How to Seriously Motivate People
By Steve Tobak | September 15, 2010
In the early 80s, corporate America got tired of Japan Inc. kicking its butt all over the place and decided to get quality. My company, Texas Instruments, made a big commitment to quality by sending every engineer to a week-long Juran training class.
The most important thing I learned and the only thing I still remember to this day, which shows how impactful it was, is that the vast majority of workplace problems are actually management problems. While that statement was meant to be about improving quality, to me, it’s always had a broader meaning.
I’ve always thought of it as an axiom for improving all kinds of management and organizational systems … including how to motivate employees.
Now, some people just aren’t cut out for the work they do. They hate their jobs, their coworkers, even themselves. Others act like children dressed up as men and women. There will always be some percentage of any population, including your group, that’s difficult or impossible to motivate.
If you’ve done your best and they still don’t get it, get rid of them. If for some reason you’re prevented from doing that, what can I tell you; you’re screwed. Barring that torturous situation, most people want to work and will work hard if they feel that …
* their work is appreciated, recognized, and challenging;
* they’re compensated appropriately;
* their management is competent, hard working, and doesn’t have its hand in the cookie jar, more or less.
And guess what? It’s entirely up to you, the manager, to provide an environment that will meet those conditions. It isn’t easy, but then, you’ve got to ask yourself what kind of manager you want to be? If the answer’s a great one, you’ll need these 10 techniques for seriously motivating your people:
1. Exhibit flawless work ethic. Lead by example. If you screw around, they’ll emulate you. Likewise, if you’re seriously hard-working, they’ll seek your approval by doing the same.
2. Indoctrinate them with the big picture. Everybody wants to be a part of something useful. Make the work important to them by telling them why it’s important to others.
3. Set goals and hold them accountable. Goal setting in most companies is ineffective. It’s either too top down, too bottom up, or there’s little or no follow-up. Strike a balance somewhere in the middle. Where is different for each situation.
4. Provide genuine, real-time feedback, good and bad, no BS. Ask for the same from them. This is one of the hardest things for any manager to do, especially the negative stuff.
5. Promote their accomplishments and take the heat for their failures. They need to know you’ve got their back.
6. Provide the tools they need to be effective; keep management off their backs; otherwise, get out of the way.
7. Give them as much responsibility as they can handle, no more, no less. That’s sort of tricky if you have a big group because it’s really an individual thing.
8. Communicate what’s going on as openly as you can within reason and without unduly burdening them with confidential information they don’t need to know.
9. Give them personal time to get important things done. We’re not talking about running errands, but important stuff that’s got to be done 9 to 5 like doctor’s appointments.
10. Have some empathy, humility, and a sense of humor. It’ll go a long way. Mostly, be yourself. No jokes about sociopaths; they probably don’t read management blogs anyway.
That’s it; now go out and motivate somebody!
MY THOUGHTS
while i agree that no matter what you do there are just some people who cannot be motivated, there is that issue of top management support. if you have the right people, motivating them is a breeze. you just need to make sure they always have something to work for. (take note that i said 'for' and not 'on') when you have the wrong people, nothing you do will seem to work. but that's not the real problem.
the real problem when you have problem employees is when you do not have top management support to make things work. it's like banging yourself on a wall. and you end up the bad guy, your problem staff your victim.
beware the 'victims'. you won't believe the things they would do to 'axe' the 'bad guy'. and when they have the management support then Steve Tobak is right - you are so screwed.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Can you be a Leader and a Manager?
Are You a Leader or a Manager? Marcus Buckingham Says You Can't Be Both
By Donna Fenn | November 1, 2010
Last week, I had the pleasure of hearing Marcus Buckingham speak at the Inc. Magazine and Winning Workplaces Leadership Conference and I learned two things: everything sounds smarter when spoken in a British accent; leadership is the opposite of management. “Very few of you will be very, very good at both,” Buckingham told the audience of CEOs. All companies need both managers and leaders, of course, and Buckingham insists that there’s no hierarchy involved in the distinction. Both the roles are fundamentally different. Which one are you?
A manager’s role, he explained, is to get people to work harder for you than they would for someone else by identifying individual strengths and weaknesses and turning that into performance. A leader, on the other hand, must rally people to a better future by tapping into universal characteristics that transcend differences such as sex, race, and personality type. And Buckingham says the most powerful trait that we all have in common is our fear of the unknown; it’s why we ritualize death, after all. “Modern day leaders traffic in the unknown,” says Buckingham. Their challenge is to “take people’s legitimate anxiety about the unknown and turn it into confidence, into spiritedness.” That, he says, ultimately drives a company’s performance.
But how do you accomplish that? The best way, says Buckingham is to be “vivid” - a word I heard a lot at the conference, so I’m thinking that perhaps “vivid” is the new “authentic.” In other words, leaders need to be very clear about what they are asking their followers (aka employees) to do. Buckingham insists that all effective leaders need to clear about four key points:
Who do we serve? At Lexus, for instance, dealers are king and the company is aligned around serving their needs so that they can better serve customers and ultimately sell more cars. At the retail giant Tesco, everything revolves around serving harried housewives, and getting them in and out of the store quickly. Companies that try to serve too many audiences serve none well, cautions Buckingham, so pick just one.
