The AntiSyphus Effect

The Domino Theory

If you'd like to catch up:

Part I
Part II

When I was a little girl, I enjoyed playing with dominoes. I never wanted to play the actual game; no, I wanted to stand the dominoes upright in elaborate patterns so that I could knock 'em down in a line. I found this domino effect to be most entertaining, despite the fact that I really wasn't very successful in my attempts to create the most complex, beautiful domino pattern ever.

Given my appreciation for dominoes, it's not surprising that I discovered Bob Nelms early in my study of RCA. Bob uses the Domino Theory of root cause to explain how a failure or error occurs. The Domino Theory states that every failure is in fact a series of failures that play upon each other: a physical cause that's triggered by a human cause, which is in turn fed by a latent cause.

However, I'm not content using Bob's theory as is; when I develop training, I do whatever I can to develop mnemonic devices to facilitate data transfer from short-term memory to long-term memory. For example: remember the characteristics of a root cause that I defined in Part I? A root cause:

• can be fixed.
• explains the failure or event.
• can be identified with a reasonable amount of effort.
• is controlled by management.
• is specific.

Well, I've turned those criteria into the acronym "FERCS."  FERCS is a great way to remember the characteristics of root cause; for one thing, it's not an actual word, but it sounds vaguely as though it might be an obscenity. This makes it good for a laugh in training - and what people find funny, they remember.

Likewise, I've tweaked the Domino effect that Nelms describes; I call it the PHaTS Domino Theory (I'll give you three guesses what song I play during training workshops when we get to the PHaTS Domino Theory). In essence, the PHaTS Domino Theory renames one component - purely for the purposes of designing the acronym, you understand:

• Physical cause: this is the physical failure that led to the event. For example, let's say that the bad event is a car wreck. The physical cause might be that your brakes failed. It's important to know that this particular domino may not be present in every business problem per se. For example, with the bug in the order entry software I described yesterday, there's no true physical failure, although I would consider the software failure to be akin to the physical cause.
• Human cause: Nelms states that every physical failure is triggered by a human failure or cause. In the example of the software, the human cause might be that the programmer failed to account for international shipments. In the case of the brake failure, there are several possible human causes: perhaps the the technician who last worked on your brakes did a shoddy job; perhaps the brakes have been squealing for the last six months and you've put off getting the brakes done; perhaps the brakes were defective in the first place, but the quality control personnel at the manufacturer didn't catch the defect.

and..

• Top Secret cause: This is the latent cause that Nelms describes. At its most basic, Top Secret cause represents the 400-lb. gorilla that everyone pretends isn't there. Top Secret causes are those unspoken rules or policies that everyone follows even though those rules are not publicly defined. They are the assumptions and beliefs that drive business-as-usual for your business.

In RCA for business problems, it's usually not too difficult to isolate the physical and human causes; the top secret cause(s), however, are a different story. In order to identify the top secret cause, you need the cooperation of the people involved in the problem/failure, because you have to find out what they were thinking (remember, this is about learning rather than blaming, and there's an enormous difference between, "Why did you decide to do it that way?" and "Why on earth did you do that?). Management, too, may be somewhat wary of the notion of top secret cause, because when you identify those assumptions, beliefs and unspoken rules, you turn a big old mirror on the management team - and on the subtle (and in some cases not-so-subtle) messages that they're sending to the organization.

By the way, if you're interested in Bob Nelms (and his take on human nature as the real root cause of all failure is fascinating), I recommend his book, What You Can Learn From Things that Go Wrong.

Tomorrow: Step One of conducting RCA.

Root Cause Theory

If you need to catch up, you can read Part I here.

When you look at a tree, you can't see its roots. In order to do so, you have to dig beneath the surface. RCA is no different; in order to identify a root cause, you'll need to dig a bit. But before you can do that, you have to know what you're trying to accomplish. Today, I want to focus on what RCA is and is not. It's important to understand RCA - its intent and goals - if you're going to benefit from the work.

