Most managers say they know how important it is to have the right people on their staff, but many (or even most) don’t act accordingly.
We've all worked with managers who dance around performance problems rather than addressing them head-on, who don’t focus enough on developing and retaining their best people, and who are way too slow to fire, if they do it at all. These are managers who either under-estimate the importance of having the right people or overestimate their own powers to shape their staffers’ performance.
The impact of having a team of high performers is dramatic. I'm not talking about small gains, like 5% or 10% in productivity and effectiveness. I'm talking about massive, startling gains. Research from a range of fields shows that high performers can outpace lower-performers by factors of five times or more. In other words, one high performer can have the same impact as five average performers.
You've probably seen this in your own experience. Most people have had the experience of having an employee who struggled to handle the volume of work and who swore that there was too much work for any one person to juggle ... but when they left, their replacements were able to handle all of the work and then some, to the point that we ended up giving the replacement extra work. I once inherited an employee who had racked up a six-month backlog of work. I replaced him with someone new, who within one month had processed the six-month backlog and was fully caught up.
Having the right person in the job makes a huge difference. And having the wrong person will hold you back tremendously.
What does this mean for managers? You should put significant energy into getting and keeping the right people and moving out the ones who don’t meet that bar. And while it's certainly worth some investment of your time to help develop people who are struggling, ultimately the person needs to meet a high bar, not a medium one. Otherwise, the opportunity cost is just too high.
Showing posts with label good management. Show all posts
Showing posts with label good management. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Sunday, April 19, 2009
turnover and morale during a recession
A reader writes:
Like most companies today, we have recently gone through a series of layoffs, budget freezes, cost-containment measures, low morale, and just plain difficult times. We have traditionally been a company that has overflowed with abundance, and our employees are finding it extremely difficult to cope with the complete turnaround to a company that is now struggling. We are seeing some turnover from those employees who "survived" the layoffs, while other employees who have remained with us are simply "putting in their time" with no passion or enjoyment of their job. This is not a fault in the employees, but rather a result of the economic times.
What measures are your company, and other companies taking to try and stem turnover and improve morale during a time when most budgets are "frozen"? That is, how can we work on improving our morale and reducing our turnover without spending money? Communication obviously is key, but I would be interested in what other companies are doing.
I'm interested in hearing others' opinions on this too, including what has and hasn't worked at their own companies.
I tend to believe that the most important thing in a situation like this is to be open and candid. Too often, companies try to hold information close and not let it get out -- but then either (a) employees can tell that they're in the dark and that alarms them, or (b) information gets out anyway, through unofficial channels, and it gets mangled in the telling and/or it comes without the sense of perspective that could have been attached had it come out more openly.
If you're open and candid with employees about the company's situation, worries, and future plans, most people feel more a part of the company, that you're all in it together. You get people offering suggestions and feeling and acting personally invested. Not everyone, of course. But many.
Similarly, I think people get it when you say, "We're not doing salary increases this year because we're focused on protecting everyone's job stability right now. We're going to take care of you with raises once we can do it safely."
Yes, some people may jump ship if they hear bad news -- but I'd rather be honest with someone and let them make the decision they feel is right for them based on accurate information than not. And really, in this economy, most people are worried there's bad news whether they're hearing it from you or not.
Aside from that, I think the most important things at a time like this are the things that are important all along but which plenty of us don't get right -- making sure people feel valued, get recognized for good work, are getting useful feedback, have clear goals, have the resources they need to do their jobs, and so forth.
That's a boring answer though. I know the alternatives might be things like creative recognition programs or new free benefits, but I really think the above is what ultimately makes people feel as secure as anyone can right now and makes them want to stay.
What do others think?
Like most companies today, we have recently gone through a series of layoffs, budget freezes, cost-containment measures, low morale, and just plain difficult times. We have traditionally been a company that has overflowed with abundance, and our employees are finding it extremely difficult to cope with the complete turnaround to a company that is now struggling. We are seeing some turnover from those employees who "survived" the layoffs, while other employees who have remained with us are simply "putting in their time" with no passion or enjoyment of their job. This is not a fault in the employees, but rather a result of the economic times.
What measures are your company, and other companies taking to try and stem turnover and improve morale during a time when most budgets are "frozen"? That is, how can we work on improving our morale and reducing our turnover without spending money? Communication obviously is key, but I would be interested in what other companies are doing.
I'm interested in hearing others' opinions on this too, including what has and hasn't worked at their own companies.
I tend to believe that the most important thing in a situation like this is to be open and candid. Too often, companies try to hold information close and not let it get out -- but then either (a) employees can tell that they're in the dark and that alarms them, or (b) information gets out anyway, through unofficial channels, and it gets mangled in the telling and/or it comes without the sense of perspective that could have been attached had it come out more openly.
If you're open and candid with employees about the company's situation, worries, and future plans, most people feel more a part of the company, that you're all in it together. You get people offering suggestions and feeling and acting personally invested. Not everyone, of course. But many.
Similarly, I think people get it when you say, "We're not doing salary increases this year because we're focused on protecting everyone's job stability right now. We're going to take care of you with raises once we can do it safely."
Yes, some people may jump ship if they hear bad news -- but I'd rather be honest with someone and let them make the decision they feel is right for them based on accurate information than not. And really, in this economy, most people are worried there's bad news whether they're hearing it from you or not.
Aside from that, I think the most important things at a time like this are the things that are important all along but which plenty of us don't get right -- making sure people feel valued, get recognized for good work, are getting useful feedback, have clear goals, have the resources they need to do their jobs, and so forth.
That's a boring answer though. I know the alternatives might be things like creative recognition programs or new free benefits, but I really think the above is what ultimately makes people feel as secure as anyone can right now and makes them want to stay.
What do others think?
Saturday, April 11, 2009
battle between old employees and new
A reader writes:
The company I work for as the HR manager first of all is a small, family-run business and has employees who've been with us since day 1 (25 years ago) and have been loyal and worked long and hard to help us get to where we're at today. The problem is times and attitudes have changed since then - but they haven't. There's a serious conflict of old versus new - and behaviors that may have been overlooked 20-odd years ago are proving to be unacceptable but hard to break now. As a result, there's a serious rift in the office between "us" and "them," the "old" versus the "young/new."
These older individuals constantly butt heads with the newer ones and it has gotten personal on several occasions. Ultimately, it ends up adversely affecting the customer, which is of course a huge concern for management. The relationship that management has with these older persons is also a personal as well as professional one so it makes the situation even more delicate. The newer ones have genuinely tried to make amends but to no avail, and it's breeding hostility, resentment and all round bad faith and mistrust.
Management is at its wits end. We've spoken with both sides on several occasions. We've tried to impress upon the older staff that they should take the lead in setting things right (this hasn't happened). The younger decision-makers (like myself and my husband) are really of the opinion that we'd rather get rid of 2 people than lose 6 - but upper management feels very uneasy about letting these people go because of their long-standing relationship.
What's the next step now?
When I first received this letter, I couldn't tell whether either side had an actual performance problem, or whether it was just a case of the two sides not getting along with each other. I wrote back and asked, and the letter-writer responded that the older side has an attitude problem that often affects performance since both sides are dependent on each other for any given job.
So. Why is management at wit's end? Management has authority to change things; it's just choosing not to use it.
Your management is uneasy about letting long-term employees go. And they should be uneasy, based on the way they've handled this so far. Up until now, it sounds like you've tried to persuade the problem employees that they must change, trying to coax them into it -- instead of set clear, non-negotiable standards and setting clear consequences for not following those standards. So far, your employees don't believe your demands have any teeth, because by allowing the behaviors to continue after multiple conversations, you've signaled that you're not willing to enforce those rules. It wouldn't be fair to fire them without having explicitly told them that was a possibility.
