by Janna | January 27th, 2012
 When it comes to identifying the personality traits they want in candidates, I’ve noticed most managers are quick to zero in on assertiveness. I often hear, “What I need is a real go-getter, someone who’ll take charge.” There’s no doubt this quality can be a real asset in employees, allowing them to work independently and avoid being derailed by setbacks. Yes, it’s great to have a team of highly assertive individuals who can make things happen.
Except, of course, when it isn’t.
When can it be a problem? Well, for starters, when the job doesn’t lend itself to taking charge. Lots of positions don’t offer many opportunities to assert yourself, especially those where the person works mostly in support of others or doesn’t have much authority. Sure, a moderate amount of assertiveness can be helpful in pushing forward to get results, but high levels pretty much set employees up for frustration unless they’re in a role that allows them to be directive, make decisions, and change course as necessary to accomplish tasks.
And then there are situations where a group of people needs to work closely and cooperatively to achieve an outcome. It’s fine if one member of the team is highly assertive and can assume the role of leader. But two or three assertive individuals all trying to run the show? That’s a recipe for power struggles and turf wars in many cases.
Finally, let’s not forget that those with micromanagement tendencies usually struggle to work effectively with assertive employees. Most micromanagers are loathe to admit they need to be in control pretty much all the time, but they don’t exactly gravitate toward letting their people do whatever they deem necessary to get their jobs done. Ironically, the ones I see most frequently insisting they want the “hard chargers” are the first to complain that they have to work too hard to rein these people in.
I think the key to determining just how assertive you really need your employees to be is to take a long, hard look at three key things:
- The job they’ll be doing
- The team members they’ll be working with most closely, and
- The way you’ll realistically manage their day-to-day activities
Once you’ve settled on the ideal range, you should be able to calibrate your interview questions and your assessment tool to help you determine how your candidates fit. This is definitely one of those instances where you need to be careful what you wish for and make sure you can really use it if you get it.
Posted in: Assessment, Hiring | Make A Comment »
by Janna | January 9th, 2012
 Like many of us, I suspect you’ve spent a little time over the past few weeks thinking about 2012 and how you can make the most of the next 365 days.
If you’re a manager, I hope one thing you’ve considered is your current team and each individual who reports to you. Some questions to consider:
- Do you have great people?
- If not, what’s your plan for upgrading?
- If so, are you giving these individuals the support they need to excel?
- How has each person on your team increased in value over the past year?
And, most importantly,
- What are you doing to ensure your top performers want to stick around?
To that end, I recommend Eric Jackson’s terrific article on what not to do to retain your top talent Top Ten Reasons Why Large Companies Fail To Keep Their Best Talent – Forbes
What I find especially interesting about this piece is that while it’s directed toward managers in large companies, every single item holds true for medium and small businesses as well. There is absolutely no reason companies of any size can’t offer their people career path planning, effective performance reviews, or opportunities to develop their creative ideas. And it’s not just the big guys who benefit from sharing a clear vision, communicating strategies openly and making sure their managers are great people to work for.
If you use these ideas to create and implement a checklist for ways your company can maximize its talent in 2012, my guess is most of your other goals will be much easier to achieve.
What are you doing to ensure you hang on to your best people this year? Where are your biggest opportunities? Please share your thoughts in the comments section.
Posted in: Leadership, Management | Make A Comment »
by Janna | December 2nd, 2011
 As you’ve no doubt realized in your own job, certain activities or tasks either energize you or tire you.
If you’re an extrovert, dealing with a steady stream of people knocking on your office door all day long can pump you up because you thrive on the interaction. On the other hand, if you’re an introvert, that same scenario would probably leave you exhausted and stressed by day’s end. Likewise, if you love attending to details and working within an established structure, you’re most likely energized when it comes time to spend a couple of days putting together your department’s annual budget. But if you have zero patience for minutiae and would rather do creative work, the same task would leave you dragging after only a few hours.
