You have to love the article’s opening line, reminiscent of Fast Company’s “Why We Hate HR” – “Would it be a strategic, forward-thinking utopia [if HR took on the CEO role] – or a backwater that focused on tissues, teabags and time and attendance?”

I think this describes part of the problem – along the lines of saying the biggest disability so-called disabled people have is the opinions of the abled. One of the biggest disabilities of HR executives is the outright desire of other executives to paint them as concerned primarily about “tissues, teabags and time and attendance.” If true, it’s almost inevitably because that’s what the CEO and the organization demand and limit HR to. More often it’s what others want everyone to believe so they don’t have to accept suggestions from HR or face them as competitors for senior roles.

The article goes on to point out that few HR people end up as CEOs of big operations, but some do, of whom some make mistakes – what a surprise – ignoring the fact these mistakes are similar to the mistakes other appointees make – over-spending, etc. In the article this is naturally attributed to lack of “business acumen” (but no comment about how many other CEOs make the same mistakes, presumably showing an equal lack of business acumen).

Then follow some lengthy bits about how necessary it is for career HR people who aspire to CEO roles to get some profit and loss experience in some other function. That certainly fits with today’s view that leadership development for all types of top roles requires rotation through a series of assignments judiciously chosen to provide perspective and experience in dealing with varied types of situations including failure, turnarounds, P&L, functional and more. Quite a few organizations now see experience in the HR role as critical for future leaders who otherwise may not be aware of the huge scope and importance of this territory and its many potential pitfalls. So the article wavers on to a somewhat shaky lack of conclusion about whether HR people can or can’t expect to succeed as CEOs, with more examples of those who have than those who haven’t (it is an HR magazine article after all).

One interesting aside from the main thrust is the question of whether they don’t get to be CEO because they don’t want to. Again one might well ask if this is true of other department heads as well. Everyone sees CEO tenure tending to be short, CEOs being criticized and fired for nearly every variation of mistake it’s possible to make and the incredible hours and other commitments CEOs are expected to make, often to the detriment of family and having a life in general. Of course there’s always a line up to be CEO, but never the entire or even majority of the executive team.

My guess is that many HR VPs get to see up close just how complex, difficult to master and ultimately thankless the CEO job really is (unless you consider huge severance to be a form of thanks, which is arguably a cynical, but useful perspective). By contrast I believe a great many CFOs imagine they could do better than their current boss because they believe they understand what business is really all about much more – ie: in their view MONEY. Unfortunately success isn’t that simple, a fact some companies are recognizing to their great advantage.  It even includes tissues, tea bags and time and attendance at time. It doesn’t hurt a CEO to understand those.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

In fact, there are many parts of any organization that don’t function as well as they could and those are all areas where HR could take a lead role in improving things. That might even reach up to the C-suite where the Board might be wise to look at the CEO and other C-level incumbents with a view to improving performance.

Of course, you can’t do everything, so you have to pick your areas – ones where you think you will get results and where you think you will survive. I won’t say ‘where you are safe to tread’ since a key part of leadership is taking risks and pushing limits. For instance, you may well be able to coach C-suite members, but hesitate because they won’t accept it willingly and may retaliate. Survival is a serious issue to consider. If a particular project you really believe in is clearly not survivable, you have to make decisions. Is it worth pursuing even if it results in you being pushed out or can you contribute satisfactorily (in your view) by staying away from that project and tackling lesser ones that nonetheless make a difference? Every leader at least sometimes has to come to terms with such questions. It’s not optional, but a clear aspect of leading. If the stuff isn’t tough, others would be doing it.

It’s pretty scary and awfully presumptuous perhaps for HR to think it can wield authority in areas that haven’t been previously defined for it, but that’s what being a valued contributor to a senior team is all about. Every member of the team ought to have opinions and ideas for improving every other area. Silos often prevent team members from even raising these thoughts, but that in itself is something that falls into a key role HR is intended to consider. Organizations function better without silos, but someone has to tackle the questions of how to get rid of them.