What is our core strength? Maybe you think your company excels in many areas. But according to Buckingham, a truly effective leader aligns the company to capitalize on one key strength and then works every day to make that strength even stronger to give the company a competitive edge. At Facebook, the company’s core strength is its engineers. “The whole company is built around making engineers think that this is the best place for them to work,” says Buckingham.
What is our core score? Pick a number or metric by which you define success. It doesn’t even have to be the right number because according to Buckingham, being clear is even more important than being right. For instance, in order to change the culture of Her Majesty’s prison system, Buckingham notes that several years ago Sir David Ramsbotham, who was then in charge the prisons, changed the way the system measured success. Rather than simply measuring the number of escapees, he shifted the focus to number of repeat offenders. The main purpose of a prison, he reasoned, should be to serve the prisoner in such a way that he or she would be less likely to commit another crime upon release. That shift resulted in the transformation of the British prison system.
What actions can we take today? Early on in his tenure, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was fixated on enforcing “quality of life” initiatives that New Yorkers either loved or hated. He vowed to crack down on the squeegee men who forcibly cleaned car windshields at red lights then demanded payment; he worked to get rid of all graffiti in the subway system; and he compelled every cab driver to wear a collared shirt. Whether or not you think these were appropriate actions to take, they were unambiguous and their success helped establish Giuliani as an effective leader.
What do you think about Marcus Buckingham’s definition of leaders and managers? Do you think you can be good at both? Do you think his four points of clarity can make you a better leader?
MY THOUGHTS
i think you can be both. actually, you should be both. the key is in knowing when to use which.
managing (since yourjob is to make people work) involves the nitty gritty. that means looking at details, zeroing in on a problem and actually dipping your finger into finding the solutions. in other words, managers are the ones involved in the process of making things work.
leaders on the other hand hate 'process'. leadership is all about vision. and leaders cannot wait but see the vision being materialized. Buckingham is right - a leader must be vividly clear about the vision. but they will not get into the 'behind the scenes' of getting things done.
as a leader, you cannot do away with managing. after all, you have these managers reporting to you. which means that as a leader, you should also know how to manage. this is the only way for you to gauge if your managers can do and are doing their jobs.
if you do not have the right managers, you will end up micro-managing. that will cloud your vision. so, as a leader, you want to surround yourself with the best managers you can find - managers who can translate the vision into workable strategies. but you want managers who also know how to lead, who knows how to inspire, motivate, rally his people behind him. this is the type of manager who will give you enough time to create visions - because they only need leaders to provide the clear, vivid, motherhood directions. as managers though, they should be able to create their own visions in their own turfs - visions that go hand in hand with your vision. otherwise, you will have a brewing conflict at hand.
Leaders create the path. Managers clear the path. Why can't you be both?
By Donna Fenn | November 1, 2010
Last week, I had the pleasure of hearing Marcus Buckingham speak at the Inc. Magazine and Winning Workplaces Leadership Conference and I learned two things: everything sounds smarter when spoken in a British accent; leadership is the opposite of management. “Very few of you will be very, very good at both,” Buckingham told the audience of CEOs. All companies need both managers and leaders, of course, and Buckingham insists that there’s no hierarchy involved in the distinction. Both the roles are fundamentally different. Which one are you?
A manager’s role, he explained, is to get people to work harder for you than they would for someone else by identifying individual strengths and weaknesses and turning that into performance. A leader, on the other hand, must rally people to a better future by tapping into universal characteristics that transcend differences such as sex, race, and personality type. And Buckingham says the most powerful trait that we all have in common is our fear of the unknown; it’s why we ritualize death, after all. “Modern day leaders traffic in the unknown,” says Buckingham. Their challenge is to “take people’s legitimate anxiety about the unknown and turn it into confidence, into spiritedness.” That, he says, ultimately drives a company’s performance.
But how do you accomplish that? The best way, says Buckingham is to be “vivid” - a word I heard a lot at the conference, so I’m thinking that perhaps “vivid” is the new “authentic.” In other words, leaders need to be very clear about what they are asking their followers (aka employees) to do. Buckingham insists that all effective leaders need to clear about four key points:
Who do we serve? At Lexus, for instance, dealers are king and the company is aligned around serving their needs so that they can better serve customers and ultimately sell more cars. At the retail giant Tesco, everything revolves around serving harried housewives, and getting them in and out of the store quickly. Companies that try to serve too many audiences serve none well, cautions Buckingham, so pick just one.
What is our core strength? Maybe you think your company excels in many areas. But according to Buckingham, a truly effective leader aligns the company to capitalize on one key strength and then works every day to make that strength even stronger to give the company a competitive edge. At Facebook, the company’s core strength is its engineers. “The whole company is built around making engineers think that this is the best place for them to work,” says Buckingham.
