinking from those people."

 

Rothwell agreed. "If we promote a middle manager to senior management, then we need to have a front-line manager prepared to move to middle management, and we have to have an individual contributor groomed to move to front-line management," he said. Rothwell added that companies can't leave it to the "whim of circumstance" and rely of external recruitment to meet their needs. "Can we really rely on that?" he asked.

 

 

[About the Author: Natalie Morera is an associate editor for Chief Learning Officer.]

 

Developing Multidimensional Leaders

Developing Multidimensional Leaders

by Ladan Nikravan | Chief Learning Officer

 

In a constantly changing business climate, leaders should not model themselves on archetypes from the past and expect to meet the challenges of today's workplace. More specifically, they cannot rely solely on their isolated strengths in leadership to infuse passion and energy into their work and those they lead. Multidimensional leaders stay objectively alert in order to make strategic decisions within a context of ever-changing circumstances, parameters and variables. Such leaders are developed to possess multiple leadership facets. They understand that great leadership requires a range of competencies and skills and know their own personality traits can work both for and against them. Unfortunately, not enough of these leaders exist.

 

Last year, Development Dimensions International (DDI) surveyed 1,130 supervisors and first-level managers to understand how they're overcoming the challenges of their jobs and what is holding them back from being successful. Results from "Finding the First Rung: A study on the challenges facing today's frontline leader," released in December, show that 42 percent of new managers do not understand what it takes to succeed; 89 percent have at least one blind spot; and only one in 10 leaders is actually groomed for the job. Half of the respondents took the leadership role for an increase in compensation - only 23 percent actually wanted to lead others.

 

"Organizations as a whole do not prepare leaders for what they should be ready to encounter," said Jim Concelman, vice president of leadership development at DDI. "One of the first things learning leaders need to do is develop the leaders of leaders. The most influential person in the success of a new manager or leader is that person's leader. We need to equip managers to effectively select the right people for leadership roles and then effectively coach, develop and bring new leaders along slowly but surely."

 

Concelman also believe leaders need to realistically evaluate their own skills in each success area in order to focus on improvement.

 

"A lot of business systems already have good immediate feedback," Concelman said. "You can get quarterly, monthly, daily and sometimes hourly reports on several elements, but leadership is different. You can't go to a place on your system or computer screen and see, 'How am I doing as a leader today in this hour?' The only way to find out is through assessments, and that's not something we're currently equipping leaders to do in our organizations."

 

In a separate study, DDI asked more than 200 managers going through a frontline leader assessment program to rate themselves in seven leadership skills: coaching, communication, delegation, gaining commitment, judgment, planning and organizing and problem analysis. DDI compared leaders' self-ratings to their actual performance during the assessment and found that 89 percent of the managers had at least one leadership skill where they rated themselves above their actual skill level.

 

Lacking the self-insight to know that one needs to improve, managers will turn down - or not fully engage in - development opportunities that would fill in missing skills. If the disparity persists, it will become a detriment to the individual and his or her organization and teams.

 

Because many leaders excel in one particular dimension, they do not see the necessity of improving. But no matter how good one-dimensional leaders are at that one thing, they cannot provide the kind of leadership that leads to innovation, social change and business transformation.

 

"We expect effective leaders to be good at something, for example, driving execution or creating an important strategic decision," said Jeffrey Sugerman, president and CEO of Inscape Publishing and co-author of the forthcoming book, The 8 Dimensions of Leadership. "In studies we conducted, we thought a leader would be judged an effective leader if he or she was good at one of those things. Much to our surprise, the ones who were viewed as most effective were good at everything, maybe to differing degrees, but they weren't just good at one thing. The effective leaders we found were much more flexible in the range of leadership styles and competencies they could bring to their organizations."

 

"The flip side of that [is] those given overall poor ratings by their peers, subordinates and managers were not missing strengths," said Mark Scullard, director of research at Inscape and one of Sugerman's co-authors. "They had very pronounced strengths, but they were given poor global ratings of leadership effectiveness because there were some very glaring absences in their performance and their repertoire of skills."

 

According to Sugerman, Scullard and co-author Emma Wilhelm, the eight dimensions of leadership are: pioneering, energizing, affirming, inclusive, humble, deliberate, resolute and commanding.

