The other day I was on ERE.net browsing through some articles and came across Dr. John Sullivan's article Understanding Why Fast Hiring is Critical to Recruiting Success. Given my stance on quick hiring decisions I was intrigued by the headline and had to find out why Dr. Sullivan recommends quickly hiring for open positions. Despite what I was expecting Dr. Sullivan makes some very well thought out arguments for why, in certain circumstances, an organization should introduce an element of urgency to the hiring process.
A few highlights from Dr. Sullivan's article:
- The best talent won't wait around for an offer and will be grabbed up by the competition if your organization doesn't act quickly.
- Fast hiring reduces the chances of a candidate receiving counter offers from their current employer or other organizations he or she is interviewing with.
- Vacancies in high value positions can cost an organization considerably in the form of revenues and profits. When this is the case quick hiring decisions often need to be made.
- Typical hiring metrics such as average time to fill a position need to be balanced with other factors and metrics such as cost of vacancy, quality of hire, job and organizational fit, and availability of qualified candidates.
The most important thing I took away from Dr. Sullivan's article is that the traditional recruiting metric of average time to fill a position is seriously flawed in most situations. Many HR departments and organizations have dedicated recruiting professionals who recruit for a wide range of positions. As such this metric is relatively worthless and is easily "cooked" as it does not differentiate between strategically important positions that often need to be filled quickly (and effectively) and lower level support positions with less bottom line impact.
For example, say an organization desires an average time to fill of 30 days… its recruiters can meet this goal by hiring a high volume of low value support positions quickly – say 10-14 days - while taking 3-4 months to fill strategically important positions with a high degree of bottom line impact. While the recruiters are happy as they are meeting their goals and management is happy because it feels its employees are being held accountable, the organization is likely missing out on considerable opportunities to maximize its possibilities.
In a way I feel like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth. On one hand I have always advocated slow hiring and fast firing as these key positions cannot be filled haphazardly and it is often worth the wait to find a true rockstar. On the other hand these are high value positions with serious bottom line impact that nobody wants to see vacant for longer than necessary. This is where problems arise with the average time to hire metric – it says little about the quality of the individuals that are hired, the results they produce, how long they stay, and the costs of keeping a position open to find the best fit talent.
For a quick hiring decision to be worthwhile, the individual being hired needs to produce at a level which filling the position quickly outweighs the costs of keeping the position open to find a higher performer. If a better qualified candidate is only expected to produce 10% more than a current candidate – say $2,000 a month - and could take six month to source and hire with a significant cost of vacancy – say $10,000 a month - the 10% increase in performance won't outweigh the $60,000 in vacancy costs.
However, if a better qualified candidate can produce 50% more ($10,000 a month) than the current leading candidate, the cost of keeping the position open for an additional six months may well be justified as it can be paid back/made-up through higher performance in just six months.
Every position must be held accountable for its performance in some way or another, and I acknowledge the attempt to hold a recruiting team accountable through the use of performance metrics such as average time to hire. However using this metric alone is dangerous as it is too easily manipulated to meet expectations and is typically done so at the expense of organizational performance and profits.
If you want your recruiting department to be more effective help them to better understand the costs of a vacant position, the potential benefits of waiting for a better candidate, and the opportunity costs of not moving quickly on a qualified candidate. It is only after this has been done that the time/cost effectiveness of a hiring decision can be evaluated and a recruiting team can be held accountable for its performance. Furthermore don't rely on one single matrix such as average time to hire to measure the efficacy of your recruiting team. Rather look at a broad range of performance metrics such as turnover in the first 90 or 180 days, time for new-hires to reach acceptable performance levels, and on the job performance of new-hires.
In short - beware of the unintended consequences that can arise when measuring the performance of your recruiting team or HR department based on the average time it takes to fill a position.
Now go maximize possibility!
Other blog posts you may be interested in:
Chris Young helps organizations Maximize Possibility through talent management, cultural transformation, and strategic intervention. Bring Chris in today!
1-866-988-RAIN
The latest installment of the carnival of Human Resources is up over at The Pennsylvania Labor and Employment Blog.
As has come to be expected this carnival is jam packed full of great posts from some of the best bloggers out there. Be sure to check it out!
