Survey: Half of Workers Just Don’t Care
By Kimberly Weisul | June 20, 2011
You know those people who sit on either side of you at the department meeting every week? Chances are one of the three of you is looking for another job, or at least seriously thinking about it. And another 21 percent of your co-workers probably show little interest in their jobs, even though they aren’t planning to leave. At least part of the blame can be placed at the feet of stingy compensation packages, which aren’t making employees as happy as they once did.
That’s the news from the latest installment of Mercer’s What’s Working survey, which shows that from an employee point of view, not much is. All the measures commonly used to get a bead on employee engagement have been declining over the past few years, and steadily increasing numbers of employees are looking to change jobs.
First, the folks who say they’re ’seriously considering leaving’ their jobs:
Overall, 32 percent of workers say they’re ready to go.
The malaise is most pronounced amongst the youngest workers–those aged 16-24. Some 44 percent of those folks have got one eye–if not two–on the door.
As employees get older, they’re more likely to stay put. Of those who are 25 to 34 years old, 40 percent say they’re seriously considering leaving. But even among the oldest age group (those 55 to 64 years old) 24 percent say they’re seriously considering leaving.
Not caring, but not leaving, either
It’s hard enough to be committed to your job when you’re ready to leave it. But for employers, the even worse news might be that an additional 21 percent of workers view their employers very unfavorably and have what Mercer calls “rock bottom” scores on engagement–measures of how much they care about their jobs, their work, and their employer. Among those:
Only half say they have been treated fairly by their company
Only 46 percent would recommend their organization as a good place to work.
Only 29 percent believe that the organization is well-managed
In most cases, the scores for this group are even worse than they are for the employees who are seriously considering leaving their jobs. In other words, employers are facing a core group of disaffected employees, and unless they can figure out exactly who they are and then either re-engage them or get rid of them, they’re stuck with them.
“The business consequences of this erosion in employee sentiment are significant, and clearly the issue goes far beyond retention,” said Mindy Fox, a senior partner at Mercer and the firm’s US Region Leader. “Diminished loyalty and widespread apathy can undermine business performance, particularly as companies increasingly look to their workforces to drive productivity gains and spur innovation.”
Part of employees’ dissatisfaction may stem from the long-lasting recession and the fact that employees don’t believe their jobs are necessarily providing them with the salary, benefits, and security they need.
Retirement worries loom large. Only 43 percent of employees say they’re doing enough to prepare for retirement. That’s down from 47 percent in 2005.
Benefits programs don’t get the raves they once did. Some 68 percent of employees say their base pay is good or very good, down from 76 percent in 2005.
Health care in particular is seen as less generous. Only 59 percent are satisfied with their health benefits, down from 66 percent.
Pay isn’t great either. Just 53 percent are satisfied with their base pay, down from 58 percent in 2005.
Do you have one eye on the door? Or does the person sitting next to you?
Read more: http://www.bnet.com/blog/business-research/survey-half-of-workers-just-don-8217t-care/1729#ixzz1Pzc6QWwL
MY THOUGHTS
Such a sad, sad state of affairs - uncaring but staying. If the organization is really poorly managed, it wouldn't care, too. But if the organization is being wrongly accused of mismanagement, these uncaring employees should better start caring before they get the axe.
Showing posts with label productivity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label productivity. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
ARE YOUR "REWARDS" APPRECIATED BY YOUR EMPLOYEES?
Your “Rewards” Aren’t Appreciated By Your Employees
By Suzanne Lucas | May 20, 2011
This post is for managers. Individual contributors already know this information, but for some reason, as soon as people are promoted (or laterally transfer) into a management job, they forget this information. So, here is a reminder:
A pen with the company name on it is not a bonus. It does not make your employee feel fondly about your company or your management skills. It is a pen. You are supposed to provide pens as part of the standard office supplies. Put the company logo on them if you want. Give pens away to customers so they’ll have your phone number handy. But, your employees already know the phone number and just want to be able to write with a reliable instrument.
A supply of coffee mugs in the break room is handy, but they are not a reward. Your employees will drink coffee or water or Diet Coke regardless of whether the mugs have your company name scrawled across the front. They might think the mugs are cute, but they will not consider them a reward.
The reason why that clothing store offered you $50 gift certificates for $25 each is that they know that almost none of your employees will redeem them. This should be a hint that it is a bad reward. Rewards should be, well, rewarding. And trying to convince your employees that they are being rewarded with the ability to get a new pair of pants from a store they don’t like is not a real reward.
Rewards for “everyone” that only benefit a few. Lunch is a great thing to provide from time to time, unless you always do it when you’re in the office even though a good portion of your employees work other shifts. This causes resentment amongst the unblessed masses.
Mandatory Celebratory Dinners are not appreciated. When everyone has been working nights and weekends to get that big account, don’t make the celebration something that requires everyone to spend yet another evening with people from the office.
I feel so much better now. I could come up with a longer list of rewards that aren’t appreciated, but I’m afraid some managers would just tune me out. In fact, I’m sure that right now, there is someone sitting in a corner office going, “She’s wrong. My employees loved the Christmas bonus mugs! They told me so themselves.”
Well, duh. You’re the boss, so they aren’t going to say, “Boy, this is what you got us? Mugs with the dumb logo that you had your 3rd ex-wife design? Seriously? Jerk.” No, they talk about that amongst themselves. Keep in mind what employees really want.
Verbal and written praise. This is even cheaper than the pens. Tell your employees that they are doing a good job, and give specific examples. A 2007 employee survey said that this was the top non-monetary reward desired by employees. Taking the time to pull someone aside and say, “Thanks for your work on the Jones account. You really blew me out of the water,” is a reward that is appreciated. Publicly saying that at staff meeting is even better. However, a patronizing, “good job” on everything your employee does is not a reward.
Money. I’m talking real money here, not the gift certificate kind. Employees want raises and bonuses. If the business honestly cannot afford either one (and before you nod your head to that, check your own bonus check) then see above or below. Otherwise, get out the checkbook. Remember it would cost you more to replace good people than it would to give them raises and bonuses.
