Coaches Eat Bosses for Lunch

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

In our office, "boss" is a four letter word. I hate to judge such a time-honored title given to managers and supervisors--but I must. We only need to look at its official definition to know that it needed to be retired with other ancient workplace terms like "gatekeeper" or "The Man."

The verb form of boss is defined as "to be master of or over; manage; direct; control." I've worked in big and small companies--and have never had someone master over me. Therefore I guess I've never had a boss.

I've had leaders, managers, supervisors, mentors, and coaches. The model for the next generation of organizational leadership is that of "coach". Coaches teach; they help teammates visualize an outcome; they encourage; and coaches manufacture confidence. Bosses only boss.

The boss mindset of talent is a low-leverage strategy. Great leaders define and engage the work of colleagues. But to maximize the contribution of each colleague, the leader needs the full talent of each. And "bossing" merely extends the talent of the boss. It fails to unleash the talent of the bossed.

The Week's Top 10 Employee Survey Comments

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

Dropping open-ended survey comments on a crowd is like a politician wooing voters with tough talk on crime or other unarguable evils. It's red meat. But it's delicious. Here are some sirloin tips we saw this week. As always, these are actual, unedited comments submitted by employees during an employee engagement survey.

1. WAY TOO MANY chiefs here!
2. The company consistently aims high for it's goals, but aims low for how to increase employee satisfaction.
   
3. Es el mejor trabajo que he tenido en la vida y tengo al mejor de los jefes y me gustaría seguir siendo parte de esta excelente empresa.
   
4. Fewer secrets and rumor control would help decrease distractions.
   
5. The management teams actions show that the company is still first and foremost a people company. 
   
6. As a newer employee, I can't say enough great things about my experience. The people I have as coworkers and superiors have been excellent resources and mentors as I get my foundation. 
   
7. This is by far the most irresponsibly run business I have ever seen.
   
8. The biggest problem I see within this organization is their is no accountability for employees nor management.
   
9. personal compensation can be ambiguous at times
   
10. My manager is flexible and since he has a family he understands the importance of family time. I really appreciate that.
    

Wall Street Stinks at Identifying Great CEOs

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

Monday had to be a bad day for Thorsten Heins. The night before, Research in Motion (maker of BlackBerry) announced their co-CEOs were stepping down and the Board placed Mr. Heins (then COO) in the driver seat.

Wall Street must have liked this news before the market opened Monday morning. Pre-market trading activity was bidding the stock up as much as 8%. Then Mr. Heins hosted his first conference call to the investment community. Ten minutes into the call, the stock switched directions after Mr. Heins made it clear that he had no plans to bring "seismic change" to the company. The stock finished down 8.8% for the day. Apparently investors were hungry for something "seismic".

Footnote: Sam Palimasono made a similar statement after becoming CEO of IBM in 2002. In a media interview, he poo-pooed the idea of bringing a vastly different strategic plan to the company. Investors were underwhelmed and the stock burped for a few weeks. Ten years later, shareholders were handsomely rewarded.

For BlackBerry loyalists, there's hope. New research published by James Citrin claims the first day stock reaction to new CEOs are poor predictors of company success during full CEO tenure. After reviewing 314 companies with CEO transitions between 2004 and 2009, Citrin concluded there's almost no relationship between initial stock market reaction to a CEO and longer term performance.

In fact, the slight relationship that existed was inverse. In other words, stocks that reacted negatively on the first day of a CEO appointment slightly outperformed the companies that experienced upticks on day one. And he added that stocks which had the biggest one day upticks (5% or more) had the lowest ratio of long-term winners to losers.

To be clear, I'm not making a case for RIMM or its long term prospects. I merely found this data to further demonstrate that Wall Street's best and brightest seem to have ZERO advantage when it comes to sizing up the potential of CEO talent. They try. But it turns out the numbers and models they're most comfortable with are rear-view mirror analytics. CEO transitions are about the forward looking properties of talent and potential.

This reality creates a giant opportunity for talent management and assessment companies. Leadership assessments, engagement metrics, and culture evaluations are examples of big data opportunities to quantify and predict future performance.

The Week's Top 10 Employee Survey Comments

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

The end of the year is a perfect time to reflect on the best and the worst that our humanity has to offer. Below is a collection of actual comments captured in employee engagement surveys this week. As always, these are unedited.

