The AntiSyphus Effect

You can't always get what you want

In honor of Valentine's Day, I think it's appropriate to write about finding your perfect match. No, I'm not referring to dating; I'm referring to hiring. Your success as a manager depends at least in part on your ability to hire well. A good team can make your job easier than you ever dreamed; a bad team can spell doom for your career.

The first key to successful hiring is found in the job description; a good job description (read: realistic, detailed, and measurable) makes the entire process flow more smoothly, because it tells you exactly what skills and attributes the candidate needs to have. A good job description also provides an accurate representation of the job to the potential candidates, which helps them make an informed decision when you make an offer. But most job descriptions (at least, the ones I've read) are not good by those definitions. In fact, most folks seem to have more realistic, reasonable criteria for a potential Saturday night date than they have for the person who's going to be responsible for keeping the books. You can't get what you want if you don't define what you want.

Responsibilities

Document the responsibilities this person will have, and the tasks s/he'll perform. Put down everything; you can filter later if necessary. Is this person going to manage others? Write code? Develop documentation? Analyze data? Facilitate meetings? What does a typical day/week/month look like? If there's another employee who already performs this job, ask her for input.

Requirements

Now that you know what this person is going to do, you need to identify the skills s/he'll need to do it. This is where many job descriptions fall short. You need to define the requirements for the job in the same way you'd communicate expectations to an employee: the requirements should be clear, specific, and measurable (or, in the case of soft requirements like "strong communications skills," objectively identified in some manner). It's important to be clear because ambiguity breeds frustration in recruiters; if your recruiter thinks that "good interpersonal skills" means extreme diplomacy when what you really want is someone who's direct to the point of bluntness, your recruiter will soon start pulling his hair out after you shoot down candidate after candidate. Here are a few examples of poorly-written requirements, and better ways to define them. For the record, these all came from actual job descriptions.

Don’t write this	Instead, write this
Æ       Strong written communications skills	©       Writes grammatically, clearly, and appropriately for the audience
Æ       Self-directed	©       Able to prioritize workload and manage responsibilities with little to no supervision
Æ       Strong computer skills	©       Able to create PivotTables to analyze data; able to use advanced functions of Excel; can use styles, fields, and protection in MS Word to develop templates and forms.
Æ       Must demonstrate exceptional organizational skills	©       Able to track and manage deliverables for up to 20 projects simultaneously
Æ       Strong followup skills	©       Communicates with resources on a weekly basis to monitor project status; updates key stakeholders on a monthly basis

In addition to these documented requirements, you'll probably have some other key attributes or personality traits that you think of as deal-breakers; these might include strong ethics, creativity, the ability to play well with others, and other characteristics that are difficult to quantify. That's okay; when we get to interviewing, I'll help you figure out how to separate the good interviews from the good candidates (hint: the best candidate is not always the person with the fastest, smoothest answers).

Before I send you on your merry way to spend the rest of the evening with someone you love, I want to caution you about another requirements pitfall: Know and clearly define the "must-haves" vs. the "nice-to-haves." Is it really necessary for the candidate to have an advanced degree in Medieval History, or will any History degree (or a different degree, or 8 years of related experience) suffice? Does your technical writing candidate really need to know your particular obscure desktop publishing application, or will you accept a great writer who needs to learn the software?

Keep in mind, there are no wrong answers here; you can make your requirements as stringent as you like. However, if your requirements are very narrow, then A) your pool of qualified applications could be very small, and B) you'd best be prepared to pay a premium salary.

In Part II of this series, I'll help you sift through the piles of resumes you've received, and give you tips on preparing for your interviews.

Measure what matters

Several weeks ago, I spoke to a friend who lives back home in New Jersey. He vented a bit of frustration at his employer, a law firm in Manhattan; it seems that one of my friend's colleagues had been terminated - because he'd been late to work one time too many. On the surface of it, that doesn't sound so unreasonable; but that's only part of the story.

You see, this particular employee - we'll call him Joe - worked in the IT department. For the last six months of his two-year tenure, Joe was performing both network connectivity and database administration (functions that, in most organizations, are performed by two different people). In addition, Joe lived in Queens and drove into Manhattan every day - a commute that is notorious for its insanity. Finally, Joe regularly worked from home well into the evenings.