Time off. If everyone busted their buns to get a big project done, hand out an extra vacation day to be used at their leisure–and then make sure you don’t pressure your employees not to use the time off. Or close shop on a Friday afternoon. This shows that you recognize they put in extra hours to get the work done. Your employees want the company to succeed. Show them that you recognize that their work does just that. (And if you close shop Friday afternoon, make sure this is considered paid vacation time, not just go home early time. Your non-exempt employees who get a smaller paycheck will not consider this a reward.)
Flex time and telecommuting. If your employees are good performers, let them have control over when and where they do their work. Yes, some jobs must be done in the office, and some jobs must be done on a specific schedule. Some, but not all. If your employees express interest in these types of schedules, give it some serious consideration and grant it where possible. Independence is a great reward.
Employee rewards should be something they actually want. Don’t let the so called “employee rewards” catalogs convince you that your employees will be happy with a clock. Give them what they really want.
MY THOUGHTS
Come to think of it, since rewards should be what employees want, why not ask them? Of course, there's an issue of budget and other limitations. If we spell these out before we ask them,I doubt there will be a real problem.
Personally, I like the time-off idea and the flex time and telecommuting. I've used time-off before for my staff and I can say they loved it. And yes, I don't hate those shirts and pens and mugs. But they are give always, tokens-not rewards.
By Suzanne Lucas | May 20, 2011
This post is for managers. Individual contributors already know this information, but for some reason, as soon as people are promoted (or laterally transfer) into a management job, they forget this information. So, here is a reminder:
A pen with the company name on it is not a bonus. It does not make your employee feel fondly about your company or your management skills. It is a pen. You are supposed to provide pens as part of the standard office supplies. Put the company logo on them if you want. Give pens away to customers so they’ll have your phone number handy. But, your employees already know the phone number and just want to be able to write with a reliable instrument.
A supply of coffee mugs in the break room is handy, but they are not a reward. Your employees will drink coffee or water or Diet Coke regardless of whether the mugs have your company name scrawled across the front. They might think the mugs are cute, but they will not consider them a reward.
The reason why that clothing store offered you $50 gift certificates for $25 each is that they know that almost none of your employees will redeem them. This should be a hint that it is a bad reward. Rewards should be, well, rewarding. And trying to convince your employees that they are being rewarded with the ability to get a new pair of pants from a store they don’t like is not a real reward.
Rewards for “everyone” that only benefit a few. Lunch is a great thing to provide from time to time, unless you always do it when you’re in the office even though a good portion of your employees work other shifts. This causes resentment amongst the unblessed masses.
Mandatory Celebratory Dinners are not appreciated. When everyone has been working nights and weekends to get that big account, don’t make the celebration something that requires everyone to spend yet another evening with people from the office.
I feel so much better now. I could come up with a longer list of rewards that aren’t appreciated, but I’m afraid some managers would just tune me out. In fact, I’m sure that right now, there is someone sitting in a corner office going, “She’s wrong. My employees loved the Christmas bonus mugs! They told me so themselves.”
Well, duh. You’re the boss, so they aren’t going to say, “Boy, this is what you got us? Mugs with the dumb logo that you had your 3rd ex-wife design? Seriously? Jerk.” No, they talk about that amongst themselves. Keep in mind what employees really want.
Verbal and written praise. This is even cheaper than the pens. Tell your employees that they are doing a good job, and give specific examples. A 2007 employee survey said that this was the top non-monetary reward desired by employees. Taking the time to pull someone aside and say, “Thanks for your work on the Jones account. You really blew me out of the water,” is a reward that is appreciated. Publicly saying that at staff meeting is even better. However, a patronizing, “good job” on everything your employee does is not a reward.
Money. I’m talking real money here, not the gift certificate kind. Employees want raises and bonuses. If the business honestly cannot afford either one (and before you nod your head to that, check your own bonus check) then see above or below. Otherwise, get out the checkbook. Remember it would cost you more to replace good people than it would to give them raises and bonuses.
Time off. If everyone busted their buns to get a big project done, hand out an extra vacation day to be used at their leisure–and then make sure you don’t pressure your employees not to use the time off. Or close shop on a Friday afternoon. This shows that you recognize they put in extra hours to get the work done. Your employees want the company to succeed. Show them that you recognize that their work does just that. (And if you close shop Friday afternoon, make sure this is considered paid vacation time, not just go home early time. Your non-exempt employees who get a smaller paycheck will not consider this a reward.)
Flex time and telecommuting. If your employees are good performers, let them have control over when and where they do their work. Yes, some jobs must be done in the office, and some jobs must be done on a specific schedule. Some, but not all. If your employees express interest in these types of schedules, give it some serious consideration and grant it where possible. Independence is a great reward.
Employee rewards should be something they actually want. Don’t let the so called “employee rewards” catalogs convince you that your employees will be happy with a clock. Give them what they really want.
MY THOUGHTS
Come to think of it, since rewards should be what employees want, why not ask them? Of course, there's an issue of budget and other limitations. If we spell these out before we ask them,I doubt there will be a real problem.
Personally, I like the time-off idea and the flex time and telecommuting. I've used time-off before for my staff and I can say they loved it. And yes, I don't hate those shirts and pens and mugs. But they are give always, tokens-not rewards.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
EXCUSES FOR NOT COACHING
“I Don’t Have Time” and Other Excuses Managers Give for Not Coaching
By John Baldoni | May 12, 2011
These days you would be hard pressed to find a leader who does not know that a large part of his job is to coach his employees. Nor is it hard to find evidence that the companies with the strongest leadership cultures are those that develop people at every level.
And yet you don’t have to look too far to find managers who ignore this vital part of their job description. Why? The culture in which they work may not insist on it, and many managers also find the idea uncomfortable. The idea of talking one on one to an employee about how she is doing and what she could be doing better makes them uneasy. So they develop rationales for not coaching.
Here are the most common excuses I’ve heard, and my rebuttal to them.
1. “I don’t like getting personal with my employees.”
Reality: Coaching is a conversation. It focuses on how an employee is performing in the workplace. It need not get into an employee’s personal life. The focus should be on what is happening on the workplace.
2. “I am a manager, not a therapist.”
Reality: Coaching is not therapy. Behavioral issues that affect performance are a manager’s concern but it is not your role to solve them. You should coordinate with human resources to find a licensed therapist or executive coach to provide assistance. But if the behavior is affecting other employees, you have an obligation to intervene and ensure the safety and welfare of direct reports.
3. “I don’t have time for it.”