A special thanks to Michael Moore for hosting!
With so many blogs floating around the blogosphere on the topics of talent management, leadership, and human resources it's hard to know what's worth reading. We thought we'd save you some time and point you to the best of the best from last week.
Click the link below for our five favorite blog posts for the week of May 19th through May 25th, 2008.
Ann Bares, Compensation Force: The Tragedy of the Commons and Merit Pay - The ever insightful Ann Bares has a great comp post up taking on the issue of merit pay/pay for performance and how organizations fall victim to a Tragedy of the Commons effect.
Michelle Malay Carter, Mission Minded Management: The Dangers of Promoting from Within: Avoid "Right Place at the Right Time" Promotions - Powerful post about the dangers of hiring from within and how organizations fall victim to promoting the wrong individual who happened to be in the right place at the right time.
Art Petty on Management: Bad Bosses, A Walk with Dante and Your Leadership Legacy - Suggestions to build a leadership legacy that will ensure that you don't wind up being someone else's memory of lousy boss they had to work for.
Bob Sutton, Work Matters: Leader's Apologies: Doing it the Right Way - An interesting look at if an how leaders should apologize for their mistakes.
Jessica Lee, Fistful of Talent: We Just Aren't Sexy Enough! The Future of HR Part I - Interesting post questioning why HR isn't a "sexy" career path and what is stopping it from become a first choice career path.
It's Friday before a long Memorial Day weekend and chances are things are pretty laid back around your office as your team members day dream of the weekend fun to come. Days like these it's natural to expect productivity to be less than optimal – even from your star performers.
The truth is that most people find it difficult to be engaged in their work on a day like today. What I find most interesting about a day like today is how it highlights the impact that a lack of employee engagement has on the workplace.
Admit it… you've noticed it today. For most organizations this is acceptable as long as it is only a couple of times a year.
With this in mind I couldn't help but think about the recent Towers Perrin workforce study on employee engagement. The Towers Perrin report shows that 38% of respondents were determined to be partly (30%) or actively (8%) disengaged in their work. While I don't think these numbers are anything new to most managers and leaders, what really struck me was the following data about these individual's career plans with their current employer:
Over 50% of those identified as actively disengaged in their jobs have no plans to leave or are not pursuing more inspiring employment elsewhere. Among those identified as somewhat disengaged in their position this number jumps to over 75%. Doing some quick math this means that over 30% of those in the typical workplace are not engaged with their work and have no real plans to leave. They have decided to "stay and quit."
The lack of employee engagement has been getting a lot of attention lately, however its impact often goes unnoticed as a lack of engagement has become engrained into many workplace cultures. As frustrating as less than productive days such as today can be for managers and leaders, they do a good job of bringing attention to the impact that unengaged employees have on an organization's productivity and profitability.
Take a look around your organization… statistics suggest that almost one in three employees are unengaged and have no plans to find more inspiring work elsewhere.
Scary isn't it…
So what is a leader to do?
My advice is blunt and may sound harsh: Identify these unengaged workers and find them more inspiring work within your organization. If this can't be done you need to get them out the door and send them on their way to more engaging employment elsewhere because they aren't going to do it on their own accord. Anything less will only rob your organization of possibility, productivity, and profits.
Now go maximize possibility!
Other blog posts you may be interested in:
Chris Young helps organizations Maximize Possibility through talent management, cultural transformation, and strategic intervention. Bring Chris in today!
1-866-988-RAIN
Last week I commented on the recent report on the state of HR released by the Human Capital Institute and Vurv. As I mentioned previously, two things really stuck out in my mind after reading the report:
- A perceived lack of business acumen within the HR function.
- The growing focus on talent management and concern about HR's ability to handle the talent management challenge.
Having examined the first point in a previous post, I'd like to spend a moment and examine the second key point.
The following excerpt from the HCI/Vurv report got me thinking:
The term "Talent Management" is now part of the corporate lexicon and has become a board level concern. Yet the HR profession, which evolved from "personnel" in the 80's and 90's, seems unable to make a definitive move up the corporate ladder – in prestige or influence. In some ways, it's almost as if corporate leaders have made a collective, unconscious decision that talent management is too important to be left to HR.