What is our core score? Pick a number or metric by which you define success. It doesn’t even have to be the right number because according to Buckingham, being clear is even more important than being right. For instance, in order to change the culture of Her Majesty’s prison system, Buckingham notes that several years ago Sir David Ramsbotham, who was then in charge the prisons, changed the way the system measured success. Rather than simply measuring the number of escapees, he shifted the focus to number of repeat offenders. The main purpose of a prison, he reasoned, should be to serve the prisoner in such a way that he or she would be less likely to commit another crime upon release. That shift resulted in the transformation of the British prison system.
What actions can we take today? Early on in his tenure, New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani was fixated on enforcing “quality of life” initiatives that New Yorkers either loved or hated. He vowed to crack down on the squeegee men who forcibly cleaned car windshields at red lights then demanded payment; he worked to get rid of all graffiti in the subway system; and he compelled every cab driver to wear a collared shirt. Whether or not you think these were appropriate actions to take, they were unambiguous and their success helped establish Giuliani as an effective leader.
What do you think about Marcus Buckingham’s definition of leaders and managers? Do you think you can be good at both? Do you think his four points of clarity can make you a better leader?
MY THOUGHTS
i think you can be both. actually, you should be both. the key is in knowing when to use which.
managing (since yourjob is to make people work) involves the nitty gritty. that means looking at details, zeroing in on a problem and actually dipping your finger into finding the solutions. in other words, managers are the ones involved in the process of making things work.
leaders on the other hand hate 'process'. leadership is all about vision. and leaders cannot wait but see the vision being materialized. Buckingham is right - a leader must be vividly clear about the vision. but they will not get into the 'behind the scenes' of getting things done.
as a leader, you cannot do away with managing. after all, you have these managers reporting to you. which means that as a leader, you should also know how to manage. this is the only way for you to gauge if your managers can do and are doing their jobs.
if you do not have the right managers, you will end up micro-managing. that will cloud your vision. so, as a leader, you want to surround yourself with the best managers you can find - managers who can translate the vision into workable strategies. but you want managers who also know how to lead, who knows how to inspire, motivate, rally his people behind him. this is the type of manager who will give you enough time to create visions - because they only need leaders to provide the clear, vivid, motherhood directions. as managers though, they should be able to create their own visions in their own turfs - visions that go hand in hand with your vision. otherwise, you will have a brewing conflict at hand.
Leaders create the path. Managers clear the path. Why can't you be both?
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Keeping Your High Performers thru COACHING
KEEP YOUR HIGH PERFORMERS THRU COACHING
from "High-Impact Performers For Tough Times: 6 Ways to Keep Them Happy"
By Kelly Goldsmith and Marshall Goldsmith | January 28, 2011
Provide Coaching:
By working one-on-one with employees in a coaching relationship, leaders can discover and tap the talents of individuals and direct their development, align their behaviors and skills, thus becoming active as agents of change, enhancing the success of the organization.
MY THOUGHTS
i hope that's clear - you send your high performers to training that will make them even better - high performers appreciate that. the reason they are high performers is that they keep on learning.
but your job of making high performers stay with you should not stop with sending them to a seminar or a workshop. as a manager, your description will always include coaching - a one-on-one activity which kind of personalizes your attempts to develop an employee. sounds tough! but not really. coaching is as easy as answering questions, guiding your staff on something new, showing them how things are done. it means being there for them when they need your help. and learning when to back off.
from "High-Impact Performers For Tough Times: 6 Ways to Keep Them Happy"
By Kelly Goldsmith and Marshall Goldsmith | January 28, 2011
Provide Coaching:
By working one-on-one with employees in a coaching relationship, leaders can discover and tap the talents of individuals and direct their development, align their behaviors and skills, thus becoming active as agents of change, enhancing the success of the organization.
MY THOUGHTS
i hope that's clear - you send your high performers to training that will make them even better - high performers appreciate that. the reason they are high performers is that they keep on learning.
but your job of making high performers stay with you should not stop with sending them to a seminar or a workshop. as a manager, your description will always include coaching - a one-on-one activity which kind of personalizes your attempts to develop an employee. sounds tough! but not really. coaching is as easy as answering questions, guiding your staff on something new, showing them how things are done. it means being there for them when they need your help. and learning when to back off.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
KEEP YOUR HIGH PERFOMERS WITH TRAINING
OFFER ON-GOING TRAINING
from the article "High-Impact Performers For Tough Times: 6 Ways to Keep Them Happy"
By Kelly Goldsmith and Marshall Goldsmith | January 28, 2011
Offer On-Going Training:
High on the list for leaders who want to retain high-impact performers is training and on-going education, both of which ensure that people can
1) do their jobs properly, and
2) can improve on existing systems.