Reality: Your job is to make sure the right things get done on time and on budget. How will that occur if don’t make the time to find and develop the right people for the jobs?
4. “I don’t like to dwell on the negatives.“
Reality: Whenever I hear this excuse, I ask, “How long can you afford to carry a person who is not doing the job? ” Subpar performers are a drain on time as well as resources–and the entire team.
5. “I don’t want my people feeling too secure about their jobs.”
Reality: Exit interview surveys reveal that employees often leave their jobs because they have the impression–often mistaken–that they are undervalued. As long as compensation needs are met, your staff is working for recognition. Coaching is one way to show it.
It’s important for organizations to address the reasons people give for not coaching. Only when the company treats coaching as a priority will it create a culture in which coaching is not something managers ought to do–but something they do.
What reasons have you given–or heard others give–for not coaching at your company?
MY THOUGHTS
I'd such a lot of supervisors and managers do not know how to coach. That's why they are making all these excuses. And it requires extra effort.
By John Baldoni | May 12, 2011
These days you would be hard pressed to find a leader who does not know that a large part of his job is to coach his employees. Nor is it hard to find evidence that the companies with the strongest leadership cultures are those that develop people at every level.
And yet you don’t have to look too far to find managers who ignore this vital part of their job description. Why? The culture in which they work may not insist on it, and many managers also find the idea uncomfortable. The idea of talking one on one to an employee about how she is doing and what she could be doing better makes them uneasy. So they develop rationales for not coaching.
Here are the most common excuses I’ve heard, and my rebuttal to them.
1. “I don’t like getting personal with my employees.”
Reality: Coaching is a conversation. It focuses on how an employee is performing in the workplace. It need not get into an employee’s personal life. The focus should be on what is happening on the workplace.
2. “I am a manager, not a therapist.”
Reality: Coaching is not therapy. Behavioral issues that affect performance are a manager’s concern but it is not your role to solve them. You should coordinate with human resources to find a licensed therapist or executive coach to provide assistance. But if the behavior is affecting other employees, you have an obligation to intervene and ensure the safety and welfare of direct reports.
3. “I don’t have time for it.”
Reality: Your job is to make sure the right things get done on time and on budget. How will that occur if don’t make the time to find and develop the right people for the jobs?
4. “I don’t like to dwell on the negatives.“
Reality: Whenever I hear this excuse, I ask, “How long can you afford to carry a person who is not doing the job? ” Subpar performers are a drain on time as well as resources–and the entire team.
5. “I don’t want my people feeling too secure about their jobs.”
Reality: Exit interview surveys reveal that employees often leave their jobs because they have the impression–often mistaken–that they are undervalued. As long as compensation needs are met, your staff is working for recognition. Coaching is one way to show it.
It’s important for organizations to address the reasons people give for not coaching. Only when the company treats coaching as a priority will it create a culture in which coaching is not something managers ought to do–but something they do.
What reasons have you given–or heard others give–for not coaching at your company?
MY THOUGHTS
I'd such a lot of supervisors and managers do not know how to coach. That's why they are making all these excuses. And it requires extra effort.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
FIRING A RELATIVE?
What If You Could Never Fire Another Employee?
By Margaret Heffernan | April 6, 2010
http://www.bnet.com/blog/business-strategy/what-if-you-could-never-fire-another-employee/154?tag=content;drawer-container
Until 2007, the oldest continuously operating business in the world was Kongo Gumi in Japan. A construction firm founded in 578 A.D., it began building Buddhist temples, and that’s what it was still doing when it was absorbed by Takamatsu. The last president was a member of the founding Kongo family, members of which still work as carpenters today. It shouldn’t surprise us that this is a family firm.
Two-thirds of all businesses are family owned: think Samsung, Fiat, Nieman-Marcus, Bacardi, Seagram and Ikea. We tend to think of family businesses as the stuff of soap opera — Dynasty, Dallas, even the Sopranos — and there’s no doubt that they are highly emotional. But that could be the secret of their success.
Why? Because the salient characteristic of family firms is that you can’t fire your family. The fight may be between siblings, between parents and kids — but they have to work it out. Neither party wants to walk away from a successful company that they own a big stake in, and it can be hard to avoid the family dinner where grievances leak out. Which means that the best of these firms become quite expert at resolving conflict.
Often these companies have one person — usually female — who is the chief diplomat and bridge mender. Some consultants even call this person the Chief Emotion Officer. She does all the interstitial work to repair hurt feelings and communicate detail, often fixing problems before they blow up. She’s in touch with the emotions inherent in every business, and her chief aim is to keep the peace.
I think there’s a great lesson here. As a CEO, it can be highly tempting to imagine that the solution to most problems is to fire one person and hire another. Sales director not delivering? Off with his head. Engineering team behind schedule? Find a new project manager. Employment conditions in the U.S. in particular give managers exceptional latitude in picking people up and throwing them out. Most managers love that because it means they don’t get stuck with their bad choices.
But I have to wonder how much better we’d all be at hiring if, like family firms, we couldn’t fire our failures. For all that we make our hiring practices lengthy and laborious, we still apply plenty of bias, instinct and wishful thinking — in part because we know we can get away with it. What if you couldn’t? What if you were stuck with that employee for life? How would that change your decisions? Here are five hiring practices we can learn from family firms:
1.Choose carefully at the start. Knowing this is a lifetime relationship, not a one-night stand should make you very thoughtful about your own biases.
2.When there are signs of failure, intervene early. Don’t let things fester, and don’t leave a struggling employee to fail.
3.Stop hoping they’ll be so unhappy that they quit. Your employee may meanwhile be hanging on in the hopes that you’ll pay them to leave. And that’s the worst of all possible worlds for everyone.
4.Ask whether the employee is in the right spot. Many companies hire great people but don’t put them in positions where they flourish.
5.Check that the problem doesn’t lie with the line manager. Employees often fail because they’re being mismanaged.
I’m not proud of the times I’ve had to fire employees. It’s a ghastly experience, and it ought to be. If the day ever comes that you don’t mind it, quit: you’ve lost the plot. But before you take this easy exit next time, imagine you’re running a family firm. You’ll see that errant employee for Sunday supper. How does that feel? Isn’t there an alternative to termination?