What Root Cause Analysis Is

The first goal of RCA is learning. When you analyze root cause, your goal is to look beyond the immediate problem and find the situation that's causing the problem. Think of it like the practice of medicine: in RCA, business problems are akin to the symptoms of an illness; they're merely signs of a deeper problem.

The second - but equally important - goal of RCA is eliminating the situation(s) that caused the problem(s) to occur. When you identify, treat and cure the underlying disorder (the root cause), then you cure the symptoms as well. Be sure to keep these goals in mind and in the proper sequence; you can't solve the deeper problem until you find it, so your first goal needs to be finding the disorder that's creating the symptoms.

What Root Cause Analysis Is Not

It can be easy to confuse RCA with problem-solving; after all, at the conclusion of RCA, you do develop CAPA(s). However, problem-solving and RCA - although they share some common threads - are not the same. Problem-solving is a sprint, whereas RCA is more like a marathon. If your order management software fails to generate a shipping label for an order that has to go out today, problem-solving methodology would lead your shipping department to create a label manually. While this solves your immediate problem, it doesn't tell you why the failure occurred (which means it could happen again); only RCA will do that. This doesn't mean that problem-solving isn't important; you need both weapons in your management arsenal.

Fault-finding, finger-pointing, and assigning blame are not among the goals of RCA, although some people do tend to associate RCA with negative consequences. You need to fight this perception; RCA cannot be successful if the people who made the error won't to speak up about what happened (because they're afraid of being punished for making the mistake). RCA is not about being punitive, and until everyone really believes that and acts on that philosophy, you're going to have a hard time getting the full story. True, sometimes managers will have to initiate disciplinary action at the conclusion of RCA; however, you can't know that until you've completed the process - and you can't complete the process if folks are afraid to 'fess up. Furthermore, I'd suggest that if many of your RCAs lead to disciplinary action, then you're probably missing something in your RCA (based both on my experience and Deming's theory that the majority of failures are caused by the business system itself rather than by individual employees).

Tomorrow: the three types of root cause, and how they work together to create problems in the business.

Carnival Time

It's time again for the Carnival of the Capitalists, hosted this week by the very entertaining and informative hosts of Long or Short Capital. Alas, after being so proud of myself for making it into the list of most enjoyable articles in last week's edition, I didn't make the cut this time out. What's that saying? Pride goeth before the fall, I believe.

I really can't complain, though, because this week's Carnival contains some outstanding entries, my favorite being an entry from Trusted Advisor on how American Idol empowers incompetent people (and how businesses tend sometimes to do the same).

Go check out this week's Carnival - you'll be glad you did.

I've been trying to get down to the heart of the matter

Kojak. Columbo. Cagney and Lacey. Perry Mason. Miss Marple. Angela Fletcher. Rockford. Barnaby Jones. Magnum. Mannix. Jack Lord. Quincy. Monk.

It doesn't really matter who your favorite television detective was (or is), because all detectives are experts in their own ways (my personal favorites are Columbo and Quincy). But one skill every television detective has is the ability to go far beyond deducing who did it and how he did it; our beloved television detectives always figure out why he did it, too.

In criminal law, it's possible to prosecute a case successfully even when the motive is unknown (source: North Carolina Wesleyan University). In business, however, when there's a problem (be it a failure to follow documented procedures, a system failure, or some other error) the motive - the why - is a critical piece of information, without which you cannot prevent the problem from turning up again in the future.

Root cause analysis is the art and science of getting to the root of why a bad event occurred; when you know how and why something happened, you can identify actions you can take to keep that something from happening again. The corrective and preventative actions (CAPAs) resulting from the work are the real power of root cause analysis: if you correctly identify the root cause, and then develop an effective CAPA, then the problem goes away - for good.