 

"We're not asking people to make superhuman changes in their personality," Wilhelm said. "It's very small changes that make such a big difference. That change happens when a leader understands why they're having blind spots and has the support of their managers."

 

Scullard agreed. "You need to have strong support from above and constant reinforcement," he said. "People need to believe these qualities are important to the organization. Upper management needs to see a commitment to leadership development to encourage subordinates to take ownership of their growth. A majority of leadership development has to occur independently, but it's much more likely to happen if there's a culture of development."

 

 

[About the Author: Ladan Nikravan is an associate editor of Chief Learning Officer magazine.]

 

There Is No Perfect Hire

There Is No Perfect Hire

by Dave Winston | Talent Management

 

Long ago the philosopher Voltaire observed, "The perfect is the enemy of the good." Yet many talent leaders forget this serviceable bit of wisdom when recruiting top executives. They develop an inflexible profile of the ideal candidate for a role and, believing this person actually exists, reject candidates who could bring the company maximum value.

 

Early in the recruiting process when companies have seen few candidates, they are especially prone to pursuing perfection, passing on candidate after candidate. Subsequently they find themselves having to settle for someone who brings less to the table - and brings it later because of the protracted process, delaying and diminishing value creation in a critical role.

 

A more nuanced and effective approach to the complicated business of key hiring decisions may be found in the principle of "satisfice," a combination of satisfy and suffice. Satisfice provides guidance through complicated decisions characterized by multiple criteria and competing objectives. However, satisfice is emphatically not about settling for what is merely sufficient. Rather it's about choosing the option that has the most chance of being satisfactory and getting as close to the ideal as possible when making complex decisions.

 

In the case of executive recruitment, calculating which option satisfices is doubly difficult because companies and candidates calculate differently. Candidates have one set of criteria, each of which they weigh according to their individual circumstances, while companies have another, which they weigh according to business needs.

 

Companies that want to escape the trap of the perfect without settling for the merely sufficient must understand the candidate's calculus and find a way to harmonize it with the company's calculus - in short, reach a decision that satisfices and thereby creates maximum value quickly.

 

The Candidate's Calculus

 

The relative weight candidates give to specific factors when considering an opportunity will differ at different times in their lives. But it is possible to generalize somewhat about the things they are ultimately trying to determine, and which choices are most likely to make them happiest. They may weigh considerations such as geography, family issues, compensation and other factors differently, but most take a holistic view driven by the desire for happiness as they define it.

 

Balancing all of the factors that go into one's happiness can be complicated. Candidates may desire the lifestyle afforded by a particular geography, but they also may be reluctant to disrupt their children's schooling, or they may wish to be near aging parents. They may be in a dual-career marriage that is difficult to transplant, or they may simply be comfortable in their present roles.

 

All of those factors must be weighed against the appeal of the position, from the nature of the opportunity to compensation to numerous factors alone or in combination. Two factors weigh particularly heavily for executives. First, almost all focus sharply on the content of the role: will it challenge me, will it develop me as a leader, will I make a genuine contribution to the business' success? Second, they strongly consider whether the company has a culture in which they will thrive.

 

When making their calculations, candidates can be just as bedeviled by the perfect as companies. This perfectionism may manifest itself in one of two ways. They may reject opportunity after opportunity or, conversely, may jump from opportunity to opportunity hoping that the perfect one is just over the horizon. Sometimes this pursuit of the perfect can promote unrealistic expectations, such as an executive jumping to an exciting industry for which he or she is poorly suited.

 

The most successful executives apply the principle of satisfice to their careers. Long before an opportunity appears, they reflect deeply about their motivations and goals. Rather than simply reacting to things that occur, they've thought far ahead about their careers and lives, and made deliberate decisions. They change companies or industries for good reasons, and they also take advantage of unexpected opportunities that fit with their deep self-understanding. They instinctively know in balancing the many factors that go into their happiness and their families' happiness that perfection is unattainable. But they also know they can make a choice that has the maximum chance of being satisfactory.

 

The Company's Calculus

 

Companies, by contrast, are in the business of pursuing profits, not happiness. Their decision criteria are much more narrowly focused on business issues. Though narrower, these criteria are as numerous and complex as the issues considered by candidates. As with the candidate's decision, perfection is unattainable, and companies that are unable to address complexities in an efficient way are likely to suffer significant opportunity costs the longer a position goes unfilled or if it is filled by a superficially perfect candidate.