MY THOUGHTS
Firing is not a decision that is done at the first sign of incompetence or breach of discipline (unless it's serious and explicitly stated in the HR manual). Firing is a last resort. I've worked (or came across) family businesses. Those who opt not to fire family members (without doing anything about that son or daughter or cousin) are in deep s_ _t. It's clear from this article, that something has to be done. Or else, that cancer cell stays in the family business and eats the whole structure up.
I have a friend who was fired by his own dad. He was earth-shaken. But he got the message. And the rest of the employees did, too. The business has grown immensely. So has my friend. He's now running the business. His dad gave him the reins after seeing that he has learned his lesson and has become a better businessman. A much better man,actually.
By Margaret Heffernan | April 6, 2010
http://www.bnet.com/blog/business-strategy/what-if-you-could-never-fire-another-employee/154?tag=content;drawer-container
Until 2007, the oldest continuously operating business in the world was Kongo Gumi in Japan. A construction firm founded in 578 A.D., it began building Buddhist temples, and that’s what it was still doing when it was absorbed by Takamatsu. The last president was a member of the founding Kongo family, members of which still work as carpenters today. It shouldn’t surprise us that this is a family firm.
Two-thirds of all businesses are family owned: think Samsung, Fiat, Nieman-Marcus, Bacardi, Seagram and Ikea. We tend to think of family businesses as the stuff of soap opera — Dynasty, Dallas, even the Sopranos — and there’s no doubt that they are highly emotional. But that could be the secret of their success.
Why? Because the salient characteristic of family firms is that you can’t fire your family. The fight may be between siblings, between parents and kids — but they have to work it out. Neither party wants to walk away from a successful company that they own a big stake in, and it can be hard to avoid the family dinner where grievances leak out. Which means that the best of these firms become quite expert at resolving conflict.
Often these companies have one person — usually female — who is the chief diplomat and bridge mender. Some consultants even call this person the Chief Emotion Officer. She does all the interstitial work to repair hurt feelings and communicate detail, often fixing problems before they blow up. She’s in touch with the emotions inherent in every business, and her chief aim is to keep the peace.
I think there’s a great lesson here. As a CEO, it can be highly tempting to imagine that the solution to most problems is to fire one person and hire another. Sales director not delivering? Off with his head. Engineering team behind schedule? Find a new project manager. Employment conditions in the U.S. in particular give managers exceptional latitude in picking people up and throwing them out. Most managers love that because it means they don’t get stuck with their bad choices.
But I have to wonder how much better we’d all be at hiring if, like family firms, we couldn’t fire our failures. For all that we make our hiring practices lengthy and laborious, we still apply plenty of bias, instinct and wishful thinking — in part because we know we can get away with it. What if you couldn’t? What if you were stuck with that employee for life? How would that change your decisions? Here are five hiring practices we can learn from family firms:
1.Choose carefully at the start. Knowing this is a lifetime relationship, not a one-night stand should make you very thoughtful about your own biases.
2.When there are signs of failure, intervene early. Don’t let things fester, and don’t leave a struggling employee to fail.
3.Stop hoping they’ll be so unhappy that they quit. Your employee may meanwhile be hanging on in the hopes that you’ll pay them to leave. And that’s the worst of all possible worlds for everyone.
4.Ask whether the employee is in the right spot. Many companies hire great people but don’t put them in positions where they flourish.
5.Check that the problem doesn’t lie with the line manager. Employees often fail because they’re being mismanaged.
I’m not proud of the times I’ve had to fire employees. It’s a ghastly experience, and it ought to be. If the day ever comes that you don’t mind it, quit: you’ve lost the plot. But before you take this easy exit next time, imagine you’re running a family firm. You’ll see that errant employee for Sunday supper. How does that feel? Isn’t there an alternative to termination?
MY THOUGHTS
Firing is not a decision that is done at the first sign of incompetence or breach of discipline (unless it's serious and explicitly stated in the HR manual). Firing is a last resort. I've worked (or came across) family businesses. Those who opt not to fire family members (without doing anything about that son or daughter or cousin) are in deep s_ _t. It's clear from this article, that something has to be done. Or else, that cancer cell stays in the family business and eats the whole structure up.
I have a friend who was fired by his own dad. He was earth-shaken. But he got the message. And the rest of the employees did, too. The business has grown immensely. So has my friend. He's now running the business. His dad gave him the reins after seeing that he has learned his lesson and has become a better businessman. A much better man,actually.
Monday, April 11, 2011
WHY GOALS CAN'T BE ACHIEVED
Not Achieving Your Goals? 5 Common Mistakes
By Kelly Goldsmith and Marshall Goldsmith | March 8, 2011
http://www.bnet.com
If you’re like most professionals, you’re probably very skilled at setting goals–but not quite so adept at achieving them.
With the best of intentions, we make New Year’s resolutions, vowing to lose weight, exercise more, or get organized. And by February, our resolve usually evaporates, along with our goals, according to a poll by the time management firm Franklin Covey. The company polled more than 15,000 customers about their New Year’s resolutions and found 4 out of 5 eventually break them. About one in three didn’t even make it to the end of January.
At work, you’ve probably seen the same phenomenon. Companies establish all kinds of goals–from lofty missions statements to specific growth targets–then often fail to meet most of them.
Why? And what stands in the way of achieving goals? Here are five common mistakes:
1. You underestimate how hard it is to achieve the goal.
Those flabby abs? They can’t be turned into a sexy six pack in six days. Those diet books that promise full body make overs in 30 days? Not going to happen.
In reality, most meaningful goals take a lot of work to realize. If you don’t recognize from the out start that losing ten pounds, or increasing sales 10%, will take considerable time and effort, you will find it all too easy to give up once you get caught up in the day-to-day. You have to forecast the difficulties so that you are mentally prepared to meet the challenges when they inevitably arise.
2. You didn’t “own” your goal.
“I’m just doing this because my boss wants me to” is a goal that is destined for failure. If you’re just implementing a new sales strategy to please the new vice president, not because you believe in its necessity, you’re going to find it impossible to stay on course when you encounter obstacles–or just the daily interruptions.
We’re living in a perfect storm of distractions–email, cell phones, texting, IM, on demand media. It’s way too tempting to tell yourself, “I’m incredibly busy, I’ll get to this tomorrow.” In one survey, people admitted to wasting nearly two hours a day of an 8-hour work day on socializing or goofing off on the internet. Waiting for a “tomorrow” usually means never.