Let's recap: you have a single employee who is doing the job of two; he willingly works on his own time to ensure that business flows smoothly. He's a terrific employee, but he has a problem getting into the office on time. So what's more important: facetime? or effectiveness, productivity, and passion for the job?

This law firm made a bad call here, if you ask me. Sure, there are industries and businesses where facetime and punctuality are critical. My sister is the Director of an ICU, and nursing is a profession where punctuality is absolutely necessary: nurses give report to the next shift during shift changes, and so being late can mean the difference between knowing what's going on and operating blind. But for many of us, in many businesses, facetime is something we use as a means to control our employees for no good reason other than the fact that we can.

This is a stupid way to operate, folks. Facetime is not an effective measurement of an employee's value - particularly if the employee is salaried rather than hourly and has a notebook PC and remote access. These days, lots of employees have cell phones and remote access, making them reachable nearly all the time. And people want some flexibility in their work lives; if I'm going to be checking e-mail at 5:00 AM, I expect a little bit of slack when it comes to leaving the office a few minutes early.

By creating a culture in which facetime is everything, businesses do themselves and their employees a disservice. Employees who might otherwise work from home or answer their cell phones after office hours will, when faced with a facetime-is-all environment, decide to stop answering those post-5:00 PM phone calls. They'll be a little less likely to log in to do just a bit more work in the evenings. On their days off and vacations, they definitely won't be willing to take calls from the office, because the office has made it clear that it doesn't value their time. And their passion for the organization will wilt away. Ultimately, they'll leave the company to work for businesses that measure what matters. Until then, however, they'll be clock-watchers: there on time, out on time, and probably not terribly productive in between.

If you say that you value your employees' work-life balance, and you say that you want people to want to work for your company, you might want to take a look at your policies around facetime and see if they are congruent with those values. Unless it really matters, don't try to control your employees with the timeclock. In fact, don't try to control them at all; instead, manage them according to what's important. Value their time, and they'll value yours. Give them flexibility, and they'll reward you with loyalty and greater productivity.

People will pay attention to what you measure: do you want your employees to focus on the clock, or do you want them to focus on being great at what they do?

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.

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.

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.

It's the employees, stupid!

"If you don't understand that you work for your mislabeled 'subordinates,' then you know nothing of leadership. You know only tyranny." (Dee Hock, VISA International)

Ever since I read this post over at Kathy Sierra's Creating Passionate Users, I've wanted to put my own spin on the "comma, stupid" subject. For managers, I think the ultimate "comma, stupid" is, "It's the employees, stupid!"

It can be difficult for a manager to take that perspective to heart; but those who can are the most effective leaders. Some managers - particularly as they rise higher through the ranks - can get distracted by what they think are higher priorities than taking care of their personnel. But really, nothing should rank higher than the care and well-being of the people who look to you for guidance, support, and career development.

There are some situations that practically beg managers to do the wrong thing by their employees. I like to call them the Pits of Employee Despair. But just as Westley and Buttercup figured out how to avoid the three terrors of the Fire Swamp, you can avoid these Pits of Employee Despair. Awareness is really the key; if you plan for these situations, you'll be able to skip right around them.

Pit of Employee Despair #1: The Annual Performance Review

First off, let's note that it's called an annual performance review and not annual performance news. The word "review" is the key here; it implies that you will be reviewing feedback that you provided throughout the year. You must never, under any circumstances, write something in a performance review that will be a surprise to the employee. If you make it a habit to hold onto little nuggets of performance issues until review time, then shame on you: you should quit your job and never manage people again. Seriously.

The no-surprise rule is even more critical if your company indulges in the Dilbertian nightmare known as the self-evaluation: if you ask your employee to review himself and then pass his self-assessment to you, it will be demoralizing in the extreme if your final version bears virtually no resemblance to his. And he'll resent you for it - with plenty of justification.

To avoid this pit, keep a dropfile on each employee. When s/he does something great, drop a note in the file. When s/he does something not-so-great, drop a note in the file. After a coaching session on a performance issue, drop a note in the file so you can refer back to it as needed to see if the issue was sufficiently corrected. Now, instead of scratching your head at year-end, trying desperately to remember contributions, stated goals, and problems, you've got it all at your fingertips. And please - don't nitpick here. If you addressed a development need during the year, and the employee made the progress you wanted, it doesn't need to be added to the review (unless it's to mention it as a positive, in that the employee made the necessary improvements).