1. Wait - ''I feel I can share my opinions openly with my manager without fear of reprisal." ???Are you JOKING?   I can't ask a question without being made to feel like a fool!   Give me a break.  I don't have enough time in the day or space in this box to talk about this BUM.
2. I find that the organization promotes unity and family. The organization has also recently taken action to promote better health.
3. Management really needs to get control of the people that are not working like they should (if they like it or not)....just do your job and stop wasting so much time socializing thoughout the office.
4. Too strict on tardiness and stuff in hard times when there are no raises.
5. Long tenured employees appear to experience a significant drop in self-esteem which, eventually, levels off to a sort of acceptance of their situation and treatment.
   
6. My Manager is immature, spiteful if she's upset with you, holds a grudge at times and will not speak, shows favortism, lacks accounting skills and principals, lacks professional management skills.
   
7. With the recession in full effect, pay is no longer the main complaint of the employees.
   
8. Do not treat employees as replacable cogs. While ineffective employees must be addressed, causing unneeded uncertainty just to 'shake things up' is unproductive.
9. We have great benefits which I am thankful for. 
   
10. Bring back some of our lost benefits (number 9 and 10 are two employees from the same company)

Best Places Guest Blog: QLI’s Six Fundamentals to a Strong Mentoring Program

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

This is a guest post by Dr. Kim Hoogeveen, founder of Quality Living, Inc. (QLI), the nation’s largest specialized care provider for people with traumatic brain and spinal cord injuries. QLI has been honored as the Best Place To Work in Omaha every time it has participated—an impressive record, especially in an industry not known for producing high-performance cultures.

QLI’s culture serves as strong evidence that a healthy culture leads to hard business outcomes: a turnover rate one-fifth the industry average, remarkable customer satisfaction, and healthy financial returns.

Dr. Hoogeveen is no longer involved in QLI’s day-to-day operations, but the culture he embedded there continues to thrive. As part of our ongoing effort to shine a light on the practices of our Best Places To Work honorees, Dr. Hoogeveen shared a bit about QLI’s unique mentoring program.

-Phil Haussler

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The unique culture at QLI has been built on what we refer to as our Seven Principles of Leadership^©, principles that lie at the core of our extensive leadership program, MindSet^®.

Principle Three assures all staff members that their company will work diligently to see that they become more successful at work and in life. One part of living up to that commitment at QLI is how we operate our structured mentoring program. (Note that we distinguish this from spontaneous mentoring opportunities that occur every day throughout our company. Here we are considering a systematic process we operate to facilitate employee growth.)

Several elements are necessary for the implementation of a successful, structured mentoring program. The MindSet approach used at QLI is a complex process that involves what we believe to be high-level leadership insights. It requires an investment of time and effort to both learn and to implement our approach, but we believe the payback to our company is significant in many regards and are surprised that few companies seem to be invested in such a process.

A few of the core fundamentals include:

1. You must identify individuals who have the prerequisite willingness and skill sets to serve as an effective mentor. Unfortunately, some who lack the skills will eagerly express a willingness to serve. Avoid the temptation to allow them to mentor; instead first offer to teach them how to grow a mentee. At QLI, we often see the benefit of using MindSet to first train the trainers.
2. Good mentor programs have the ability to identify those who are ready and eager to grow. At QLI, we use MindSet concepts to find those individuals who will benefit from this opportunity. It is important to note that many who will benefit the most are unlikely to initiate their participation in such a program; you will often need to recruit them to the opportunity!
3. There are many learning techniques a mentor can use to help a mentee grow and develop. It is often helpful to make sure mentors consider all of the available teaching methods to maximize the impact of their mentoring relationship. Again, this requires both initial training and ongoing support for your mentors.
4. Mentoring is not a structured friendship; it is a relationship that is established to accelerate the growth of one of the parties. As such, develop well-defined learning goals for the mentoring experience. It is often helpful to have input on these goals from others in the company who know the potential of the mentee AND the strengths of the mentor. The clearer objectives are stipulated; the more effective both parties can be in the relationship.
5. Good mentors see themselves as conductors—not single teachers. This means good mentors will utilize the knowledge and experience of others to help develop their mentees.
6. Mentoring relationships should be for a defined amount of time—a time period that can be extended if progress is still being made and both parties feel it is worthwhile to continue. But having an end date helps the parties focus their time and gives each a graceful way to disengage. Structured mentoring relationships should stop when objectives have been met or when additional meetings seem nonproductive. If a mentoring session ever feels like it is awkward to find a topic and the meeting is only being held because it was on the schedule, it is time to call it good and end the mentoring relationship.