So, no, HR can’t own the entire world, but does have an opportunity to choose to take on significant pieces of it, areas that other functions in the organization probably wouldn’t dream of touching or areas that others, who could take them on, aren’t. HR is the only function that shares with the CEO the responsibility for what’s going on in every area of the organization. In sales you worry about sales and maybe about ‘adjacent’ areas – engineering of the products you are being asked to sell and the marketing and social media issues, but you rarely find sales worrying about what’s happening day-to-day in IT or finance or how to fix them. Yes, they may have opinions at a distance, but hardly the access directly into the heart of what makes those organizations function the way HR potentially does.

So deciding where and how to attempt to lead is a challenging set of choices for HR, knowing that you can’t own the entire world. It gives one freedom to focus where it will make the biggest difference, but how many HR functions sit down and actually attempt to decide that?

Bookmark and share this post

More »

Previous posts pointed out the ever increasing need and opportunity to improve HR management by measuring and developing strategy according to what’s found mathematically. Few HR departments have paid enough attention to developing the requisite measurement and math skills in house.

A second area that’s unavoidable is social media. As with measurements, there’s an unfortunately tendency among many HR professionals to think this belongs somewhere else, in this case with legal advisors or departments or with marketing or communications specialists rather than in HR.

Of course things can be set up that way. Leave hard numbers and technical processes to finance or IT or audit, or social media to marketing and legal. Inevitably, though, HR becomes involved. As soon as you want to re-engineer some process and have to move people around or if you need to discipline staff members who breach privacy or libel rules, reveal secrets or make derogatory comments about the company or staff on the Internet, you’re smack in the middle of HR territory, areas where legal may have an opinion, but culture, past practice, performance and disciplinary systems all weigh even more heavily.

So HR can choose to leave the upfront issues of measurement or social media to others, but will almost certainly complain that they weren’t brought in early enough when things start to happen and specifically when things start to go wrong as they affect people. For HR to be in a leadership role it makes sense to walk into these territories with a view that HR should own a major chunk as well as the knowledge that no one department can develop all the answers effectively.

It’s much easier to break down silos and gain your rightful input into issues such as these if you are leading the evolution of policy and practice than if finance, IT, marketing, legal or other areas are attempting to enunciate rules and procedures and HR is simply ‘helping’ or giving input.

Essentially these are perfect areas to do cross-functional planning and discussion. Again HR has a huge opportunity to show the way rather than be hauled in as an afterthought or an add-on. These aren’t easy areas to come to grips with, the best approaches are still just emerging from the muddy surroundings. There’s lots of room for mistakes, regrets, embarrassment and more, but that’s exactly what distinguishes leaders from average managers – the willingness to stand up and be counted on important strategies, where the first mover is often criticized at least as much as lauded.

Being willing to stick ones neck out and accept criticism for a new product, partially formed, that everyone immediately wants to add their two cents worth to is a key element in seizing the first-mover advantage. Getting your policy keys in place early and offering to add in others’ is a better position than letting others lead and later trying to argue for a change to suit HR needs.

Power grows for those who exercise it. This is an area where certainly if you don’t use it you lose it because someone else will take the lead and set the basis on which the rest of a program is built.

So is there new stuff in HR? You bet, if you see it that way and grab the opportunity to step forward first, knowing there will be some criticism, but that advantages far outweigh disadvantages.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

Alan Collins operates a site called Success in HR and recently offered 20 Brutally Blunt Career Tips to Ponder.. One stood out for me – one that wasn’t even among those he highlights, but which is what I see missing in so many careers:

“The time for creating your new HR career is not the day you get downsized or when you decide it’s time to move on. You need to plan this months in advance. This planning is mainly because you need to grow your network first..”

Emphatically, the first part is correct, except I’d say “years” not “months.”