And another thing: provide reviews in a timely manner. I've worked with people who didn't get their reviews until months after the due dates, and that's just unacceptable. Your employees deserve to know - before they get their first new payroll check - the amount of their merit increases.

For extra credit, give your employees copies of their performance reviews to read a day in advance of your meeting; this gives them the opportunity to note any questions or comments. It also gives them time to get their emotions under control before you meet (particularly important if it's not a great review).

Pit of Employee Despair #2: I'm Not Paying You to Think, Dear

Unless you've been blessed with the most self-motivated and experienced team ever, your employees probably come to you for guidance and direction from time to time (and if my experience is any indication, those requests will always come when you're in the middle of twenty different things). It's very easy, when you're swamped, to simply answer the question and move on. It gives the employee the information s/he needed to move forward, and it gets you back to what you were working on before. Everybody wins, right?

Well, not so much, as it turns out. Have you ever noticed that people will often figure out the answers themselves once they spend a little time talking through an issue? By spoonfeeding the answer (and remember, spoonfeeding is eeeeeeeeevil), you're depriving them of the chance to think for themselves. You're also depriving them of knowing that you trust them to come up with the right answers. And while spoonfeeding may take up less time right now, you'll save loads more time in the long run when your employees can make decisions on their own.

I know how easy it is to fall into this pit - I fight it all the time. In fact, just today one of my direct reports came to me asking for direction on how to approach an issue. I was - as usual - really busy, and my first response was to start giving her the answer. Two sentences in, though, I caught myself, stopped, and said, "What do you think?" She gave me her thoughts, which made perfect sense, so I asked her what she thought the next steps would be. She described a reasonable set of actions, so I then asked her to tell me who needed to take those steps. She identified resources, I told her that it sounded good to me, and off she went to implement her own plan. Whether she felt empowered or not, I can't say; but I'm pretty sure that the next time this particular issue comes up, she'll feel comfortable making the call without my input.

Avoid this pit by taking the time to ask the employee what he thinks; ask him what direction he thinks he should take. Ask him what decision he'd make if it were his call. And then - unless his suggestion is completely unreasonable - let him do it.

Pit of Employee Despair #3: The Incommunicado Effect

Yes, you probably have too much to do. Yes, that's unfair. Yes, it's a pain in the rump to try and keep up with e-mail. True, not every message requires an immediate response. True, you'd get nothing else done if you read every message the second it arrives in your inbox. I get it, believe me. But you can't just ignore messages from your direct reports (or your colleagues, for that matter) for weeks at a time. And if you think I'm exaggerating, think again. There have been messages that I've sent (to peers and, occasionally, superiors) that didn't get responses until several weeks later. When you don't respond to an e-mail in a timely manner, that does not send the message that you're terribly busy. Instead, it sends the following messages:

• You're rude
• You cannot manage your workload
• You don't care about [insert subject of message here]
• The person sending the message isn't important enough for you to care what he has to say

Not good, am I right? So what are you to do when you really are swamped, and can't catch up? How about the Out of Office message? Tailor it to say, "I'm in the office this week, but up to my knees in TPS reports; if your matter is time-sensitive, please call me or stop by my office. Otherwise, I'll get back to you no later than [insert drop-dead date here]." It's not the most elegant solution in the world, but at least then people can't say they were left hanging for a week.

Now, to get rid of the excessive e-mail messages, you have to stop relying on e-mail so much. I know, I know: it's faster than a phone call, it lets you say what you have to say and then you can put the issue aside until you get a response, you want to use it to cover your a$$... I know. But humor me for a moment. If you can get folks into the habit of phoning you (or, heaven forbid, dropping by for a face-to-face), you'll be able to eliminate a lot of e-mail clutter. Really, who needs a chain of 20 e-mail messages when a five-minute conversation would take care of business much more effectively? Note that this will only work if you can be trusted not to change your mind about what you said three days after that phone call.

Pit of Employee Despair #4: We value your contribution to the company... what was your name again?

