It’s as Simple as Talking and Listening

I’m a fan of books like Jules Verne’s “Around the World in 80 Days” and H. G. Well’s “The Time Machine.” These are great books, truly classics. If you’ve read them, you’ll remember how the gentleman of the day would meet at a club, have a leisurely lunch and then retire to library for brandy and conversation. They would apparently talk for hours about all the important subjects of the day. When was the last time you sat with a group of co-workers or friends and talked for hours about the important subjects of the day? When was the last time you did that for more than 10 minutes?

I’m afraid we are losing the art of dialog. Our “conversations” now are more likely to be texted, emailed or tweeted. Can you really have a conversation when you are limited to 140 characters? Email is a horrendous way to communicate most things, but is texting or Twitter any better? Why don’t we just talk to each other more?

And when we do talk, we don’t really dialogue. We have meetings. We solve problems. We try to get the conversations over as quickly as possible. Or, those who talk never listen. They simply rant about their views and what they think is right. “Talk” radio had exploded, but that’s not dialogue, its broadcast ranting. Go to Congress and listen to a “debate”. They aren’t debating anything. They are taking turns shouting their opinions and not listening to a word the other side says – except for how they can use it against them.

If you go to the Internet (the font of all knowledge) you’ll find hundreds of articles and books about dialogue and conversation. Unfortunately, you’ll find books – and not conversations. (Well, maybe on YouTube – I didn’t check there). So how do we get our voices back? I propose three steps.

First – you gotta wanna. This is a great line from “The Great Game of Business” by Jack Stack. The fundamental principle is sound, unless you want to make change, you won’t. If you agree with me that our world would be a better place if we’d simply engage in productive dialogues, then the first step is to start. Make it important. Schedule and protect time – not for meetings with agendas – just for discussion.

Second – you need to listen. As my mom used to say, “God gave you two ears and one mouth.” We need to listen twice as much as we talk. As Stephen Covey says “Seek first to understand and then be understood.” You can’t carry on a conversation if you don’t know what the other guy is saying. If you listen, without worrying about your response or discrediting the speaker, maybe you’ll learn something that could inform your opinion.

Third – talk, with respect and civility. Don’t speak as if you are the master of the universe, but instead as one small member of a very large pool of society. Be humble, but assertive. You have a voice. Hopefully you have well formed opinions. Don’t be afraid to speak up for them – not to win the argument – but to enrich the discussion and improve the dialogue.

We don’t have to have men’s clubs, libraries and brandy snifters to have a good conversation (but wouldn’t it be great if we could). We can bring back dialogue. We just have to sit down and talk about it.

Bowling Under a Curtain

This is an update of a post originally published in April, 2010.

Performance reviews – the very mention of them brings grown managers to their knees. It seems universal that managers don’t like to give reviews and employees don’t like to receive them. So why do we torture ourselves like this every year?

For one simple reason – because they are important. Employees want and need to know how they are doing. They want to improve and do a good job. Managers have a responsibility to the employee and to the organization to provide open and honest feedback. Managers are also obliged to document performance in a manner that can support a wide range of business decisions such as pay changes, promotions, transfers, demotions and terminations.

The biggest mistake that managers make in managing performance is to not give feedback often enough. Imagine that an employee and a manger go to a bowling alley together. The Manager then constructs a curtain half-way down the lane with only enough room underneath for the ball to pass through and the employee can’t see the pins. The employee then proceeds to bowl the entire game while the manager keeps score. At the end of the game the manager looks up and says “140 – not bad but you need to shift more to the right.” 

That is how the typical performance appraisal works – looking backward at high-level measures with very little corrective information. An unsatisfying activity for everyone involved. Now imagine instead that the curtain is taken down and the manager and employee discuss the game plan and the expectations of the employee (“We need at least a 150 to meet our corporate goal.”). Then while the employee bowls the manager periodically gives feedback, adjusting them employee’s form, making sure the ball is the correct weight, and providing support and encouragement.

Now when they sit down at the end of the year there are no surprises. The employee has known all year long how well he’s doing and what the manager thinks about his performance. This is a much more satisfying and productive conversation.