Cross training — giving people the opportunity to experience and train in different aspects of the company — is a great way to cross-fertilize between departments and across regions. This is a great competitive advantage when organizations are required to cut back on manpower. Cross-trained employees are equipped to handle different functions in the organization far more easily than those confined in silos.
MY THOUGHTS
sometimes you get lucky and find people who do not need training at all - they are excellent and they keep on getting better and better because they train themselves. that's rare. and these ideal employees will probably still look for an employer who will invest on him/her.
in this country,cross-training is also hardly ever used. except probably in multinationals and highly progressive local companies. in fact, training is not really a priority in a lot of our businesses. it is seen as an expense rather than as investment. no wonder high performers are hard to come by. and we wonder why this country is stuck somewhere between 'developed' and 'underdeveloped'.
from the article "High-Impact Performers For Tough Times: 6 Ways to Keep Them Happy"
By Kelly Goldsmith and Marshall Goldsmith | January 28, 2011
Offer On-Going Training:
High on the list for leaders who want to retain high-impact performers is training and on-going education, both of which ensure that people can
1) do their jobs properly, and
2) can improve on existing systems.
Cross training — giving people the opportunity to experience and train in different aspects of the company — is a great way to cross-fertilize between departments and across regions. This is a great competitive advantage when organizations are required to cut back on manpower. Cross-trained employees are equipped to handle different functions in the organization far more easily than those confined in silos.
MY THOUGHTS
sometimes you get lucky and find people who do not need training at all - they are excellent and they keep on getting better and better because they train themselves. that's rare. and these ideal employees will probably still look for an employer who will invest on him/her.
in this country,cross-training is also hardly ever used. except probably in multinationals and highly progressive local companies. in fact, training is not really a priority in a lot of our businesses. it is seen as an expense rather than as investment. no wonder high performers are hard to come by. and we wonder why this country is stuck somewhere between 'developed' and 'underdeveloped'.
Friday, February 18, 2011
CREATE A THRIVING ENVIRONMENT for high performers
FOCUS ON A THRIVING ENVIRONMENT
from the article "High-Impact Performers For Tough Times: 6 Ways to Keep Them Happy"
By Kelly Goldsmith and Marshall Goldsmith | January 28, 2011
Focus on a Thriving Environment:
You need more than the fad-of-the-month leadership development program to create an environment in which high-impact performers want to stay and will put their all into an organization. You need an environment where people are learning, getting training, and developing their skills-where through inquiry and dialogue, the leader creates an environment that allows each individual to thrive.
MY THOUGHTS
now, that's the kind of environment i will always thrive in. an environment i've always wanted to help create. the sad part, not everybody appreciates it. for some people, it's enough to coast along, sit idly, like nails that need hammers to be useful. they get the paycheck anyway. not my cup of tea.
from the article "High-Impact Performers For Tough Times: 6 Ways to Keep Them Happy"
By Kelly Goldsmith and Marshall Goldsmith | January 28, 2011
Focus on a Thriving Environment:
You need more than the fad-of-the-month leadership development program to create an environment in which high-impact performers want to stay and will put their all into an organization. You need an environment where people are learning, getting training, and developing their skills-where through inquiry and dialogue, the leader creates an environment that allows each individual to thrive.
MY THOUGHTS
now, that's the kind of environment i will always thrive in. an environment i've always wanted to help create. the sad part, not everybody appreciates it. for some people, it's enough to coast along, sit idly, like nails that need hammers to be useful. they get the paycheck anyway. not my cup of tea.
SHOW RESPECT
Keep High Performers: SHOW RESPECT
from the article: High-Impact Performers For Tough Times: 6 Ways to Keep Them Happy
By Kelly Goldsmith and Marshall Goldsmith | January 28, 2011
SHOW RESPECT
This may seem obvious, but it can’t be done by rote. Genuinely treating employees with kindness, respect, and dignity will elicit loyalty to both the leader and the organization. It is possible to lead people through fear and intimidation; however, the odds of retaining and developing people using this style are slim.
MY THOUGHTS
genuine kindness. genuine respect. if your feigning kindness and respect to build loyalty to you, you're in for some big surprises. you will get what you deserve.
from the article: High-Impact Performers For Tough Times: 6 Ways to Keep Them Happy
By Kelly Goldsmith and Marshall Goldsmith | January 28, 2011
SHOW RESPECT
This may seem obvious, but it can’t be done by rote. Genuinely treating employees with kindness, respect, and dignity will elicit loyalty to both the leader and the organization. It is possible to lead people through fear and intimidation; however, the odds of retaining and developing people using this style are slim.
MY THOUGHTS
genuine kindness. genuine respect. if your feigning kindness and respect to build loyalty to you, you're in for some big surprises. you will get what you deserve.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
WAYS TO KEEP HIGH PERFORMERS
WAYS TO KEEP HIGH PERFORMERS
from the article "High-Impact Performers For Tough Times: 6 Ways to Keep Them Happy"
By Kelly Goldsmith and Marshall Goldsmith | January 28, 2011
Talent is never out of fashion. But high-impact performers are in demand now more than ever. We’re speaking here of those indispensible workers who will do what it takes to help your company succeed even in the most difficult and fast-paced of times.