The Vurv/HCI report confirms what many of us have known for some time – talent management is one of the key challenges and priorities facing organizations these days.
So… is talent management too important to be left to HR?
Given the strategic importance that talent management demands, yes I do feel that talent management is too important to be left to solely HR.
Here's why… Talent management is too important to an organization's success for it to be left to any single department or function.
Think about this… If a new production facility was being considered would it be the sole responsibility of manufacturing to handle the task? Of course not... Marketing would need to be consulted to determine sales estimates and future capacity requirements, Finance would need to be consulted to determine the availability of resources, breakeven point, and the required return on investment for the project to be approved, IT would be consulted to determine the impact on current technology and how to integrate the new facility into the organization's existing systems, and HR would be consulted to gauge the availability of local labor if additional manufacturing capacity is needed. Naturally manufacturing would play a key role in the design, layout, and functionality of the new facility, but it certainly wouldn't be required to "go it alone."
Given the value placed on a strategic talent management program it would seem preposterous to suggest that HR be left to carry the torch alone on such an important assignment. While HR is the natural place to turn to for guidance and direction when it comes to workforce issues, to delegate the task of talent management solely to HR would only set it up to fail and further denigrate its standing within the organizational hierarchy.
What is needed is a collaborative approach towards talent management that relies on HR's expertise in the areas of training and leadership development while drawing on functional leaders and managers to articulate their understanding of the skills and talents that are needed for their department to meet organizational goals and objectives and succeed into the future. With this approach HR can focus on tasks it is best at such as sourcing fresh talent and creating training and development programs and functional leaders and managers can implement HR's advice and customize it to meet their specific needs.
For successful organizations this suggestion isn't anything new. In fact this is the way many successful and strategic minded organizations approach talent management. Problems arise when leaders of less strategic organizations come across reports such as the HCI/Vurv report or stumble upon an article touting the importance of talent management in today's business landscape and start firing off directives to HR to develop a talent management program without ever knowing what it is they really want or need in the first place.
If talent management becomes an initiative solely "owned" by HR, the chances of widespread buy-in and successful implementation are reduced dramatically. The result is another tally in the "HR Dropped the Ball" column of the organizational scorecard and a further reduction in HR's credibility among the executives that set it up to fail.
HR can't be expected to go it alone when it comes to talent management, but it is more than capable of taking the wheel and guiding the ship. Ultimately talent management offers an excellent opportunity for HR to get some "face time" with senior management and show its ability to think strategically, add to the conversation, and maybe even gain that much coveted seat at the table.
Now go maximize possibility!
Other blog posts you may be interested in:
Chris Young helps organizations Maximize Possibility through talent management, cultural transformation, and strategic intervention. Bring Chris in today!
1-866-988-RAIN
With so many blogs floating around the blogosphere on the topics of talent management, leadership, and human resources it's hard to know what's worth reading. We thought we'd save you some time and point you to the best of the best from last week.
Click the link below for our five favorite blog posts for the week of May 12th through May 18th, 2008.
Wally Bock, Three Star Leadership: The Best and the Brightest are not Always the Best Fit - A great post for anyone who has become so enamored with a candidate that fit for the job was totally thrown out the window. Wally offers some great examples of why the best and the brightest are not always the best fit for the job.
Nina Simosko: Comfortable Misery - A great commentary on the prevalence of unhappy people in the workplace and how we need to re-define our concept of job satisfaction.
Dan McCarthy, Great Leadership Blog: Take Your Damn Seat at the Table - Dan McCarthy offers a profound challenge to all you HR pros griping about not having a seat at THE TABLE: assume its yours, barge in, and take it! Finally, a refreshing post about HR having a seat at the table.
Art Petty on Management: Leadership and the Winning Environment - A great post about what leaders can do to create an environment of excellence within their organization.
Lisa Haneberg, Management Craft: Remember Day 1 - A great post from Lisa Haneberg that challenges us to think back to our first day on the job and recapture that enthusiasm and possibility mindset.