If you want to meet that 10% target, you need to be self-motivated and be committed to achieving it.
3. Your goal wasn’t clear, or measurable.
“Increasing customer satisfaction” is too general. You need to identify the specific, quantifiable goal (ie: improving customer retention by 5 percent), so that you can measure your progress on a regular basis. The on-going monitoring–seeing that retention inched up, or down–will reinforce your strategy and help you stay on track.
Yes, we know that there are people who argue that dieters should never get on a scale–that you can tell if you’re losing weight by how your clothes fit. But how many people actually lose weight that way? And is it really possible to keep focused on that difficult-to-achieve goal, without periodically checking in to see how you’re progressing?
4. You didn’t realize the rewards would be modest.
If you set a goal to increase sales 10%, and so far you’ve inched up sales 2%, you’re probably not going to see the confetti sprinkling down over your head. The sense of satisfaction may be limited. Progress frequently is incremental, and slower than we hope. The key is to remember that fact, so you keep plugging on.
5. You tried to do it alone.
There is a very good reason why so many diet plans encourage dieters to join to support groups. Most of us need a community of supporters who will cheer us on when the going gets tough–and, most importantly, hold us accountable. Just the sheer act of publicly acknowledging your goal can help make you accountable to achieve it.
It takes courage–and humility–to publicly admit that you need to do better. But once you do, having that band of supporters will help you stay disciplined to reach your goal.
How have you achieved a difficult goal? How did you do it?
MY THOUGHTS
Goals should push you enough to acommplish more than you think you can but should still be realistic. When you have millions of losses, trying to have a profit may not be reachable. I would go for cutting losses until it's small enough to aim for growth.
By Kelly Goldsmith and Marshall Goldsmith | March 8, 2011
http://www.bnet.com
If you’re like most professionals, you’re probably very skilled at setting goals–but not quite so adept at achieving them.
With the best of intentions, we make New Year’s resolutions, vowing to lose weight, exercise more, or get organized. And by February, our resolve usually evaporates, along with our goals, according to a poll by the time management firm Franklin Covey. The company polled more than 15,000 customers about their New Year’s resolutions and found 4 out of 5 eventually break them. About one in three didn’t even make it to the end of January.
At work, you’ve probably seen the same phenomenon. Companies establish all kinds of goals–from lofty missions statements to specific growth targets–then often fail to meet most of them.
Why? And what stands in the way of achieving goals? Here are five common mistakes:
1. You underestimate how hard it is to achieve the goal.
Those flabby abs? They can’t be turned into a sexy six pack in six days. Those diet books that promise full body make overs in 30 days? Not going to happen.
In reality, most meaningful goals take a lot of work to realize. If you don’t recognize from the out start that losing ten pounds, or increasing sales 10%, will take considerable time and effort, you will find it all too easy to give up once you get caught up in the day-to-day. You have to forecast the difficulties so that you are mentally prepared to meet the challenges when they inevitably arise.
2. You didn’t “own” your goal.
“I’m just doing this because my boss wants me to” is a goal that is destined for failure. If you’re just implementing a new sales strategy to please the new vice president, not because you believe in its necessity, you’re going to find it impossible to stay on course when you encounter obstacles–or just the daily interruptions.
We’re living in a perfect storm of distractions–email, cell phones, texting, IM, on demand media. It’s way too tempting to tell yourself, “I’m incredibly busy, I’ll get to this tomorrow.” In one survey, people admitted to wasting nearly two hours a day of an 8-hour work day on socializing or goofing off on the internet. Waiting for a “tomorrow” usually means never.
If you want to meet that 10% target, you need to be self-motivated and be committed to achieving it.
3. Your goal wasn’t clear, or measurable.
“Increasing customer satisfaction” is too general. You need to identify the specific, quantifiable goal (ie: improving customer retention by 5 percent), so that you can measure your progress on a regular basis. The on-going monitoring–seeing that retention inched up, or down–will reinforce your strategy and help you stay on track.
Yes, we know that there are people who argue that dieters should never get on a scale–that you can tell if you’re losing weight by how your clothes fit. But how many people actually lose weight that way? And is it really possible to keep focused on that difficult-to-achieve goal, without periodically checking in to see how you’re progressing?
4. You didn’t realize the rewards would be modest.
If you set a goal to increase sales 10%, and so far you’ve inched up sales 2%, you’re probably not going to see the confetti sprinkling down over your head. The sense of satisfaction may be limited. Progress frequently is incremental, and slower than we hope. The key is to remember that fact, so you keep plugging on.
5. You tried to do it alone.
There is a very good reason why so many diet plans encourage dieters to join to support groups. Most of us need a community of supporters who will cheer us on when the going gets tough–and, most importantly, hold us accountable. Just the sheer act of publicly acknowledging your goal can help make you accountable to achieve it.
It takes courage–and humility–to publicly admit that you need to do better. But once you do, having that band of supporters will help you stay disciplined to reach your goal.
How have you achieved a difficult goal? How did you do it?
MY THOUGHTS
Goals should push you enough to acommplish more than you think you can but should still be realistic. When you have millions of losses, trying to have a profit may not be reachable. I would go for cutting losses until it's small enough to aim for growth.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
THE EMPLOYEE LIFE CYCLE
Hire, Inspire, Admire, Retire (Intro)
from the article "Hire, Inspire, Admire, Retire"
A condensed Employee Life Cycle
By F. John Reh, About.com Guide
Today I saw a chart of a 12-step Employee Life Cycle. Maybe Human Resources professionals need that much detail, but functional managers don't. Here is a four-step, condensed employee life cycle plan that tells you everything you need to know.
Hire, Inspire, Admire, Retire
An employee life cycle is the steps the employees go through from the time they enter a company until they leave. Often Human Resources professionals focus their attention on the steps in this process in hopes of making an impact on the company's bottom line. That is a good thing for them to do. Their goal is to reduce the company's cost per employee hired.
Unfortunately, they aren't the ones who really make a difference – managers are. People don't really work for companies; they work for a boss. To the extent that you can be a good boss, you can keep employees, keep them happy, and reduce the costs associated with employee turnover. In the process, you will make your own job easier and increase your value to the company.
