by Janna | April 25th, 2012
 Despite all the time, energy, and effort managers typically put into hiring employees, I rarely see them apply the same level of attention to the onboarding process.
Too often, new hires show up on the first day only to find their managers are woefully unprepared. There’s typically a fair amount of scrambling to pull together some sort of plan for the day, gather any training materials, and make sure the employee’s doing something. It’s not unusual for managers to be distracted by meetings, projects, and crises rather than focused on the employee. There’s a whole lot of making-it-up-as-you-go and not much thought as to what a lousy first impression this day might be making on the newest team member.
Instead of a smooth transition, most hires face a rocky first day that does little to confirm they make the right choice in taking this new job. Among the worst first-day offenses I see are:
- The manager who’s in a meeting or out of the office when the new employee arrives on Day One. Nothing says “I’m too busy to deal with you right now” like prior commitments, even though you certainly knew when your employee was supposed to show up.
- Nowhere to land. The first day is not the time to figure out where the person is going to sit and what he’ll need to get started. Why wouldn’t you have a work space already set up with a desk, necessary technology, and basic office supplies?
- Endless required reading. Handing your new hire a stack of manuals to review is not, I repeat NOT, the same thing as providing some actual training.
- Meetings, meetings, meetings. Having people sit in on meetings the first day is pretty useless. They won’t understand most of what’s being discussed, so they end up bored and isolated.
- Too many new faces. Certainly you want to introduce new hires to the people in their departments and those they’ll be working with most closely. But if your company is on the medium-to-larger side, it isn’t helpful to parade new employees around the building to meet anyone and everyone who’s available. All this practice does is overwhelm them and make them feel like they’ll never be able to remember anybody.
Avoiding these missteps will go a long way toward making new hires feel welcome and productive as opposed to a burden on the manager. And it’s helpful to keep in mind that the overall goal of a good onboarding process is actually pretty simple: From the minute the employee walks through the door on the first day, as many things as possible should make him or her glad to be there.
Posted in: Development, Training | Make A Comment »
by Janna | April 12th, 2012
“It’s all about the managers. Get that right and you can make work better. Get it wrong and you’ll get skewered.”
–Frank Roche, from the KnowHR blog
This is true for every company, big or small. No matter what you do to offer a stellar corporate culture, a fantastic work environment, or an awesome employment “experience”, it’s the quality of your managers that trumps everything. Great employees won’t work for lousy managers, at least not for long.
So why do so many companies get it wrong? Because selecting and developing a team of top-notch managers is a ton of work. First, you have to know what you’re looking for. You have to understand what personality traits, talents, and skills it takes to succeed as a manager. Not everyone is cut out for the role, and often people who are great “doers” can’t make the transition into being great managers. This means you sometimes have to tell strong performers that they simply aren’t a good fit for a management position, even if it’s what they really want to do. And you have to remember that if you promote someone just to make him happy, you risk making lots of people unhappy if he fails.
The next place a lot of companies get it wrong is by skimping on management training. Without it, first-time managers usually make lots of rookie mistakes. They miscommunicate, they make bad hires, they bungle performance reviews. They either come on too strong or not strong enough. Sometimes they lose good people while they’re learning through trial-and-error. Even experienced managers who already understand the “people” side of the job need to be educated in your company’s methods, policies, and expectations.
Lastly, a lot of companies are guilty of holding managers most accountable for tangible results: sales made, deadlines met, projects completed, customer satisfaction targets achieved, budgets maintained. However, they may get little or no feedback on their management and leadership skills. As a result, they sometimes fall into the trap of focusing primarily on the parts of the job they know they’ll either get slapped on the hand for botching or praised loudly for accomplishing.
If your company is guilty of either bringing in mediocre or poor managers or, even worse, allowing bad managers to stay in place, you’re at a huge risk of losing your best employees. On the other hand, if you commit to only filling management positions with individuals who have what it takes to succeed, giving them the tools to do their jobs, and then holding them accountable for building and retaining a great team of people, you can create a company where talented folks would love to work.
Sounds much better than getting “skewered”, doesn’t it?
Posted in: Hiring, Management | Make A Comment »
by Janna | March 27th, 2012
 Consider these two very different reactions to the same scenario:
A software glitch has resulted in shipping delays to a group of your customers, and you know the problem is going to cause some major headaches for them. I.T. is working to correct the issue but might not have it resolved until tomorrow at the earliest. In an effort to do some pre-emptive damage control, you ask two of your salespeople to immediately contact the companies who’ll be affected. The goal is to give them a heads-up, let them vent what you anticipate will be some pretty significant frustration, and communicate the anticipated “fix.” You tell your salespeople you know the calls will probably be unpleasant to make, but you need them to get on it ASAP.