Bonus Pick: With Memorial Day just a week away summer vacation plans aren't far away for many of us. With that in mind Tim Sanders reminds us that It's Not a Vacation if You're Grazing on Work!
About a month ago Dr. Charles Handler of Rocket-Hire released his 5th annual survey of online screening and assessment use. Dr. Handler's survey is a great resource and a great service to all of those in the HR/Talent Management world as it does a nice job of identifying trends and issues pertaining to the use of online screening and assessment tools in the hiring and selection process.
After reading through Dr. Handler's report one thing really stuck out in my mind: the impact that properly established metrics have on the perceptions and attitudes towards the use of online assessment tools in the hiring process.
Consider the following data from: http://www.ere.net/articles/db/150E39E8923D40A2948D5C88522DB068.asp
Perceived Effectiveness of Prescreening Tools
Perceived Effectiveness of Assessment
Of those organizations with established metrics for measuring success 90% felt the tools being used within their organization were effective. On the other hand only 57% of those without established metrics felt that the use of prescreening tools was effective within their organization.
That is a large disparity and one which I feel highlights a key challenge facing HR today – the measurement and analysis of data. It truly blows my mind that an organization could invest resources into a pre-employment assessment program and make no effort to establish metrics to measure the effectiveness and return on that investment. What I found particularly interesting was that only 1 in 6 respondents from these organizations had the candor to truthfully respond "Not Sure." It makes me wonder how the respondents from these organizations came up with their answers… Gut feeling? Value of Company Stock? Price of tea in China? What kind of mood the CEO was in the day of the survey?
Given this level of speculation it's not so surprising that HR fails to get the respect of its peers.
I also found the following data from Dr. Handler's report interesting:
Usage Rates of Common Assessment Tools (2007 vs. 2002)
Nearly across the board the use of online tools in the hiring process is gaining greater acceptance within many organizations. The biggest gainers over the past five years were the use of personality assessments and knowledge/skills assessments. The use of Cultural/Values "Fit" assessments have also seen a healthy increase as well. To me this only reinforces the increased focus that organizations are giving towards finding the right people, with the right skills who will be the right fit in a given position.
If you haven't checked out Dr. Handler's recent survey findings, be sure to check them out and spend some time thinking about how online assessments and screening tools fit into your organization's hiring strategy. And PLEASE, if your organization uses or is considering using any assessment tool in your hiring system do your due diligence and take the time to establish the metrics necessary to measuring the effectiveness of your investment!
Now go maximize possibility!
Other blog posts you may be interested in:
Chris Young helps organizations Maximize Possibility through talent management, cultural transformation, and strategic intervention. Bring Chris in today!
1-866-988-RAIN
As promised I have some commentary on the recent report released by the Human Capital Institute and recent Taleo acquisition Vurv Technology.
Having read a number of blog posts about the study I was expecting another report about how much HR stinks that seem to have become all the vogue since Keith Hammond's 2005 Fast Company Magazine article. To my surprise the report on HR wasn't nearly as bad as I was expecting. Now don't get me wrong, HR certainly has its problems, but the wheels have far from fallen off the cart.
Two things in particular caught my attention:
- There is a considerable lack of business acumen in the HR function.
- Talent management is a growing priority for many members of the C-suite and serious questions are being raised about HR's ability to meet the growing demand for strategic talent management.
I'd like to address the first issue – business acumen in HR – in this post. Stay tuned for my thoughts on the second key issue in a future blog.
What came across pretty clear from the HCI/Vurv study was that HR isn't the most well respected function within an organization when it comes to business acumen and understanding a business' operational systems and how it leverages these systems to make a profit.
The results from the survey are clear: only 26% of HR leaders were seen as experts in measuring, reporting, and data analysis and only 24% were seen as experts in demonstrating the value of HR and talent management to the rest of the organization. The way I read these numbers is that roughly ¾ of an organization's leaders aren't convinced of HR's value based on its ability to measure and analyze data.
However HR would seem to be unaware of its own shortcomings. 70% of those who working in HR stated that their profession is either respected or highly respected within their organization, while only half of those not working in HR – 36% - felt the same way. Furthermore, 33% of non-HR respondents felt that HR is inconsequential, unimportant, or not even on the radar within their organization.