So, before you sit down and write another year’s worth of evaluations, ask yourself a few questions. Have I constructed a curtain so my employees can’t see their impact on the business? Am I regularly coaching and encouraging? Did I set clear expectations at the beginning of the year? Do my superstars know that they are superstars? What have I done to remove obstacles and provide support to my team?

You’ll find that if you manage expectations and performance all year long, you’ll get higher performance and the appraisal process is easier, more effective and much less stressful.

How Fast are You Moving?

This is an update of a post originally published in June, 2010.

At a client’s office I’ve had two people use the analogy, “We move fast here – sometimes it’s like trying to change your shoes in the middle of the race.” Interesting analogy isn’t it. This company is in a deadline driven manufacturing business with lots of customers that expect timely delivery of quality product. Clearly there is a need for managers to have a sense of urgency in the way they operate, but do they need to go so fast they don’t have time to change their shoes?

I’ve worked in some time-sensitive businesses. One was a magazine publisher where the material had to be at press by a set day each month, no questions asked. Yet, the question was asked – a lot – and many times deadlines were pushed back. When that happens, the people at the next step in the process have to rush their work, often making errors or simply having to work harder or faster than they should. Usually little good came from rushing.

What I observed was that while all magazines had the same monthly deadlines, some were chronically late with panic ensuing on a monthly basis, while others were consistently on time or even a bit early. While one Editor was frantically trying to get his book put to bed, another was mid-way through the development of next month’s issue.

There were probably lots of reasons for this. Maybe one Editor was more organized or had a more experienced staff. Maybe one didn’t plan well or frequently had unforeseen problems. But one thing I observed was that to varying degrees, those that were chronically scrambling liked it that way. They were “I perform better under pressure” people. They liked the excitement of the scramble – the challenge of expediting – the thrill of sliding in under the wire.

So back to my client – I posed a question to the CEO asking if the attitude “we move fast here” was a source of organizational pride or frustration. From his perspective, was the “rush” nature of the business really because the company needed to meet many deadlines, or was it a somewhat “manufactured” value? For an answer I got a contemplative look and “Hmmm, good question.” I expect that it was really some of both.

I’ll contend that some cultures like the excitement that comes from moving fast. They like to react and see themselves as flexible and nimble. While I’m all about an organization being nimble and responsive to customer needs, I’m concerned that those who intentionally live in the fast lane might be putting undue stress on the organization. Aren’t there parts of the business that would perform better if not always rushing? Might we not get better “rush” performance if we didn’t have to do it all time? Are we risking burning out good people because they never get to catch their breath?

There’s no right answer here. Every organization has its unique issues, but it’s worth thinking about. If your company is starting to get holes in the bottom of your shoes, maybe a little more planning and contemplative time might improve the overall performance. Remember, it was the tortoise that won the race.

Putting “Management” back in “Performance Management” – Again

This is an update of a post originally published in May, 2010.

Several years ago Dr. Samuel Culbert, professor of management at the UCLA Anderson School of Management in Los Angeles, wrote an article for The Wall Street Journal on Performance Appraisals. While the article is well written and has some valid points, I think the author missed the mark.

The first two-thirds of this article are a fairly typical rant against performance appraisals and all the ways that they can work counter to the organization’s intent. The final third describes the way most modern performance management systems are supposed to work – but usually don’t. However, most of the problems aren’t with the system, they are with the manager.

In most well defined performance management processes, managers are supposed to work with employees to set goals and career development plans in advance. Those goals should provide some line-of-sight for employees so they can see directly how their work impacts the success of the department, division and company as a whole.

Managers are supposed to meet with employees regularly throughout the year and focus on feedback, status updates, coaching and developing. Then they are supposed to get the employees’ self-appraisal in advance as well as seek input from others and then use that input, along with their own observations, to develop a review. The review itself should be a discussion and should hold no surprises for anyone because the subject has been discussed regularly (and formally) throughout the year. A well written review is balanced and defines specific areas of both accomplishment and less-than-ideal performance.

The problem isn’t the review – or even the concept of the review. The problem is that most managers don’t follow the process. They don’t work with employees to set goals – which they might call “babysitting”. They don’t talk with employees about career development. They don’t have regular formal sessions to talk about performance and to update goals – “good employees know how they are doing”. They don’t put any energy into writing the review. They want a form where they can check boxes and relieve themselves from what they perceive is an onerous task. They want the easy way out.