Salesperson A (Alice) jumps right in and starts contacting the customers you’ve assigned to her. She directly and truthfully explains the situation and then stays calm in the face of the angry words directed at her. When one person demands that Alice see if the problem can be corrected immediately as opposed to tomorrow, she holds firm and explains why that isn’t possible. She remains relaxed and composed during every call and has touched base with everyone you asked her to contact within a couple of hours. She isn’t at all fazed by the distasteful work and, in fact, tells you afterward she was happy to help with it.
Salesperson B (Ben), on the other hand, starts trying to wiggle out of the task from the beginning. He tells you he has too many other things going on right now and asks if Alice can just contact his customers, too. When you say, “no” Ben goes into procrastination mode and promises to start making calls as soon as he finishes a report that’s due this afternoon. Every time you walk past his desk he seems more and more agitated. When he finally gets around to calling the first customer on his list you overhear him downplay the severity of the issue and suggest it might even be fixed by lunchtime today. Then he goes over to Alice and asks her if she can help him contact everyone else because he hates doing this kind of thing.
Now, if you’re the manager in charge of this scenario, you’re most likely going be left wondering why Alice and Ben handled the calls so differently. How was Alice able to approach potentially contentious conversations so confidently while Ben avoided them as long as possible? Why was Ben so fearful of getting an earful from angry customers while Alice didn’t take their wrath personally at all? And what made it possible for Alice to stand firm on what your company could and couldn’t do to fix the problem while Ben simply told people what they wanted to hear?
In my experience, the most obvious difference between these two employees is that Alice has a low level of Social Adaptability and Ben has a very high level. Social adaptability is a personality trait that impacts an individual’s willingness and ability to handle conflict. It’s the natural tendency to adapt to other people’s feelings in order to avoid unpleasant circumstances. If you have a lot of it, you really don’t like to deliver bad news or make unpopular decisions. On the other hand, if you’re lower in it, you tend to have a thicker skin and won’t likely bend just to make others happy.
What’s interesting is that some jobs require employees to deal with conflict and negative reactions from others quite frequently, while in others these types of encounters are rare. The closer you can match the level of social adaptability in someone to the position, the better the fit. It’s definitely worthwhile to consider this during the hiring process. No amount of conflict management or communication skill training will do very much for the “Ben’s” of the workplace in terms of helping them be less accommodating and more comfortable handling contentious situations. When faced with “fight” or “flight,” you want employees whose natural reaction is the right reaction.
Posted in: Assessment, How People Work, Management | Make A Comment »
by Janna | March 8th, 2012
 I was recently talking with a manager who was trying to figure out what to do about one of her employees whom she’d nicknamed “The Plodder.” It seems this individual had one speed (slow) and couldn’t seem to pick up the pace no matter what the situation required. And although he rarely missed deadlines and consistently produced error-free, quality work, the manager thought “The Plodder” should be able to work more rapidly and, consequently, handle a higher volume of tasks.
So she asked me the obvious question: “What should I do to light a fire under him and get him to work faster?”
In my experience, she can’t. Simply put, most individuals have a natural speed at which they like to function.
Some people love to process tasks rapidly, make decisions quickly, and act on things right away. They prefer to do it now rather than later, and the faster the better. They get bored and antsy if the pace is too slow, and they do not understand the concept of taking a “wait and see” approach. Sometimes they’re even willing to sacrifice correctness for the sake getting something done (after all, they can usually go back and correct their mistakes once they’re finished, they reason).
On the other hand, I know people who are at their best when they can work slowly and methodically and do it right the first time. If they feel rushed or pressured to cut corners in order to meet someone else’s timeframe, they often become flustered and stressed. They like to consider all their options before making a choice, and they are typically quite patient and content to let events unfold. It would make them miserable to produce less-than-quality results just to get something out the door.
Certainly people can fall in between these two extremes, and those individuals usually have the best ability to speed up or slow down based upon what a situation dictates. But folks at the ends of the spectrum usually work according to their natural pace, and attempts by managers to alter that pace usually yield only short-term changes.
Which is why when you’re hiring for an open position, it makes sense to consider the average work flow and the time constraints of the job you’re trying to fill. You’ll then need to figure out whether candidates are a good fit with it. Putting a fast-acting person in a slow moving job is just as detrimental as placing a more unhurried, deliberate individual in a high speed environment. A match here will save both you and your potential team members a lot of frustration.
Posted in: Development, Hiring, How People Work | Make A Comment »
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 »
|