Instead, someone (you or whoever in the organization has the authority to do it) needs to sit down with the problem employees (individually, not as a group) and tell them clearly what must change and what the consequences will be for not changing. Give specifics about what you need them to do differently, and explain that their jobs will be in jeopardy if they don't meet that bar. For instance: "We've talked about this in the past and we haven't seen the changes we need. It's now at the point where I need to tell you that if we don't see significant, immediate improvement in this area, we would have to let you go. You've been a good employee and I hope you will be here for many more years, but that won't happen if we don't get on the same page about this."
If they argue with you, nicely explain that this isn't their decision to make, and that if they're not able to work happily under those conditions, this may not be the right job for them. See this post for some ideas on this.
By the way, if your upper management won't agree to this -- if they won't agree to set and enforce consequences -- then they're choosing to live with the problem. If so, at that point, you should all stop being all wit's end because a deliberate decision will have been made to accept the behavior. And for all I know, maybe that's a reasonable decision; maybe the problem is annoying but not bad enough to warrant firing. Plenty of problems fit that category. (And maybe you want less serious consequences instead, like telling them it will affect future performance evaluations and raises.) But either way, you all need to get on the same page about it: Either there are serious consequences or there aren't.
Good luck!
The company I work for as the HR manager first of all is a small, family-run business and has employees who've been with us since day 1 (25 years ago) and have been loyal and worked long and hard to help us get to where we're at today. The problem is times and attitudes have changed since then - but they haven't. There's a serious conflict of old versus new - and behaviors that may have been overlooked 20-odd years ago are proving to be unacceptable but hard to break now. As a result, there's a serious rift in the office between "us" and "them," the "old" versus the "young/new."
These older individuals constantly butt heads with the newer ones and it has gotten personal on several occasions. Ultimately, it ends up adversely affecting the customer, which is of course a huge concern for management. The relationship that management has with these older persons is also a personal as well as professional one so it makes the situation even more delicate. The newer ones have genuinely tried to make amends but to no avail, and it's breeding hostility, resentment and all round bad faith and mistrust.
Management is at its wits end. We've spoken with both sides on several occasions. We've tried to impress upon the older staff that they should take the lead in setting things right (this hasn't happened). The younger decision-makers (like myself and my husband) are really of the opinion that we'd rather get rid of 2 people than lose 6 - but upper management feels very uneasy about letting these people go because of their long-standing relationship.
What's the next step now?
When I first received this letter, I couldn't tell whether either side had an actual performance problem, or whether it was just a case of the two sides not getting along with each other. I wrote back and asked, and the letter-writer responded that the older side has an attitude problem that often affects performance since both sides are dependent on each other for any given job.
So. Why is management at wit's end? Management has authority to change things; it's just choosing not to use it.
Your management is uneasy about letting long-term employees go. And they should be uneasy, based on the way they've handled this so far. Up until now, it sounds like you've tried to persuade the problem employees that they must change, trying to coax them into it -- instead of set clear, non-negotiable standards and setting clear consequences for not following those standards. So far, your employees don't believe your demands have any teeth, because by allowing the behaviors to continue after multiple conversations, you've signaled that you're not willing to enforce those rules. It wouldn't be fair to fire them without having explicitly told them that was a possibility.
Instead, someone (you or whoever in the organization has the authority to do it) needs to sit down with the problem employees (individually, not as a group) and tell them clearly what must change and what the consequences will be for not changing. Give specifics about what you need them to do differently, and explain that their jobs will be in jeopardy if they don't meet that bar. For instance: "We've talked about this in the past and we haven't seen the changes we need. It's now at the point where I need to tell you that if we don't see significant, immediate improvement in this area, we would have to let you go. You've been a good employee and I hope you will be here for many more years, but that won't happen if we don't get on the same page about this."
If they argue with you, nicely explain that this isn't their decision to make, and that if they're not able to work happily under those conditions, this may not be the right job for them. See this post for some ideas on this.
By the way, if your upper management won't agree to this -- if they won't agree to set and enforce consequences -- then they're choosing to live with the problem. If so, at that point, you should all stop being all wit's end because a deliberate decision will have been made to accept the behavior. And for all I know, maybe that's a reasonable decision; maybe the problem is annoying but not bad enough to warrant firing. Plenty of problems fit that category. (And maybe you want less serious consequences instead, like telling them it will affect future performance evaluations and raises.) But either way, you all need to get on the same page about it: Either there are serious consequences or there aren't.
Good luck!
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
the Ask a Manager book for managers is here
It's here! My book, Managing to Change the World: The Nonprofit Leader's Guide to Getting Results, is now available.The book is geared toward nonprofit managers because that's what my co-author, Jerry Hauser (former COO of Teach For America and current head of The Management Center), and I care about most -- we want to see more nonprofits being effective instead of just well-intentioned. But there's little in here that I wouldn't recommend to any manager.
Our goal was to create an easy-to-use manual that would help managers get better results by equipping them with hands-on, practical advice, covering what we think are the most important areas for managers to master -- from delegating tasks, to setting and holding people accountable to clear goals, to hiring and firing, to staying organized and using your time effectively, to managing your boss. We also included a bunch of tools, like sample scripts for conducting performance coaching or a firing.
Here's the table of contents:
Introduction: The Job of a Manager
Section I. Managing the Work
Overview: Sharing the Burden
Chapter 1 Managing Specific Tasks: Basic Delegation
Chapter 2 Managing Broad Responsibilities: Setting and Using Goals
Chapter 3 Managing the "In-Between": Building a Culture of Excellence
Chapter 4 Managing the Day-to-Day Work of Your Team: Structures to Bring It All Together
Section II. Managing the People
Overview: It's All About the Right People
Chapter 5 Hiring Superstars
Chapter 6 Developing People
Chapter 7 Retaining Your Best
Chapter 8 Addressing Performance Problems
Section III. Managing Yourself
Overview: Becoming a Manager
Chapter 9 How to Exercise Authority Without Being a Wimp or a Tyrant
Chapter 10 Time and Systems
Chapter 11 Managing Up
Conclusion: Personal Attributes of a Great Manager
Section I. Managing the Work
Overview: Sharing the Burden
Chapter 1 Managing Specific Tasks: Basic Delegation
Chapter 2 Managing Broad Responsibilities: Setting and Using Goals
Chapter 3 Managing the "In-Between": Building a Culture of Excellence
Chapter 4 Managing the Day-to-Day Work of Your Team: Structures to Bring It All Together
Section II. Managing the People
Overview: It's All About the Right People
Chapter 5 Hiring Superstars
Chapter 6 Developing People
Chapter 7 Retaining Your Best
Chapter 8 Addressing Performance Problems
Section III. Managing Yourself
Overview: Becoming a Manager
Chapter 9 How to Exercise Authority Without Being a Wimp or a Tyrant
Chapter 10 Time and Systems
Chapter 11 Managing Up
Conclusion: Personal Attributes of a Great Manager
And here are some quotes from readers:
You can buy Managing to Change the World here. Tell your nonprofit-y friends! Buy it anonymously for your incompetent manager!
"Managing to Change the World gives remarkably helpful and practical advice about important management strategies and skills in the nonprofit world. This book is a treasure with sound guidance on how to achieve organizational excellence." -- Heather Booth, founder and president, Midwest AcademyAnd hell, if you still want more, you can read the first chapter here.