Troubling statistics to say the least…
Much of the negative sentiment towards HR, I have to believe, is due to the fundamental lack of business acumen within the HR function. HR typically isn't fluent in the language of business and this makes it difficult for it to be seen as an equal to other organizational functions such as finance, operations, sales, or marketing.
To be honest, it isn't all HR's fault… it was brought up this way. For decades HR (i.e. Personnel) served mainly as internal record keepers for all the paper work that goes along with having employees. For the longest time this was fine as the US was predominately a manufacturing economy that relied on unskilled workers to perform basic manufacturing tasks. However as the US has evolved into a knowledge economy the needs of HR have evolved as well. Sure, all the prior duties (recordkeeping, compliance, payroll, etc.) of HR are still important, but the game has changed and HR is now being asked to serve as trusted advisers and consultants to the leaders within an organization.
Clearly this has caught HR off guard. Many HR pros are being put in a position where a thorough understanding of their organization's business model is needed to be able to leverage the HR function to add value to the bottom line. Unfortunately many of these individuals have never held positions outside of HR and don't fully comprehend how their organization utilizes its resources to create value and earn a profit.
The resulting shortage in business skills within HR has not gone unnoticed. A 2007 HR survey from the Corporate Leadership Council indicated that business acumen was the trait needed most by HR for it to have a maximum impact as a strategic business partners within an organization.
So… Where do we go from here?
As I see it there are two ways to inject business acumen into the HR function. First of all let me start out by saying that most people who work in HR are college graduates and have had exposure to all the basic business functions and theories. These individuals are highly capable of assuming the role of the typical "businessperson." However, as most people initially enter HR in an administrative role this knowledge and potential isn't fully engaged and eventually turns into a rusty saw that hasn't been used in years. It is usually at this point that the rusty saw is called upon to fell a large forest of trees.
All that said, HR pros need to be encouraged to apply for positions in other organizational functions such as finance, marketing, or operations. This would provide team members with the desire to move into senior HR roles the "world view" necessary to be seen as equals by other department heads and would help to bridge the gaping abyss between HR and the rest of the organization. I would even go so far as to suggest that organizations would benefit from a policy requiring HR pros to spend a specified period of time outside of the HR function before they are promoted into a senior HR role. This hands-on experience would provide HR pros with an understanding of their organization's business model that is difficult to gain or appreciate when one's career is isolated to HR.
A second thought for instilling business acumen into HR is through a process of artificial insemination whereby skilled business leaders in other functions of an organization are moved into key HR roles. While these individuals may not fully understand the nitty gritty of HR, they are able to bring a whole new mindset to the HR function. The technical aspects of HR can be left to specialists. Where these cross-pollinated individuals bring value to HR is through their intimate knowledge of an organization's systems and how HR can be better leveraged to improve these systems.
I'll admit it… there is no perfect solution to guarantee that HR has a seat at the big kids' table. However it seems pretty clear that a lack of business skills and acumen is holding HR back and that somehow, some way, these skills need to make their way into HR.
What do you think? How can we get more astute businesspeople into HR?
Now go maximize possibility!
Other blog posts you may be interested in:
You've got a vacant position to fill, so you pull out your trusty hiring checklist and get to work. Perhaps your checklist looks something like this:
- Review exit interview of last employee to see why he/she left.
- Locate job description to determine what the position is officially accountable for.
- Place ad in local paper and online job boards/sites; contact local employment agencies about opening.
- Speak with manager of the open position and determine what went wrong with the previous team member and what can be learned from it.
-
Narrow down candidates:
- Requisite education?
- Requisite experience?
- Conduct phone screens and create "short list"
-
Conduct interviews
- Structured?
- Behavioral?
- Panel?
- Check references
- Make offer of employment
You've consulted your hiring checklist and placed a bright red checkmark next to each item… you can rest assured that you've selected the best candidate for the job right?
Not so fast!
If your organization is like a lot of organizations I encounter, your hiring checklist looks a lot like the one I've listed above. The truth is that this checklist does very little to ensure your organization has extended an offer to the best candidate.