You need to relate to your employees in a way other than "I, Tarzan; you, Jane." Just as you have a life and interests outside the office (you do have a life and interests outside the office, don't you?), so do your employees. Wouldn't it be nice to know a bit about both? Wouldn't it be helpful to know that Steve is going through a messy divorce, and that's why he's been a bit moody lately? And don't you think that your employees are going to feel much better about working with you if they feel as though you genuinely care about them as individuals rather than just their job descriptions?

Avoid this pit by engaging your employees in conversations about their real lives; take them out to lunch once in a while, and don't talk shop. If you know that someone is having a rough time, offer to let him use your office as a safe place to vent or get away for a few minutes. In other words, act like a human being.

Pit of Employee Despair #5: You screwed something up; I'm not going to tell you what, but you'd better fix it!

Few things bug me more than managers who have what I call vaporxpectations. Vaporxpectations are those undefined, uncommunicated requirements for success in the job. Folks, it's not realistic to tell an employee that her performance is below par if you never told her what par is to begin with. If you hire a new employee, give him no clear definitions of success vs. failure, provide him with no guidance as to what decisions he can make independently vs. what decisions you need to make, and said employee doesn't perform well, it's not his fault; it's yours.

Set clear expectations around performance metrics, target dates, communication, decisionmaking authority, etc. Meet regularly with your employees to fine-tune their performance. Tell them when they're doing well. Tell them when they're not doing well. Give them the very same courtesy you expect from your manager.

And if you should fall into one of the Pits of Employee Despair (and you probably will, sooner or later), then take corrective action. Go to the employee and apologize. Tell her what you did wrong, how you're going to fix it, and what you're going to do to keep from doing it again. Demonstrate the kind of accountability you want from your employees. Remember that you work for them just as much as they work for you - unless you want to be a tyrant, in which case I'd suggest you start watching your back.

Are you a "How ya doin'?" manager?

Spike Jones of Brains on Fire writes this post about products and services that are "How ya doin'?" entities. What does that mean? Well, how many times have you passed someone in the hall at the office, and exchanged the typical pleasantries: "Hey, how are ya?" "Fine, thanks." And then, you keep on walking (and sometimes, even if the response is, "I'm having the worst day of my life!", you keep going for a bit before you realize what the answer was - because you weren't really asking at all). How many times have you responded, "Fine, thanks" even though you were in turmoil? It's a reflex; there's no real conversation there.

There was a Seinfeld episode (I believe it was "The Marine Biologist") in which Kramer barged into Jerry's apartment to find Jerry and George standing in the kitchen chatting. Kramer enthusiastically asked, "Who's ready to have some fun?" Both Jerry and George responded in the affirmative. Kramer then asked, "Are you really ready to have some fun, or are you just saying you're ready to have some fun?" Jerry responded, "I'm really ready to have some fun." George responded, "I'm just saying I'm ready to have some fun."

We've all done that; we've said we're fine when we're heartbroken; we've said that everything's just hunky-dory when we're on the verge of tears. We do that because we figure nobody really wants to hear the truth. And sometimes, we're right. But I got to thinking that this superficial type of interaction can be toxic to our professional relationships.

If you expect to be a good manager (or employee, or colleague), you need to try and break that habit. Each interaction has within it the opportunity to build a relationship - but only if you take that opportunity. Granted, you don't need to turn every greeting into a full-blown conversation. But take the time to make eye contact, smile, and really interact. Don't just say, "How are you?" Ask how the family is doing; ask about the sick dog you heard about. Show that you actually care. And you really do care, don't you? Because you should.

The people who report to you will, in many cases, be reluctant to share their grievances with you. Your employees need to believe that you care about their well-being; and if you're a "How ya doin'?" manager, you send the subtle message that you really don't care. It's your job to remove the roadblocks to their free speech, because you can't help fix a problem that you don't know about. And if an employee does come to you to express some dissatisfaction, you have to accept the feedback graciously - just as you would if the feedback came from the CEO (I'll write about taking - and giving - feedback in an upcoming entry).

We spend a lot of time at work; in fact, we probably have more face-time with our colleagues than we do with our families. Imagine how different corporate life would be if we were to make it a habit to interact with everyone in a real, meaningful way.