I’m not so sure how most people would interpret the networking part. I wasn’t a great networker so maybe that would have turned my ‘years’ into ‘months,’ but I have to say I relied on trying to do the job better than anyone else wherever I could (including better strategies for whatever needed to be done). and on keeping an eye on a strategy for myself and making choices whenever any arose that fit its general outlines. That way I’d have success stories to tell if and when opportunity arose. I’m a firm believer in the old saying: luck happens when preparation meets opportunity. I can wait, but I want to be ready. What you get ready for is where you end up. if you’re keeping your eyes open and volunteer when you see a chance at that sort of work.

The very essence of strategy as an approach is what most people miss. You won’t get to the end result if you don’t have an idea of what it might be, but a loose idea that leaves some flexibility for variety in getting there. The problem most people seem to encounter is they get frustrated, become negative about themselves and cease pursuing their strategy as soon as they don’t see immediate progress to some specific result. It takes a certain kind of confidence to tell yourself, I will work toward being the best HR person ‘somewhere’ one day whether I get much proof along the way or not.

As a sub-strategy I began to keep an eye out for interesting and remunerative problem situations. To get better at HR meant looking for challenges where HR seemed difficult and moving consistently toward industries and sectors where there was more pay. (I came from a poor family and always knew I had only myself to count on – creating a mixture of risk averse, wanting never to be out of work, yet strategically preferring higher paying, somewhat riskier positions). In time, I became continually ‘ready to move’ in case the worst happened, but equally ‘ready to take on a bigger challenge.’ The result was promotions and moves to progressively more challenging roles, learning more constantly and eventually funding the coveted ‘freedom 55′ without actually planning when to become VP or asking for raises except in one obvious case where the job doubled in size.

To me, strategy is this ‘always getting ready for something bigger in your chosen area.’ Today, organizations prize innovation, which comes down to exactly the same thing. And U.S. political strategy? The same. Are they “getting ready for something better” – no – it’s more a case of “getting ours” as if we exist in some zero sum game where winners only get what they can take from losers. That’s what happens if you believe you’ve arrived and can only go downhill if you let ‘those people’ get more. That’s why so many successful companies and cultures ultimately fail. Reasonable prudence is fine. If it becomes cutting everyone else’s expenses so your immediate income goes up, with no investment in future growth, you have a guaranteed disaster waiting to happen. Strategy has to be about waiting. and preparing. with both eyes open, yes, but being able to wait till preparation enables seizing opportunity. That’s what the marshmallow experiment with kids is all about!

Bookmark and share this post

More »

Google seeks to find out and select for a candidate’s broader interests in the hiring process to ensure diversity of ideas that will lead to innovation in products and services. Steve suggested using an internal Facebook-like system that allows staff to share interests other than simply work as a way of finding people in-house with unique qualities for particular projects. One example both cited, coincidentally, was that knowing someone was a skydiver might indicate their willingness to take risks and that, in turn, might be what you need on a particular project. Another instance – Steve is proud of his sideline – playing in a jazz band.

Both are certainly aware that something like skydiving is only one indicator of risk-taking and one not every boss might relish. I like to think I took risks throughout my career by taking on risky assignments like leading the organization’s union (and incidentally doing it well). Oops, that might not be something I’d want to make widely known to a new company since quite a few bosses would likely have the sort of reaction that wouldn’t have a positive effect on my career.

So how would I show my risk-taking ability or outside interests, many of which aren’t typical big-sellers in the old-fashioned leadership climate still found widely today? My affinity for philosophy and particularly Zen might be tolerated as odd, but harmless. or too weird for a senior VP.

On the other hand I had a CEO who referred to some people he didn’t like as Icabods. (That’s the timid, bookish school teacher character from childhood fiction – an image of ridicule.) I was a bit taken aback the first time he mentioned this to me, given my own early background as a school teacher. He apparently didn’t make the connection, but subsequent CEOs were often quick to tell me I ‘sounded like a school teacher’ – something they didn’t mean nicely on the occasions they were moved to point it out. In fact, I think it’s safe to say my bookish, school-teacher-like interests in philosophy and my understanding of left-wing issues made me valuable in environments where few others could relate and someone was needed who could. That’s diversity, but we have to realize not everyone sees the value.