"This book captures the nuts-and-bolts of management in a comprehensive, insightful, and practical manner. What a great resource for both nonprofit and for-profit managers." -- Les Silverman, director emeritus, McKinsey & Company
"Our country needs more than good ideas and strong policies, we need leaders with the management skills to implement change effectively -- this book shows them how." -- Erica Payne, progressive strategist and author of The Practical Progressive: How to Build a 21st Century Political Movement
You can buy Managing to Change the World here. Tell your nonprofit-y friends! Buy it anonymously for your incompetent manager!
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
being asked to "fix" a coworker
A reader writes:
I work for a very large company, on a very small team of specialists that does a ton of work. About a week ago, my boss pulled me aside for a one on one. I have a really good relationship with my manager, I can say without hesitation that I really enjoy working with the guy and he's very fair - and understanding to a fault.
A while ago I actually sent in an inquiry to you about a slacker employee on my team, and how to bring it up to my manager. Well, let's just say that this individual finally dropped the ball on something pretty big, and I had no choice but to clean up the mess. Let us also say that I suspect my manager took a fair amount of heat for the mistake once it was made, and came to a realization about how severe the nature of this person's slacker-hood is.
My boss moves my team around sometimes, and we basically had a conversation about how I would be moving next to this individual in hopes that my stellar work ethic and leadership skills will somehow rub off on this less than effective employee and make him a better worker. This happens to me at jobs. People assume that because I work hard, I am going to be able to help them make poor performers better at their job. It's never worked thus far, probably a reflection of my less than stellar leadership skills, but here I am again in this same situation, being asked to help this person who frankly has been in their position much longer than me and who is much older than I am better at their job.
I expressed this concern and frankly some doubtfulness to my boss that I could accomplish this given my track record, but he seems confident I can do this, yet has assured me he will not hold me accountable if this tactic does not have the desired effect.
Can you offer me suggestions on guiding this guy? The conversation between my boss and myself was definitely a confidential one, but I do feel I need communicate to this guy that if he doesn't shape up, he's shipping out - how can I accomplish this without letting on how much I know about his performance issues? I want to do this right (if possible) because I am trying to view it as an opportunity to develop some leadership skills and frankly, some cajones myself, but I have absolutely no experience with making this "Good Employee Fixes Bad Employee" thing work, so I am hoping for some expert advice on doing it in a tactful, clear, and concise way - IF it can be done.
Hmmm.
First, unless your boss has specifically told you that you can talk to this guy about the fact that his job may be in jeopardy, you shouldn't address that with him. That's the manager's job, not yours.
Speaking of things that are your manager's job, addressing poor performance is one of them. I hope that your manager's plan for this guy is something more than asking you to mentor him. A good manager would be addressing his concerns frankly with the guy, telling him what the issues are, the ways that he's falling short, and what the consequences are of not improving. I hope your manager is doing all that, and that having you model good behavior for the employee is just a bonus, but I have a feeling that might not be the case.
Your manager should not be putting you in a position where you feel responsible for a problem employee's success, because (a) that's his responsibility, and (b) you don't have the tools to make an impact -- because you don't have the authority that you'd need to address this head-on.
What exactly is it that your boss wants you to do? Just be a good role model? Or something more proactive? If the latter, you need to find out exactly what your role is supposed to be and what you have the authority to do. Without some authority over him, the most you can offer is help and guidance on specific projects. But if this guy is a slacker, I doubt he'll care to benefit from that, and that brings us back to your manager needing to manage.
For the love of god, what is up with managers who try to avoid managing? That's what it sounds like you've got here.
I work for a very large company, on a very small team of specialists that does a ton of work. About a week ago, my boss pulled me aside for a one on one. I have a really good relationship with my manager, I can say without hesitation that I really enjoy working with the guy and he's very fair - and understanding to a fault.
A while ago I actually sent in an inquiry to you about a slacker employee on my team, and how to bring it up to my manager. Well, let's just say that this individual finally dropped the ball on something pretty big, and I had no choice but to clean up the mess. Let us also say that I suspect my manager took a fair amount of heat for the mistake once it was made, and came to a realization about how severe the nature of this person's slacker-hood is.
My boss moves my team around sometimes, and we basically had a conversation about how I would be moving next to this individual in hopes that my stellar work ethic and leadership skills will somehow rub off on this less than effective employee and make him a better worker. This happens to me at jobs. People assume that because I work hard, I am going to be able to help them make poor performers better at their job. It's never worked thus far, probably a reflection of my less than stellar leadership skills, but here I am again in this same situation, being asked to help this person who frankly has been in their position much longer than me and who is much older than I am better at their job.
I expressed this concern and frankly some doubtfulness to my boss that I could accomplish this given my track record, but he seems confident I can do this, yet has assured me he will not hold me accountable if this tactic does not have the desired effect.
Can you offer me suggestions on guiding this guy? The conversation between my boss and myself was definitely a confidential one, but I do feel I need communicate to this guy that if he doesn't shape up, he's shipping out - how can I accomplish this without letting on how much I know about his performance issues? I want to do this right (if possible) because I am trying to view it as an opportunity to develop some leadership skills and frankly, some cajones myself, but I have absolutely no experience with making this "Good Employee Fixes Bad Employee" thing work, so I am hoping for some expert advice on doing it in a tactful, clear, and concise way - IF it can be done.
Hmmm.
First, unless your boss has specifically told you that you can talk to this guy about the fact that his job may be in jeopardy, you shouldn't address that with him. That's the manager's job, not yours.
Speaking of things that are your manager's job, addressing poor performance is one of them. I hope that your manager's plan for this guy is something more than asking you to mentor him. A good manager would be addressing his concerns frankly with the guy, telling him what the issues are, the ways that he's falling short, and what the consequences are of not improving. I hope your manager is doing all that, and that having you model good behavior for the employee is just a bonus, but I have a feeling that might not be the case.
Your manager should not be putting you in a position where you feel responsible for a problem employee's success, because (a) that's his responsibility, and (b) you don't have the tools to make an impact -- because you don't have the authority that you'd need to address this head-on.
What exactly is it that your boss wants you to do? Just be a good role model? Or something more proactive? If the latter, you need to find out exactly what your role is supposed to be and what you have the authority to do. Without some authority over him, the most you can offer is help and guidance on specific projects. But if this guy is a slacker, I doubt he'll care to benefit from that, and that brings us back to your manager needing to manage.
For the love of god, what is up with managers who try to avoid managing? That's what it sounds like you've got here.
Monday, March 16, 2009
beware the overly nice manager
Of all the qualities you don't want in a manager, here's one that you might not have thought about: overly nice.Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I talk about what the problems are with managers who are too nice. Please check it out and leave your own thoughts in the comments over there.
Monday, February 16, 2009
managing women from a douchebag's perspective
I'm not in the habit of leaving angry comments on other people's blogs, but Brazen Careerist today features a post called "Managing Women: From A Guy's Perspective," and I couldn't help myself.
From what I can tell, it was written by a 14-year-old boy. It includes gems like:
From what I can tell, it was written by a 14-year-old boy. It includes gems like:
- All women love chivalry!
- Male bosses should compliment their women employees on their appearance!
- Women are so catty!
unreasonable sick leave policy?