 

Further, while candidates tend to think about the appeal of particular industries, companies tend to focus on a candidate's domain skills, such as the finance skills of a chief financial officer. They may segment the criteria even further, such as defining a sales role in terms of products, services or multiple channels. When focusing on skills, companies sometimes downplay a candidate's characteristics, such as leadership potential or raw intellectual power. Similarly, the emphasis on domain expertise tends to make companies weigh work experience over competence. Also, given that happiness ultimately drives candidates, too few companies seriously consider whether they offer a good work environment.

 

Being a good place to work has many facets. Does the culture empower leaders by providing access to the resources necessary to achieve success? Is there a well-defined career growth path? Can executives create long-term wealth? Is the company a leader within the industry? Is there a clear strategy, product or service that differentiates the company from competitors? Does the company's financial position provide a solid foundation for growth?

 

In summation, what drives the candidate's calculus starkly contrasts with the drivers for most companies:

 

a) Pursuit of happiness vs. pursuit of profits.

b) Industry excitement vs. domain expertise.

c) Culture vs. skill.

d) Expectation vs. experience.

 

Not surprisingly, the more rigidly companies cling to decision criteria, the more likely they are to miss out on the best possible, as opposed to the perfect, candidate.

 

Putting Principle Into Practice

 

At the heart of most methods to evaluate candidates lies a qualitative and quantitative formula to assess or rank candidates either against the position, other candidates or both. Adopting the principle of satisfice, however, does not mean adopting a new formula; there is no HR algorithm. Satisficing means evaluating candidates in a way that is more supple, nuanced and appropriate. The key lies not in a mathematical formula but in adopting practices that will make nuanced evaluation possible while increasing the selected candidate's likelihood of success.

 

The most important practices include:

 

1. Picture success and work backward.

Instead of developing a rigid job specification, picture what success in the role looks like in one, three or five years. Define success in a wide range of key areas and not just revenues or profits, such as customer and employee satisfaction, continuous improvement, career development and succession planning.

 

2. Know the talent market.

Assessing internal and external candidates requires a realistic view of the market. Provide a comprehensive talent map of leading and promising executives around the globe. Such a map allows talent leaders to benchmark internal assets against the best talent anywhere, and not just against each other. It also helps avert the trap of the perfect, but nonexistent, candidate. At the same time, by including talent inside and outside an industry and a company, it expands the possibility of achieving maximum satisfaction with the ultimate choice, and achieving it faster.

 

3. Hire for character and train for skill.

Overemphasizing experience and domain skills at the expense of leadership potential and competencies not only lengthens the time to value in the role, but also likely results in a less than satisficing choice. Being quick off the starting line or having domain experience does not necessarily ensure a win, place or show outcome in a marathon.

 

4. Make development a priority.

Hiring for character and training for skill is pointless unless an organization maintains a robust development program. Opportunities to grow and develop figure highly for most executives today. As part of a comprehensive talent management system, development should include in-role opportunities, stretch assignments, mentoring and executive coaching. Knowing that such a program is in place gives talent leaders far more flexibility in finding the candidate that satisfices.

 

5. Understand the candidate's calculus.

It is critical to know what really motivates candidates, what worries them and how they weigh the factors in an opportunity. Otherwise, talent leaders could find themselves selecting someone who quickly derails or who is jumping into a role without having calculated its personal and professional attractions and drawbacks. Skilled interviewers can surface those issues with candidates who may have only half-articulated the issues to themselves.

 

6. Be flexible.

Once talent leaders understand which happiness and employment factors weigh most heavily with candidates, they can determine if the satisficing answer is to adjust position requirements. For example, instead of rigidly insisting on relocation, talent leaders can find a mutually satisfactory solution to meet the candidate's and the company's needs.

 

7. Establish a comprehensive on-boarding program.

To ensure effectiveness, satisfaction and retention for new executives - and a return on investment - a comprehensive on-boarding program should begin well before the new hire's start date. Companies that believe they have found the perfect candidate often make the individual entirely responsible for making the new situation work, and then are surprised when the candidate derails. The chances of success for senior hires are far greater when an on-boarding program that explicitly integrates the firm's culture and the new executive's interests is consciously created and consistently executed - in effect, harmonizing the candidate's and the company's calculuses.