Go ahead and keep asking, "How ya doin'?" But from now on, really listen for the answer.

Welcome to the Ivory Tower, Part II

In a Tarot deck, the Tower card represents chaos and disaster. Historically, it may have been interpreted as disaster striking "those whose fortunes come from abuse of the land and its residents." In another story of the history of this card, The Fool helped build the Tower "back when the most important thing to him was making his mark on the world and proving himself better than other men. Inside the Tower, at the top, arrogant men still live, convinced of their rightness."

Kinda makes you wonder who coined the phrase "Ivory Tower" to represent corporate leaders, and how s/he came up with it, doesn't it?

Well, don't fret. Just because you're a manager doesn't mean you have to build - or live in - the Ivory Tower. You can instead build a leadership home base that's planted firmly on the ground. And if you play your cards right (pun intended), your employees will help you build it.

Okay, that's enough new age metaphors for one post; let's talk about what you need to do:

In Part I of this series, I listed several key management skills. Today we're going to delve into one of the most difficult skills to master: delegating. Webster's Dictionary defines "delegate" as "to entrust to another." This is no small feat for a new manager, and it's especially difficult for a highly-productive doer. But delegate you must, if you're going to become a good leader.

Many managers think that they're delegating when they're really just assigning tasks. It may seem like semantics, but there is a difference between the two. Let's say that you're having issues with your department's TPS reports; specifically, the reports aren't being delivered to your customers in a timely manner, and the reports are often inaccurate. You spend some time analyzing the situation, and decide that the reports need to be streamlined. You call in your team of business analysts for a meeting.

In the meeting, you start delegating: you ask Rob to work with Finance to correct the data entry issues moving forward. You ask Karen to get with IT to correct the existing records. You task Bill with modifying the report format. Finally, you direct Suzanne to automate the report delivery. You give everyone their target dates, and they're off and running. You're proud of yourself, because you think you've delegated. Well, you can stop patting yourself on the back now, because you haven't delegated anything. You've assigned discrete tasks to a bunch of people.

Let's back up, and rethink this situation: You're having problems with your TPS reports. You know exactly what you can do to correct the problem, and you could do it yourself (and assign out the components that your employees can handle). But remember, your job isn't to do; your job is to develop the skills of your employees. So you decide to delegate the project. In order to delegate effectively, you need to ask yourself the following questions:

• Is this something that only I can do and that's both business- and time-critical? If so, then you probably can't delegate it; however, you should get one of your team members involved in the project to bring him up to speed so that you aren't the only one who can do it next time.
• Who on my team has 80% of the skills needed to complete this project? I use 80% for a reason: you may have someone who's all the way there, and if so, that's terrific. But you don't want to punish that superstar by giving her all the "problem" work, do you? (hint: no, you don't). Instead, take the opportunity to develop someone who's nearly ready for prime time.
• What support am I going to have to provide to this person in order to pick up that other 20%?

Once you've established that you can delegate, it's time to get the process rolling:

1. Meet with the employee who's getting ownership of the project (for our purposes, we'll give it to Bill).
2. Explain the goal of the project; explain how you will define success vs. failure.
3. Ask Bill to communicate back to you his understanding of the goal - this ensures that Bill really gets it, and allows you to clarify if he doesn't (this is key: if you aren't both in agreement as to the goal, Bill is likely to fail).
4. Ask Bill for a tangible deliverable (in our example, you might ask Bill to document an analysis of the problem and provide three possible solutions - along with his recommendation as to which solution is best).
5. Set a target date for that deliverable.
6. Between now and the target date, check in with Bill periodically to ensure he's making progress. I don't mean hound him, either. I mean ask him if he's having any problems that require your input or assistance.
7. Let go. The project now belongs to Bill. On the first due date, he'll provide you with the analysis (but if he doesn't, you'll want to check back in next week for the post on managing performance issues). At that point, you'll go with his recommendation (unless it's completely unreasonable), and ask him what the next step is and when it will be completed.

Do you see the difference? Using the "doer" method, the project gets done, but you own it. By delegating, you transfer ownership to Bill. He is responsible for analyzing, making recommendations, coordinating resources, and executing on the plan. You are now responsible for removing roadblocks, providing guidance and correction as needed, and monitoring progress. You've helped Bill stretch his skills (thereby making him more valuable to you), and you've gained some time to do the strategic thinking and planning that they pay you those big bucks to do.