I use the phrase "art and science" deliberately; although there's a clear process to analyzing root cause - and like any scientist, you'll need evidence to back up your theories - creativity plays a big part as well (particularly when you get to the point of developing CAPAs). At the risk of using a consultant-bingo phrase, you'll need to think outside of the box. If the root cause of a business problem were painfully obvious, then you wouldn't need to go through the exercise at all, yes?

Now, there may be many factors that contributed to a given business failure; in root cause analysis (let's just call it RCA from here on out, shall we?) you need to narrow your focus to those contributing factors that meet certain criteria. A root cause...

• is something that can be fixed; there's no sense wasting your time on something that's not going to change no matter what you do.
• explains the bad event; there's a clear path from the root cause to the bad event that indicates a relationship between the two.
• is controlled (or controllable) by the company's leaders; just as you shouldn't waste time on a contributing factor you can't fix, neither should you waste time on a factor that the management team can't control.
• is specific; the more specific the cause you identify, the easier it will be to identify CAPAs. This being the case, "operator error" is not a root cause; "operator stepped on the accelerator rather than the brake" is.
• is reasonably identifiable; you shouldn't have to spend thousands of labor-hours trying to identify a root cause. It may not be immediately obvious, but you should be able to find it with a reasonable amount of effort rather than a herculean one.

In this series of posts, we're going to go through the steps of conducting RCA, as well as those used to identify, implement, and measure CAPA. Tomorrow, I'll outline a few other concepts that are keys to successful RCA; from there, I'll go through one step each day until we conclude. This information is taken from a class on RCA that I've developed and delivered more than a dozen times; if you'd like more information on this workshop, please e-mail me.

Friday Favorites

Welcome to Friday Favorites. If you're new here, each Friday I like to give a shout-out to the blog postings that spoke to me that week (assuming I have time during the week to keep up with the blogosphere at large). I've decided that I love this photo so much that I'm going to use it as the standing graphic for Friday Favorites (image from iStockphoto - a terrific source for reasonably-priced downloadable images). With no further delay, here are the blog posts that most caught my fancy this week:

• Scott Ginsberg of HELLO, my name is BLOG, gets two posts on my list this week for his two-part series on sticky note motivation: Part I, Part II.
• Matthew Paulson of Getting Green says "Don't buy that new car!" in an entry that questions the wisdom of having a car payment. I'm a firm believer in inexpensive transportation. Sure, everybody laughed when I bought a $9,000, year-old Ford Focus (that gets 30+ miles per gallon), but that was before gasoline prices spiked; to quote Ira Gershwin, who's got the last laugh now?
• Penelope Trunk of Brazen Careerist reminds us that office politics doesn't have to be a fool's game.
• Carmine Coyote of Slow Leadership tells us to slow down and think.
• Last, but certainly not least, Steve Farber of Extreme Leadership suggests reading your company's mission statement with a different perspective.

Have a great weekend!

Into hot air, Part II

You can read Part I here.

When you're at high organizational altitude, you're surrounded by other people who are themselves at high organizational altitude (and therefore - to continue with our mountaineering metaphor - just as oxygen-deprived as you). We already know that oxygen deprivation can alter one's reasoning and decisionmaking skills, and summit fever can make a mountaineer take foolish risks; this is why high-altitude mountaineers typically stay in communication with Base Camp managers who are  lower on the mountain. In addition to the higher mental acuity, the folks at Base Camp are privy to information that those at the top of the mountain might need: perhaps a storm is getting ready to move in; maybe there's a high risk of avalanche in the area of the mountain you're about to traverse; or maybe it's time to forget about the summit and turn around so that you can get home alive.

At 30,000 feet, things look considerably different than they do at sea level; the big picture tends to look much prettier and simpler than the detail view. For example: from 30,000 feet, your company looks like a well-oiled machine; widget production is skyrocketing, profits are up 7% from last year, payroll costs are holding steady, and the management team feels that the business is in great shape. Closer to the ground, you'll find that although production is up, so is your defect rate; if that continues, those increased profits will disappear as you start to credit your customers for the defective widgets they've purchased. Oh, and the reason payroll is holding steady even though production is up? That's because people are jumping ship left and right due to the low morale. Meanwhile, the management team feels like everything is great because they too are looking at the business from 30,000 feet.

