Tag Archive for: talent management

Are We Undervaluing Specialists in Our Organizations?

/0 Comments/in , /by

Thanks to a timely share on LinkedIn, I recently stumbled across an insight published by Kellogg at Northwestern titled Everyone Loves a Generalist.  It’s about how we may have a systematic bias for people with generalist skill sets; and therefore a bias against people with deep specialties.

Your LINK

The article outlines implications for management and talent strategy, with a parting shot summed up as this:

“A few words of advice for managers? Try to keep the comparisons between generalists and specialists to a minimum. (Indeed, in some of Wang and Murnighan’s studies, the researchers found that the generalist bias can be reduced when participants are encouraged to judge specialists on their own terms, as opposed to comparing them to generalists.) And above all, says Murnighan, be that conductor: “There I am, there’s my team, let me look at the interactions from a distance and say, ‘What is it that I need to change? What do I know that I’m too close to the process to really see?’””

So, if we are to build a talent model for an organization, are we thinking about where the all around athletes belong vs. where we need deep subject matter expertise?

More importantly, are we thinking about what the value vs. cost of that all around athlete is vs. the specialist?

This insight would suggest we are overpaying for generalist talent when we hire, and perhaps under-developing specialists within our own midst. Most importantly, we may all too often try to equate or compare the two.

The article offers a stealthy but scathing indictment of managers who only want to hire the all-around athlete, calling them “myopic,” risk averse, and somewhat narcissistic (no, that last word isn’t used, but it is implicit in the article…look for it).

File this one under talent and strategy…They go together nicely.

On “Best” Company Lists and the Incentives they Create

/0 Comments/in , /by

Lists that tout the “best” companies without actually measuring what the “best” is can be problematic in today’s image over substance world.

Liz Ryan, Founder and CEO of Human Workplace, writing as a contributor to Forbes, outlines how “best companies to work for” lists get the whole thing wrong.

Here is YOUR LINK

The operative passage (and I hope you read this after you’ve already clicked the link above) is this:

“I don’t trust “Best Places to Work” lists, because I was an HR person for five thousand years. I know that you can have lovely ­looking policies and programs for employees, but they don’t mean anything if the air in the place is heavy. If it isn’t a fun place to work — if people don’t trust one another, if the managers treat the employees like children, and if you can’t bring yourself to work all the way — then weight machines and free lunches can’t make it any better.

Unfortunately, it’s easier for some management teams to talk about gyms and lunches than to talk about fear and trust. They are too fearful to talk about fear!”

In taking down the “Best Places to Work” lists, Liz goes on to take down the game that results in them, namely that companies employ them as PR and branding programs.

She says:

“‘Best Places to Work’ listings are PR stunts that aren’t based on real employee feedback.”

But, there’s more…

I have a somewhat ambivalent to negative point of view on these sorts of lists. Having worked for and within companies that are featured on various and sundry of them, I think that Liz Ryan’s take is probably right.  Still, the lists that I’m most familiar with do make an effort to take in employees points of view, and they certainly do knock out companies for not meeting a given bar on the employee survey side.

So, I suppose there is some integrity to them.

But they do cause problems. And, I figured I’d list a few points that make these lists, their impact, and the incentives created around them a potential problem for the companies and the very people they are intended to help…namely all of us reading the lists and using them to make choices.  Some of the problems include that:

1. The inputs and nominations for the lists are self generated – This is essentially Ryan’s point:  If you look at the content generated for these lists, it is generally provided by the employers themselves.  In some cases, policies and perks are in the mind of an executive when they are put on paper explicitly for the survey, and it’s never referenced again.  Face it, it’s a fact.  Ryan basically says if you want to know whether a restaurant is a good one, don’t ask the proprietor, ask the patrons (and, especially, erstwhile patrons).  If you want to know whether a policy is in place, don’t ask the owner of the policy, ask 15 other people and see what you get.

2. The lists drive companies to plan around them –  Companies view the lists as critical to successful branding and talent attraction, and so they create executive incentives for their company to be on them. Human Resources and other executives are given incentives, sometimes heavy ones, to get on a given list.

3. The incentives, of course, can have unintended consequences –  When executives are incentivized not with creating a “best” company, but rather with crafting a “best” response to a “best” survey, then behavior can get confusing and, frankly, cynical.  Real issues that are brought to the fore (say in terms of fairness or application of policies) but that have no bearing on the surveys (which may not test for these hard to get at issues), are dismissed as “unimportant.”  This may sound harsh, but incentives matter. In the worst cases, less than mature or overly incentive-driven executives huff and puff at people who actually bring up real issues that don’t matter to the “bests” lists.