They’re the staffers who pick up the slack when the organization is forced to cut back, whose ideas save time, money, and effort, and whose positive outlook helps keep the organization moving forward.
How do you retain these people? This is a great question and the answer is simple. Leaders must manage their human assets (i.e., employees), and they must do so with the same vigor that they devote to financial assets. Tough economic times may put more talent on the market. But it also requires investing in people, no matter how difficult; it is critical for the success of the organization.
MY THOUGHTS
unfortunately, the high performers are the ones who would mostly likely 'fly the coop'. they are the ones who have places to go. the article suggests 6 ways leaders should do so they are not left with the mediocre, inefficient workforce who stay because no one else will hire them:
1) Show Respect
2) Focus on a Thriving Environment
3) Offer On-Going Training
4) Provide Coaching
5) Give Feedback
6) $$ and Decision-Making
from the article "High-Impact Performers For Tough Times: 6 Ways to Keep Them Happy"
By Kelly Goldsmith and Marshall Goldsmith | January 28, 2011
Talent is never out of fashion. But high-impact performers are in demand now more than ever. We’re speaking here of those indispensible workers who will do what it takes to help your company succeed even in the most difficult and fast-paced of times.
They’re the staffers who pick up the slack when the organization is forced to cut back, whose ideas save time, money, and effort, and whose positive outlook helps keep the organization moving forward.
How do you retain these people? This is a great question and the answer is simple. Leaders must manage their human assets (i.e., employees), and they must do so with the same vigor that they devote to financial assets. Tough economic times may put more talent on the market. But it also requires investing in people, no matter how difficult; it is critical for the success of the organization.
MY THOUGHTS
unfortunately, the high performers are the ones who would mostly likely 'fly the coop'. they are the ones who have places to go. the article suggests 6 ways leaders should do so they are not left with the mediocre, inefficient workforce who stay because no one else will hire them:
1) Show Respect
2) Focus on a Thriving Environment
3) Offer On-Going Training
4) Provide Coaching
5) Give Feedback
6) $$ and Decision-Making
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
A FORK-IN-THE-ROAD
A Fork-in-the-Road Question
Daily Inspiration
By John H. Sklare, Ed.D, LifeScript Personal Coach
Published May 13, 2009
We all have to make tough choices occasionally. As life teaches us constantly, each choice we make has consequences attached to it. It reminds me of that old physics equation by Sir Isaac Newton called the Third Law of Motion, which states: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It’s that equal and opposite reaction that gets a lot of people into trouble regarding the choices they make. With that said, I suggest you consider this question before making any important decision.
Is the money you make worth the price that you pay? This question is actually from an old song by Graham Nash called “On the Line.” Asking myself this question always gives me perspective and helps me gain focus when confronted with a fork-in-the-road moment in life. In other words, is the consequence or result of my choice worth the benefit that I receive on the front end? It works for me every time!
Wishing You Great Health,
Dr. John H. Sklare
www.innerdiet.com
MY THOUGHTS
sometimes we wish we never have to come across those forks. and when we get to them, we avoid them. and the forks just keep on coming. i think the best decision makers are those who take a hold of those forks. sometimes they win. sometimes they miss. but they never avoid the fork.
Daily Inspiration
By John H. Sklare, Ed.D, LifeScript Personal Coach
Published May 13, 2009
We all have to make tough choices occasionally. As life teaches us constantly, each choice we make has consequences attached to it. It reminds me of that old physics equation by Sir Isaac Newton called the Third Law of Motion, which states: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It’s that equal and opposite reaction that gets a lot of people into trouble regarding the choices they make. With that said, I suggest you consider this question before making any important decision.
Is the money you make worth the price that you pay? This question is actually from an old song by Graham Nash called “On the Line.” Asking myself this question always gives me perspective and helps me gain focus when confronted with a fork-in-the-road moment in life. In other words, is the consequence or result of my choice worth the benefit that I receive on the front end? It works for me every time!
Wishing You Great Health,
Dr. John H. Sklare
www.innerdiet.com
MY THOUGHTS
sometimes we wish we never have to come across those forks. and when we get to them, we avoid them. and the forks just keep on coming. i think the best decision makers are those who take a hold of those forks. sometimes they win. sometimes they miss. but they never avoid the fork.
WHEN NOT TO DELEGATE
When Not to Delegate
By Sean Silverthorne | February 7, 2011
One of the accepted rules of 21st century managers is that we must delegate. Empower your troops closest to the customer to make crucial decisions. Give them the chance to show what they’ve got.
But I wonder if we sometimes overdo this wise advice, expecting that redirecting a job is as easy as changing the channel with a remote. Are we setting up middle managers for failure when we hold them accountable for decisions they aren’t prepared to make? Are we handing off responsibilities that should stay with us? HBR blogger Whitey Johnson had similar thoughts recently, and developed three reasons you shouldn’t delegate.