Just as some unwitting students may be ruining their future job prospects by posting online photos and comments about drinking bouts and worse, we might be inviting employees to do the same without clearly being able to delineate what’s ‘acceptable’ or ‘laudable’ versus what’s ‘not wanted here.’ Can we ever promise all managers will be as open-minded as we’d hope?

I definitely don’t have the answers for this one. Skydiving may sound great to some managers and horrendously foolish to others. Anyone got a handy list of ‘great hobbies or interests to ensure promotions?’ I’m not sure we’re going to develop a specific idea of what those are. That’s the essence of diversity. Who will push the envelope? Soon as well as having the right job experience and training, you may need to cite ‘the right hobbies.’ That’s counter to the intent, but sadly seems almost inevitable.

The same challenges apply to other personal attributes as noted with disabilities and other diversity issues (check the post “Really? Do Tell”). Knowing how or when and how much to disclose personal information is a puzzle.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

That’s a testament to a number of key observations. First, you can set out to and succeed at creating a great place to work. Second, it’s hard to retrofit once cynicism has started if you haven’t created one from scratch (but I’ve seen it done). Third, line officers have to get involved to drive the process and walk the talk. You can’t just task HR with it and walk away.

He goes on to draw out the idea that engagement can actually go up in difficult economic times, but only with specific attention to making employees feel safe, valued and not hopelessly over-worked. Companies that have managed this are clearly positioned to get the best from everyone and are far more likely to outdo those who don’t believe it’s possible.

He also pokes fun at another common myth – that managers shouldn’t have to ‘engage’ employees, that staff should just take care of that themselves, presumably along with being grateful to have a job. He quotes an astonished CFO who notes, “. an epiphany; I realized for the first time that managing
people is a big part of my job.” When did we allow ourselves to promote people to manage others who didn’t realize this? Forever, unfortunately. We don’t expect financial results to manage themselves, or new technology or marketing.

Pretty well everyone knows perfectly well we normally don’t give people the title “manager” unless they are being promoted to a position with people reporting to them, but somehow about 80% fail to notice that actually managing them is a key part of the job and most companies fail to ensure any specific training is provided in this. Most act as if it comes automatically. Duh! We know many people learn finance and marketing in school. We also know nearly no one learns leadership there. so how do we suddenly presume them to be effective at it? This would be amazingly funny if it wasn’t so sad. and so universal.

Does anyone see this changing?

Bookmark and share this post

More »

It correctly notes about 40% of leaders in business (and elsewhere) are actually introverts. That shouldn’t be such a surprise, but it usually is. Being quiet, thoughtful and liking ‘alone time’ has never stopped actors, singers, speakers and leaders in other supposedly ‘extraverted’ endeavors from excelling. It’s not as clearly understood as other ‘obvious’ leadership traits that we are normally trained to think of, but introversion can contribute a lot. We need balance, and who better to understand how to balance the demands for being out in public with thoughtfulness than people who can see both.

In a presentation I have coming up for a senior university class on leadership, I thought I should show some photos of myself as a kid so these younger students could related to the gray-haired, bespectacled guy in front of them – someone who was a super shy, introverted kid who ultimately was able to learn to succeed as an executive and speaker. To me the transformation has always seemed almost unbelievable. I dragged out some old shots and was surprised to find I didn’t look as scrawny and geeky as I thought and I could actually see the progress, in increments, from that kid to the full fledged executive I ultimately became.

                                        
The kid………..             the union leader………          the graying executive.

So I thought I’d go find a photo of someone somewhat ‘geeky’ looking like what I had in my mind when I thought of myself in those teenage years. What turned up was a photo I will show the class with the comment, “As a kid I was convinced no one who looked the following guy, like how I thought I was, could ever be a leader, let alone someone who could make real contributions.” Nobody ever told me leaders could be like this unless they more or less walked on water. I think the message here is, when you see yourself as weak and introverted, it almost doesn’t matter what  you look like – you’ve put limits on yourself that no one else is seeing. Thankfully I had experiences that slowly, but surely helped me develop a different style of behavior, yet I continued to see myself as the shy kid I was once. Here’s that photo: I wish.!