Let me state for the record that this post is not a slam on HR's ability to pick the best candidates. I can personally attest to the fact that most HR pros want to hire the best candidate for the job and do the best that they can with the systems and resources available to them. Rather this post is a condemnation of the obsolete and inadequate hiring systems that too many organizations current make use of.
Quite frankly, there is a lot missing from this checklist. For example…
- Have performance metrics for the position been established so that the new hire will clearly understand what is expected of them and how success will be measured?
- Has a discussion taken place between key stakeholders in the position to identify why the job exists, how much time should be devoted to each aspect of the position, and what character/personality traits a candidate must possess to be successful in the job. Think of this as a job description on steroids.
- Does the candidate have any strengths that are so great that they may prevent acceptable performance in the job?
- Does the candidate have any weaknesses that will need to be overcome in order to be successful in the job? Are adequate resources available to provide a training and development program to address these possible shortcomings?
- How does the candidate compare to a portrait of the ideal candidate?
- What is the personality style of the candidate and how well will the candidate "fit in" with those he or she will work with on a daily basis?
- Do the candidate's values match up with the organization's culture?
Don't get me wrong, the hiring process has evolved by leaps and bounds over the past several decades. However, far too many organizations are behind the curve and are relying on limited and obsolete hiring systems to identify the best talent.
In my experience most low-performers were doomed to be low-performers from the start. The reasons for this are many and often include the following:
- Poor communication of job duties and responsibilities in the interview process – new-hire assigned tasks and responsibilities he/she was not expecting.
- Lack of clear performance expectations.
- Personality mismatch between new-hire and immediate supervisor - unaddressed differences in behavioral/communication styles often lead to unproductive conflict.
- New-hire not fit for job based on personal values and behavioral style.
- New-hire a poor fit for organizational culture based on differing values and beliefs.
- New-hire unaware of organization's mission, vision, and values.
There is a lot more to predicting a candidate's future performance than reviewing one's educational background, work experience, and calling references. The most brilliant candidate can still be a dud if they don't know what is expected of them or are a poor fit for the job or organizational culture. Today's hiring checklist needs to include much more than educational requirements, desired work experience, and reference checks and take a look at other important factors such as job fit, cultural fit, personality fit, ability to get along with peers, and one's alignment with an organization's mission, vision, and values.
You can train a man to do just about anything… it's a lot harder to train him to like what he does and who he works with.
Now go maximize possibility!
Other blog posts you may be interested in:
Chris Young helps organizations Maximize Possibility through talent management, cultural transformation, and strategic intervention. Bring Chris in today!
1-866-988-RAIN
The latest Carnival of Human Resources is up and live at Peggy Andrews' Career Encouragement Blog.
As has come to be expected, this week's carnival has a lot of great posts on a myriad of HR issues.
Check it out here!
With so many blogs floating around the blogosphere on the topics of talent management, leadership, and human resources it's hard to know what's worth reading. We thought we'd save you some time and point you to the best of the best from last week.
Click the link below for our five favorite blog posts for the week of May 5th through May 11th, 2008.
Michelle Malay Carter, Mission Minded Management: Hiring Advice for Seth Godin - Beware of Six Month Syndrome - In this post Michelle expounds upon her theory of the "Six Month Syndrome" when candidates are hired for positions that are below their cognitive capacity.
Jon Ingham's Strategic Human Capital Management (HCM) Blog: HR for Innovation / Google - Jon Ingham takes a look at Google's job descriptions and work systems and how a focus on innovation has contributed to Google's success.
Kris Dunn, HR Capitalist: Should You Ditch the Second Interview and have Candidates Work a Half Day for You? - a look at Seth Godin's advice to do away with the second interview and put a candidate to work before you hire them. Be sure to check out the comments section to see what others think of this idea.
Carmine Coyote, Slow Leadership Blog - The Social Factors Driving the Long-Hours Culture - Carmine offers an interesting commentary on the social factors that are leading to organizational cultures that pride themselves on long hours and late nights at the office.
Tara Craig, The Work Clinic - Meaningful Work | Changing Expectations in the Workplace - A curious look at the search for meaning in our lives at work.