Why the differences? Each one of us is hard wired with a specific set of personality traits and talents that allow us to do certain activities more quickly and easily. And when we have to perform tasks that require a quality we don’t possess, it takes a great deal of energy to gear ourselves up to essentially do things that don’t come naturally to us. We have to think harder, focus more and, in general, force ourselves outside our comfort zones to handle the work. This effort requires significant physical and mental energy, and once we’ve completed the task, we’re tapped out.
As you may have already discovered, a job that’s good fit for you allows you to use your natural personality traits and talents much of the time. Even if you periodically have to handle things that aren’t comfortable for you, these don’t make up the bulk of your days. And when you’re doing things that are compatible with how you’re hard-wired, you probably leave work feeling pretty energized much of the time.
Of course, the opposite is also true. Those folks who drag themselves home at the end of most days totally drained and depleted may not just be working too hard. Instead, it’s likely they’re spending a lot of time trying to accomplish things that require them to go against their own natures.
A hiring manager recently told me she was considering a candidate for a position that would require the individual to step up and handle conflicts repeatedly throughout the average workday. She was concerned because the person she was most interested in fit with every part of the job but that one—her candidate was low in assertiveness and something of a people pleaser. Her biggest fear was that dealing with a lot of contentious situations on a daily basis would become exhausting for this individual and leave him without enough energy to tackle all the other parts of the job. I told her I thought she was right to be worried, especially since the conflicts didn’t just happen once in a while. The manager ultimately decided that she’d be setting this particular candidate up to fail if she put him in a position that required him to spend so much of his day on energy-draining activities.
What’s the lesson to be learned here? It’s easy to underestimate how difficult it is for most people to power through tasks that aren’t a good fit for them. Because once your energy is depleted, charging your battery back up isn’t usually a five minute endeavor. And having to do it over and over again, day after day, is a recipe for burnout.
What tasks do you recognize that either drain you or energize you? And how does this concept play out for the people on your team? Click here to share.
Posted in: Assessment, Hiring, How People Work | Make A Comment »
by Janna | November 17th, 2011
 When it comes to teamwork problems, especially those tricky inter-departmental ones, most companies are quick to point fingers at the people on the teams. Whether it’s two groups clashing head to head or an across-the-board lack of cooperation, management usually thinks the root of the problem is the employees themselves who can’t get along.
And when it’s particularly bad, they often ask me to facilitate some sort of “team building” exercise that will break down barriers, build relationships and, in general, help these individuals learn to play nice.
But you know what I’ve found? In almost every case, teamwork problems start at the top. And they won’t get better until management addresses the real root cause of the dysfunction: themselves.
That’s because in most instances, the managers are setting a poor example of teamwork in the way they interact with each other. Whether it’s as blatant as backstabbing and gossiping or as subtle as a snide comment or eye roll directed toward another department head, team members notice how their manager treats others. When there’s mutual respect and support, they understand they’re expected to interact the same way with the employees on the other manager’s team. Where they see hostility or disregard, the door is open for them to behave that way as well.
In the organizations I’ve worked with where I see strong, effective teamwork at all levels, it clearly filters down from the top. The senior level management team is cohesive and stands together. Even if these individuals don’t always see eye-to-eye they back each other up and handle their differences maturely. Their example is followed by the next level of managers, who understand that they’re expected to model teamwork in their words and actions. This continues down the organizational chart, with managers at every turn walking the talk when it comes to teamwork.
Senior managers can’t get up on their high horses and preach teamwork if they turn around and exhibit the very actions they’re railing against. If, on the other hand, they hold themselves to a high standard and show their people how it’s done, they have a much better chance of getting the teamwork they want.
Have you ever experienced teamwork breakdowns that start at the top in a company you’ve worked for? Did upper management address the core issue or keep trying to make surface level improvements? Share your experiences here.
Posted in: Leadership, Management, Team Dynamics | Make A Comment »
by Janna | November 4th, 2011
 What, exactly, is a “Real People Person”? It’s certainly a term I hear used frequently by hiring managers to describe a quality they need in an ideal candidate. “This job requires a real people person, “ they say, as if this is a universal description that perfectly captures the trait they’re looking for. However, when I press them to tell me exactly what that type of person looks like or does, their definitions are all over the place.