Employees are one of a company's largest expenses these days Unlike other major capital costs (buildings, machinery, technology, etc.) human capital is highly volatile. You, as a manager, are in a key position to reduce that volatility using the condensed employee life cycle of HIAR (pronounced hire) - Hire, Inspire, Admire, Retire.
MY THOUGHTS
it can't be put more simply. first, we lure people to join our company. then we encourage them to prove that we made the right decision by getting them. then we reward them for proving that we are right so they will stay with us until they retire.
from the article "Hire, Inspire, Admire, Retire"
A condensed Employee Life Cycle
By F. John Reh, About.com Guide
Today I saw a chart of a 12-step Employee Life Cycle. Maybe Human Resources professionals need that much detail, but functional managers don't. Here is a four-step, condensed employee life cycle plan that tells you everything you need to know.
Hire, Inspire, Admire, Retire
An employee life cycle is the steps the employees go through from the time they enter a company until they leave. Often Human Resources professionals focus their attention on the steps in this process in hopes of making an impact on the company's bottom line. That is a good thing for them to do. Their goal is to reduce the company's cost per employee hired.
Unfortunately, they aren't the ones who really make a difference – managers are. People don't really work for companies; they work for a boss. To the extent that you can be a good boss, you can keep employees, keep them happy, and reduce the costs associated with employee turnover. In the process, you will make your own job easier and increase your value to the company.
Employees are one of a company's largest expenses these days Unlike other major capital costs (buildings, machinery, technology, etc.) human capital is highly volatile. You, as a manager, are in a key position to reduce that volatility using the condensed employee life cycle of HIAR (pronounced hire) - Hire, Inspire, Admire, Retire.
MY THOUGHTS
it can't be put more simply. first, we lure people to join our company. then we encourage them to prove that we made the right decision by getting them. then we reward them for proving that we are right so they will stay with us until they retire.
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, January 26, 2011
Are you a Duck at Work?
Managers: Stop the Shuffling and Just Fire the Person
By Suzanne Lucas | July 12, 2010
Dear Evil HR Lady,
I recently accepted a brand new position as regional director. There was a previous director who provided management for a portion of my current region. I have now been tasked with finding a new title and job duties for the previous director. HR is really pushing for this person to retire as he has been employed for many years and one of the reasons they created the new position was to remove him from management. There was a very lucrative retirement package offered, but he declined.
I created a new position based on the organization’s needs. The previous director will assume this new position including a rather large pay cut. My dilemma is that I know this person is not going to be able to meet the new job requirements (I based the job on department needs, not on the current skill level of the previous director). I have tried everything but to directly ask for retirement. Do I have any other options? I am afraid I am going to end up going down the disciplinary action road with ultimate termination since the company has a very quick disciplinary process of three strikes and you’re out.
I hate being put into this position to start with but know I need to deal with it. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Did you know what you were getting into when you took this job? Because if you weren’t told, you should be seriously ticked off and you should tell your boss so.
Was the former manager failing at the job you took? Was it just expanded so much that he didn’t have the capability of doing the job? Or did everyone assume that the old guy wouldn’t want more responsibility?
What your lovely company has just done is set itself up for a big age discrimination lawsuit and by golly I hope they lose. I don’t say that lightly. Normally I tell people that suing will just make their lives miserable, and I admit that if the question writer was the former director, I’d tell him that suing would make his life miserable. But, secretly I hope he’d sue and nail your company’s figurative heiny to the wall.
Because even if this guy was completely incompetent the company is acting like the only reason for wanting him gone is his age. Because if he was a poor performer, they would have fired him already. And by golly, if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck the jury will conclude that it is a duck.
Now, here is what should have happened.
1. Sr. Management determines that Previous Director (PD) is not capable of handling the expanded responsibilities.
2. Sr. Management documents failings
3. Sr. Management coaches PD on his problems and gives him the opportunity to improve
4. If improvement occurs, the process is over and he moves into the new role. If there is no improvement then…
5. PD is told that his last day of work will be X and that in exchange for him signing a general release he will be given a severance package according to the company standard plan.
6. PD may negotiate or not. Final agreement is made.
7. PD has his last day worked, signs his general release and is never heard from again OR
8. PD refuses to sign, is terminated anyway, and launches a lawsuit. Company wins because they have documented evidence of poor performance.
But, that isn’t what happened. So now you have a guy who believes he was competent in his job, bumped out by some young whippersnapper (If you’re older than he was, then super–age lawsuit isn’t relevant, but I’m guessing that isn’t the case), and is now placed in a job that he is not a good fit for and will fail in. This will make him angry, defensive and likely to sue. And because of the way this has been handled up until now, likely to win. (Although I will note, I am not a lawyer and don’t pretend to be.)
If he was doing the previous job competently then the lowest risk the company can take is to move you to the new role and put him back in his old position. Sorry! Not the answer you wanted. But, as I said, the way this was handled reeks strongly of age discrimination. If he was not performing at the appropriate high level then everyone needs to stop beating around the bush and terminate the poor man and let him get on with his life.
His direct supervisor (I think this is you) and a witness (either HR or another equally high level manager), need to sit down and say, “PD, the nature of business and the company has changed over the years and as a result of this your employment with X Company has been terminated. Today will be your last day of work. We have put together this severance and retirement package. In order to receive the severance and/or enhanced retirement package you must sign this general release. Please take your time to look it over. We advise you to speak with an attorney prior to making a final decision.”
And then you jump to step 6 above. The only change is that you’re more likely to lose the lawsuit if you have just been shuffling him around rather than documenting his inability to perform. Moving him around to “force” him to resign won’t result in a clean resignation where everyone can pat themselves on the back and say, “boy, look how smart we were to get rid of him without firing him!” He will still have a case for a discrimination claim and even for unemployment, as he can claim a “constructive discharge.”
So, what do you do? You go to your boss and tell him that this person’s poor performance needs to be documented and then he needs to be terminated–not asked to resign, not shuffled around–terminated. Then you go ahead and do that. I know it’s unpleasant. It’s part of being the boss. When you take a job that involves managing other people you take on the responsibility of terminating them if the need arises. If your job was created by combining two positions into one, you don’t need performance issues, as it is a position elimination. (And please note, you don’t actually need a reason to terminate anyone. At will employment in almost all cases. But, the way this has been set up is going to require a reason if you want to survive the law suit.)