4. Surveyors stroke the egos of executives, creating an incrementalist approach to change – The surveyors, who do in my experience give feedback to companies that participate but do not make their lists, feed the egos of the executives (not the needs of the people) in dangerous ways by constantly explaining how “close” a company has come to making the list. It’s a “just a little more and you’ll be there” exercise.

I have yet to hear of a “bests” list survey team that will walk into a C-suite and say “Hey, bub, you aren’t even close…the people here not only dislike working here, but they dislike you and your team; and think you are only trying to make us, the survey team, happy.”

Such a surveyor wouldn’t last long.  So, those messages are given are incremental at best. “Just a wee bit more engagement,” or “we can see your progress and encourage you to keep doing what you are doing” is what gets said.  The implication is that executives are rarely caused to reflect by not making the list.  In the absence of the ego stroking “independent” evaluator, execs might have to take more drastic measures to change a culture in freefall.

5. Executives can revert to blaming in some unsavory ways – With knowledge that their organization is “so close” to making the list reinforced by the survey teams, execs might resort to blaming the organization or, in extreme circumstances, the survey team.  The “our employees don’t know how good they have it” ad hominem is a useful tool when explaining middling survey results and other yellow flags.  As a bonus, execs will also blame the survey team for mis-timed surveys (for instance for surveying during times that are too hot, too cold, too busy, or too boring).  When you are “so close” you look for small reasons for the miss, not big drivers.

6. Companies getting “so close” start teaching to the test – The lists become the “thing” and not the outcomes the list was intended to measure. Companies start teaching to the test.  They solve for a gym when a gym isn’t on anybody’s list.  They solve for engagement by throwing parties and handing out t-shirts when engagement is really about a much harder search for common meaning.  In short, they change the construction of a complex interpersonal environment into a check-the-box test; and fail in the process.

7. They focus on the survey when it really doesn’t fit – The “test” might not even fit a given corporate environment. For example, many of the “best places to work” lists are overloaded with professional services, marketing, and “knowledge work” firms and underloaded with manufacturing, materials, and blue collar firms.  The time and energy wasted in responding to a PR exercise could be better spent on improving the human dynamics in the actual company; but the survey distracts from this.

8. Sometimes the best companies know better – I know of at least one extraordinary global firm that has wrestled with the decision on whether to take the time and energy necessary to participate in these surveys. The reason?  The company defines great for itself, and doesn’t necessarily seek outside validation. It’s a compelling argument; but it MUST come with a highly reflective, listening-oriented leadership team (and it does in this particular firm).  The implication of this “opt out” factor is that people looking to due diligence a potential employer really can’t tell anything by the lists, because sometimes great companies skip the exercise altogether, and opt outs aren’t necessarily publicized.

9. Companies ignore and sometimes play into the conflicts of interest inherent to these surveys – This is perhaps the most critical factor in the “best” survey business, so I’m going to take a few more paragraphs on it.

As a rule, these surveys are meant to make the surveyors money. They are rarely if ever a public service.

Any businessperson can tell you that an activity that produces a salable report every…single…year better come with some provocative changes every…single…year or else what’s it good for?  Imagine a magazine that had the same article every month. That is what you would get if the surveys didn’t mix it up.  So, the surveys are geared to be interesting PR, and that’s what the surveyors want from their participants.  It’s not clear that interesting PR and highly engaged, stable, effective workforce always go together.

Desiring churn in the name of salable product is the first conflict of interest.  After all, companies staying on the list year after year is actually not what is best for the surveyor selling its results.

Farther than this, some survey companies have gone so far as to attempt to create franchises around their surveys, including consulting firms, licensing agreements, and any number of other entanglements that can start to look like good old payola.

To wit, in October 2014, David Lazarus at the LA Times posted an article about the conflicts inherent to the business model used by Ethisphere in creating its “Worlds Most Ethical Companies” list.  His assertion?  Companies pay to use the Ethisphere logo, they pay to have their survey processed, and they pay to be a part of Ethisphere’s events and alliances. They can also pay Ethisphere to benchmark their ethics programs outside of the survey.  All of this while Ethisphere serves as, ostensibly, an independent evaluator.

Ethisphere’s issues as an impartial evaluator have run hot and cold for years (starting with an article in Slate in 2010 that was quite scathing prior to some restructuring by Ethisphere, and later articles have defended or attacked their practices).  As an executive and advisor, I have been on the inside of at least 9 of the companies honored by Ethisphere, and while believing strongly in the principles that Ethisphere hopes to uphold can also say that, on the ground level and when it comes to individual executives: Your mileage may vary.