Bookmark and share this post

More »

Oops, that’s an article I have to read! It didn’t take long to find (link above), but, even double-spaced, 54 pages isn’t an easy-to-digest document. This is a great example of why leadership is so often misunderstood.

The key is to understand that when someone misses the point in an article it sometimes helps reinforce the real story when you go dig it out. This is a point I’ve continually tried to make and it comes into very clear focus when you dissect this study.

The researchers, themselves, are very, very clear about several things. 53% of   leadership impact comes from one group of skills, which they describe as follows:

“The first and most important factor is a general factor, explaining 53% of the
variation in the ratings.  All individual characteristics [emphasis mine] load positively on this factor, ranging from a loading for “integrity” of 0.33 to a loading for “efficiency” of 0.68. It is natural, therefore, to interpret this factor as capturing general talent or ability.” And THEN they go on to identify the second most important factor, which explains 20% of leadership results and is much more difficult to understand. It contrasts warm, team-builders with hard-driving, conscientious types who follow through details and gives preference to the latter for achieving results.

By highlighting what they said, I’m prefiguring the better conclusion. We know from many studies that the most important work trait among the so-called “Big Five” personality characteristics is ‘conscientiousness.’ We also know it’s not the only contributing factor to success. To be highly effective as a leader or in any other challenge involving people, the best results come from having a complex of skills WORKING TOGETHER.

Duh, that means the best solution is NOT the ‘either/or’ one. If you have a choice of only one skill set, of course select the hard-driving, one-man-band, the charismatic if possible, the analytic person who dishes out orders. provided they have one even more important element from that group – they’re consistent. If you want the best results, however, find someone with ALL the contributing skills in a good balance. an ‘all rounder,’ a leader who also coaches and builds effective teams and relationships in addition to these. Get it? Look for the #1 skill set, not the #2 where, if you have to make a choice, you should absolutely pick the hard-driver over the warm team-builder.

Why is it so darn hard for reporters of good research to pick out the key fact not the most explosive? Every leader, to be worthy of the basic name, must drive hard toward the end goals. They need passion and constant attention to details. but the best leaders, the very best, go beyond only that to add in the team-building, coaching abilities. If you can’t find the best, settle for the drive, but don’t suggest those traits are the only ones that count. Don’t make it either/or.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

First, I often am introduced for my success in handling some major mergers, not easy when 80% are known to fail, mostly for "HR" reasons – poor culture fit, bad leadership, etc. What I point out is that most of the layoffs I had to manage – and there were many in the turbulent retail years I held a senior role there… most occurred in good times, not in recessions. Layoffs don’t only occur in tough times nor does hiring only occur in good periods. Both go on all the time. It’s simply a matter that there are a few more in one or the other.

I got the watershed job in my own career history the very day a major city newspaper emblazoned this headline on page 1: Worst Job Market in 20 Years (the height of the 1982 recession). And I’m not the greatest job hunter, being basically a shy, non-marketing type. "If I can do it, you can," is a pretty accurate message.

In most years average turnover is about 15% – one job in six has to be refilled. Most are filled from within… in good times… and then replaced by hiring junior staff. This background rate of turnover doesn’t vary too much in bad times. And when many companies lay off, they inevitably find just afterward that turnover continues. Other companies are grabbing their best people hoping to fill growing gaps with better players; your own company cut to the bone and didn’t anticipate continuing routine departures of people they depend on. They still have to hire.

While it’s true that relatively speaking it will probably take longer to get a job (managers who might average 3 to 5 months searching might need 6 to 9), they will inevitably find work. Those who keep looking will at least! Of course that’s hard on people. No one likes to envision such lengthy periods without pay, but allowing for just a bit of luck, severance packages, outplacement counseling and good planning really do help.