 

With the principle of satisficing in mind and the practices in place that support it, companies can free themselves from the tyranny of the perfect in executive recruitment. The paradoxical result is better hiring decisions, more successful executives and a reputation as a great place to work, which in turn attracts more talent. In an age when talent has become the ultimate source of competitive advantage, nothing less satisfices.

 

 

[About the Author: Dave Winston is the global managing partner of Heidrick & Struggles' aerospace, defense and aviation practice and the partner-in-charge of the Dallas office.]

 

How to Handle Mistakes Productively

How to Handle Mistakes Productively

by Kevin J. Sensenig | Talent Management

 

Managers often take a mechanical approach to handling employee mistakes. They have been taught how to give feedback, deal with conflict and apply an organization's standard process via a stepped series of corrective actions such as verbal reprimands, written reprimands or termination. As a result, they either perceive handling employee mistakes as a confrontational situation, which often leads to employee resistance rather than learning and improvement, or ignore the situation and hope the problem will go away, which rarely happens. A more effective way to handle mistakes is to open a dialogue, build rapport, and restore the employee's performance so he or she can be retained as a productive member of the organization.

 

Remember the R's

 

When managers mishandle employee mistakes, it's usually because they misjudge the magnitude of the error. On one hand, they may overreact to a slight deviation from an expected action. This might happen, for example, when a manager is too close to a situation. He or she may have held the employee's position in the past and knows exactly how things should be done. As a result, the manager treats a minor error as a major one and uses excessive corrective action rather than subtle coaching.

 

On the other hand, managers who are pulled in many directions sometimes choose to overlook a significant deviation from acceptable conduct, take a wait-and-see attitude or use a coaching approach when swift and decisive corrective action is called for. As a result, the situation can snowball out of control and create additional problems. In other cases, managers prefer to overlook mistakes because they are afraid of damaging a close, positive relationship with an employee.

 

Regardless of the magnitude of the error, or the manager's attitude toward the employee, the following best practices can help talent managers, or any leader, handle mistakes in a positive, productive manner.

 

1. Research the situation.

Gather information in an open-minded way rather than building a case. Clarify the facts; even the best employees make mistakes. Perhaps they have not been properly trained for a particular task, or the fast pace of business may prompt them to make a decision quickly that turns out to be ill-advised. That's why it's important to determine the answers to the following questions: Under what circumstances did the mistake occur? Who was involved and when did it happen? What were the effects on the team, department or organization? What would have been the correct course of action? How often has the employee made this mistake? Is it a one-time oversight or a pattern of decreasing or lacking performance?

 

2. Create rapport.

Rapport can be based on a reservoir of goodwill that already exists if the manager and employee have worked together closely for a while, or it may have to be created if they don't know each other well. Building rapport does not mean taking the situation lightly, but rather setting a positive tone from the start. A manager who is angry about a mistake or under pressure from superiors or customers may come across as abrupt and put the employee on the defensive. It's more productive to put the employee at ease and reduce anxiety so you can comfortably explore opportunities for improvement together. A good way to start the conversation is to express honest appreciation for the employee's past contributions, positive behavior or years of experience with the company.

 

3. Reference the mistake.

Employees are not always clear as to why something was a mistake, so it's important to explain exactly what went wrong without criticizing. Focus on the problem and don't get personal. Sometimes it's helpful for the manager to admit that he or she made the same mistake in the past.

 

Next, get the employee's perspective on the situation. Ask questions and listen rather than giving orders. The employee may have facts that did not emerge from previous research, so it's important to keep the dialogue open. This is also a time to observe the employee's attitude. Is he or she accepting ownership and open to correcting the problem, or being defensive and trying to avoid responsibility?

 

The reference step may result in one of two outcomes. If the employee relates to the situation, agrees that a mistake was made and is willing to improve, the next three steps are to:

 

a) Restore performance.

Let the employee save face by focusing the conversation on ways to restore accurate, high-level performance. Lay out how the employee should handle similar situations in the future. Make faults seem easy to correct, and create an environment where the employee will be happy about suggestions for improvement.

 

b) Reassure the employee of his or her value to the team as well as the manager's willingness to provide any support necessary.

Reinforce that using the correct way to handle similar situations in the future will lead to certain benefits for the department and the organization and will ensure the employee's longevity with the company. As a result, the employee is likely to leave the meeting with a positive mindset and a strengthened sense of accountability.