Great companies are populated by employees who are happier and more committed to their company because they have the all-too-rare opportunity to be part of an organization that is genuinely committed to their success. There are literally scores of things a company must do to deliver on that objective, but a high quality, structured mentoring program is a very good place to start.

*To learn more about Dr. Hoogeveen’s approach to mentoring or his broader leadership framework, MindSet, visit www.mindset360.com.

Best Employee Comments of the Week: 11-11-11

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

Performing 5000 employee surveys every year brings out the best and the worst in employee feedback. Below are a few open-ended comments submitted in real surveys this week. These are unedited.

1. I have worked here for just over a year, and going through the recruiting process in college - the firm has proven that everyone it said it was is real. I love working for this firm and with the people on my team. My experiences have been diverse, challenging, and engaging, which is all I can ask for in a career. I feel like my contributions make a difference and that all opinions matter - no matter what level you are at.
2. My organization promotes a culture built on open communication and continuous learning.
3. Different chairs for different spine types.
4. [Name deleted] is focussed on business clothing a little too much.
5. Managers knows everyones name - and something personal about them - that's awesome! Makes everyone feel important.
6. Don't make people feel like there's someone waiting right out the door to take your place if you don't like something about the company.
7. Modern environment. Celebrates success. Addresses needs.
8. Need ventilated smoking area, so that the non smokers are not having to be so smelly.
9. Establish a strategic plan. We have goals as a company, but no plan on how to achieve the targets.
10. Stop treating grown adults like children. I treat my children with more respect than the respect received here. It is not WHAT you know it is WHO you know that helps you get ahead.

Leadership Crossfires

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

No Hero in the Land of Gyro

Greece has been headlining business news for much of 2011. Despite only being the 32nd largest in the world, its debt load and entanglement with other European economies places Greece at the center of a global financial mess.

Tuesday, Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou caught the world off guard. Only five days after an agreement was reached with all European Union leaders to provide Greece with bailout cash in exchange for budget reductions, Papandreou announced that he was putting the rescue agreement to a public vote.

World markets were freaked out and confused. Stunning, yes. But there isn't anything confusing about it. Papandreou reacted in a classic example of leadership crossfire.

Since Papandreou came to power two years ago, EU leadership has put pressure on him to balance Greece's budget. Austerity was the new normal for most European countries following the financial crisis of 2008. But the public in Greece was firing from the other direction. Several budget reduction plans were passed. And at each passing, segments of disgruntled Greek citizens protested in the streets—some of which turned violent.

Therein lies the crossfire. Papandreou was balancing the external pressure for Greece to get spending and debt under control with the internal pressure from the public who was crying "uncle." Papandreou knows that budget reductions are mission critical. They were the basis of his campaign two years ago. But he also knows executive decisions that move against the collective will of the people can breed their own forms of chaos.

The Leadership Crossfire

Caught in the crossfire, Papandreou ducked for shelter. Forcing the Greek people to vote on the rescue measures is his way of saying to his electorate, "get behind this plan as our last chance at staying solvent or YOU'LL be responsible for our bankruptcy."

What do leaders do when choosing between two bad options? Management journals and case studies almost always analyze the decisions of leaders with the benefit of hindsight. With hindsight vision always so clear, decisions often appear to be choices between a good and bad. Or effective versus ineffective. Or safe versus risky. But in the forward-looking reality of leadership decision-making, those decisions are more often: good versus better, bad versus worse, and risky versus mega risky.

The Leader-Follower Paradox

Knowing the thoughts and feelings of your followers is a sacred commandment of leadership. Whether you're an elected official, a CEO, or an HR executive, the collective intelligence of those under your command is smarter than you. Chill out; it's true.

Our firm is in the business of measuring employee engagement. Everyday, we see the fruits of companies that make employee feedback central to their culture. You could say we're invested in the idea of seeking the input of followers in executive decision making.

But seeking follower input does not mean that the job of the leader is to always make decisions based on majority vote of the followers. Leaders need to know what they're up against in terms of follower sentiment. But follower opposition is not enough reason to change a decision or a strategic path.