I’ll summarize her three rules, and add one of my own.
Don’t delegate when:
1. The task has not been thought through. If you can’t explain the task and the goals in concrete terms, then you have more work to do before handing it off to someone else to accomplish.
2. You are the best person for the job. If it’s something you know well and can add real value to, do it yourself.
3. You could learn from making the decision yourself. The best learning comes from doing, so don’t shortchange your own development by letting others take your place.
I think there is a fourth reason not to delegate: You can’t find someone to reward. Delegating a responsibility should be considered an honor for the recipient, a time to practice what they have learned and create a real accomplishment. If no one on your team buys into the responsibility you are bestowing or has shown enough skill to deserve a chance, the job should remain on your plate.
Looking back on your own advancement, did you ever delegate a job that came back to bite you? On the flip side, did a boss give you a responsibility that became a real career-enhancer?
MY THOUGHTS
if i am not mistaken, management is defined as "achieving results through others". i take this definition to mean that, as a manager, you do not have to do things yourself. as a manager, you should know how to direct the work of "others" so you can achieve your results. this is what delegation is about.
theoretically, there is nothing wrong with delegation. it is a much needed management principle. the problem is in how we delegate.
when you're simply throwing around instructions without much thought, you are not delegating. you are treating your staff as if they are house help.
delegation is a developmental tool. of course it's supposed to give managers more time to do other tasks such as planning (which should be 80% of your time if you're part of management). but more than anything else, we delegate because we want to develop our staff and the organization.
we delegate because we want our staff to be able to do what you can do - so they can be promoted and/or allow you to do something new. we also delegate because we want to develop "the bench" within the organization. we want to develop people who can take over the reigns when the situation calls for it.
By Sean Silverthorne | February 7, 2011
One of the accepted rules of 21st century managers is that we must delegate. Empower your troops closest to the customer to make crucial decisions. Give them the chance to show what they’ve got.
But I wonder if we sometimes overdo this wise advice, expecting that redirecting a job is as easy as changing the channel with a remote. Are we setting up middle managers for failure when we hold them accountable for decisions they aren’t prepared to make? Are we handing off responsibilities that should stay with us? HBR blogger Whitey Johnson had similar thoughts recently, and developed three reasons you shouldn’t delegate.
I’ll summarize her three rules, and add one of my own.
Don’t delegate when:
1. The task has not been thought through. If you can’t explain the task and the goals in concrete terms, then you have more work to do before handing it off to someone else to accomplish.
2. You are the best person for the job. If it’s something you know well and can add real value to, do it yourself.
3. You could learn from making the decision yourself. The best learning comes from doing, so don’t shortchange your own development by letting others take your place.
I think there is a fourth reason not to delegate: You can’t find someone to reward. Delegating a responsibility should be considered an honor for the recipient, a time to practice what they have learned and create a real accomplishment. If no one on your team buys into the responsibility you are bestowing or has shown enough skill to deserve a chance, the job should remain on your plate.
Looking back on your own advancement, did you ever delegate a job that came back to bite you? On the flip side, did a boss give you a responsibility that became a real career-enhancer?
MY THOUGHTS
if i am not mistaken, management is defined as "achieving results through others". i take this definition to mean that, as a manager, you do not have to do things yourself. as a manager, you should know how to direct the work of "others" so you can achieve your results. this is what delegation is about.
theoretically, there is nothing wrong with delegation. it is a much needed management principle. the problem is in how we delegate.
when you're simply throwing around instructions without much thought, you are not delegating. you are treating your staff as if they are house help.
delegation is a developmental tool. of course it's supposed to give managers more time to do other tasks such as planning (which should be 80% of your time if you're part of management). but more than anything else, we delegate because we want to develop our staff and the organization.
we delegate because we want our staff to be able to do what you can do - so they can be promoted and/or allow you to do something new. we also delegate because we want to develop "the bench" within the organization. we want to develop people who can take over the reigns when the situation calls for it.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
TIPS ON HIRING
Tips on Hiring
From the article"How to Guarantee You Won’t Make A Bad Hire"
By Dave Logan | February 2, 2011
Horowitz gives lots of specific steps, including:
* Know what you want.
* Run a process that figures out the right match.
* Make a lonely decision.
I strongly suggest readers take a look at Horowitz’s long list of questions to ask to assess whether the candidate is smart enough, knows how to hire sales people, is systematic and comprehensive on how to think about sales processes, and understands operational excellence.
I would add two points on competence:
* Do not, under any circumstances, hire for untapped potential. Most people develop only a small part of their abilities, and hiring for untapped potential is like buying land in Nevada and waiting for California to fall into the ocean. It’ll probably happen, but not in time to help you now.
* Make sure the person is “scary smart.” People can develop a lot of aspects of themselves, but IQ is not one of them. Unless the person has the mental horsepower, run!