The only effective treatment for high organizational-altitude sickness (whether it's HALE, HAPE, or HATE) is to descend to the lower part of the mountain as soon as you can. But just as you can't live at the summit of Mount Everest, neither can you live at sea level when you're running a business; all detail all the time will render you completely ineffective. You can - and should - make periodic excursions to the lower part of the org chart to get some extra oxygen and an occasional reality check. And if you're an executive whose every utterance is greeted by uniform agreement by those around you, then you really need that reality check because no one is right all the time.

So how do you get to the lower part of the mountain? Make it a habit to spend time with the folks more than one rung beneath you on the org chart. Aside from periodic visits just to say hello and make an appearance, consider scheduling monthly lunches, and select one or two people at random to join you. During those lunches, ask them what's going well at the company; ask what's not going well. Ask what problems they're having. Ask them what suggestions and ideas they have to make the company run more smoothly. Heck, ask them if they have suggestions for new product or service offerings! Trust me when I tell you that the lower down the org chart you're willing to visit, the more genuine information you'll get (the folks on the widget production floor probably aren't too concerned with office politics, and they'll give you the real scoop).

Once you get feedback from those organization Base Camp managers, assess it and act on it just as you would feedback from any trusted adviser. While the folks on the production floor may not care about you and your success as such, they know that the decisions you make will have an impact on them; so when ten different people tell you that the equipment over in Aisle Q malfunctions on a weekly basis, you can feel fairly comfortable that they aren't making it up.

Here's the key to this whole process: you need to be sincerely and genuinely interested in what the widget production personnel have to say. You need to care about how they feel about the company and their roles in it. You need to believe that those folks have opinions that are just as valuable as those of the senior management staff. Sincerity is not something that's easily faked, and street-smart people will catch on right away if all you're doing is making a show of caring. So if you really don't care? Then don't waste your time or theirs.

Being a manager or executive is a privilege that you've earned through hard work, and there's nothing wrong with being proud of yourself for what you've accomplished to get to that nice office. But never make the mistake of thinking that that you and your fellow executives are the only people whose ideas have value. The customer service rep in the back cubicle might have a terrific idea for a service improvement that'll save your company millions of dollars; the employee working at the packing station might be able to tell you how you can reconfigure the line in such a way that you'll boost shipping accuracy by 2%. You never know where the next great idea will come from, so don't limit your input by staying only at the top of the mountain. To be a great leader, you need to visit the entire mountain from time to time.

But please, even if you're looking at the big picture, I beg you: no more altitude-speak.

Into hot air

Ever since I read Into Thin Air, by Jon Krakauer, I've been fascinated by the sport of high-altitude mountain climbing; and being the voracious reader that I am, I've done lots of reading on the subject. Through my endeavors, I've learned a good deal about how the human body handles life at altitude. For example:

• The higher you climb, the fewer oxygen molecules you take in with each breath; consequently, your body - including your brain - functions less efficiently. In other words, you become progressively less intelligent as you climb the mountain.
• Due to the limited oxygen to your brain, your decision-making capability can be severely impaired; hundreds of people have died (or nearly died) trying to summit high-altitude mountains because their fever to summit overrode their ability to recognize that it was time to turn around.
• There are two serious illnesses that can strike even the most skilled climbers, and both illnesses can kill you very quickly if you don't immediately descend to lower altitude.
• Above 26,000 feet, even if you are breathing supplemental oxygen, your body is in a constant state of hypoxia, and is incapable of even rudimentary functions such as digestion; this altitude is known as The Death Zone because you are, in essence, dying every moment you remain above that altitude.
• If you were to be magically transported from sea level to the summit of Mount Everest (over 29,000 feet above sea level) without first acclimatizing to the altitude, you'd die in a matter of minutes.