Ethisphere’s “most ethical” list gets a couple of lines from me because out of all the topics that “best” lists can cover, ethics is the one I’m not sure you can every, really survey.  The late collegiate basketball coach Dean Smith was known for once saying “you should never be proud of doing the right thing, you should just do the right thing.”

I think there’s a lot of truth to that.

No one ever says “They are the most ethical, be sure to ask them about it.”

To know a company’s ethical bearing, you have to go to the source of ethical tension, which is in the defining moments faced by that organization’s leaders every day in dealing with all stakeholders. I’ve said it before:  A defining moment is when two fundamental beliefs are in conflict with one another–people vs. profit dilution, transparency vs. legally required disclosure, honesty or efficiency.

It’s tough to say which company is “best” during those moments of truth, because many companies and their leaders haven’t had to face them all that often.  Impeccable ethics don’t reside in policy and procedure.  They reside in decisions and actions.

Being untested (or, frankly, merely the best at keeping our dirty laundry in the hamper) is not grounds for being labeled the “best.” The same is true of pretty much any subjective “best” list, whether it is best places to work, most reputable, most welcoming, most flexible, or otherwise.

Go to the source.

And, that’s where Liz Ryan leaves it, as will I…

 Liz Ryan says:
“If you want to hear what employees think about a workplace, check out the reviews on Glassdoor and remember to trust your instincts above all other sources.”

The short advice from me for those looking to due diligence a company from a reputation, ethics, or work environment standpoint is this:

  • Go to Glassdoor–just as Ms. Ryan says–if you want to see what people think of their company and how that is trending

 

  • Lacking a reliable base of responses on Glassdoor (which is still building), I’d go to the source. LinkedIn has made that maddeningly–for bad employers–simple.  I say maddeningly only because bad employers have lost control of the messaging.

 

  • For other issues, I’d go to companies’ communities, suppliers and customers (current and former) if I want to know about its ethics. And finally,

 

  • I’d be sure to trust my gut when things seem iffy–if the air seems heavy, it probably is. 

 

My advice for corporate execs thinking about how to “use” these surveys for PR or other purposes is threefold:

  • First, focus on the issues, not on the test. I’d, honestly, focus on what people want compared to the mission of the organization vs. what some list tells me my organization should look like.

 

  • Second, sure, I’d reference the surveys and what gets people excited outside my company–one has to attract talent, but I’d also ensure the internal voices are the most listened to.  I’m not sure that’s always the case.

 

  • Finally, consider the straitjacket that being on such a list might actually represent before deciding to participate.  Being called reputable by somebody who really doesn’t want you to be called reputable every…single…year should give you pause when you think about the implications of falling off such a list.

 

Oh, and I’d also talk to people who used to work there.  They give you insight and in most cases have nothing to “lose” by sharing a bit.

Once again, LinkedIn has made that a piece of cake.

Know what great is for you and the organization you lead, and work to represent it through thought and action.

4 Myths about Apple Design and What One Means for You

/1 Comment/in , /by

4 Myths about Apple design bring up at least one very interesting top management dilemma about talent, structure, and strategy.

Fast Company Design and author Mark Wilson recently shared an article that focused on one former Apple employee’s views on myths about what makes Apple go when it comes to design.

I’ll put the link HERE.

The four myths explored are:

#1 Apple has the best designers

#2 Apple’s design team is infinite

#3 Apple crafts every detail with intention

#4 Steve Jobs’s Passion frightened everyone

The whole is worthwhile…I wanted to focus on only one part of the commentary.

The first one.

Here’s the operative passage from that particular myth:

“I think the biggest misconception is this belief that the reason Apple products turn out to be designed better, and have a better user experience, or are sexier, or whatever . . . is that they have the best design team in the world, or the best process in the world…[but] It’s actually the engineering culture, and the way the organization is structured to appreciate and support design. Everybody there is thinking about UX [User Experience] and design, not just the designers. And that’s what makes everything about the product so much better . . . much more than any individual designer or design team.”

and this:

“It has often been said that good design needs to start at the top—that the CEO needs to care about design as much as the designers themselves. People often observe that Steve Jobs brought this structure to Apple. But the reason that structure works isn’t because of a top-down mandate. It’s an all around mandate. Everyone cares.”

I added that emphasis at the end…

Here’s my shorthand explanation of this explication:  Everybody thinks that Apple has the best design talent but what Apple actually has is a distinctive design environment.