Now, will Bill do the project as well as you would? Probably not (at least, you won't think so). But that's irrelevant as long as it's done well. And Bill (or one of his resources) might come up with a better solution than the one you had in mind, in which case delegation turns out to be a really big win.

Don't get trapped in that tower, thinking that you have to do everything. Yes, delegating means that you'll have to spend more time coaching than you would spend executing (if you aren't comfortable asking, "well, what do you think we should do next?", then you will be soon). But if you can't or won't delegate, you're limiting yourself and your team.

Welcome to the Ivory Tower, Part I

Congratulations! You've just been promoted or hired into your first management job. Much like Melanie Griffith in "Working Girl," you may think you've finally arrived: after years of working hard to prove yourself, you have that coveted office - with a door! And as you close your door, prop your feet up on the desk (by the way, does anybody actually do that?), you may be thinking that you can finally breathe a sigh of relief, secure in the knowledge that it gets easier from here.

Did you enjoy that moment of bliss? Good, because that's about as long as it'll last. What you think you've learned about life in management (from your view at the bottom of the org chart) is not at all what it is. You have less power than you think; this is especially true if you're a middle manager in a large company. You have more responsibility than you think. Finally, if you're like many managers, you've been tossed into this new fishbowl without a drop of training on the practical skills you'll need to do the job.

On the bright side, you probably don't realize that you don't know as much as you think you do, which means that you aren't scared. The dark cloud around that silver lining is that you might make some catastrophic mistakes because you don't know any better.

Early in my career, I managed a temporary employment agency outside of Newark, New Jersey. Most business people have a negative opinion about people who work as temps; that opinion is often based on the fact that temps seem to be somewhat unreliable. During my almost four years running that agency, we brought our turnover down to minimal levels. When I left there (to move to Tennessee), I had at least a dozen temps on staff who'd been with me exclusively for more than three years. But I made some big mistakes before I figured out what I was doing.

In the years since I left New Jersey, I've managed temporary employees and full-time employees; hourly personnel and salaried personnel; fantastic performers and horrible performers. And every group was equally challenging, each in its own unique way.

In today's entry, I want to introduce you to some of the manager archetypes (according to me). They're exaggerated, to be sure; but that doesn't make them any less real. You'll probably recognize at least one former (or possibly current) boss in this list; with any luck, you won't recognize yourself.

Bridesmaideum ad infinitum

Remember the saying, "Always a bridesmaid, never a bride"? Conventional wisdom has it that, when the perpetual bridesmaid finally takes the plunge, she uses that opportunity to get even with every friend who ever tortured her with a green taffeta nightmare of a bridesmaid's gown. She does this, of course, by outfitting all of them in the most hideous, ruffled, and unflattering bridesmaid's gown she can find.

Sadly, there are some managers who seem to take this same position: they are going to take every horrible act performed on them by every horrible manager, and they're going to pay it forward to the next generation of aspiring managers. Mind you, I'm not suggesting that this is always a conscious act; but I've known plenty of managers who have openly taken the position of, "Bwa-haha! Now I'm the one calling the shots! $#!+ rolls down hill, and for once, there's someone lower on the hill than me!" As corporate traditions go, we could do better.

Fidelis Horribilis

This manager wants to be your very best friend in the whole, wide world. S/he doesn't want to be the devil; s/he doesn't want to tell you what to do. In fact, s/he's perfectly content to keep doing exactly what s/he always did - just with more money and a nicer workspace. S/he goes out for drinks with the gang; s/he goes to ball games with you; s/he's just one of the gang. S/he has no earthly idea what it is that you do, but s/he's okay with that as long as nobody makes any waves.

On the surface, this manager seems like a real catch: you're treated well, you're appreciated, and you're pretty much left to your own devices. But one day, you realize that, while your boss isn't giving you any grief, neither is s/he giving you any real coaching or development opportunities. See, s/he doesn't want to give you any negative feedback, because then you might not want to be best buddies any more.