The bottom line is that too many managers don’t take responsibility for doing their jobs – MANAGING – which is hard work. And unfortunately, the higher you go in most organizations, the more truth there is to these statements. Senior managers think that their subordinate managers don’t need to be “managed on managing” – they only have to hold them accountable for the numbers.

Managers, starting at the top, need to manage – and that means talking with people about how well they are doing their jobs – giving them regular, structured and formal feedback on their performance – listening to their employees about what’s working and what’s not – helping their employees develop their skills and their careers. To manage means “to get things done through people”. Management does not mean “hit your numbers at all cost without regard to the people who do the work.”

We don’t need to throw out performance reviews – we need to make managers manage. If someone can tell me how to do that, then the world will be a better place.

The Word of the Day – Intentionality

It’s inevitable, isn’t it? The saying used to be that nothing was certain but death and taxes, but what is really certain is change. The rate of change is accelerating and is almost overwhelming. The year I was born, the Soviet’s launched Sputnik. The year I graduated from college Apple launched the personal computer. This year a talking computer stomped two very talented guys at Jeopardy. What’s next?

What’s funny though, is that as the rate of change has accelerated, so has the resistance to change. The saying should be; the more things change the more some people want them to stay the same. People love to hunker down, oblivious to the real world, and keep doing what they’ve always been doing just because they’ve always been doing it! It drives me crazy.

One of my favorite business buzzwords is intentionality. I like to make sure I’m doing things in manner that we’ve intentionally decided to do them. That may be just like we’ve always done them, or it may not. The key is that rather than accepting the status quo, I want to intentionally validate that this is the right process at the right time. As you might have guessed, sometimes other people don’t always like to see me coming. I hear you asking, so, if I’m constantly challenging people and processes, how do I keep from getting shot at on a regular basis? Predominately, because I am also very intentional about the change process.

Long ago I worked for a small insurance company that had a long history and tradition of serving their customers. The challenge was that a large number of employees framed every discussion based on what happened in the past. They continually celebrated their heritage without regard to their future. If you placed these people on a time line, standing on today, they would be always looking backwards at where they’d come from and they were not very interested in where they were going.  The future would take care of itself.

In contrast, that company had hired some new management who were challenged with opening new markets and growing the business. While they recognized the company’s history, they were all about tomorrow.  If you put them on the same time line, they always looked forward and forgot about the history like yesterday’s lunch. Not surprisingly there was some conflict in the organization.

What I realized was if, while standing on that timeline, both groups could take one step backwards, they’d then be looking at each other eye to eye. To be successful –meaning to implement some changes – the group needed to work together. They needed to learn to celebrate the past and to use those traditions to help shape the future. But, they also needed to learn to challenge what they were doing today – not to insult the past but to prepare for the future.

The lesson here is that change, just for the sake of change, is not always good. While we need to closely, and intentionally, evaluate processes and procedures, we don’t automatically need to change them. There may be some really good reasons that we do things the way we’ve always done them. Approaching everything with an open mind is the first step. Bring people from both camps together to forge the new solution. Start with agreeing on the goals surrounding the issue. Back to intentionality, answer the question – what is it we are really trying to accomplish? Once you’ve agreed to that you can tackle the harder part – how are we going to accomplish it? Look first at what you are currently doing. If there are deficiencies, identify ways to plug those gaps and build from there.

Back to the insurance company – we had one new manager who failed spectacularly. He came in like a helicopter gunship. He’d seen the future (someplace else) and what everyone needed to do was exactly what he told them to do and the company would thrive. They almost lynched him.

The secret here, as it is in life, is respect. Change is inevitable and constant. We can’t ignore it or fight it. We can however, make sure we use it, intentionally, to help us get our organizations to where they need to be.

HR’s Role in Hiring

Do you remember the Tom Hanks movie “Big” (1988)? I really like that movie – but there was one scene that always disturbed me. It’s the one where the newly “grown-up” Hanks moves to New York and is interviewing for a job. He meets one – apparently inept – HR person and then he goes to work. His new manager was not involved in the interviewing and selection process. You see the same thing happen in “Miracle on 34^th Street” (1947). The Personnel Director hires a Santa and puts him to work – only meeting the supervisor on his first day of work.