This gets to talent, people, organization structure, mission, and purpose.

Sports teams from the New England Patriots to the Milan Indians have shown that system, buy-in, and dedication can overcome talent gaps.

But, too often overcoming talent gaps is pithy-fied in such nonsense as “Hard work beats talent when talent doesn’t work hard.”

That may be true in one off contests or one-on-one basketball, but hard work is only a fraction of the story when it comes to true, structural catalysis of excellence.

Corporate leaders need to think about far more than talent.  Talent is a resource that has a quickly diminishing return when it is placed in the wrong environment.  And, counter to that, the right environment can provide exceptional leverage to middling talent.

This one person’s view of Apple (I emphasize, one person’s view) reinforces this notion.

So What? 

As an organization leader at the frontline or as a senior executive in the C-suite, are you thinking about the structural limitations your work environment places on your talent?  Are you trying to overcome them by simply trading out people or “upgrading” your talent?

A race car with a fantastic engine can only go so far as its suspension, aerodynamics, tires, and pit crew allow.

Aligning mission, structure, and talent is what it appears Apple has done well.

Fast Company: Unemployment Changes Your Personality

/0 Comments/in /by

David Lumb, writing for Fast Company, outlines some recent research that shows that unemployment for a year or longer can actually cause an individual to have a souring personality.

YOUR LINK

The key comment:

“Over time, the unemployed men and women saw decreases in their levels of agreeableness, openness, and conscientiousness—all traits that could affect how well a person performs during a job interview.”

So, being unemployed is not only heartbreaking, it’s mindbending…and the bending accumulates.

The real question that should be researched is, however, the impact on personality that being employed in a bad situation has on personality.

Money talks, but I’m betting that people who go to work unhappy are just as bent as people who have to stay home unhappy.

Your thoughts?

 

WaPo: For Innovative Talent, It’s Both Art and Science

/0 Comments/in , /by

This from yesterday’s Washington Post:

We don’t need more STEM majors. We need more STEM majors with liberal arts training.

The debate about art vs. science in hiring is an interesting one.   This is one person’s take on why the artificial boundary between the two may hold us back when it comes to innovation.

Citing some of the world’s renown innovators as interdisciplinarians, the author takes on a real issue.

Namely, we lament the number of liberal arts degrees vs. the STEM degrees, but miss the point that for STEM trained leaders to be effective, they have to be liberal arts thinkers.

An operative passage:

Many in government and business publicly question the value of such an education [liberal arts]. Yet employers in every sector continue to scoop up my students because of their ability to apply cross-disciplinary thinking to an incredibly complex world. They like my chemistry grads because not only can they find their way around a laboratory, but they’re also nimble thinkers who know to consider chemistry’s impact on society and the environment.

Enjoy!

Want a Better Team? Mix In Some of This…

/1 Comment/in /by

This has been an interesting article making the rounds for some time now.

In January, the New York Times publicized research by several scholars that provides some new insight into what makes teams click…

YOUR LINK

The operative portion:

…the smartest teams were distinguished by three characteristics.

First, their members contributed more equally to the team’s discussions, rather than letting one or two people dominate the group.

Second, their members scored higher on a test called Reading the Mind in the Eyes, which measures how well people can read complex emotional states from images of faces with only the eyes visible.

Finally, teams with more women outperformed teams with more men. Indeed, it appeared that it was not “diversity” (having equal numbers of men and women) that mattered for a team’s intelligence, but simply having more women. This last effect, however, was partly explained by the fact that women, on average, were better at “mindreading” than men.

So, while some of you read this as being a call to have more women in the mix, some others may read this as a call for a more inclusive and reflective team dynamic regardless of gender mix.

This study would probably say you are both right.

Let’s Face It, I’m Smarter Than You

/1 Comment/in , , /by

thierry ehrmann

Some mindsets are toxic. If you propagate them, stop it. If your leader does it, weigh your options.

I write often on the light side of leadership. A few examples are here, here, and here. This one’s a bit dark. But, it’s real. Ask around.

“Let’s face it, I’m smarter than you.”

If any leader were to drop that phrase on you, you’d possibly recoil in horror and anger while looking for your hat and coat to depart. It is the sort of phrase that would be almost as hilarious to anyone hearing it uttered as it is spiteful and selfish in its utterance.

The issue is that a lot of leaders say this every day. They convey this and a whole host of other toxic thoughts through their actions. Sometimes, they don’t even know they do it.