By the time layoff are decided, paperwork processed and job searches are fully underway (usually 2 to 3 months), don’t forget that we’re that much closer to the upturn. Those laid off early may have longer searches, but they’re more fully networked and closer to finding work earlier in the  upturn than those laid off later, who take a few months to get well started. So even though layoffs may continue for a while, it isn’t all doom and gloom for everyone. Those who keep their heads, stay focused and pursue all leads as consistently as they can usually end up with better jobs that the ones they left.

It’s not a time to panic and jump at the very first job offer… unless it’s a great one. Steady, logical work pays off all the way through the process from networking to negotiating the offer. It’s just a bit tougher to stay positive. As always balancing pressures and alternatives is the key to coming out on top.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

The first knee-jerk reaction in many companies is serious lay-offs. In good times these would generally please stock analysts because they seem to cut the cost base and therefore should increase profits, but when they’re done in tough times, they’re more of a last grasp at survival and won’t have that positive effect. Moreover, they cost a lot – a sudden cash  outflow for severance and notice pay… and you inevitably lose a number of excellent people. You can’t identify, nor can you automatically be sure you’re removing, the so-called ‘deadwood’ (lovely way to refer to staff), right?

So you end up short staffed in some areas and still over-staffed for the moment in others. You can’t simply shuffle the extras into the gaps. It never quite works out as you want or anticipate. Even before the inevitable upturn comes you have to madly try to hire great replacements just when everyone else is trying, too. Cost savings haven’t even begun by this time because you’re still paying for terminations and now you’ve got to pay more to hire. Especially this time we’re going to come out into a very tight hiring market due to boomer retirements and the massively growing need for better leadership for flatter, more dispersed organizations. And by the way, no one will trust you due to massive layoff hangover.

So what should you do? I’m all for biting the bullet in a number of ways. Beef up performance discussions and use them as a basis for carefully chosen lay-offs on a much smaller scale. Two or three months of performance focus usually identifies and justifies focused departures. Don’t be so sure a big across-the-board cut now is the answer. Focus more on performance and positioning people for better performance when things start to turn so you’re early out of the gate with better leaders and better teams revved up to succeed against weakened competitors. Spend some money on training the right people. Use the time you should have ‘spare’ from lesser workloads. Don’t fill everyone’s time with scurrying to find cuts or justify not cutting in their areas. You’ll just stress them and tire them out for when you need them at full speed in the upturn.

When things start to pick up, don’t automatically start hiring. Use your improved skills to absorb the work through increased productivity – gaps that weaker companies have to fill by rapid hiring and the mistakes that they will inevitably make as a result. You can always hire when the burst of panic hiring is waning and people who took the first job that came along are becoming dissatisfied.

Does this paint a picture? Those companies that don’t react with panic either in the down- or the upturns have a much greater chance of doing things better than the competition. A recession can be a golden opportunity to position yourselves for a far more secure future. But, of course, most companies argue that this is all very logical, they just can’t. Sadly, for some that’s true, but for others, they just aren’t looking at the logical time frames that such relatively slow HR processes inevitably take. If layoffs today meant cost-savings tomorrow morning, panic might work. But in the months these things take to roll out, times will start to change. Don’t get caught like so many rolling with exactly the wrong waves at the wrong moments.

Does this sound familiar? Successful organizations don’t manage today, they manage tomorrow. A little planning and courage go a long way toward making better leadership.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

One article talks about how to retain staff, advice as it happens from a fellow speaker, sales guru Jeff Mowatt. To help employees stay engaged by finding the interesting parts of even a dull job, he likens this to the Japanese Tea Ceremony, where the details become interesting even in a supposedly mundane event. By so doing, you keep them excited about what they can do for the customer of the job even when many people would find the work by itself boring.

In another, another fellow speaker, Steven Little, encourages rewarding oneself for basic achievements that take work – in his case, a milkshake for getting himself to a distant speaking engagement. And then he proceeds to casually outline five keys to effective leadership in organizations as an added bonus.