Engaging followers is a tug-of-war between casting vision and cross-checking that vision against the collective intelligence and will of followers. Stop thinking that some leaders are such brilliant visionaries and that followers naturally and consistently bow to his or her decisions. At best, that notion is fantasy. At worst, it's dangerous. (Think about the origin of the phrase "Drinking the Kool-Aid.")

Leadership is different than power. Power is the authority to act without anyone else's permission. Leadership is knowing when to exert power and when to assign power to others. Therein lies the essence of great leadership. Sometimes the best leaders execute the collective will of their followers. Other times, they act and work diligently to persuade followers to suspend the individual interests to support the cause. But in both instances, discerning the collective will of the people and the root causes of that sentiment come first.

This happens when heads of state battle over budgets. It happens when corporate leaders communicate strategy. It also happens when middle managers set timelines that followers deem too aggressive. 

One of the single greatest skills of the leader is the discernment to know when to lead the people and when to follow the people. Unfortunately for Papandreou, choosing to follow the people in a moment of crisis puts his nation's economic and political future at risk.

Leadership crossfires call for resolute and decisive action. Lying down (like Papandreou did) only increases odds of casualties.

For additional insight about the role of employee input in executive decision-making, join us November 16 for a free webinar.

In other news, the term "Russian Roulette" is now called "Greek Roulette."

What Pro Football Can Teach Us About Succession Planning

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

What’s pro football got to do with talent management?

• Where else can you watch office politics and ego play out in the public square? Every press conference and every locker room interview are another chance for your talent, ownership, or senior executive to stick their foot in their mouths.
• Where else can you so accurately quantify competency? You’ve got an automatic performance review in every Monday edition of the sports section.
• Where else do you get such radical transparency about comp and benefits?
• Where else can you watch how competency (past results) and potential (a collective best guess at future performance) mix to impact the war for talent?
• Where else is succession planning for key roles so critical? 

Consider this example: We got a big dose of all this magic when the Oakland Raiders (4-2) picked up a pseudo-retired Carson Palmer from the Cincinnati Bengals this week. Here’s the Cliff’s Notes version (or read the full story here):

1. Oakland Raiders’ quarterback, Jason Campbell injured his collarbone this past weekend.
2. The Raiders—at four wins, two losses, and desperate to win—didn’t like their succession options: Kyle Boller (who hasn’t started a game since 2009) or rookie Terrelle Pryor. Despite Boller’s $1.25 million annual salary and Pryor’s $375,000, Raiders coach Hue Jackson stated publicly, “If you’re a quarterback out there and want to come play for the Raiders, give us a call.” Ahem… very subtle, coach.
3. The Raiders decided to pursue Carson Palmer, the 2002 Heisman winner who at the time was AWOL from the Cincinnati Bengals. (Palmer had demanded a trade this past offseason, but the Bengals declined. Demonstrating questionable maturity, Palmer decided he’d just as soon not show up as play for the Bengals despite an ongoing, lucrative contract.)
4. The day of the trade deadline, the Bengals agreed to trade Palmer. In return for Palmer, the Raiders gave Cincinnati their 2012 first round pick AND their 2013 first or second round pick, contingent upon Palmer’s performance.

In other words, the Oakland Raiders paid a VERY hefty price tag for a semi-retired, former-standout with dubious performance over the past few years. Note that, prior to this trade, Oakland had already given away their 2012 second, third, and fourth round draft picks. (Yes, you read that right: The Raiders will not have ANY picks in the first four rounds of the 2012 draft.)

Why? A lack of planning.

In the NFL, is there any position as critical, or as injury-prone, as the quarterback? No. There was really no good excuse for going into, “If you’re a quarterback, call us…” mode the day after the Raiders’ quarterback went down. Every NFL team should have a quarterback successor waiting in the wings.

Granted, we cannot read the future. Maybe this will go down as the shrewdest move in sports history. But I doubt it. Even if the Raiders go on to win the Super Bowl (fat chance), they’ve mortgaged their future to do so.

What talent management lessons can we learn from this theater of the absurd?

• If you don’t have a succession plan in place for your key players, consider fixing that situation ASAP.
• If you choose to ignore succession planning, expect to overpay when your quarterback goes down.

Want to learn more about common Succession Planning mistakes? Sign up for a free webinar.