The continuum of toxic leadership mindsets

I’ll list some of the host of toxic mindsets below (and I HOPE you will consider adding to them) because as a whole, they constitute quite possibly the single most distracting productivity sap of modern corporate life.

These mindsets are not individually toxic. Let’s be honest, all good leaders have these fleeting thoughts as a part of balancing the line between good, solid confidence and outright egotism. The issue is when these mindsets become the rule instead of the exception.

When they become endemic, they are destructive.

I’ve segmented them into six types, and given a few examples of the unspoken speech that comes with them. Ranging from mildly annoying (kinda jerky) to absolutely toxic (as in pure deal breakers–the kind of leader you walk away from at first possibility) the six types are:

Type 1: “My brain is bigger than yours.”

  • Let’s face it, I’m smarter than you
  • I could do this better than you.
  • I can interrupt you, but don’t you dare interrupt me.
  • My experience/knowledge/background is superior to yours.

Type 2: “I don’t want you to think.”

  • You will do what you are told.
  • This is not a team/democracy/collaboration.
  • That’s a stupid idea!
  • I’ve already given you the answer, don’t question it.

Type 3: “You don’t matter”

  • My freedom is more important than yours
  • My work is more important than you.
  • My family is more important than yours.
  • My stories are more interesting than yours.
  • I don’t believe in or sponsor people.

Type 4: “I don’t make mistakes.”

  • If it weren’t for you, we would have done better.
  • Because I have never failed, it must be you.
  • I have paid my dues and earned it (and you haven’t).
  • It was generous of me to do what I did for you.
  • I refuse to acknowledge that I might be wrong.

Type 5: “If it’s unethical, you did it.”

  • I’m happy for you to act unethically, as long as I don’t have to and can’t be blamed for it.
  • I would like for you to deceive other people and keep me safe.

Type 6: “I’m afraid.”

  • You do it.
  • You tell them (not me).
  • It’s not me, it’s you.

Notice how the progression goes from deep arrogance in Type 1 to deep insecurity in Type 6.

We all can deal with the jerkiness of ego from time to time. If we don’t, then we probably aren’t competing very hard. But, it gets excruciatingly hard to deal with an insecure or cowardly leader. That’s why type 6 is on the deal breaking end of the spectrum.

What to do…

The first point of this article is one of self reflection. We, especially those of us who lead others, have to ensure we’re not the ones representing these mindsets.

The second point is to provide some markers to look out for among the people you work for and with.

Generally, those markers are unspoken. But, if any of these mindsets ever turn into spoken word, then you’ve been given a gift–the gift of clarity. With your gift in hand, feel good about walking away.

When faced with a leader who possesses these sentiments at his or her heart; and who lacks the self awareness required to avoid expressing them; you really have two options:

1. Look past the leader to the other opportunities you will have in the organization. Many great people deal with ineffective or toxic leaders every day because they like their teams, like their organizations, and–most importantly–see the opportunity set that they have on the horizon past their current leader. In other words, they can look to the horizon and see past the stumbling block in their immediate path.

Or…

2. If you can’t see the opportunity for growth, and can get comfortable with the risk inherent to change…Go!!! Vote with your feet. Be confident that there are better leaders out there. Get away from them. Walk away, don’t look back, just leave.

A Parting Thought: Remember the Scorpion and the Frog

If you take pride in your ability to corral toxic leaders; or if you think that you are safe from a leader who professes the thoughts outlined above because you believe you have a special relationship with them…

or they sponsor you…

or you are somehow indispensable…

or they have told you that you are different…

…then I ask you this: Did the last few people this leader blamed for his or her own inadequacies think they were any less sponsored or safe?

Remember: In the fable of the scorpion and the frog…

…they both drown.

#Likeagirl, Evidence, and Leadership

/0 Comments/in , , , /by

Always asks us what it means to do things like a girl, and in the process illustrates a fascinating leadership concept.

If you watched the NFL’s Super Bowl tonight, you may have caught a glimpse of a commercial advertisement that doubtless cost millions of dollars to produce and present during the time of the world’s most expensive ad buy.

The ad is by Always, the maker of feminine products and a member of Procter & Gamble’s stable of brands. I learned within the last few minutes that the video is not new; but I just saw it.

If you’ve seen it, forgive my late-to-the-game reaction and thoughts; but I hope you’ll read on.

I can’t do the commercial justice, so I’m just going to link it here and hope you’ll take a few minutes to watch it.

The operative phrase in this spot is

A girl’s confidence plummets during puberty.

It is a call to action to support girls’ confidence and fight the “like a girl” stereotype.