The second key for hiring is, surprisingly, not even mentioned in Horowitz’s post. It is: Hire for a values fit with the management team you already have. This key has three steps:
1. Identify the values the management team already has. A great way to do this is to run the “mountains and valleys” exercise with your team.
2. Get the team’s agreement that the values you identified are, in fact, their values.
3. In the interview with candidates, ask open-ended questions in follow-up to what the person says.
The hard part of this process is asking open-ended questions. In general, closed-ended questions will bring up competencies and open-ended will lead you to values. Note an exchange with a closed-ended question:
Hiring Manager: What steps did you follow to get to that result?
Candidate: First, I knew what I wanted. Second, I made a two-week plan and ran it past the team. Third, I was relentless in the follow-up.
You’ve learned slightly more about competencies, but nothing about values. Contrast that exchange to two back-to-back open-ended questions:
Hiring Manager: Why was that result so important to you?
Candidate: The integrity of the team was on the line.
Hiring Manager: Why was integrity of the team so important?
Candidate: If we lost integrity, we’d lose the trust of senior executives.
This exchange is important for two reasons. First, you’ve gone off script, so you’re probably asking questions for which the person doesn’t have a prepared answer. Second, you’re now understanding how the person makes decisions, and what principles are most important.
When you meet with the hiring team to make a decision, you only want to hire people who both have the competencies and share the team values. If you’re uncertain about either one, keep looking.
Made a hiring mistake? Made a great hire and have a lesson to share? If so, I hope you’ll post a comment below.
MY THOUGHTS
i hire based on potential, something not recommended in this article. hiring based on potential is a strategy i use when, after a really long search, i still can't find the right person for the job. what i don't do is hire someone who will not fit into the culture of the organization. this is a constant struggle between hr and the other departments. department managers would make decisions mostly based on the skills set of a candidate. and culture fit (which translates to values) is equally, if not more crucial. so,as an hr practitioner, i prefer to screen the candidates first and refer to requesting department only those who have the values the organization requires.
From the article"How to Guarantee You Won’t Make A Bad Hire"
By Dave Logan | February 2, 2011
Horowitz gives lots of specific steps, including:
* Know what you want.
* Run a process that figures out the right match.
* Make a lonely decision.
I strongly suggest readers take a look at Horowitz’s long list of questions to ask to assess whether the candidate is smart enough, knows how to hire sales people, is systematic and comprehensive on how to think about sales processes, and understands operational excellence.
I would add two points on competence:
* Do not, under any circumstances, hire for untapped potential. Most people develop only a small part of their abilities, and hiring for untapped potential is like buying land in Nevada and waiting for California to fall into the ocean. It’ll probably happen, but not in time to help you now.
* Make sure the person is “scary smart.” People can develop a lot of aspects of themselves, but IQ is not one of them. Unless the person has the mental horsepower, run!
The second key for hiring is, surprisingly, not even mentioned in Horowitz’s post. It is: Hire for a values fit with the management team you already have. This key has three steps:
1. Identify the values the management team already has. A great way to do this is to run the “mountains and valleys” exercise with your team.
2. Get the team’s agreement that the values you identified are, in fact, their values.
3. In the interview with candidates, ask open-ended questions in follow-up to what the person says.
The hard part of this process is asking open-ended questions. In general, closed-ended questions will bring up competencies and open-ended will lead you to values. Note an exchange with a closed-ended question:
Hiring Manager: What steps did you follow to get to that result?
Candidate: First, I knew what I wanted. Second, I made a two-week plan and ran it past the team. Third, I was relentless in the follow-up.
You’ve learned slightly more about competencies, but nothing about values. Contrast that exchange to two back-to-back open-ended questions:
Hiring Manager: Why was that result so important to you?
Candidate: The integrity of the team was on the line.
Hiring Manager: Why was integrity of the team so important?
Candidate: If we lost integrity, we’d lose the trust of senior executives.
This exchange is important for two reasons. First, you’ve gone off script, so you’re probably asking questions for which the person doesn’t have a prepared answer. Second, you’re now understanding how the person makes decisions, and what principles are most important.
When you meet with the hiring team to make a decision, you only want to hire people who both have the competencies and share the team values. If you’re uncertain about either one, keep looking.
Made a hiring mistake? Made a great hire and have a lesson to share? If so, I hope you’ll post a comment below.
MY THOUGHTS
i hire based on potential, something not recommended in this article. hiring based on potential is a strategy i use when, after a really long search, i still can't find the right person for the job. what i don't do is hire someone who will not fit into the culture of the organization. this is a constant struggle between hr and the other departments. department managers would make decisions mostly based on the skills set of a candidate. and culture fit (which translates to values) is equally, if not more crucial. so,as an hr practitioner, i prefer to screen the candidates first and refer to requesting department only those who have the values the organization requires.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
How NOT to Make a BAD Hire
How to Guarantee You Won’t Make A Bad Hire
By Dave Logan | February 2, 2011
When most general managers fail to hit their goals, the problem can usually be traced back to hiring the wrong people.