A reader writes:
I work for a well-known hospital in New York City. The company administers an employee satisfaction survey every year, and for the past few years there had been an increasingly negative response to the policies concerning sick leave. We accrue 90 hours of sick time a year (twelve 7.5 hour days). The original policy tied the number of days that you were out sick to 20% of your performance evaluation which, in turn, directly impacted your raise. This year, the HR department revised the policy, stating that it was no longer tied to your performance evaluation. However, any absences over 4 days within a 12 month period now result in disciplinary action. Here is the breakdown:
Over 4 days - counseling
Over 6 days - verbal warning
Over 8 days - written warning
Over 10 days - final warning
Over 12 days - termination
I assure you that I am not exaggerating in the least. How is it that the hospital can give us 90 hours of sick leave a year and then fire someone if they use it? There is no standing requirement that employees turn in a doctor's note unless they are out more than three days consecutively. I might add that the nature of my work is very stressful in that we deal with a high volume of very sick patients. Is this even legal?
It's legal but parts of it are not particularly wise or fair. Basically, the hospital is saying that if you use more than the number of sick days provided, it's grounds for termination. That's not that unusual; many employers draw a line in the sand about how much absenteeism is simply too much.
But what stands out to me about this policy is that there are various disciplinary measures well before an employee reaches that point. Why give you 12 sick days if you're going to start getting warned after using only four of them? It's silly and sends a message that you don't really have the 12 sick days they claim you have.
(I am assuming, by the way, that the employer makes the legally-required exceptions for FMLA, etc.)
I work for a well-known hospital in New York City. The company administers an employee satisfaction survey every year, and for the past few years there had been an increasingly negative response to the policies concerning sick leave. We accrue 90 hours of sick time a year (twelve 7.5 hour days). The original policy tied the number of days that you were out sick to 20% of your performance evaluation which, in turn, directly impacted your raise. This year, the HR department revised the policy, stating that it was no longer tied to your performance evaluation. However, any absences over 4 days within a 12 month period now result in disciplinary action. Here is the breakdown:
Over 4 days - counseling
Over 6 days - verbal warning
Over 8 days - written warning
Over 10 days - final warning
Over 12 days - termination
I assure you that I am not exaggerating in the least. How is it that the hospital can give us 90 hours of sick leave a year and then fire someone if they use it? There is no standing requirement that employees turn in a doctor's note unless they are out more than three days consecutively. I might add that the nature of my work is very stressful in that we deal with a high volume of very sick patients. Is this even legal?
It's legal but parts of it are not particularly wise or fair. Basically, the hospital is saying that if you use more than the number of sick days provided, it's grounds for termination. That's not that unusual; many employers draw a line in the sand about how much absenteeism is simply too much.
But what stands out to me about this policy is that there are various disciplinary measures well before an employee reaches that point. Why give you 12 sick days if you're going to start getting warned after using only four of them? It's silly and sends a message that you don't really have the 12 sick days they claim you have.
(I am assuming, by the way, that the employer makes the legally-required exceptions for FMLA, etc.)
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
should managers organize "fun" at work?
A reader writes:
Obviously with these difficult economic times, employees are feeling stressed, burned out, and anxious, among other things. Being fairly new to the HR industry, I think that more fun activities (such as cook-offs, cookie decorating for V-Day, and maybe even a corn-hole tournament in the summer) should be introduced to the staff to help relieve some of the tension. I was thinking about having at least one fun activity every other month.
Shouldn’t employees be able to have fun at work? Do you think this could be an effective way to improve morale? Is there such a thing as scheduling too many activities that it could actually take away from productivity? The reason why I ask the last question is because I’m thinking about maybe showing a short movie at lunch time in a week, then another employee is scheduling an activity two weeks after that and then Valentine’s Day is approaching and I was thinking about having an activity for that holiday… Thanks!
I'm going to be Scrooge here. Yes, there's such a thing as too many activities impacting productivity. Fundamentally, employees are there to get things done. So really, every activity you plan that takes them away from that impacts their productivity. You've got to think about what the mission of the company is, and how using their time in the ways you propose contributes to that.
Of course, presumably your thinking is that by increasing fun at work, you increase people's morale, which ultimately leads to higher productivity. And it's true that higher morale tends to equal higher productivity. But is "fun" the way to do it? I'm going to argue it's not, and here's why.
For most people, morale and quality of life at work isn't about having a series of fun activities, but rather about having coworkers you like, a boss who is fair and effective, the resources you need to do your job, recognition for good work, clear expectations, and so forth. In fact, without these things, planned activities can really backfire; it can be infuriating to work somewhere that doesn't put much effort into these fundamentals but then expects employees to go wild over a fun outing or social event.
Also, many, many people will resent having their work time used on non-work activities. Show me an office organizing a cookie-decorating session and I will show you a bunch of people wondering why they can't instead just go home an hour earlier if you don't need them doing work during that time. Lots of people want to have their fun on their own time, in the ways they choose and with the people they choose.
Clearly, your motivation is in the right place: You want happy, less stressed employees. But I'd encourage you to think about different ways of achieving your goal. It's not about entertaining them, but about thinking about what they really want -- see the list above -- and finding ways to deliver that to them instead. It's much harder -- but a far more effective path to your goal.
Obviously with these difficult economic times, employees are feeling stressed, burned out, and anxious, among other things. Being fairly new to the HR industry, I think that more fun activities (such as cook-offs, cookie decorating for V-Day, and maybe even a corn-hole tournament in the summer) should be introduced to the staff to help relieve some of the tension. I was thinking about having at least one fun activity every other month.
Shouldn’t employees be able to have fun at work? Do you think this could be an effective way to improve morale? Is there such a thing as scheduling too many activities that it could actually take away from productivity? The reason why I ask the last question is because I’m thinking about maybe showing a short movie at lunch time in a week, then another employee is scheduling an activity two weeks after that and then Valentine’s Day is approaching and I was thinking about having an activity for that holiday… Thanks!
I'm going to be Scrooge here. Yes, there's such a thing as too many activities impacting productivity. Fundamentally, employees are there to get things done. So really, every activity you plan that takes them away from that impacts their productivity. You've got to think about what the mission of the company is, and how using their time in the ways you propose contributes to that.
Of course, presumably your thinking is that by increasing fun at work, you increase people's morale, which ultimately leads to higher productivity. And it's true that higher morale tends to equal higher productivity. But is "fun" the way to do it? I'm going to argue it's not, and here's why.
For most people, morale and quality of life at work isn't about having a series of fun activities, but rather about having coworkers you like, a boss who is fair and effective, the resources you need to do your job, recognition for good work, clear expectations, and so forth. In fact, without these things, planned activities can really backfire; it can be infuriating to work somewhere that doesn't put much effort into these fundamentals but then expects employees to go wild over a fun outing or social event.
Also, many, many people will resent having their work time used on non-work activities. Show me an office organizing a cookie-decorating session and I will show you a bunch of people wondering why they can't instead just go home an hour earlier if you don't need them doing work during that time. Lots of people want to have their fun on their own time, in the ways they choose and with the people they choose.
Clearly, your motivation is in the right place: You want happy, less stressed employees. But I'd encourage you to think about different ways of achieving your goal. It's not about entertaining them, but about thinking about what they really want -- see the list above -- and finding ways to deliver that to them instead. It's much harder -- but a far more effective path to your goal.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
where does mentoring pay off the most?
I've written before about how much I like informally mentoring people, and it's generally an instinct that kicks in when I spot someone of a particular profile: young/relatively new to the work world, smart, motivated, and promising but inexperienced. And it seems obvious why -- their talents seem worth investing the time to give them some extra guidance and attention, to help them really flourish. And often they don't yet know that there's something special about them, and it's rewarding to help them spot and harness it.