The ad challenges us to understand that girls, prior to 10 years of age, have no idea that to be told they throw, run, or fight “like a girl” is an insult of the most dangerous kind–a socially acceptable one.

No, I don’t fit the mold of someone who opines on commercials by makers of feminine products. Nor do I represent the most likely demographic to jot down a post related to important women’s issues.

But I have a young daughter.

And this spot got me thinking.

If girls the world over–like my daughter–can go from thinking that they run, throw, and fight strong at age 10 to partaking in the general ethos that their actions are not only inferior, but comedic by age 12…

…what is happening to people’s confidence in so many other arenas due to similar social pressures?

It’s probable that we chase a significant proportion of young women out of arenas they may excel within because they “don’t fit the mold.” This has been studied repeatedly.

It’s a real failure of leadership.

And that’s not just a failure when it comes to leading young women…It’s a failure when it comes to people of all types.

I’ve written plenty on the need for evidence-based leadership.

This one is no different.

Show me how you throw. Show me how fast you run. Show me how you lead. Show me your ideas. Don’t succumb to stereotypes and prejudice.

Speak up.

Show up.

How many professionals, men and women, live with the lack of confidence that comes from these types of dismissals and this type of derision?

As someone in the “degreed” class who has been around a few organizations over time, I’ve witnessed countless dismissals of highly valid points of view due to educational background, national background, or lack of facility with a second language. I’ve seen it because of the way someone looks or dresses. I’ve even seen it because a person grew up in the wrong corporate function or attended the wrong college.

And, sadly, yes, I’ve seen it because of gender.

Such prejudice shuts people up…quickly. It stifles sharing of talents and in its worst guise amputates aspirations that could benefit most any enterprise.

What I’m saying is that in the professional arena, #likeagirl could also be #likeahighschoolgrad or #likeamanufacturingmanager or #likeanonenglishspeaker or #liketheydidntattendharvard.

In other words, they are insults that really shouldn’t be–choices and mindsets that divide and dismiss vs. listen and consider.

Always, with a very interesting ad, is just saying “watch it, because its insulting to imply that girls can’t accomplish these things.”

I’m saying the same thing.

As leaders, we could learn a lot from this video.

Look for evidence.

8 Things Your Consultants Say About You

/0 Comments/in , /by

The presence of consultants in your organization is a powerful indicator of your strength or weakness as a leader.

It’s basically impossible to move through life without using a consultant. From the haircut you get to the type of shoes you buy to the grand strategy for your organization, chances are you have tapped knowledge outside your own head in order to inject perspective, organize choices and expedite success.

But, in the business world, the presence of consulting talent in an organization provides an interesting barometer on the organization itself.

The “right” consulting model

Transient talent is a useful thing for both efficiency and effectiveness. Even in the most autonomous leadership cultures, adopting temporary talent can be a make or break proposition.

Think about the merchant shipping industry. The captain of a ship is exactly that–the absolute authority at sea.

Yet, captains readily relinquish their authority to harbor pilots every day in every part of the world. The harbor pilot is a consultant of a specific kind: One who has

very specific knowledge useful in a very specific circumstance during the life of the ship. The harbor pilot is far more versed in the navigation of his specific harbor than any oceangoing captain could be.

His experience allows for safer navigation of the port regardless of conditions that might not show up on a chart or radar. And, while the captain maintains command of the ship, he or she smartly relinquishes control to the pilot as a matter of course (or, in many places, law).

Thus, the captain brings a pilot aboard to ensure effective navigation with superior knowledge and talent; but not to replace his own command or the need for talented crew members at all times. The pilot boards incoming ships as they approach the port and leaves outgoing ships as they leave.

He’s a consultant.

Such use of transient talent is the “right” model of management consulting: Specific talent applied judiciously and precisely.

But, you and I both know that isn’t always the reason or approach to retaining consultants.  The way consulting talent is engaged–and the objectives for engaging it–says a lot about the executive engaging the consultant.

The interpretation is made by the organization–and that matters.

So…

8 things your consultants say about you without using words…

First, The Good.  To your organization, effective use of outside talent signals some pretty cool things; such as:

  • You are seeking the right knowledge at the right time: Engaging consultants is sometimes an admission that you and your organization can’t possibly know it all. So, you hire consultants who bring sources of knowledge to renew your own.
  • Your recognize that time is of the essence: You know that without augmentation, your existing staff may not have the bandwidth or tools and approaches to managed a rapidly paced project. So, you bring on management talent in a bounded manner to get “over the hump.” There’s no time to waste.
  • You care about developing your organization: You believe that development matters. You recognize that your team and organization can benefit from seeing new ways of doing things. So, you provide outside support to them as a means of developing them along in their careers. They get to see by doing alongside those who have been there and done that.
  • You are good at managing SG&A expense: Just as it would be impractical for every oceangoing captain to learn the intricacies of every possible port he or she will visit, no organization needs to staff against every contingency. Hiring talented consultants during peak times or against peak needs shows that you value great talent, but also solid bottom line performance. You are willing to pay a premium in the moment; but are good at getting lean and mean without having to fire people.