A while back I blogged about Martin Kihn's latest book - A$$hole: How I Got Rich and Happy by not Giving a Damn About Anyone. Kihn's book, along with the fact that every other month there seems to be a new study about how bad bosses are really got me thinking… Is having a jerk for a boss really such a bad thing?
First of all, let me make it clear that a boss who is verbally or physically abusive, sexually harasses co-workers, or sabotages others is a bad boss to work for and should not be tolerated under any circumstance. The kind of boss I'm talking about is the demanding, egocentric, aggressive, and competitive boss that we all love to hate.
Now I'm sure that Bob Sutton - Stanford professor and author of the bestselling book The No Asshole Rule - would probably disagree with me, but I think that having an "asshole" for a boss isn't always such a bad thing. Here's why:
-
They are quick to act in a pinch – The brazen, short-fused boss is often great at making quick decisions without a lot of information. She doesn't waffle, doesn't pass the buck, and she doesn't send out an email requesting 10 additional reports before she makes a decision. This is critical when emergencies come up and decisions need to be made quickly. Think about it – who do you want on the court when the game is on the line – Willy the Waffler or Diane the Decision Maker?
-
They drive performance – People become bosses and managers for a number of reasons, one of which is the ability to correct others and drive their performance to higher levels. These managers refuse to accept anything but the very best that their employees are capable of. Bosses like these are incredibly valuable to the organization as well as its employees. Do you really want a boss that accepts mediocrity and doesn't demand your very best effort?
-
They provide candid feedback – Managers and bosses are often labeled as jerks because they don't pull any punches,
cut through the BS, and above all, provide candid feedback to those they lead. For many of us this candid and unfiltered feedback can be a bitter pill to swallow. However this is often the medicine we need to improve our performance and advance our career. While a boss that sugarcoats his feedback or refrains from giving any constructive criticism might be great for one's ego, he does little to improve one's performance and the performance of an organization.
- They demand accountability – Far too often I find that bosses get labeled as "assholes" because they have the audacity to demand accountability from those that report to them. A boss who doesn't hold his or her direct reports accountable can spell disaster as an organizational culture lacking accountability is doomed to be mired in mediocrity.
Bottom line –the bad boss thing is overplayed. Yes… there are some real jerks in the workplace and yes, some of them do cross the line. This is unfortunate, I admit it.
The truth is that bosses today get a bad rap because they are in positions where they have to make decisions people won't like, hold others accountable for their actions and performance, and have touchy conversations that many would rather not have. The most effective bosses demand accountability, provide candid feedback, drive the performance of others, and make tough decisions. Because of this many get labeled as "assholes" by those who report to them.
Personally, I'd take this kind of boss any day of the week.
With so many blogs floating around the blogosphere on the topics of talent management, leadership, and human resources it's hard to know what's worth reading. We thought we'd save you some time and point you to the best of the best from last week.
Click the link below for our five favorite blog posts for the week of April 28th through May 4th, 2008.
Evil HR Lady: A Lousy Raise - The Evil HR Lady offers advice to a reader on how to break it to her employees that they will likely be receiving a less than stellar raise this year due to sub-par company performance. A great read with some interesting comments.
Steve Roesler, All Things Workplace: Talent - Accurate Self-Awareness or Karaoke Feedback - Steve Roesler has a brilliant post on the importance of obtaining a wide range of feedback to really understand what you are and aren't good at. Let's face it... a room full of bar-goers cheering enthusiastically for your rendition of Journey's Don't Stop Believing doesn't mean you are destine for rock and roll greatness.
Brazen Careerist, Penelope Trunk: Will You Get Promoted? Take the Test - Wondering if you are in line for that promotion you've been dreaming of? Penelope Trunk offer and interesting and comical quiz for you to determine what the odds are you are next in line to move up the career ladder.
Michelle Malay Carter, Mission Minded Management: So Just What is a Democratic Workplace - An interesting post on what defines a democratic workplace and how this differs from a collaborative workplace.
Carmine Coyote, Slow Leadership Blog: The Only Kind of Economic Stimulus that Will Save us in the Long Term - a great post that ties together the recently distributed economic stimulus checks, employee engagement, and the long term prosperity of our economy.