But it occurs to me to wonder if it wouldn't actually be better to apply that kind of time and attention to a different type of person instead -- the struggling rather than the obviously promising.
Do we seek out those with star potential because they'll benefit the most from our help -- or is it possible that it's actually less about that and more because we like to see ourselves in them, or that it's so gratifying to watch them blossom and feel we played a role in their success? Maybe we'd actually have a more significant impact if we made that kind of time investment with someone who doesn't have obvious star potential, someone who doesn't appear to be a natural candidate for grooming.
After all, the clearly promising ones are more likely to find their way regardless of our help, although perhaps our help gets them there faster or more smoothly. It's the not-so-obvious candidates where mentoring and extra attention might really make the decisive difference.
I suspect this isn't a novel thought at all to many people, but it was a semi-epiphany for me.
But it occurs to me to wonder if it wouldn't actually be better to apply that kind of time and attention to a different type of person instead -- the struggling rather than the obviously promising.
Do we seek out those with star potential because they'll benefit the most from our help -- or is it possible that it's actually less about that and more because we like to see ourselves in them, or that it's so gratifying to watch them blossom and feel we played a role in their success? Maybe we'd actually have a more significant impact if we made that kind of time investment with someone who doesn't have obvious star potential, someone who doesn't appear to be a natural candidate for grooming.
After all, the clearly promising ones are more likely to find their way regardless of our help, although perhaps our help gets them there faster or more smoothly. It's the not-so-obvious candidates where mentoring and extra attention might really make the decisive difference.
I suspect this isn't a novel thought at all to many people, but it was a semi-epiphany for me.
Monday, November 24, 2008
why poor performers don't get fired
Almost everyone has had the experience of working alongside someone who is a chronically poor performer—and then puzzling over the question of why nothing is being done about it. Today at U.S. News & World Report, I explore the reasons why. Please check it out, comment, etc.!
Monday, November 10, 2008
the sound of silence: companies that don't send rejections
One of the biggest complaints I hear from job seekers who write to me is about companies that don't respond to job applicants: no rejection, nothing.
There's a real divide on the issue. Job seekers think it's incredibly rude, while many companies feel perfectly justified in not putting resources into dealing with candidates they're no longer interested in hiring.
Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I give my own take on this issue. Please head over there to read it and leave your own thoughts.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
burping employees
A reader writes:
I am a manager of a two small departments. I have asked on numerous occasions for the employees to not belch. I find it to be unprofessional and rude. This one particular employee does it constantly throughout the day. They aren't loud belches, but ones that are heard loud enough to get under my skin. What would your next step be?
I have to admit that I'm posting this in part because it cracked me up.
First, realize that some medical conditions make people burp uncontrollably. If that's the case here, you've just got to live with it.
But assuming that's not the case and you just have employees who enjoy burping audibly throughout the day: If we're talking about once a day or something like that, let it go. If it's truly a constant thing, and you're determined to stop it, well, you've got authority. Rather than trying to cajole them into stopping, instead figure out what you're willing to do about it. Maybe you want to tell them that their behavior creates the perception that they're unprofessional and is disruptive when people are on the phone or trying to focus. Maybe you want to tell them that their performance reviews and raises take professionalism into consideration, and this will play into that. Maybe you want to lay down the law and tell them the juvenile antics need to stop, period, and consider it insubordination if they don't stop. Or maybe you want to do nothing.
But frankly, it's so hard for me to imagine professional employees intentionally burping "constantly" throughout the day that I have to wonder if this doesn't speak to a larger issue with them.
I am a manager of a two small departments. I have asked on numerous occasions for the employees to not belch. I find it to be unprofessional and rude. This one particular employee does it constantly throughout the day. They aren't loud belches, but ones that are heard loud enough to get under my skin. What would your next step be?
I have to admit that I'm posting this in part because it cracked me up.
First, realize that some medical conditions make people burp uncontrollably. If that's the case here, you've just got to live with it.
But assuming that's not the case and you just have employees who enjoy burping audibly throughout the day: If we're talking about once a day or something like that, let it go. If it's truly a constant thing, and you're determined to stop it, well, you've got authority. Rather than trying to cajole them into stopping, instead figure out what you're willing to do about it. Maybe you want to tell them that their behavior creates the perception that they're unprofessional and is disruptive when people are on the phone or trying to focus. Maybe you want to tell them that their performance reviews and raises take professionalism into consideration, and this will play into that. Maybe you want to lay down the law and tell them the juvenile antics need to stop, period, and consider it insubordination if they don't stop. Or maybe you want to do nothing.
But frankly, it's so hard for me to imagine professional employees intentionally burping "constantly" throughout the day that I have to wonder if this doesn't speak to a larger issue with them.
Monday, October 6, 2008
an ode to the bad managers of my past
I never had a mentor. Once a boss promised to teach me how to manage people, but then she promptly disappeared to "work from home" for weeks on end and was never seen again.
What I had instead were anti-mentors: bosses who were so bad that they unwittingly formed the start of my thinking on management, by providing a perfect model of what not to do.
My first boss was so afraid of offending anyone or making waves that he stood idly by while the organization crumbled around him. About half the staff there did little to no work, and he said nothing about it. He would sometimes complain about people behind their back but he never addressed anything to anyone's face. It was impossible to get warned about anything, let alone fired. One coworker and I used to speculate on how outrageous someone's behavior would have to be before he would be forced to say something to them. At one point, we decided that I could come to work wrapped in a bath towel, as if I'd just stepped out of the shower, and he wouldn't comment on it. We resorted to begging the higher-ups to hire a real manager, but our pleas went nowhere and we eventually left.
Later, I had another boss who openly talked about how she hadn't wanted the promotion that had made her the manager of our department, and it was clear that her strategy was to pretend nothing had changed. Requests from other departments for work from us would sit in her in-box for days because she either didn't want or didn't know how to assign work. Eventually the department that had sent the request would call to check on it, at which point she would assign it to someone who would be forced to drop everything to complete it at the last minute. A co-worker and I used to devise ways to get work done despite her; at one point we installed a work order box outside the department and announced that all incoming jobs had to be requested via a form left in the box, so we could just grab jobs and do them, before they got bottlenecked with our alleged "manager."
I had another boss who brought me in to "fix" problems on the staff and who loved to sit in his office and complain to me about how those problem staffers were holding the organization back. Ironically, he also loved giving flowery speeches about the importance of strong management -- until I told him it was time to start holding those problem staffers accountable and insisting they start getting some results. Then he filibustered for months, coming up with one reason after another why we couldn't take any action, until I finally realized he would never bring himself to make waves. Many years later, long after I left in frustration at his inaction, those problem staffers are still there, their problem behaviors unchanged.
I could go on and on. But the point is this: My bad bosses taught me what eventually became the foundation of my own approach to management, by teaching me what not to do. Once you know what not to do, the path to what you should do becomes remarkably clear.
By working for managers who allowed their desire to be nice to lead them to avoid unpopular/difficult decisions and conversations, I learned how crucial is to address problems straightforwardly. By working for managers who tolerated shoddy work, I learned the importance of setting a clear and high bar and expecting people to meet it. By working with managers who didn't know how to delegate, I learned how key it is to be hands-on in keeping work moving, including laying out clear expectations about results, checking in on progress, and holding people accountable for their performance. And from various other bad managers, I learned to see and use authority as just one more tool in the toolbox for getting things done; it's not something that should make you nervous or something to lord over others, just something that helps you run things in the way they should be run, and to back up your words with action.