The consultants in your midst may say these things about you; and I hope they do.

However, there’s just as much a chance that consultants represent some brokenness around you…

So.

Here’s the bad, along with a little more narrative on some ways to sniff it out.  

Done inartfully, engaging consultants can telegraph to your organization that:

  • You lack confidence: You lack confidence in your professional capability. You lack vision. The desire for “more study” and slow playing–a result of vacillating indecisiveness–is sometimes an inefficiency that consultants thrive in. Worse yet, your organization may get the sense that you require the ego-stroking presence of high profile consultants in order to make it through your day. Finally, there’s the potential signal that you lack confidence in existing staff. Consultants can feed off of a lack of confidence in very dangerous ways. If the last several consulting engagements you contracted basically confirmed what you already knew, then take a hint.  If your trusted consultant (or any corporate confidant, really) spends more time massaging you than working the problem, you have a further hint that your confidence is being played.
  • You lack action orientation: Bringing in a consulting team to analyze the un-analyzeable in the name of seeking cover with your senior management and board is only sometimes okay. If you are in a position to “bet the company” then taking a deep breath and seeking a second opinion is fine; but you’d better let the organization know you are choosing to over-study the situation; because risk averse navel gazing is contagious. How many times do you hire a specific consultant just because they are the one your boss or the board will listen to? To a degree that’s just good politics, but sometimes it’s politics spelled C.Y.A.
  • Your talent strategy is off: It goes without saying that if you continuously engage outsiders at an arms-length premium to do recurring, especially generalist work; then you are probably missing an opportunity to upgrade your own talent base and save money to boot. When outsiders get all the sweet gigs, your inside talent base gets grumpy. Keep that in mind next time you engage a consultant to do work that could be a stretch for your insiders. Also, watch out for instances where you constantly re-engage “retired” employees you haven’t been able to back-fill. It may be an indicator that your talent strategy is bumbling.
  • You have a bad place to work: This is the bottom of the barrel. You have the Las Vegas of workplaces. People may visit and try to get rich, but nobody really wants to live there because of its false front and seedy underside. How many times do you attempt to hire the consultant but get rebuffed? How many times have outsiders with a good taste of the inside of your organization voluntarily re-upped as a full time employee. Worse yet, how many of your consultants have recommended (non desperate) people to come work for you without collecting a search fee? If the answer to these questions is “few or none,” your consultants may be feeding off of an awful company environment. You might have an organization that is a “nice place to visit, but you wouldn’t want to work there.”

So, there you have it…8 things that consultants may be signaling to your organization.  The good is good. The bad is ugly.

I recommend the good.

A parting thought…

As someone who has scoped, negotiated, and managed many millions of dollars worth of consulting projects and engaged consultants and advisors for millions more, I clearly believe that management consultants can provide exemplary value as hired guns aimed at specific, impact-oriented targets.

It just requires a high professional standard on both sides of the engagement.

It’s important to know what your consultant may be saying about you, if only through the words of the observers in your organization.

Watch out for the bad stuff…

The One About Performance

/1 Comment/in , /by

Performance is the prerequisite for any professional or organization.  It is the heartbeat of the body.

In December I posted an article on the lights of leadership. In the midst of a lot of feedback I receive on the writing I’ve done, one bit of feedback stood out on that particular piece.

It came from a gentleman who has been both a corporate leader and entrepreneur. In referring to the ways I listed to “light the lights of leadership” he said simply: “I’m glad you started with performance.”

It’s not clear to me that performance “sells” on LinkedIn or your average blog quite like a list of 5 things that will bring you wild success.

But, people who know, know.

I’ve had the privilege to write about a broad set of topics. I enjoy thinking through and sharing on strategy, leadership, entrepreneurship, innovation, and ethics. I view those topics as worthwhile to anyone looking to advance their careers and organizations.

However, there’s a point of fact that sometimes gets muddied up in all the organizational development, touchy/feely, and “strategic” thinking.

Performance is the prerequisite.

No matter what the collective business and organizational intelligentsia write and speak on, it all must relate back to performance–short term and/or long term.