Leadership Secret: Fake It ‘Til You Make It

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

A mentor shared the following story with me:

“I was at a luncheon with 50 other CEOs and company Presidents. The speaker, a well-known leadership expert, asked the group, ‘How many of you feel like an imposter at times?’ I looked around the room and 100% of these leaders had their hands in the air.”

Imposter, a person who pretends to be somebody else: 100%! Not half, not three-quarters, every single one of them raised their hand.

Wait, aren’t leaders supposed to “know the way, go the way, show the way”? What happens when they don’t know the way?

Sounds like maybe…they fake it.

‘Faking it’ is different than lying

I’m not suggesting great leaders make a habit of lying. We know that true leaders are typically radically honest.

I’m merely wondering if there’s a different kind of faking it, a good kind of faking it.

The reality is this: Most people struggle with self-doubt at times. If leadership is truly about “seeing the future” and most sane individuals know we have, at best, a batter’s odds of seeing the future perfectly, then it’s natural for leaders to doubt themselves now and then.

So when self-doubt creeps up, how do leaders cope? I suspect that “feeling like an imposter” is simply the feeling you get when you’re “pushing through self-doubt.”

Think of Churchill. When Britain stood alone against the Nazis, he must have doubted. But battle after battle, when Britain was on the brink, he always projected pure confidence.

Faking it and body chemistry

The Harvard Business School has done some interesting research on the power our body language has over our influence. The research says that faking it (by holding our posture in ‘high-power’ poses) stimulates testosterone, the hormone linked to power and dominance, and lowers levels of cortisol, the stress hormone.  

So next time the voices in your head remind you that “You can’t read the future,” remind the voices, “No, but my odds are as good anybody else’s.” Then, strike your best Hulk Hogan pose; and fake it ‘til you make it.

Talent Management, Timing and Placing Bets

 Email Article  

Tweet  

  

By definition, being early takes patience. I'm not talking about being early to lunch lines or cocktail parties. I'm talking about picking and managing talent.

In the summer of 2009, I re-connected with a high school friend. He was coming through town on the Nationwide professional golf tour. The Nationwide Tour is one level below the PGA Tour. Top money winners on Nationwide get a PGA Tour card for the next year. His name was Steve Friesen.

I was surprised when I learned that Steve was chasing the pro-golfer dream. In high school, I knew Steve as a freaky smart kid. He was the kind of student that was taking classes at the University while still in high school. I expected him to be designing rocket fuselages or founding tech companies in Silicon Valley. But the sacrifice he was making to pursue golf intrigued me.

A few conversations later, I offered Steve a sponsorship deal to put the Quantum Workplace logo on his visor. [Being a young, private company, "sponsorship" amounts to enough cash to get Steve's Honda around the country for a season.] My goal was to place a bet. I wanted to put my chips on an up-and-comer. I wanted the chance to look back after Steve wins a big tournament and say, "that's our guy!"

That bet paid off this year. Friesen won his first major Nationwide Tour event. That win elevated him to 27th on the money list--and greatly improves his shot at the PGA Tour next year.

I was early. Two years, an injury, and a handful of missed cuts separated the initial sponsorship and the first win. But isn't that how placing bets on talent always goes?

No matter how impeccable the pedigree of a new hire is--you are gambling when you send that offer letter. You can improve your odds with quantitative selection assessments. But you're still working with odds. You don't know if the candidate is as awesome as she thinks. You don't know if your company is as awesome as you promised it would be. And you don't know what variables will be introduced post-hire that will change each person's perspective of judging success.

It's a gamble. And it's fun. I'm convinced true gamblers aren't drawn to making money--they play the game because they want to be right. And talent managers are no different. People tasked with attracting and retaining talent evaluate many investment opportunities; place some bets; then track those bets to see how "right" they were.

Where the metaphor fails is the "management" portion of talent management. Gamblers don't have the luxury of nurturing their bets once they've been made. As if sportsbetting wasn't ignoble enough, even its enthusiasts frown upon outside efforts to influence contest results (e.g. bribing officials). Talent managers, on the other hand, have responsibilities after the bet to increase odds of success. The tools of their trade are development, leadership, feedback and environment.

The more I learned about the pro golf world, the more parallels I saw with talent management. Congratulations Steve Friesen! Finish the season strong. We'll need a block of tickets to the Masters in April.