And now that I manage other managers, I make damn sure none of them are going to be the nightmare manager that someone else is writing about someday.
So here's a shout-out to all the bad managers from my past. You put me on the path to my current job and, in the words of the terrible Chicago ballad, you're the inspiration. Thank you!
What I had instead were anti-mentors: bosses who were so bad that they unwittingly formed the start of my thinking on management, by providing a perfect model of what not to do.
My first boss was so afraid of offending anyone or making waves that he stood idly by while the organization crumbled around him. About half the staff there did little to no work, and he said nothing about it. He would sometimes complain about people behind their back but he never addressed anything to anyone's face. It was impossible to get warned about anything, let alone fired. One coworker and I used to speculate on how outrageous someone's behavior would have to be before he would be forced to say something to them. At one point, we decided that I could come to work wrapped in a bath towel, as if I'd just stepped out of the shower, and he wouldn't comment on it. We resorted to begging the higher-ups to hire a real manager, but our pleas went nowhere and we eventually left.
Later, I had another boss who openly talked about how she hadn't wanted the promotion that had made her the manager of our department, and it was clear that her strategy was to pretend nothing had changed. Requests from other departments for work from us would sit in her in-box for days because she either didn't want or didn't know how to assign work. Eventually the department that had sent the request would call to check on it, at which point she would assign it to someone who would be forced to drop everything to complete it at the last minute. A co-worker and I used to devise ways to get work done despite her; at one point we installed a work order box outside the department and announced that all incoming jobs had to be requested via a form left in the box, so we could just grab jobs and do them, before they got bottlenecked with our alleged "manager."
I had another boss who brought me in to "fix" problems on the staff and who loved to sit in his office and complain to me about how those problem staffers were holding the organization back. Ironically, he also loved giving flowery speeches about the importance of strong management -- until I told him it was time to start holding those problem staffers accountable and insisting they start getting some results. Then he filibustered for months, coming up with one reason after another why we couldn't take any action, until I finally realized he would never bring himself to make waves. Many years later, long after I left in frustration at his inaction, those problem staffers are still there, their problem behaviors unchanged.
I could go on and on. But the point is this: My bad bosses taught me what eventually became the foundation of my own approach to management, by teaching me what not to do. Once you know what not to do, the path to what you should do becomes remarkably clear.
By working for managers who allowed their desire to be nice to lead them to avoid unpopular/difficult decisions and conversations, I learned how crucial is to address problems straightforwardly. By working for managers who tolerated shoddy work, I learned the importance of setting a clear and high bar and expecting people to meet it. By working with managers who didn't know how to delegate, I learned how key it is to be hands-on in keeping work moving, including laying out clear expectations about results, checking in on progress, and holding people accountable for their performance. And from various other bad managers, I learned to see and use authority as just one more tool in the toolbox for getting things done; it's not something that should make you nervous or something to lord over others, just something that helps you run things in the way they should be run, and to back up your words with action.
And now that I manage other managers, I make damn sure none of them are going to be the nightmare manager that someone else is writing about someday.
So here's a shout-out to all the bad managers from my past. You put me on the path to my current job and, in the words of the terrible Chicago ballad, you're the inspiration. Thank you!
Monday, September 8, 2008
reality-based management
I've become convinced that there is a major characteristic that distinguishes good managers from bad managers: being committed to living in reality, as opposed to some hazier alternative. Over at U.S. News & World Report today, I talk about reality-based management and what it looks like. Please check it out!
Thursday, August 28, 2008
when your manager won't manage
A reader writes:
I work in a cultural/academic/non-profit institution, and am part of a professional community small enough that I don't wish to identify it, lest one of my colleagues identify *me*.
I should say that I love what I do for a living. It's a calling, I spent a lot of time in graduate school preparing for it. Some days, I really couldn't be happier.
Those are the days when my boss and most of the other people who "work" with me are not here.
There are really more personnel problems than I can reasonably describe, but I'll give you the Top 4:
1) My boss allows an unqualified volunteer to perform a skilled, essential function that he is profoundly unfit to perform. Said volunteer is also inappropriate, indecorous, insubordinate and all-around annoying. He argues with us when we assign him tasks, he comes in earlier and stays later than allowed, wanders the building bothering people, and generally behaves like an unsupervised child. I have repeatedly approached my boss about all of the above issues, and while he agrees with me, he WILL NOT discipline or replace this person. My attempts to correct his behavior are ignored.
2) Another volunteer (also profoundly unqualified for his duties) is incredibly rude to me, and has made sexist, racist, and all-around inappropriate statements to me, to my boss, and to coworkers. I have documented such statements, and have had 4 meetings will my boss about this individual. My boss even agreed with me that this person should be terminated…then I went on vacation. When I came back, he was here, and here he remains.
3) A member of the paraprofessional staff is insane. She does no work, and is so horrible that she actually drove away her gifted and qualified supervisor. Despite no specialized training in our field (and a part-time paraprofessional position), she feels she is entitled to order around/abuse the professional staff, and she refuses to learn simple tasks like changing toner in the photocopier (and I mean REFUSES. As in "I will not learn how to do that, so stop trying to teach me."). She's also a classic whiner who complains about problems, but refuses to do anything to solve them, even when given tools and support. She's worked here over 20 years.
4) The boss will not deal with any of this. It's almost like these people have something incriminating on him, the way he lets them get away with murder.
I love the people I serve, and the one employee I supervise. But I feel trapped. I can't absorb Problem #1's duties, since we're already so understaffed. I feel I've done everything right with Problem #2, but to no avail. I wait anxiously for Problem #3 to retire. I pray Problem #4 wins the lottery and retires in Tahiti.
For my long-range career plans, this job is perfect, but the people are making me homicidal.
Thanks...just the venting feels good at this point. Keep up the good work!
You don't have four problems. You have one big problem: your boss.
You can try to reason with him and plead and use logic, but ultimately there is only one thing that solves the problem of working under a boss who is afraid to take action. I'm sorry to say that it's this: Leave, and go to work for a boss who is willing to do his or her job.
I know that's not an easy solution. But in my experience, it is the only long-term solution.
Your manager is profoundly flawed, in a way that nothing you do can fix. He is allowing his desire to be nice and avoid unpopular/difficult decisions to trump his fundamental obligations as a manager -- obligations like holding the bar high and expecting people to adhere to it, warning them when they're falling short, and taking action when warnings don't work.
And what is happening to you now is the irony that all such wimpy managers spawn: In their quest to be liked, the opposite happens. Because problems go unresolved, good employees get frustrated and end up hating them.
Are there short-term solutions? Maybe. Depending on your relationship with your boss, you may be able to badger or cajole him into taking action on some of this, or to give you the authority to handle it. Or you may be able to find discreet ways to go over his head to bring the problem to his boss -- but if he's being permitted to get away with this basic abdication of his duties, chances are good that the boss above him is the same flawed type.
But in the long-term, absent a boss who will make him do his job (likely having to push him through it every step of the way), this stuff isn't going to change. You have a boss who isn't interested in or willing to do his job. To have long-term happiness, you're going to need to find one who is.
All that said, there is one good thing about a boss like this: They provide inspiration for the rest of us, as a model of what not to do. I worked for a boss like this early on in my career, and I ultimately quit over it. It's no exaggeration to say that having worked under someone like that has formed the foundation of my own management philosophy and approach. Now that I manage other managers, I make sure none of them do this to their people -- we say the hard things, have the uncomfortable conversations, and take the difficult actions. And I'm convinced everyone -- even the people on the receiving end of those tough conversations -- is better off for it.