That’s not to say that it does.

That’s to say that it should.

A leader with the best ideas on and reputation for people leadership, organizational development, and customer care but without a track record of performance might as well change careers.

To borrow a turn of phrase from the apostle Paul: If I have leadership ability that can move mountains, but do not have performance, I am nothing.

That may sound harsh and cold, but that’s reality.

It’s true whether you are a concert pianist or an investment banker. It’s true for athletes, doctors, and police officers.

It’s true whether you are trying to carry a football across a goal line, or seeking 20 basis points of alpha.

How often we forget this simple reality.

Performance is the currency of our careers and the building block of our professional names.

But, performance itself may be insufficient

If you look at the body of any leader’s work, the heartbeat is performance.  Results delivered by that person matter that much!

But, even a comatose patient has a heartbeat, so there’s much more to leading a than simply meeting objectives. The heartbeat is a critical necessity, though it may not be sufficient for a thriving, vibrant organization.

In my experience only very rare business cultures can hang their hats on performance alone. They look like professional sports teams and trading desks. I’ve been a part of both; and I’ve been around dozens of other corporate and organizational cultures.  I’ll just assert this:  It’s unlikely that your organization can rise (or fall) to this level of Darwinian objectivity.

Thus, we discuss results and leadership and vision and integrity all within the realm of the performance ethic.

The Performance Ethic

Show me a person who has a strong performance ethic, and I’ll show you someone who will likely contribute every day.

Show me someone with a strong performance ethic layered over with people skills and “other-oriented” values, and I’ll predict career success.

Performance ethic.

That is a concept that his highly distinct from work ethic.

Lots of people work hard and don’t perform.

It’s also highly distinct from smarts, intelligence, savvy, and the like.

Perhaps shockingly, it’s also highly distinct from a desire to “win.”

Winning matters, but it’s the definition of the contest that matters more.

As anyone who has participated in high stakes negotiations can tell you: Some of the best “win-preventers” are people who focus on winning the minutiae and lose sight of directional victory.

In American football, a lot of 15-yard penalties come from guys trying to win the little things (like that fight with the guy across from them) while losing sight of the bigger things.

The same thing happens in professional life.

A short win is just as easily part of a long defeat as a long victory. Ask any endurance athlete what constitutes effective performance, and the answer is most certainly not going to be “run every moment as fast as your body will go.” It just isn’t possible. You run the race so that you will win; but that does NOT mean winning every lap, stage, or heat.

None of us wants to be a part of a long defeat.

So what?

Let me outline a few ideas for what constitutes a performance ethic for leaders. This list will be incomplete. Trust me. Please help me round it out if you like.

  • A strong concept of performance: In short: What is the race? Is it quarterly financial performance or an enterprise positioned for success 3 years from now? How do you manage some of the tensions inherent to the two? What’s true north and do executives, rank, and file align on it?
  • A superior understanding of others’ concepts of performance: Do you understand what “winning” is to those around you and those who are instrumental to the race? One person’s concept of “performance” is earning the highest bonus possible. Another’s is building for the future. Yet a third person’s concept is simply staying employed or protecting position. Another wants only to advance her career. A person with a solid performance ethic assesses these things and determines whether he or she can “win” with the team they have or are a part of.
  • Daily delivery and ownership: Strong delivery today against the vision for tomorrow is a hallmark of a person with a performance ethic. Performers know that daily improvement underpins performance. Procrastination doesn’t.
  • An expansive view: Making performance an expansive thing shared by more vs. a contractive thing shared by fewer is an indication of a strong performance ethic. People who know business performance know that the pie grows with performance. The stereotypical bureaucrat only looks to divide the pie as it exists today.
  • Ability to attract others to a performance vision: The more senior you are, the more you must inspire others. Being able to attract talented people, inspire them, and have them deliver on a performance vision aligned with your own is certainly an aspect of performance ethic.
  • Transparent performance contracts: Allow others to get on or off the boat with real informed consent and high integrity risk sharing. An underlying theme to “Enlightened Strategic Leadership” in my practice is that social contracts within a firm should be transparent, particularly when they are in conflict. If you have a policy, follow it. Most (not all) organizations start this with their employee handbook.

Let’s talk performance.

Without performance, all the focus we see on LinkedIn about people, personalities, and career is just noise.

Performance is the prerequisite.

Author’s note:  Just as in most things, there is more than one way to “success.”  I hold out performance as the prerequisite. Many, many people hang their hat on patronage and politics for “success.”  I suggest we peer through those things and look at performance.