Then Berlitz Canada offers advice on adding key skills that improve your thinking and career options simultaneously – no surprise this would be learning another language, a bit obvious, but nonetheless very true.

More and more we see popular press picking up bits that in years past would have appeared only in management magazines. Today every employee wants and needs to know about the skills involved not only in managing their own success, but what would help organizations they’re involved in, too. The great value of this is that it makes managing more transparent for everyone, demystifies it and shows the links between what’s good for the individual as well as the organization at the same time.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

You probably know my take on “or” by now. It should almost always be “and.” Yes, generalists should have a specialty… and specialists should also be generalists. No matter how long they’ve worked in their specialty, no matter how much time they spend on it and intend to spend on it in the future, they should NOT fail to review what they do and propose in generalist terms. Will the average line manager understand and value what they’re suggesting, will the business “in general” benefit?

The reason HR is often perceived as isolated from the rest of the business is exactly this problem. Generalists sitting in the business side with line managers in viewing most of what comes from central “centers of excellence” as we now call them as being too ivory tower oriented, not workable in the real world. Specialists on the other hand tear their hair out wondering why the line never adopts programs fully (and then complains they don’t work).

But isn’t this a challenge in almost every area of a business. The marketers don’t want to step over to get experience in HR. After all they know for a fact that marketing is much more important and so that’s where they want to spend all their time. They complain those finance guys limit their budgets because they don’t understand. But the finance guys don’t want to get any experience in marketing and certainly not in HR because, after all, finance is the ultimate key to the business… right… sigh.

So let’s hear it for specialists who are also generalists and generalists who have a specialty. I mean for real, not simply some silo’d wonk who thinks they understand the business better than the people who work at it day to day or vice versa. At some point in every career, people need at least a bit of experience in both… or very good empathy and imaginations to understand what it’s like to walk in the other person’s shoes. Being one or the other simply isn’t effective; we need to think “both.”

Bookmark and share this post

More »

A key function of Human Resources is trying to get people hired or existing ones moved into jobs that fit their strengths. Buckingham would be right in thinking I’d be wasting my time aiming for the Olympics, definitely not in my strengths. But every athlete or manager who legitimately wants his or her role and has talent still has “weaknesses” to work on. It would make no difference to me if my biggest problem in the 100 meter dash  was my start, but for those who win or lose by microseconds, knowing their weaknesses and working on them is huge. And to suggest they not bother would be completely wrong.

So, should we only work on strengths – no way! But starting with strengths and working on them as well as what makes them weaker than they could be is essential. Since studies show the lowest rated skills for most leaders are all aspects of working with people (versus things), we clearly need to promote those with inclination and relevant ability, but we also need to work hard to ensure they get exposed to experiences that help them grow people skills.

Tips: How to choose what to work on

Ideally trial and error and solid self-reflection have landed you in a job you like a lot. (If not, figuring out what you really prefer is priority #1.) Then, to get better at what you like doing:

1.    Try to evaluate and especially ask others for their opinions of your strengths and weaknesses for this work. Take time to assess accuracy. Don’t be reactive to emotional issues about these and don’t take anyone’s first word, especially your own.

2.    Work on your three or four biggest strengths… by looking at your weaknesses in those areas, planning a strategy to improve them and consistently doing a bit each day whenever they come up. Set reminders for yourself or you’ll forget.

3.    Then look at your two or three biggest weaknesses. Really look. Some may not be as bad as you think; others are worse. Be aware you have a couple of approaches – first, get someone else to do those things instead (a team member, co-leader, spouse, etc.). Figure out how to be great without ever doing these. Don’t let yourself be tempted. Pamper the people who do this for you so you’ll never have to. …But also… decide on one, just one, weakness you really, really, really want to change. Create a plan and work on it every day, asking people continually how you are doing and asking for their help and suggestions. Make this into a daily habit of practice. In a few months or a year or two, evaluate your results. Chances are you’ve made enough progress (and built some continuing habits) that you can choose a second miserable area to work on. But expect to keep working on these for the rest of your life. They will never come entirely naturally.