Your manager did you no favors by handling this poorly to begin with, but it’s now your problem. So, document, terminate, provide severance and require a general release. And please, please, please, get the release written by legal counsel. It is not okay to write one up yourself.
MY THOUGHTS
"if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck the jury will conclude that it is a duck." i'm quoting from the article above.
have you worked with ducks? one duck, one quack - not so bad- you learn to live with the quack until it's time to send the duck somewhere else where it can quack all it wants. now several ducks means lots of quacks. if you don't watch it, you'll be quacking,too. and it's your fault. you're the manager, aren't you? you may have inherited the ducks. but you're raising them now. you don't want to use the axe because you don't want to be unpopular with the ducks? then you are the real duck. (the jury should be on you)
you're the manager. your job description includes hiring. but it also includes firing. and if you're a good manager you would know how to hire. and how to fire. with training and coaching in between. one of the biggest mistakes a leader can make is to want to be popular. if everyone likes you, you're not doing your job.
the reason you are a manager (hopefully a leader, too), is the need to make "hard" decisions. that's why you're getting more pay. more fringe. that's where the ducks and their quacks come in.
if you need a goose to lay the golden eggs (that's what the head farmer expects from you) you find a goose. it can be a baby goose. but it should think and act like a goose. a young goose. with lots of potential to lay the golden goose eggs.
a duck, will never be a goose. that's just in fairy tales. a duck, will lay eggs. even golden eggs. duck eggs. not goose eggs. you can train the duck. coach the duck. send the duck to the best schools, training abroad. it comes back. it's still a duck. and it's still gonna give you duck eggs. you gave the duck training for a goose. what do you expect?
you think you're doing the duck a favor by letting it stay in your farm? wrong. you're making the duck miserable because nothing in this world can make it a goose. so, you transfer this duck to some other place in the farm. but yours is a goose farm!!!! and you let one single, miserable duck quack around your goose farm. you end up with geese quacking like ducks.
now, if you're a goose in a duck farm, you know what to do.
and if you're a duck, reading this. don't take it personally. there's nothing wrong with you. you're just in the wrong farm.
oh my goodness! enough is enough. i can feel myself ready to quack.
By Suzanne Lucas | July 12, 2010
Dear Evil HR Lady,
I recently accepted a brand new position as regional director. There was a previous director who provided management for a portion of my current region. I have now been tasked with finding a new title and job duties for the previous director. HR is really pushing for this person to retire as he has been employed for many years and one of the reasons they created the new position was to remove him from management. There was a very lucrative retirement package offered, but he declined.
I created a new position based on the organization’s needs. The previous director will assume this new position including a rather large pay cut. My dilemma is that I know this person is not going to be able to meet the new job requirements (I based the job on department needs, not on the current skill level of the previous director). I have tried everything but to directly ask for retirement. Do I have any other options? I am afraid I am going to end up going down the disciplinary action road with ultimate termination since the company has a very quick disciplinary process of three strikes and you’re out.
I hate being put into this position to start with but know I need to deal with it. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
Did you know what you were getting into when you took this job? Because if you weren’t told, you should be seriously ticked off and you should tell your boss so.
Was the former manager failing at the job you took? Was it just expanded so much that he didn’t have the capability of doing the job? Or did everyone assume that the old guy wouldn’t want more responsibility?
What your lovely company has just done is set itself up for a big age discrimination lawsuit and by golly I hope they lose. I don’t say that lightly. Normally I tell people that suing will just make their lives miserable, and I admit that if the question writer was the former director, I’d tell him that suing would make his life miserable. But, secretly I hope he’d sue and nail your company’s figurative heiny to the wall.
Because even if this guy was completely incompetent the company is acting like the only reason for wanting him gone is his age. Because if he was a poor performer, they would have fired him already. And by golly, if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck the jury will conclude that it is a duck.
Now, here is what should have happened.
1. Sr. Management determines that Previous Director (PD) is not capable of handling the expanded responsibilities.
2. Sr. Management documents failings
3. Sr. Management coaches PD on his problems and gives him the opportunity to improve
4. If improvement occurs, the process is over and he moves into the new role. If there is no improvement then…
5. PD is told that his last day of work will be X and that in exchange for him signing a general release he will be given a severance package according to the company standard plan.
6. PD may negotiate or not. Final agreement is made.
7. PD has his last day worked, signs his general release and is never heard from again OR
8. PD refuses to sign, is terminated anyway, and launches a lawsuit. Company wins because they have documented evidence of poor performance.
But, that isn’t what happened. So now you have a guy who believes he was competent in his job, bumped out by some young whippersnapper (If you’re older than he was, then super–age lawsuit isn’t relevant, but I’m guessing that isn’t the case), and is now placed in a job that he is not a good fit for and will fail in. This will make him angry, defensive and likely to sue. And because of the way this has been handled up until now, likely to win. (Although I will note, I am not a lawyer and don’t pretend to be.)
If he was doing the previous job competently then the lowest risk the company can take is to move you to the new role and put him back in his old position. Sorry! Not the answer you wanted. But, as I said, the way this was handled reeks strongly of age discrimination. If he was not performing at the appropriate high level then everyone needs to stop beating around the bush and terminate the poor man and let him get on with his life.
His direct supervisor (I think this is you) and a witness (either HR or another equally high level manager), need to sit down and say, “PD, the nature of business and the company has changed over the years and as a result of this your employment with X Company has been terminated. Today will be your last day of work. We have put together this severance and retirement package. In order to receive the severance and/or enhanced retirement package you must sign this general release. Please take your time to look it over. We advise you to speak with an attorney prior to making a final decision.”
And then you jump to step 6 above. The only change is that you’re more likely to lose the lawsuit if you have just been shuffling him around rather than documenting his inability to perform. Moving him around to “force” him to resign won’t result in a clean resignation where everyone can pat themselves on the back and say, “boy, look how smart we were to get rid of him without firing him!” He will still have a case for a discrimination claim and even for unemployment, as he can claim a “constructive discharge.”
So, what do you do? You go to your boss and tell him that this person’s poor performance needs to be documented and then he needs to be terminated–not asked to resign, not shuffled around–terminated. Then you go ahead and do that. I know it’s unpleasant. It’s part of being the boss. When you take a job that involves managing other people you take on the responsibility of terminating them if the need arises. If your job was created by combining two positions into one, you don’t need performance issues, as it is a position elimination. (And please note, you don’t actually need a reason to terminate anyone. At will employment in almost all cases. But, the way this has been set up is going to require a reason if you want to survive the law suit.)