Are there places like this today? I certainly hope not. As our Managing Partner likes to say, “Every manager at every McDonald’s can hire his or her own people. There is no reason any other manager can’t do the same.” It is not HR’s job to hire employees. But, there are three distinct ways that HR can (and should) help.

Transactional – At this simplest level HR assists with the process side of hiring. HR can place any required help-wanted ads – making sure they are well written can contain appropriate language. HR can track the applications (for reporting purposes) and make sure that proper offer letters are generated. HR can also coordinate background searches and drug screens and conduct the orientation process once an employee is hired.

Problem-solving – A step up from the transactional level is the problem-solving level. In this mode HR is more engaged with the hiring manager, helping to ensure that the best person is hired. HR might help the manager better define the job description and thereby improve the ads and the interview questions. HR might screen the resumes and conduct an initial interview with qualified applicants – sending only qualified applicants to meet the hiring manager. HR might even do some “recruiting” – actively searching for qualified candidates rather than simply reacting to those who respond to ads. This might involve searching databases like CareerBuilder, looking on sites such as LinkedIn, or even directly calling competitors and other businesses looking for qualified applicants.

Transformational – The highest level of HR support in the employment process is transformational support. Here HR assists the manager in taking advantage of an open position to assess the overall health of the organization. Do you simply need to replace the person who left, or should we to shift some duties around, change several jobs and then hire someone new with a completely different set of skills and abilities? Are there issues in the department causing turnover that should be addressed before we throw another new person into the mix? Do we need to keep doing this work or could it be better done by someone else –or not done at all? These transformational activities challenge the manager to be more intentional and proactive, rather than simply attempting to replace the last person who sat in the chair.

What you didn’t see in any of those levels of support was HR making any hiring decisions. The manager of the new hire needs to be the one to make the selection evaluation and the decision on whom to hire. The manager needs to be responsible for setting the compensation and conducting any negotiations. HR is responsible to ensure that manager is equipped to do these things – but not to do them for him/her. I want managers to be invested in the hiring process. I want them to feel the “pain” of interviewing and selection so that they are committed to the new employee and work actively to help make them successful. HR can’t own those decisions – that’s the role of the manager.

With all deference to Hollywood, HR managers are not inept – nor do they do the manager’s job for them.

Why is Everyone Afraid of HR?

A few days ago I stopped at a local eatery to pick up lunch for the family.  While I was waiting for my order I happened to overhear parts of the conversation at the next table.  Two professional guys were having lunch and talking business.  What caught my ear was when one said “I need to get better at this HR stuff,” and the other replied, “Yeah, if you don’t you’ll get in real trouble.”

As I inadvertently eaves dropped over the next 10 minutes or so, I concluded that this was a manager and employee and they were in the middle of a performance review.  As a side note, I have to give them both kudos for doing a good job.  The manager was asking good open ended questions.  The employee was responding in what appeared to be an honest and self-aware fashion, pointing our areas he’d like to improve in. The manager was balancing encouragement and discussing areas that needed attention.  All in – one of the better performance review conversations I’ve eaves dropped on.

But again what struck me was that both of these guys seemed to either a) fully appreciate the complexities and importance of HR and were determined to do things right, or b) more likely they knew if they didn’t follow proper procedures there would be hell to pay.  I’ve heard people before talk about their HR departments in a way that suggested a “my way or the highway” approach.  I just don’t get that.

In a well-run company, the real HR managers are the line managers.  They are the ones interacting with employees on a regular basis, hiring, firing and managing performance and compensation.  In those companies the HR staff are “enablers”.  It’s HR’s job to make sure that the manager has the tools, training and support necessary to make good decisions.  HR provides transactional support, keeping the files, running payroll, administering benefits, etc. but the manager is the one making the decisions.

However, I know there are companies where that is not the case.  HR is involved in everything and no one makes any employee related decision with HR’s permission.  HR is both the keeper and the enforcer of “policy”.  When it comes to employee issues, HR says “jump” and managers say “how high?”  Let me tell you, that is just wrong.