So admittedly, your letter tapped into a major obsession for me. And perhaps others would tell you to stick it out, let it roll off your back, blah blah. And that's certainly an option. But if you find yourself a manager willing to manage, the impact on your quality of life can't be overstated.
I work in a cultural/academic/non-profit institution, and am part of a professional community small enough that I don't wish to identify it, lest one of my colleagues identify *me*.
I should say that I love what I do for a living. It's a calling, I spent a lot of time in graduate school preparing for it. Some days, I really couldn't be happier.
Those are the days when my boss and most of the other people who "work" with me are not here.
There are really more personnel problems than I can reasonably describe, but I'll give you the Top 4:
1) My boss allows an unqualified volunteer to perform a skilled, essential function that he is profoundly unfit to perform. Said volunteer is also inappropriate, indecorous, insubordinate and all-around annoying. He argues with us when we assign him tasks, he comes in earlier and stays later than allowed, wanders the building bothering people, and generally behaves like an unsupervised child. I have repeatedly approached my boss about all of the above issues, and while he agrees with me, he WILL NOT discipline or replace this person. My attempts to correct his behavior are ignored.
2) Another volunteer (also profoundly unqualified for his duties) is incredibly rude to me, and has made sexist, racist, and all-around inappropriate statements to me, to my boss, and to coworkers. I have documented such statements, and have had 4 meetings will my boss about this individual. My boss even agreed with me that this person should be terminated…then I went on vacation. When I came back, he was here, and here he remains.
3) A member of the paraprofessional staff is insane. She does no work, and is so horrible that she actually drove away her gifted and qualified supervisor. Despite no specialized training in our field (and a part-time paraprofessional position), she feels she is entitled to order around/abuse the professional staff, and she refuses to learn simple tasks like changing toner in the photocopier (and I mean REFUSES. As in "I will not learn how to do that, so stop trying to teach me."). She's also a classic whiner who complains about problems, but refuses to do anything to solve them, even when given tools and support. She's worked here over 20 years.
4) The boss will not deal with any of this. It's almost like these people have something incriminating on him, the way he lets them get away with murder.
I love the people I serve, and the one employee I supervise. But I feel trapped. I can't absorb Problem #1's duties, since we're already so understaffed. I feel I've done everything right with Problem #2, but to no avail. I wait anxiously for Problem #3 to retire. I pray Problem #4 wins the lottery and retires in Tahiti.
For my long-range career plans, this job is perfect, but the people are making me homicidal.
Thanks...just the venting feels good at this point. Keep up the good work!
You don't have four problems. You have one big problem: your boss.
You can try to reason with him and plead and use logic, but ultimately there is only one thing that solves the problem of working under a boss who is afraid to take action. I'm sorry to say that it's this: Leave, and go to work for a boss who is willing to do his or her job.
I know that's not an easy solution. But in my experience, it is the only long-term solution.
Your manager is profoundly flawed, in a way that nothing you do can fix. He is allowing his desire to be nice and avoid unpopular/difficult decisions to trump his fundamental obligations as a manager -- obligations like holding the bar high and expecting people to adhere to it, warning them when they're falling short, and taking action when warnings don't work.
And what is happening to you now is the irony that all such wimpy managers spawn: In their quest to be liked, the opposite happens. Because problems go unresolved, good employees get frustrated and end up hating them.
Are there short-term solutions? Maybe. Depending on your relationship with your boss, you may be able to badger or cajole him into taking action on some of this, or to give you the authority to handle it. Or you may be able to find discreet ways to go over his head to bring the problem to his boss -- but if he's being permitted to get away with this basic abdication of his duties, chances are good that the boss above him is the same flawed type.
But in the long-term, absent a boss who will make him do his job (likely having to push him through it every step of the way), this stuff isn't going to change. You have a boss who isn't interested in or willing to do his job. To have long-term happiness, you're going to need to find one who is.
All that said, there is one good thing about a boss like this: They provide inspiration for the rest of us, as a model of what not to do. I worked for a boss like this early on in my career, and I ultimately quit over it. It's no exaggeration to say that having worked under someone like that has formed the foundation of my own management philosophy and approach. Now that I manage other managers, I make sure none of them do this to their people -- we say the hard things, have the uncomfortable conversations, and take the difficult actions. And I'm convinced everyone -- even the people on the receiving end of those tough conversations -- is better off for it.
So admittedly, your letter tapped into a major obsession for me. And perhaps others would tell you to stick it out, let it roll off your back, blah blah. And that's certainly an option. But if you find yourself a manager willing to manage, the impact on your quality of life can't be overstated.
Sunday, August 17, 2008
how much does industry knowledge matter? (not at all)
When hiring, how much does knowledge of your industry matter? It's a nice bonus, but in most cases it shouldn't be a driving force behind your hiring decisions. But too often I see hiring managers over-valuing this sort of knowledge, and hiring the wrong candidates.
If you hire someone smart and motivated, they will learn your issue or industry. Hire for the things you can't teach, like intelligence, work ethic, communication skills, integrity, and whatever non-teachable skills the open position truly requires. It may take your new hire a little extra time to get up to speed, but once that happens, he or she will blow away that mediocre candidate whose main advantage would have been starting out with industry knowledge.
I've been thinking about this because I was recently talking to someone who was hesitant to hire a seemingly great candidate because the guy didn't have any knowledge of or experience in the area they work in, and the job -- sort of a spokesman/grassroots organizing role -- would require him to quickly learn the topic inside and out. He was nervous that the candidate wouldn't be able to learn the area thoroughly enough, largely because he'd made a similar hire last year and that candidate had never managed to master the topic.
He, like me, is all about having candidates do simulations or exercises related to the work they'd be doing on the job, so he was contemplating asking the candidate to cram to learn the topic and then do a mock question and answer session with him on it. I advised him against it, because no candidate is going to be able to learn a complex, nuanced topic in a day or two, and he'd be testing the wrong thing; it wouldn't provide a realistic feel for how well he would do after spending a month on the job learning the issue.
What my friend should have been looking to test for was a specific type of smarts: whether the candidate could learn a complicated issue and make a compelling, intelligent argument for it, whatever that issue is. So why not take an issue he already knows well (you could let him pick or maybe there's something obvious from his background) and have him debate that instead? This would give a much better feel for how his brain works on a subject he's comfortable and familiar with -- it would reveal whether he can make compelling arguments, respond logically, shoot down straw men, be persuasive without being a jerk, etc. If he can do that for one issue, it's reasonable to assume he can learn another issue and do the same thing.
It seems to me this leads to a good way to evaluate what will actually matter on the job, and avoid making hiring decisions based on factors that really will only matter for the first month or so. Assuming you're not hiring for a position that truly requires a particular knowledge set (like, say, a pharmacist or an engineer), smart people will learn what they need to know. Test for smarts and hire for smarts.
If you hire someone smart and motivated, they will learn your issue or industry. Hire for the things you can't teach, like intelligence, work ethic, communication skills, integrity, and whatever non-teachable skills the open position truly requires. It may take your new hire a little extra time to get up to speed, but once that happens, he or she will blow away that mediocre candidate whose main advantage would have been starting out with industry knowledge.
I've been thinking about this because I was recently talking to someone who was hesitant to hire a seemingly great candidate because the guy didn't have any knowledge of or experience in the area they work in, and the job -- sort of a spokesman/grassroots organizing role -- would require him to quickly learn the topic inside and out. He was nervous that the candidate wouldn't be able to learn the area thoroughly enough, largely because he'd made a similar hire last year and that candidate had never managed to master the topic.