The key is to hire for two factors: competence and values fit. If the person doesn’t have both of these elements, do not hire them under any circumstances.
Venture capitalist Ben Horowitz has an excellent blog post about how to hire for overall competence, including the following must-read section on the three traps to avoid:
* Hiring on look and feel. It sounds silly that anyone would hire an executive based on the way they look and sound in an interview, but in my experience look and feel is the top criteria for most executive searches. When you combine a CEO that doesn’t know what she wants and a board of directors that hasn’t thought much about the hire, what do you think the criteria are?
* Looking for someone out of central casting. This is the moral equivalent of looking for the Platonic Form of a head of sales. You imagine what the perfect sales executive might be like then you attempt to match real-world candidates to your model. This is a really bad idea for several reasons. First, you are not hiring an abstract executive to work at an arbitrary company. You must hire the right person for your company at this particular point in time. The head of sales at Oracle in 2010 would likely have failed in 1989. The VP of engineering at Apple might be exactly the wrong choice for FourSquare. The details and the specifics matter. Second, your imaginary model is almost certainly wrong. What is your basis for creating this model? Finally, it will be incredibly difficult to educate an interview team on such an abstract set of criteria. As a result, everybody will be looking for something different.
* Valuing lack of weakness rather than strength-The more experience you have, the more you realize that there is something seriously wrong with every employee in your company (including you). Literally, nobody is perfect. As a result, it is imperative that you hire for strength rather than lack of weakness. Everybody has weaknesses; they are just easier to find in some people. Hiring for lack of weakness just means that you’ll optimize for pleasantness. Rather, you must figure out the strengths you require and find someone who is world class in those areas despite their weaknesses in other, less important domains.
Horowitz gives lots of specific steps, including:
* Know what you want.
* Run a process that figures out the right match.
* Make a lonely decision.
(WAIT FOr next post for specifics on the "tips on hiring")
MY THOUGHTS
why can't managers (or CEOs to be precise) get this principle on hiring? this issue had caused me, and whole bunch of other people, a lot of heartaches. yes, heartaches. not just headaches. if you love your job and the organization, it's not just a head matter.
it breaks my heart to see people being hired (especially for high positions) without much thought on competence and values. it's disheartening to see someone, who doesn't have what it takes to influence people positively, being appointed to a leadership position. i feel sad when a person who doesn't have the heart for the job is hired simply because of the need to have a warm body in that position.
By Dave Logan | February 2, 2011
When most general managers fail to hit their goals, the problem can usually be traced back to hiring the wrong people.
The key is to hire for two factors: competence and values fit. If the person doesn’t have both of these elements, do not hire them under any circumstances.
Venture capitalist Ben Horowitz has an excellent blog post about how to hire for overall competence, including the following must-read section on the three traps to avoid:
* Hiring on look and feel. It sounds silly that anyone would hire an executive based on the way they look and sound in an interview, but in my experience look and feel is the top criteria for most executive searches. When you combine a CEO that doesn’t know what she wants and a board of directors that hasn’t thought much about the hire, what do you think the criteria are?
* Looking for someone out of central casting. This is the moral equivalent of looking for the Platonic Form of a head of sales. You imagine what the perfect sales executive might be like then you attempt to match real-world candidates to your model. This is a really bad idea for several reasons. First, you are not hiring an abstract executive to work at an arbitrary company. You must hire the right person for your company at this particular point in time. The head of sales at Oracle in 2010 would likely have failed in 1989. The VP of engineering at Apple might be exactly the wrong choice for FourSquare. The details and the specifics matter. Second, your imaginary model is almost certainly wrong. What is your basis for creating this model? Finally, it will be incredibly difficult to educate an interview team on such an abstract set of criteria. As a result, everybody will be looking for something different.
* Valuing lack of weakness rather than strength-The more experience you have, the more you realize that there is something seriously wrong with every employee in your company (including you). Literally, nobody is perfect. As a result, it is imperative that you hire for strength rather than lack of weakness. Everybody has weaknesses; they are just easier to find in some people. Hiring for lack of weakness just means that you’ll optimize for pleasantness. Rather, you must figure out the strengths you require and find someone who is world class in those areas despite their weaknesses in other, less important domains.
Horowitz gives lots of specific steps, including:
* Know what you want.
* Run a process that figures out the right match.
* Make a lonely decision.
(WAIT FOr next post for specifics on the "tips on hiring")
MY THOUGHTS
why can't managers (or CEOs to be precise) get this principle on hiring? this issue had caused me, and whole bunch of other people, a lot of heartaches. yes, heartaches. not just headaches. if you love your job and the organization, it's not just a head matter.
it breaks my heart to see people being hired (especially for high positions) without much thought on competence and values. it's disheartening to see someone, who doesn't have what it takes to influence people positively, being appointed to a leadership position. i feel sad when a person who doesn't have the heart for the job is hired simply because of the need to have a warm body in that position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)