Your manager did you no favors by handling this poorly to begin with, but it’s now your problem. So, document, terminate, provide severance and require a general release. And please, please, please, get the release written by legal counsel. It is not okay to write one up yourself.
MY THOUGHTS
"if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck the jury will conclude that it is a duck." i'm quoting from the article above.
have you worked with ducks? one duck, one quack - not so bad- you learn to live with the quack until it's time to send the duck somewhere else where it can quack all it wants. now several ducks means lots of quacks. if you don't watch it, you'll be quacking,too. and it's your fault. you're the manager, aren't you? you may have inherited the ducks. but you're raising them now. you don't want to use the axe because you don't want to be unpopular with the ducks? then you are the real duck. (the jury should be on you)
you're the manager. your job description includes hiring. but it also includes firing. and if you're a good manager you would know how to hire. and how to fire. with training and coaching in between. one of the biggest mistakes a leader can make is to want to be popular. if everyone likes you, you're not doing your job.
the reason you are a manager (hopefully a leader, too), is the need to make "hard" decisions. that's why you're getting more pay. more fringe. that's where the ducks and their quacks come in.
if you need a goose to lay the golden eggs (that's what the head farmer expects from you) you find a goose. it can be a baby goose. but it should think and act like a goose. a young goose. with lots of potential to lay the golden goose eggs.
a duck, will never be a goose. that's just in fairy tales. a duck, will lay eggs. even golden eggs. duck eggs. not goose eggs. you can train the duck. coach the duck. send the duck to the best schools, training abroad. it comes back. it's still a duck. and it's still gonna give you duck eggs. you gave the duck training for a goose. what do you expect?
you think you're doing the duck a favor by letting it stay in your farm? wrong. you're making the duck miserable because nothing in this world can make it a goose. so, you transfer this duck to some other place in the farm. but yours is a goose farm!!!! and you let one single, miserable duck quack around your goose farm. you end up with geese quacking like ducks.
now, if you're a goose in a duck farm, you know what to do.
and if you're a duck, reading this. don't take it personally. there's nothing wrong with you. you're just in the wrong farm.
oh my goodness! enough is enough. i can feel myself ready to quack.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Facebook and Productivity
Why Your Employees Are More Productive When They Facebook at Work
By Dave Johnson | January 13, 2011
Many companies spend gobs of money and effort blocking Web sites like Facebook and YouTube in an attempt to corral employees into working more productivity. For many businesses, the Internet is perceived as little more than a temptation to distraction. Here’s a study that shows that the opposite is true.
A study conducted by the University of Melbourne contends that folks who perform reasonable amounts of Web-based goofing off are actually more productive than people who don’t.
The study featured 300 workers and found that those who spent time surfing the Web were about 9% more productive than those who did not.
How did people use the Internet? Online shopping and reading news were the most popular, with playing online games and watching video on YouTube also ranking very high.
The study makes sense. Using the Web for short bouts of recreation help employees recharge between tasks. Says Dr. Brent Coker, from Melbourne’s Department of Management and Marketing:
“Short and unobtrusive breaks, such as a quick surf of the internet, enables the mind to rest itself, leading to a higher total net concentration for a days work, and as a result, increased productivity.”
The lesson, of course, is that you can get more value from employees by embracing the Web and allowing reasonable use of the Web. And it’ll save you a lot of money on IT costs in the process.
MY THOUGHTS
works if you have mature employees. that means you are a mature employer. if you are able to measure results and make decisions based on those results and a system that would ease out non-performers, why bother blocking the internet? if people have enough meaningful work on their hands and they know you're serious about performance, you think they'll find the time to surf the net even if they want to?
during my brief project with a company, the CEO spent money (and time) blocking facebook, youtube and all other internet sights they can block. nothing happened. nothing changed. people found other ways to cheat on time. the real problem was not the internet.it's not even the employees. nor the lack of job descriptions, performance measures and the like. the problem is the CEO. but that's another story.
as a team leader, i really don't mind if you get to all the sites you can go to. unless of course they are morally incorrect sites. but i will raise hell if my people do that and the performance suffers. pretty soon, they will find they have all the time in the world to go to all the social networking sites.
By Dave Johnson | January 13, 2011
Many companies spend gobs of money and effort blocking Web sites like Facebook and YouTube in an attempt to corral employees into working more productivity. For many businesses, the Internet is perceived as little more than a temptation to distraction. Here’s a study that shows that the opposite is true.
A study conducted by the University of Melbourne contends that folks who perform reasonable amounts of Web-based goofing off are actually more productive than people who don’t.
The study featured 300 workers and found that those who spent time surfing the Web were about 9% more productive than those who did not.
How did people use the Internet? Online shopping and reading news were the most popular, with playing online games and watching video on YouTube also ranking very high.
The study makes sense. Using the Web for short bouts of recreation help employees recharge between tasks. Says Dr. Brent Coker, from Melbourne’s Department of Management and Marketing:
“Short and unobtrusive breaks, such as a quick surf of the internet, enables the mind to rest itself, leading to a higher total net concentration for a days work, and as a result, increased productivity.”
The lesson, of course, is that you can get more value from employees by embracing the Web and allowing reasonable use of the Web. And it’ll save you a lot of money on IT costs in the process.
MY THOUGHTS
works if you have mature employees. that means you are a mature employer. if you are able to measure results and make decisions based on those results and a system that would ease out non-performers, why bother blocking the internet? if people have enough meaningful work on their hands and they know you're serious about performance, you think they'll find the time to surf the net even if they want to?
during my brief project with a company, the CEO spent money (and time) blocking facebook, youtube and all other internet sights they can block. nothing happened. nothing changed. people found other ways to cheat on time. the real problem was not the internet.it's not even the employees. nor the lack of job descriptions, performance measures and the like. the problem is the CEO. but that's another story.
as a team leader, i really don't mind if you get to all the sites you can go to. unless of course they are morally incorrect sites. but i will raise hell if my people do that and the performance suffers. pretty soon, they will find they have all the time in the world to go to all the social networking sites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)