 

c) Retain the employee.

Offer coaching, development option and positive reinforcement to maintain performance. Use encouragement, and praise the slightest improvement.

 

In the reference step, the employee may resist. He or she may argue, refuse to take ownership of the mistake, blame others or try to minimize the error. In that case, the manager's next step is to:

 

1. Restate the situation.

Acknowledge the employee's frustration, and then clearly restate that the mistake is not acceptable in the organization. If the employee now relates to the situation, proceed to the reassurance and retention steps.

 

If the employee continues to resist, refuses to take ownership in the mistake and does not accept correction, the next step is to:

 

2. Reprimand.

Use the organization's established series of corrective action steps such as a verbal reprimand followed by a written reprimand.

 

If reprimands do not lead to improvement, proceed to:

 

3. Replace.

Remove the employee from the team, the department or the organization.

 

As managers address mistakes following these guidelines, they can learn a great deal about their team members. They will learn who they can count on in the long term by distinguishing between employees who take responsibility for their actions and welcome suggestions to improve performance, and those employees who walk away from accountability.

 

Mistakes and Morale

 

Handling mistakes improperly has serious adverse effects on employees, managers and organizational morale. When mistakes are overlooked or purposely ignored, top performers begin to doubt the value of good work and lose enthusiasm. On the other hand; when managers overreact to minor mistakes, resistance builds up among employees. They may grow fearful of being the next one on the chopping block or hide mistakes for as long as possible, making correction more difficult. For fear of taking risks, they also may take a wait-and-see attitude, letting opportunities pass by rather than contributing to change initiatives. Even employees whose mistakes are overlooked feel shortchanged. They conclude that the manager doesn't care what they do, and so they won't try as hard to succeed.

 

Further, managers who don't know how to handle mistakes eventually begin to feel helpless, which robs them of their confidence and energy. Mistakes that seem to occur more and more frequently distract them from leveraging all the good work other employees are doing. A manager's failure to address an employee's mistakes expediently also may affect the quality of the entire team's work, and in turn the performance of other teams depending on that work. Further, the manager will gain a reputation for poor leadership, which negatively impacts his or her career opportunities in the organization.

 

Handling mistakes quickly, effectively and consistently, on the other hand, improves morale. Managers who address mistakes properly build rapport with employees and a reputation for fairness and good leadership. Their employees build confidence that when they make a mistake, the manager will be supportive and help them to improve. Additionally, team members will be confident they can bring mistakes, as well as solutions for correcting them, to the manager's attention.

 

By addressing mistakes properly and restoring employees to high performance, managers can build credibility and gather experience in handling tightrope situations smoothly. Perhaps most importantly, managers can gain a reputation for developing employees - from a talent management standpoint, that's something all organizations are looking for today.

 

Managers who handle mistakes with an improvement and development mindset can explore how the organization can train employees or develop better processes to prevent mistakes in the first place. For instance, omitting or shortcutting the new hire on-boarding process can lead to mistakes or worse. "Nearly 15 percent of employees consider quitting after the first day because of a poor initial experience," according to a January 2011 article on Taleo Business Edition's website. "After the time and investment you've spent to find and hire them, you want to ensure that those employees are engaged and feel valued as soon as they begin employment with the company. On-boarding is a set of standard, repeatable processes that reduce costs and deliver an improved new hire experience as well as immediate productivity." Effectively building rapport and setting clear performance standards at the beginning of an individual's employment will aid managers in handling mistakes if they arise later.

 

When the U.S. was building the Panama Canal, John Stevens, who was appointed as the replacement for the chief engineer, met with Frank Maltby and the other division heads. According to David McCullough's book The Path Between the Seas: The Creation of the Panama Canal 1870-1914, Stevens told Maltby, "You won't get fired if you do something, you will if you don't do anything. Do something even if it is wrong, for you can correct that, but there is no way to correct nothing."

 

Stevens understood that handling mistakes well is about correction. Overcorrect, and employees will be so afraid to make mistakes they will do nothing. Undercorrect, and mistakes will multiply and destroy morale. The middle road is a consistent and fair talent management approach that turns mistakes into learning experiences and restores performance.

 

 

[About the Author: Kevin J. Sensenig is vice president and global brand champion for Dale Carnegie & Associates.]