That’s because they’re often confusing sociability with social skills. And these are two very different qualities that are typically thought to be similar but are actually quite distinct.
Sociability is a personality trait and is generally hard-wired into people. It’s a measure of whether an individual needs a lot of interaction with others or whether he prefers to work on his own most of the time. Employees who are high in sociability love to collaborate and work in groups while those who are low would rather spend their time independently completing tasks or projects.
Social skills, on the other hand, can be learned and even improved over time. This trait is usually present in people who can make conversation easily, who know how to develop rapport and relationships, who are good listeners, and who have nice manners. It’s especially important in customer-facing jobs or those that constantly require someone to interact with and get along with others.
Now here’s where it gets interesting.
Read the rest of the article »
Posted in: Assessment, How People Work | Make A Comment »
by Kelly | October 19th, 2011
I’m asked this question a lot by companies who are trying to figure out why they have a hard time hiring the right people. And often I recognize they’re struggling with either one or both of the elements essential for a great hire:
Finding and Funneling.
Finding is the recruiting phase of the process. If a company isn’t able to identify and attract quality candidates, the best interview techniques in the world won’t do them a bit of good. Finding is about having a large pool of highly qualified, desirable people to choose from. It requires companies to be methodical and consistent in their networking efforts. It forces them to constantly be on the lookout for individuals who could take their organizations to the next level. Doing this part right ensures that when the time comes to hire someone, they’re choosing from the best, not simply accepting who’s available and can start on short notice.
Funneling is about having a proven hiring system to follow. It involves creating a step-by-step method that maps out the sequence of events people go through once the company becomes interested in them as candidates. The goal is simple: keep narrowing down the initial group of prospects until you’ve identified your top choice. The heart of effective funneling is a structured selection process that includes solid interviewing, assessment, and reference checking practices that are followed by managers every time they hire. And managers have to be trained in the skills needed to execute the system for it to really pay off.
Some companies are top-notch finders but botch the funneling part. They attract great candidates, but their haphazard or non-existent selection practices keep them from choosing the right ones. Other companies are decent at funneling, but they aren’t attracting enough quality candidates. They have to exit the majority of the people they interview, and sometimes they end up settling for a mediocre choice simply to get someone in the open position.
But the ones that master both finding and funneling? Those are the companies with great people whose individual success typically fuels the organization’s success. That’s what they’re doing right.
Posted in: Hiring | 2 Comments »
by Janna | October 14th, 2011
What do you think would happen if the next time you’re about to sign on a new employee you inserted this paragraph in your Offer Letter:
I understand that during my first 90 days on the job the vast majority of my training will be of the “trial by fire” variety. Instead of a comprehensive, job-specific training program that gives me the tools to succeed in my job, I will accept minimal direction from my manager. I agree to figure things out on my own, learn from my mistakes, and gracefully accept lots of “after the fact” feedback on how I should have done things the first time around.
I acknowledge the company will most likely not be ready for me on my first day and may have to scramble to provide basic necessities such as office space, a telephone, business cards, and a computer. I also understand that any training manuals or materials I do receive will probably be outdated or incorrect as company policies and procedures are constantly changing.
I agree to willingly take on tasks I am ill prepared to perform correctly and accept full responsibility if I screw them up because I haven’t been trained to do them the right way. Ultimately, I absolve the company of all liability if I fail in my new role because of inadequate training.
Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it? No potential employee in his or her right mind would agree to this set-up.
And yet, time after time I see managers expecting new hires to succeed in the face of this exact situation. Sure, I exaggerated, but this paragraph describes a lot of what I see new hires up against all the time. They come on board excited and energized, determined to get off to a great start, but too often from the minute they walk in the door they’re met with mediocre or even poor training. And those high hopes and expectations they had for this new opportunity diminish a little more each day they’re in the job.