Knowing what I do about altitude and its impact on the human body, I have to ask: why? Why? For the love of all that's good and pure in the world, WHY do so many executives insist on using altitude-speak? I get that what they're actually saying is that they're looking at the big picture; nevertheless, when I hear an executive say that she's looking at something from the 30,000-foot level, my first thought is, "So you're saying that your brain is currently functioning at the same level as that of the average toddler?"

On second thought, perhaps there is something to that litle joke: based on the overwhelming responses to such blogfamous posts as Pamela Slim's Open Letter to CxOs and Bob Sutton's upcoming book, The No Asshole Rule, I have to wonder if perhaps we can make some correlation between climbing Mount Everest and climbing the org chart. Could it be that, as you climb higher in a corporation, there's less oxygen available? Could it be that, the closer you get to the summit, the less intelligent you become? Are there similar high-altitude illnesses that affect executives? Really, haven't we all occasionally read about an executive in the news (or worse, worked for one!) who made us think, "How does s/he manage to get out of bed in the morning, let alone run a business?"

If my discussions with regular folks (read: not CxOs) are any indication, there's an epidemic of poor judgement at the top of the organizational summit pyramid. We have corruption (Enron), treating employees like indentured servants (Home Depot), and even firing people via e-mail (Radio Shack). What's going on here? Well, I've done some thinking on the subject, and I have come up with a theory:

Just as high-altitude mountaineers must watch out for High Altitude Cerebral Edema (HACE) and High Altitude Pulmonary Edema (HAPE), there are previously unnamed disorders that can strike executives without warning. Because I like to wrap up concepts neatly, I've named them for you below:

• HALE (High Altitude Lemming Executosis): HALE is a particularly frightening disorder, because its early symptoms (asking for, and acting on, feedback from subordinates) mimic the characteristics of a good leader. However, as HALE progresses, the afflicted executive becomes unable to make a decision on his own. Soon, he begins aimlessly shifting from one initiative to the next, based on the latest recommendations he's received. Eventually, HALE victims find themselves spending ridiculous sums of money hiring consultants to make the decisions that they themselves can no longer make.
• HAPE (High Altitude Paranoid Executosis): HAPE strikes executives that are leading companies through troubled times; executives suffering from HAPE begin to second-guess every request, comment, and status report. As the disorder progresses, the executive finds herself unwilling to trust anyone, and thus attempts to lead without any feedback from anyone. This can ultimately lead to a situation in which paranoia might not be entirely uncalled for.
• HATE (High Altitude Tyrannical Executosis): Although classified with the other executive disorders, HATE can begin at much lower organizational altitudes; in fact, many mid-level managers suffer from HATE. Just as HACE can render its victims stubborn and unwilling to listen to reason, so can HATE turn a perfectly good manager into a despot. The executive suffering from HATE thinks that he is above it all; he brooks no disagreement, and is not afraid to use obscenities when he publicly chews out his employees. If you've ever used the phrase "my way or the highway," you might already be developing this disorder.

Tomorrow, I'll share the treatments for these disorders. For now, if you suspect that you may be suffering from one or more of these afflictions, I offer you this advice: come down to sea level before it's too late.

PIMP your team

When you have a problem employee on your team, it might feel as though s/he is actively trying to underperform. Odds are that it isn't quite that simple. Very few people try to be bad performers, and even those few who do usually have some kind of history behind the poor performance: I once worked with a fella who'd been promised a promotion (when the hiring freeze  - in effect at the time - was lifted). With no further discussions on the subject, his manager hired someone from outside the company to supervise the department. The employee - who justifiably felt as though he'd been passed over - become disgruntled and went from being a high performer to a living example of poor performance.