4.    Periodically assess your results and the balance between work on strengths and weaknesses, not letting either completely absorb your energy – do both. The proportion of time you spend on each is a balance only you can decide.

The bottom line is you can’t easily change weaknesses, but you better know what they are and have a strategy to prevent them de-railing you. Over time you can certainly improve some of these areas, but only if you work hard on one at a time and choose only those you really want to change… and then persist, persist, persist. For me this has meant a lifelong drive to get over feeling shy. I’ve developed tons of behaviors that work most of the time, but there are still areas where my original habits continue to affect what I do and unless the day ever comes that isn’t the case, I’ll keep this in mind and keep working away at little bits.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

Widely reported in the past week, major retail jewelry operator, Zale Corporation, promoted it’s EVP of HR, Legal and Corporate Strategy, Theo Killion, to President. Now you might expect as in years past this would be a legal expert serving as in-house counsel who makes deals and plans strategy from a legal-financial perspective and, oh yes, happens to have HR tucked under his wing. In this case Mr. Killion is a 30-year HR veteran who worked his way up to over-see the other jobs. HR is first in his background. Moreover he is tasked in part with continuing to promote diversity, which he personally exemplifies – a forward-looking strategy for results as well as doing the right thing.

Then the mail bag brought the latest “People & Strategy” – the journal of the Human Resource Planning Society – filled with a series of articles about CEO succession (and pay).

No great news on managing pay better I fear. Boards continue to struggle with the best ways to pay CEOs. Although the theory is firming up they should be paid for on-going performance once they’ve been attracted with a competitive base salary, the problem is how to measure the connection with performance. One article proposed a system that was then nearly universally dumped on by a half dozen experts.

So, what’s good on the horizon for the future?

As an aside, I hear from sources in various industries that top HR salaries are getting into the ozone, too, giving CFOs some concern they might be eclipsed pay-wise. The same group noted they are seeing more MBA students who have chosen the HR track in the belief this is where the action will be. They are right. Hopefully they are getting that advice from their MBA schools, too. The goal really isn’t to get paid well just for the money, but to see HR and what it does for organizations recognized and given the clout at least on a par with other senior roles.

The four main articles on succession were right on, backed up well, agreed on the same key points and made sense. What really stood out were two listing competencies for CEOs of the future – among them both explicitly emphasized a heavy dose of humility along with confidence – in balance. It was refreshing to see it clearly spelled out as a specific requirement!

CEOs need courage to take risks in rapidly changing environments and at the same time the ability to listen, absorb advice and ideas from others in the Board and the organization and meld all of that into best guesses. All this requires the humility to understand no one person has the ultimate right answer to any situation any more and Boards seem finally to be getting that. Complexity is the driving factor and makes the ability to assimilate diversity of opinion, knowledge and experience increasingly crucial.

And why is humility in a CEO such a gain for the HR perspective? For a dozen reasons including primarily that people work best when they are included, listened to and worked with cooperatively. HR struggles to promote this in vain in many organizations where the whims of individual leaders take precedence over team work and cooperation, where the majority of senior executives quite often follow the (bad) example of the CEO. With the right choice of CEO, having senior execs copy the new behavior would be a huge advance.

Bookmark and share this post

More »

You can spot the good ones because they are alive, people with plans themselves for things that need to be or could be done that aren’t yet. They will talk about possibilities not only for you, but for themselves, their teams and the organization. You can feel them inviting you into the process. Others in the company will speak highly of them as coaches and cooperative supporters. Just ask around.

By contrast I very often get to hear (from people looking for new jobs) about current bosses who can’t imagine their report ever progressing. No one in their opinion is ever ready. They’ll consider hiring outside in almost every situation before looking at anyone internally… or they’ll constantly pick people they believe will simply follow orders. “Loyalty” plays big with the latter type. Cross them (ie: have a new idea they didn’t tell you to pursue) and you’re on the hit list forever. Bosses who aren’t interested in growing people abound. Which makes it easy to be a great boss.

Bookmark and share this post

More »