Maybe the company had an incident in the past – possibly a lawsuit or a formal charge – and the executives decided that they are never going to let that happen again and put HR in charge.  Maybe turnover is high or productivity is low and the executives have decided that the fault lies with poor supervision. Rather than train or replace the supervisors they ask HR to play the role of Mommy or Daddy.

For almost every company I know, their employees truly are there most expensive asset and are either their competitive advantage or the cause of their problems.  To get the most out of employees, you don’t need stronger HR policies, you need better supervision.  HR’s role needs to be coach, counselor, trainer, or guide, not enforcer. 

First you need competent and confident HR professionals.  Then, you need to leave them alone to work their magic.  Let them help you transform the organization.  They’ll tell you who the good managers are – listen to them and train or replace the others.  They’ll tell you about problems with culture, benefits and compensation – heed their advice.  Use your HR team as a strategic force, not as disciplinarians.

HR should not be something to be feared.  It should be your right hand “man” in driving the corporate culture and improving overall performance.  If this isn’t how HR works for you, look at them closely, and look in the mirror.  One of you needs to change.

Death of an Intern

Notice – for those of you looking for some inside-the-beltway scandal involving members of Congress and attractive young women, you’ve come to the wrong blog. Unfortunately I’m talking about the Department of Labor’s Fact Sheet #71: Internship Programs Under The Fair Labor Standards Act. Not quite at titillating, is it? I guess it is from inside the beltway, but for the rest you’ll have to use your imagination.

When I was in college, and for many years before and after, if someone wanted to get experience in a given field, one way to do that was via an internship. The student would work for an organization for several months learning the craft. Most internships were not paid, the compensation was the access to real professionals doing real work. Often those internships would turn into job offers because the student had been given a chance to prove themselves. While interns were sometimes abused – made to fetch coffee and run errands – in many professions like journalism unpaid internships were simply part of the educational process.

Well, in April 2010 the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor sucked all the fun out of that balloon. Fact Sheet #17 lays out the specifics about what an Intern can do and, more specifically, when companies must pay them pay them for their efforts.

The DOL outlines six criteria that must be met before the internship can be unpaid. In general, the intern must produce no work that is used in any way by the organization and the relationship must solely benefit the intern in an educational experience. Internships used to be a two-way street. The organization got free entry-level labor in exchange for providing training. Now, the balance is completely swung to the Intern and the DOL says “The employer that provides the training derives no immediate advantage from the activities of the intern; and on occasion its operations may actually be impeded.”

Really – the organization’s operations may actually be impeded? The economy is struggling. Businesses are looking for every opportunity to reduce costs. Recent college graduates have some of the highest employment rates in memory and the DOL says in order to have an unpaid internship a company must be willing to have its operations impeded? I just can’t see that happening.

I understand where the DOL is coming from. Undoubtedly there are companies that would take advantage of interns – use them as free labor in order to gain a competitive advantage. Maybe they would treat them as something less than an employee – expecting work but returning nothing except the ability to list the “experience” on a future resume. That’s wrong. Interns are people too.

Internships should be a way for the inexperienced to gain real knowledge from the experienced. Internships should provide opportunities to work with people who are masters at their trade and eventually turn that learning into a career. I’m not advocating slavery, or indentured servitude. I just want some balance.

As a footnote – some of the real interesting reading on Fact Sheet 17 is in the footnotes. Apparently, unpaid internships for governments are generally just fine – but they call them “volunteers”.

Why You Need HR – Part II

Part of my anniversary celebration has been to re-read some of my previous posts to see if I forgot anything. Looking back on Why You Need HR (10/11/10) and Onboarding – What’s That? (3/31/10) I saw a connection that needed to be made clearer.

Why You Need HR does a good job of discussing the key functional areas of HR and how, when they are done well, you organization will benefit. Onboarding – What’s That pokes a little fun at the seeming tradition of the buzzword of the week. The connection? In Onboarding I mention that back-in-the-day Human Resources was call Personnel. These days it may be called Talent Management. Is this change simply semantics or are there some real differences?

Personally I think Talent Management is a buzzword – a new and catchy name that does not really distinguish a difference from Human Resources. To me, Talent Management sounds more like Personnel. But, there is a big difference between HR and Personnel and while your organization needs a good Personnel department, it also needs a strong Human Resources leader.