Whose fault was that? It was his manager's fault, of course. In the end, the employee was terminated; unfortunately, there were no consequences for the manager. The situation might have ended entirely differently had the manager only engaged in a conversation with the young man and explained why the company had decided to hire a supervisor from outside instead of promoting him (or by not making a promise in the first place if he wasn't going to follow through). By his unwillingness to hold an uncomfortable discussion, the manager turned a good employee into a former employee.

Aside from the revenge-seekers, your poor performers are probably trying their best to do a good job, but something is getting in the way:

• They're having personal problems that are distracting them.
• They've always been told that they're perfectly good performers, and have no reason to believe otherwise.
• They're burned out.
• They have too much work to do and not enough time in which to do it.

Your job is to manage these performance problems, and your goal is either to bring the performance up to par or get the poor performer out of the position. This is where the performance improvement plan (PIP) comes in; I prefer to call it a performance improvement management plan (PIMP), mostly because that's the only way I could use that fun graphic at the top of this post. :-)

A PIMP, for those of you who've never used one, is a detailed document that identifies an employee's performance gaps and the actions that the employee can take to close those gaps. Now, before you put together a PIMP, you must spend some time coaching the employee; dragging out a PIMP at the first hint of a performance problem is like using a blowtorch to light a candle.

But if you've provided coaching and guidance, and the employee is still not up to the level you need, a PIMP can be most helpful. If your PIMP is well-written (and you should never implement a PIMP that isn't), it removes the emotions from the situation; if you let your frustration, anger, or dislike of an employee seep into your behavior, it's going to be increasingly difficult to get that employee back up to par. PIMPs deal in cold, hard facts, and that's their strength.

A well-written PIMP:

• Clearly identifies the performance gap(s): "Joe has poor time and task management skills" is not clear, whereas "Joe does not complete assignments on time"  and "Joe doesn't notify project stakeholders of delays to assignments" cannot be misinterpreted.
• Tells the employee what s/he has to do to close the gap: Telling Joe to improve his time management skills will not help him; if he already had that skill, you wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Instead, provide actionable steps Joe can take, such as "Set realistic target dates rather than overcommitting;" "If you cannot meet a target date, notify the stakeholders of the delay, give them a reason for the delay, and offer a new target date rather than waiting for them come to you for an update;" or "Complete the new TPS reports cover sheet no later than January 30, 2007."
• Is co-written by the employee and the manager: I know; it seems a bit strange to suggest that the very employee whose performance is at issue should have any say in the process, but this is important. If you allow Joe to participate in the process, then he's less likely to feel as though you're dictating to him, and he's more likely to buy in.
• Identifies a drop-dead date: If you're writing a PIMP, then the employee in question has an established pattern of poor performance. Don't make the mistake of offering an open-ended PIMP. Instead, provide a closing date - say, three months out. Document that the PIMP is in effect until that date, and that further evaluation will be made at that time if the employee meets the requirements specified in the PIMP.
• Clearly states the consequences for failure to meet the requirements: Ideally, working through a PIMP will bring your employee back up to the level you expect; however, sometimes the PIMP doesn't work. Sometimes the employee is a poor fit who's been hiding it; sometimes the requirements of the job have changed and the employee can't make the leap to the new requirements; sometimes, the employee's heart just isn't in it any longer. Because this possibility exists, you need to include some verbiage in the PIMP that makes it clear that the document specifies minimum requirements for success in the employee's role, and failure to meet the requirements documented in the PIMP may result in disciplinary action.

After you and Joe have agreed on the PIMP, you'll each want to sign it; consider it a contract between manager and employee. And if Joe refuses to sign it, you'll want to document that - right in front of him.

Writing the PIMP is really the first step of managing an employee's poor performance. You need to follow through with regular meetings to provide feedback and additional guidance. Remember, the PIMP says it all; Joe either meets the targets (in which case he'll be back to his normal self) or he doesn't (in which case you can initiate the disciplinary process with the knowledge that you've done everything you can to help). Either way, you've made progress toward making your team stronger.