If you wouldn’t expect a top performer to sign on for sub-par training, why would you think they’d willingly accept it after the fact?
Posted in: Development, Hiring, Training | Make A Comment »
by Janna | October 6th, 2011
Here’s a tricky truth about motivation: it’s an ever changing force.
Think about your own professional experiences. Is what motivated you when you were in your 20s the same as what motivated you in your 30s or 40s (or later if you’ve been at this for a while)? Most likely what you recognize is that as your needs, goals, and priorities changed over time, so did your motivators, especially as they relate to the workplace.
For example, let’s say you were highly motivated by money, challenge, and risk when you were looking for your first job out of college. Those factors may have driven you to bypass Read the rest of the article »
Posted in: Management, Motivation | 2 Comments »
by Kelly | September 27th, 2011
 Can a formula as simple as 1 Great Employee = 3 Good Employees really work? For The Container Store, the answer is a resounding YES. Their basic strategy is to bypass all the average and even better-than-average candidates and go straight for the ones they think will be superstars.
Their thought is that it’s not only more cost-effective to have fewer employees but that they ultimately come out ahead because their team members are more productive and provide a higher level of customer service. This, in turn, leads to increased sales and profitability. Here’s how they explain their philosophy on their website:
We hire only about 3% of all who apply. If you indeed believe that with one great employee, you get three times the productivity of a good employee, you can afford to extensively train them and communicate to them, empower them and pay them 50 to 100% more than what other retailers might pay them.
So let’s see….The Container Store is consistently on Fortune’s “Best Places To Work” list and they lead their industry in sales per square foot. They also pay twice the normal wage for retail employees ($20 per hour vs. $10 per hour), so if we do the math we can see how it’s a better deal to have one $20/hour, high performing team member as opposed to forking over a combined $30/hour for three mediocre people. With roughly 3,700 employees nation-wide, the savings are substantial.
In contrast, many companies I know are loaded with “good” employees. Interestingly, when managers complain that they would love to bring in higher-caliber people but just can’t, compensation is usually what they claim is their biggest roadblock. But The Container Store offers up a pretty compelling argument that not only is it doable, it makes a lot more sense from a business standpoint. I also like that, for them, it’s not just a matter of paying more but also creating an outstanding work environment and really treating their people well.
It’s definitely something to consider next time you’re about to settle for “good.”
Posted in: Development, Hiring | 2 Comments »
by Janna | September 22nd, 2011
 So, you’ve finally hired that new employee you need for a key position on your team. The interview process was in-depth and time consuming, but you believe you’ve found the perfect person. You’ve extended the offer, negotiated the details, and gotten your #1 choice to sign on. Whew—you’ve crossed the finish line! Now you can finally get back to work on the important stuff. Your work here is done. Right?
Wrong.
That raw potential is going to need training, guidance, and support. He’s going to need help getting acclimated to your company’s culture and understanding the “unwritten” rules of the road. You’re going to have to provide the tools to help him get up and running: the skills, the knowledge, and the techniques that he’ll need to do the job the way you want it done. You’ve got to advise him on how to build strong relationships with key people, navigate the existing company structure and systems, and understand the habits and customs that are crucial for fitting in.
And once that stuff is in place, you’re going to have to provide clear, ongoing direction and feedback to keep him on track. You’ll have to praise him when he gets it right and hold him accountable when he doesn’t. You’ll need to challenge him, set goals with him, and figure out what you need to do to keep him from being lured away by a better offer. Most importantly, you’ll need to invest time in building a relationship with him and being the kind of manager he feels lucky to work for.
I’ve seen so many managers become frustrated because their great hires don’t always transition into great performers. How could this happen, they wonder, when they put so much time and energy into getting the right person in place? I think it’s often because they forget a crucial fact:
Hiring isn’t a finish line—it’s a starting point. And your work is just beginning.
How does your company ensure great hires transition into great employees? Or is this an area where you struggle? Please share your thoughts here.
Posted in: Development, Hiring | 1 Comment »
|
