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.
Friday, February 18, 2011
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)