He, like me, is all about having candidates do simulations or exercises related to the work they'd be doing on the job, so he was contemplating asking the candidate to cram to learn the topic and then do a mock question and answer session with him on it. I advised him against it, because no candidate is going to be able to learn a complex, nuanced topic in a day or two, and he'd be testing the wrong thing; it wouldn't provide a realistic feel for how well he would do after spending a month on the job learning the issue.
What my friend should have been looking to test for was a specific type of smarts: whether the candidate could learn a complicated issue and make a compelling, intelligent argument for it, whatever that issue is. So why not take an issue he already knows well (you could let him pick or maybe there's something obvious from his background) and have him debate that instead? This would give a much better feel for how his brain works on a subject he's comfortable and familiar with -- it would reveal whether he can make compelling arguments, respond logically, shoot down straw men, be persuasive without being a jerk, etc. If he can do that for one issue, it's reasonable to assume he can learn another issue and do the same thing.
It seems to me this leads to a good way to evaluate what will actually matter on the job, and avoid making hiring decisions based on factors that really will only matter for the first month or so. Assuming you're not hiring for a position that truly requires a particular knowledge set (like, say, a pharmacist or an engineer), smart people will learn what they need to know. Test for smarts and hire for smarts.
Friday, August 1, 2008
fired worker badmouthing company to current employees
A reader writes:
How would you deal with a terminated employee who keeps calling active employees here on the job to speak badly about HR? It is sadly at the point where she is making things up and defaming the abilities of the HR team by spreading rumors. Any advice?
I would probably do nothing.
If you try to prevent her from reaching your employees, you'll look heavy-handed and like you have something to hide. It will actually add credence to her story, which is the opposite of what you want.
Let her rant. You'll be taking the high road, many employees are going to be annoyed by her, and she'll end up discrediting herself in the eyes of a lot of people. Who wants to be called at work by a former coworker who wants to complain about HR? Most people are going to think she should move on.
But here are two subpoints to consider:
1. If there's any grain of truth to what she's saying, make sure you do consider whatever her beef is and decide if you should be doing anything differently. Don't discount her points just because of the way she's handling herself.
2. If you feel you have to do something, you could make your managers aware of your side of the story so they can combat any rumors among their own staff. One of the really annoying things about terminations is sometimes you'll get an employee who complains loudly about being "unfairly" treated, telling coworkers the firing came out of nowhere and had no grounds, while you know her performance was abysmal and she was given numerous warnings and chances to improve. Since very few people tell their coworkers, "Wow, I'm really doing a bad job" or "I did get three warnings before they let me go," the fired person's coworkers often have no idea that the firing was handled fairly and was for good cause ... and because of privacy concerns, the manager usually isn't going to announce the details, so coworkers often hear just one, twisted side of the story. One way to combat this is to fill your managers in on the other side, and then figure they'll at least be able to give others the sense that there's another side of the story.
But really, I'd probably advise doing nothing. If your remaining employees know the company to be fair, that personal experience is going to carry more weight than the rantings of one disgruntled former employee.
How would you deal with a terminated employee who keeps calling active employees here on the job to speak badly about HR? It is sadly at the point where she is making things up and defaming the abilities of the HR team by spreading rumors. Any advice?
I would probably do nothing.
If you try to prevent her from reaching your employees, you'll look heavy-handed and like you have something to hide. It will actually add credence to her story, which is the opposite of what you want.
Let her rant. You'll be taking the high road, many employees are going to be annoyed by her, and she'll end up discrediting herself in the eyes of a lot of people. Who wants to be called at work by a former coworker who wants to complain about HR? Most people are going to think she should move on.
But here are two subpoints to consider:
1. If there's any grain of truth to what she's saying, make sure you do consider whatever her beef is and decide if you should be doing anything differently. Don't discount her points just because of the way she's handling herself.
2. If you feel you have to do something, you could make your managers aware of your side of the story so they can combat any rumors among their own staff. One of the really annoying things about terminations is sometimes you'll get an employee who complains loudly about being "unfairly" treated, telling coworkers the firing came out of nowhere and had no grounds, while you know her performance was abysmal and she was given numerous warnings and chances to improve. Since very few people tell their coworkers, "Wow, I'm really doing a bad job" or "I did get three warnings before they let me go," the fired person's coworkers often have no idea that the firing was handled fairly and was for good cause ... and because of privacy concerns, the manager usually isn't going to announce the details, so coworkers often hear just one, twisted side of the story. One way to combat this is to fill your managers in on the other side, and then figure they'll at least be able to give others the sense that there's another side of the story.
But really, I'd probably advise doing nothing. If your remaining employees know the company to be fair, that personal experience is going to carry more weight than the rantings of one disgruntled former employee.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
how to mentor someone
Is there anything better than spotting someone relatively inexperienced but smart, driven, and generally awesome, and helping them along in their career? I think it's one of the most rewarding things about managing (second only to having the power to make things run well rather than your department or organization being at the mercy of some crappy manager).
If you have someone great but inexperienced on your staff, consider taking them under your wing and helping them attain professional greatness. Here are some ways to do it:
* Invite them to sit in while you do things -- interviews, important meetings, whatever. Talk to them afterward about how it went and even point out why you did particular things.
* Talk to them about dilemmas you're facing in your own job. Tell them the options you're considering, the various factors you have to take into consideration, what you're deciding, and why. Ask what they would do. This is huge, because it helps hone their own instincts. If you only do one thing, do this.
* Give them an intern to manage. Talk to them regularly about the management challenges that arise and how to handle them, everything from feeling comfortable being in a position of authority to addressing sloppy work to what to say when the intern shows up in flip flops.
* Give them greater and greater responsibilities. Give them things they're not sure they can handle, and talk them through it. Help them figure out their approach, and talk over how it went afterward.
* Talk to them directly about their goals. Actively look for ways you can help them move toward them.
* Give them the confidence to take on more by making sure you tell them how great they are. Early in their career, they tend to think they're average. Help them recognize when they're capable of more.
* When the time is right, promote them.
If you have someone great but inexperienced on your staff, consider taking them under your wing and helping them attain professional greatness. Here are some ways to do it:
* Invite them to sit in while you do things -- interviews, important meetings, whatever. Talk to them afterward about how it went and even point out why you did particular things.
* Talk to them about dilemmas you're facing in your own job. Tell them the options you're considering, the various factors you have to take into consideration, what you're deciding, and why. Ask what they would do. This is huge, because it helps hone their own instincts. If you only do one thing, do this.
* Give them an intern to manage. Talk to them regularly about the management challenges that arise and how to handle them, everything from feeling comfortable being in a position of authority to addressing sloppy work to what to say when the intern shows up in flip flops.
* Give them greater and greater responsibilities. Give them things they're not sure they can handle, and talk them through it. Help them figure out their approach, and talk over how it went afterward.
* Talk to them directly about their goals. Actively look for ways you can help them move toward them.
* Give them the confidence to take on more by making sure you tell them how great they are. Early in their career, they tend to think they're average. Help them recognize when they're capable of more.
* When the time is right, promote them.
Monday, July 21, 2008
10 mistakes employers make when hiring
Flakiness, not getting back to job applicants, asking bad questions, hiring for the wrong reasons -- these are some of the many ways in which employers mess up when hiring. Having just complained about job applicants, now I'm turning my crankiness on to employers. My post at U.S. News & World Report today looks at 10 mistakes employers make when hiring. You can read it right here, and please share your thoughts in the comments over there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)