Personnel is all about processes. With a well run Personnel Department you will have compliance, accurate files, functional forms, accurate record keeping and a detailed employee handbook. Personnel will give you a consistent hiring process with good applicant tracking, a standardized compensation system and a rigorously completed performance appraisals process. Personnel may also run payroll and you can be assured that everyone will be paid in a timely and accurate fashion, and that benefits will be administered correctly.  Personnel will make sure that training classes are delivered and attendance is tracked. In summary, all i’s will be dotted and t’s will be crossed.

What you might not get from Personnel is leadership, innovation, strategy or change, and that’s where real Human Resources steps in. You should be able to look to your Human Resources leader to challenge the status quo. When it comes to hiring, Personnel will take the job description, run the ad and provide qualified candidates. What HR will do is to first ask “Are you sure this is what you want to do?” Use every opening as a chance to revisit the organization structure. What has changed since the last time we hired someone? Is this an opportunity to reassign duties, change the work flow, get more or different talent? HR should be making you answer those questions, not simply implementing the hiring process.

While Personnel is busy performing compensation surveys and evaluating jobs, HR should be having strategic conversations with executives about who’s doing great work and who isn’t – who needs to be challenged and who needs to be replaced.

The real difference may be that when you ask Personnel a question, you should get an accurate answer. When you ask HR a question, the response should be another question along the lines of “What problem are you really trying to solve?” Personnel is about today while HR is about tomorrow.

As a leader, look at your Human Resources department (I bet that’s what you call it). Are they really HR, or are they Personnel? You don’t want to get rid of Personnel – it’s very important to your organization – but if that’s all you have then you’re missing something important. Every organization needs some real Human Resources in their life.

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine

Some Thoughts on Unions

The debacle in Wisconsin got me thinking – which side of that mess should I be on? You know the story – the Governor wanted to remove the collective bargaining rights from government workers – the Democrats ran to Illinois to try to stop him – they failed – now the citizens are trying to recall everyone – what a mess! One side will tell you that they are just trying to give “management” the flexibility they need to control spending. The other side will complain that they are walking on workers’ rights and trying to balance the budget on the backs of the common man. Who’s right? As is usually the case in highly publicized arguments, probably both of them.

Labor unions in the United States have done wonderful things for American workers. It is because of unions – and the force they could apply to both business owners and the government – they can take credit for the 40 hour work week (as opposed to working dawn to dusk), minimum wage, better benefits and safer working environments. As they say – a rising tide lifts all boats – and as unions won concessions from management those same advantages spilled into the non-union workforce. However, some will contend that the unions went too far. Unions are “blamed” for protecting poor performers, causing wages and benefits to rise to an unsustainable level and spending more dues on politics than on the members.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics published a study on union membership in January, 2011. Here is a link to their report, and here are some interesting observations:

• Union membership has declined to approximately 14.7 million workers or just under 12% of the workforce.
• Teachers and Protective Service Workers (aka Police and Firefighters) have the highest percentages of union membership (37% and 34% respectively) while sales and agriculture workers are the lowest at fewer than 4%.
• In terms of industries, public sector workers swamp all other contenders at 36%, with local governments hitting almost 46%. On the flip-side Finance and Food Service have only 1% union membership.
• Unions are strongest in New York (26% of workers) and Hawaii (23.5%) and weakest in North Carolina (4.9%) and Georgia (5.0%).
• Here’s what really surprised me – for all industries, jobs, etc. union members average almost 30% higher average weekly wage than non-union workers and for women, that gap jumps to 34%.

So back to Wisconsin. In Wisconsin, 15.1% of all workers are union members – a sizable chunk of the voter base, but not huge. But, if Wisconsin also has almost 50% of government workers in unions you can see where the conflicts might arise. Perhaps there is some merit to the pretense that those workers are being paid above-market compensation. Perhaps not – I don’t have the statistics to that detail – but it could make for an interesting discussion.

Why did unions become successful, because management was greedy, asked too much of workers and did not reward them sufficiently. What have we learned? Treat employees fairly, give them a safe work environment and pay them a competitive wage. If you do that there is no need for a union – and given my druthers, I’d rather be able to talk to my employees face-to-face rather than through a union rep.

Have a happy St. Patrick’s Day!

Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Yahoo Buzz | Newsvine