Bonus Pick: With a lot of great posts out there this past week a bonus pick seemed well warranted. Don't miss Dan McCarthy's insightful post on what can be learned from Japan's demand for a space saving watermelon. Watermelons can't really be square can they? It turns out that with the right mind-set they sure can be! Powerful implications for your organization...
I was just alerted to the fact that a couple of email submissions for the 32nd Carnival of Human Resources didn't make it into my Inbox and were excluded from the fun and games.
My sincere apologies to Doug Fine of the Electricity Blog and Jon Ingham of the Strategic Human Capital Management Blog for not being more proactive and looking for lost emails.
Please be sure to check out their great posts below!
Doug Fine of the Electricity Blog discusses how leadership's high regard for itself is not normal when one considers the bell curve.
Jon Ingham of the Strategic Human Capital Management (HCM) Blog continues his campaign to make work more people shaped.
With the name of my company being The Rainmaker Group, I naturally am often asked, "What is a Rainmaker"?
When most people hear the word "Rainmaker" their first thoughts are typically of a high-powered executive, salesperson, or perhaps a lawyer with a knack for landing big clients and bringing in large streams of revenue for their organization. While these individuals do indeed fall under the "traditional" definition of a Rainmaker, I have often thought about what it takes to be the traditional Rainmaker.
After all, if you are going to land a big client, one must have a compelling service or product, be good at building productive relationships, love the job, and be results-driven. In other words, a lot needs to be in alignment to be the traditional Rainmaker.
In my work, I see a lot of Rainmakers - people who know what they need to do, do their jobs well, are results-driven, work at building productive relationships, and love what they do.
All Rainmakers share the following characteristics, regardless of their position or title. You will notice that each characteristic naturally builds on the one listed before it.
- Personal Accountability - A Rainmaker knows that there are no excuses for poor performance. The "buck stops with them". A Rainmaker never blames someone else for poor performance.
- Integrity - A Rainmaker never bends the truth. A short-cut to getting results is never an option for a Rainmaker.
- Job Alignment – Rainmakers understand themselves – their strengths, their weaknesses, their passions – and are in positions that are in alignment with who they are. This could be a pediatric nurse that loves children and helping others, a public relations specialist with a love for people and a knack for building lasting business relationships, an outside salesperson with a passion for their organization's products and a strong desire to control her own destiny, or a receptionist who makes every visitor to her organization feel warm and welcome.
- Results-Driven - A Rainmaker knows what needs to be done and does so relentlessly with the intention of exceeding expectations.
- Takes Action - A Rainmaker knows what needs to be done and does it. A Rainmaker never puts off to tomorrow what should be done right now.
- Intense Belief - A Rainmaker passionately believes that what they do is about much more than the tasks they complete - but the end-results that make a difference in the lives they touch. Rainmakers are engaged in their jobs. They get up each morning and look forward to going to work and doing something they love. A true Rainmaker has an eye for opportunity and takes advantage of any opportunity to add value to their organization in any way they can. A Rainmaker does not see work as "work".
-
Touch the Customer – When an individual is in the right position and inspired at work, it is natural that this will have a resounding impact on the Customer's Experience with their organization. This is the third trait of all Rainmakers. A Rainmaker leaves the Customer saying, "Wow!" and eager to do to business with an organization again.
- Touch and Inspire Others – A Rainmaker touches and inspires greatness in those around them. You can spot a Rainmaker by their infectious positive attitude that brightens the day of those around them. Rainmakers serve as a beacon of hope and inspiration to all those around them, demonstrate what it means to provide exception Customer Service – both internally and externally, and inspire others to do the same.
- Continuous Improvements - A Rainmaker knows that they are "not a finished product". Continuous improvement in the way they do what they do comes naturally. A Rainmaker seeks candor from those that they serve and lead them to continuously improve performance.
Every person has the potential to be a Rainmaker for your organization, regardless of what their position or official title may be. It is up to all of us as leaders and managers to help those we lead discover and harness their own inner greatness.
Now go Maximize Possibility!
Other blog posts that may be of interest to you:
Chris Young helps organizations Maximize Possibility through talent management, cultural transformation, and strategic intervention. Bring Chris in today!
1-866-988-RAIN