Blatant self-promotion

I'm featured as one of the authors in this week's Carnival of the Capitalists, hosted by the terrific David Maister. I take particular joy out of making it into David's list of articles he enjoyed the most.

Of course, I only made # 9 on said list (but hey, that gives me something to aspire to, yes?).

There's some excellent writing to be found over at the Carnival, so I recommend you go over and take a look; I have a feeling I'll be adding a few new folks to my blogroll.

Thanks for the kind words, David.

Welcome to the Ivory Tower, Part III

New visitors might want to read Parts I and II.

• You will probably inherit employees at some point in your career; and if you're like most of us, the inheritance will probably come with your very first management job. Inherited employees are among the most challenging people to manage, because they aren't the ones with the learning curve - you are - and that might give certain folks the feeling that they have an "edge" on you. In addition, their performance habits - for good or bad - were reinforced by the person who managed them last. And whether that last manager was effective or ineffective is largely irrelevant; no matter what the last manager was like, your arrival will be viewed with some degree of skepticism. It's not a no-win situation, exactly, but it can be a difficult one to overcome.

Based on my experience, inherited employees and their attitudes tend to fall into one of several behavioral/attitude buckets:

• They wanted the management job you now hold, and they're resentful that they didn't get it.
• Their last manager was a micromanaging, door slamming, screaming, unprofessional mess; they're shell-shocked, and they're convinced that you're going to be the same way.
• Their last manager was totally unplugged, leaving them to their own devices, and didn't manage them at all. When you step in and ask for such routine deliverables as, say, weekly status reports, you will be accused of micromanaging.
• Their last manager was their best friend ever, who never had anything but great things to say; the team went out for happy hour every Friday, and rainbows and puppy dogs were in the very air. You are an intruder, and you'll never be as beloved as their last manager.
• Their last manager was a genuinely good manager: fair, professional, communicative, and reasonable. It's a big pair of shoes to fill, and the team is skeptical about your ability to do so.

What's a new manager to do? Build relationships! Talk to the team as a group; tell them that you aren't going to make any drastic changes until and unless it becomes apparent that such changes are needed. Tell them about your vision and goals for the department, and ask for theirs. Offer them the chance to ask questions or express any concerns. And most important: listen to what they have to say.

After you've held your group meeting, you need to schedule one-on-one meetings with each person on the team. Ask each person to prepare to discuss current projects, career goals, daily challenges, and what she perceives to be her development needs. Talk about expectations (status reports, preferred method of communications, etc.), and ask her what she needs from you in order to be more effective. Then, I'd suggest you ask these two questions:

• Who was the best manager you've ever reported to? What made him or her a good manager for you? (Everyone has different preferences when it comes to management style, so it's important to know what made a particular manager a good fit for this particular employee.)
• Who was the worst manager you've ever reported to? What made him or her a bad manager for you?

I use these two questions in every job interview, and I get much more candid and detailed responses to them than I do to the more generic, "What kind of management style do you prefer?" The answers to these questions will tell you a great deal about the employee and what makes her tick, so pay close attention to the answers.

As a new (or new to the department) manager, you're going to hear feedback on your team members from various peers, superiors, and the team members themselves. Take everything you hear with the proverbial grain of salt: all opinions are just that, and as such may or may not be accurate. Don't underestimate the power of a personal agenda or personality conflictsto color someone's opinion. And as for your new direct reports, they too might have their reasons for spinning the information they give you. Your four most important tools in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of your team members, and the department as a whole, are your eyes and your ears.

To sum up:

• Talk to the group and establish that you're there to help them.
• Talk to each team member individually to get a handle on each person's responsibilities, personality, and work style.
• Solicit feedback on your team members, but form your own opinions based on facts rather than hearsay.

These are just the basics to get you started; tomorrow, I'll give you some suggestions on how to deal with those pesky performance issues.