Fiddleris Moronicus

Remember Nero, fiddling away as Rome burned? He was the earliest known example of the Fiddleris Moronicus in action. This manager knows that things are going to the Seventh Circle in a handbasket, but pretends that everything is just hunky-dory. Problems? There are no problems here! Sure, production has been shut down for seven hours because of a system issue, but it's no big deal. We'll just work through until Midnight tonight, and everything will get done. You'll see!

The worst part of dealing with this type of manager is that it's impossible to have a real conversation about any problems, because s/he won't admit that there are any problems.

Knowledgeum Keeperis

This manager knows everything that there is to know about doing your job (not a bad thing in and of itself). Unfortunately, this manager is also of the belief that knowledge = power = job security, so s/he doesn't share information. You're left to your own devices to figure things out on the fly. You're constantly reminded that you'll never be able to do the job as well as s/he can. And you certainly aren't allowed to make decisions on your own; s/he wants input into everything that goes on, even if s/he's out of the office. Prepare to be micromanaged. Your input is unwanted, unnecessary, and is really nothing but an annoyance.

Semper Tyrannus

This manager has some serious anger issues, and you are going to learn every little thing that will trip that fury line; and you'll learn by experience, of course. Shouting obscenities, slamming doors, publicly chewing people out: none of these are out of character for Semper Tyrannus. Not unlike Knowledgeum Keeperis, Semper Tyrannus believes that you cannot possibly do the job well enough, and s/he will be hypercritical of your every mistake. This manager is extremely unhappy, and wants to share that unhappiness with you.

I don't think that anyone goes into a management role with the conscious desire to make people suffer; poor management is what happens when people move into positions of authority without being given the tools to do the job properly.

In this series of posts, you'll learn about the skills that are the keys to effectiveness in a management role:

• Recruiting
• Managing performance
• Delegating
• Managing up

I'll leave you with one piece of advice that you can start using today: You can't go wrong by using common sense and treating people with common courtesy.

Growing, growing... gone

Last week, Jeffrey Phillips wrote about identifying the purpose of your business. This topic resonates with me, because I've seen firsthand what can happen when companies get stuck on growth as the Prime Directive.

While it's true that we all want our businesses to maintain a healthy rate of growth, Jeffrey is completely correct in his assessment that money is an outcome rather than a purpose. The same is true of growth; growth is the result that you get when you do everything else right. But if you instead frame growth as that right thing to do, it can skew your perspective and force your business into making decisions that are ethically and morally questionable. Enron is just the ugliest and most public example, but lots of businesses create small-scale disasters every day because they're more concerned with growing the bottom line than with anything else.

If you put growth before all else, then everything else suffers. No matter that your company's mission statement is filled with the most flowery, buzzword-laden language ever; if your key strategic driver is growth, then the customers don't come first, period. If your key strategic driver is growth, then the employees don't come in first (or second or third, most likely), period. If your key strategic driver is growth, then innovation probably isn't even in the Top Five.

I'm not suggesting that it's wrong to want to grow your business; it's perfectly fine to list growth among your company's goals for the year. However, you have to be very specific in terms of how you frame the goal.

I'm a big believer that we can all have what we want, by stating specifically what that desire is (and then working like a dog to get it). But if you're not careful about how you state what it is you want, you can set yourself up. The old adage, "Be careful what you wish for; you might just get it" rings true to me. It's not so much that you might find that you didn't want "it" so much after all; it's more what you might get along with "it" that you didn't plan on.

Let me put it this way: I've heard countless jokes about genies granting wishes that go horribly awry because the Wisher wasn't quite specific enough (my personal favorite ends with the punchline, "and so his legs fell off"). And while I don't think that the gods of business are just waiting for you to state a goal that's just vague enough that they can wreak havoc on your company, I do believe that it's critical that you frame your goals specifically enough that you have a clear path to the goal.

Here are just a few of the negative outcomes when growth is the Prime Directive:

• Innovation gets short shrift, because thinking is costly under the Time = Money model.
• Employees who work in cost center departments (rather than profit centers) start to get the feeling that they're expendable. This usually happens because that's how they're treated.
• The corporate culture shifts from "it's about the customers, stupid!" to "it's about the profit, stupid!"
• You treat your customers differently, because you're looking at ways to make money from them, rather than ways to serve them.

If you want to grow your business, you're going to do so by achieving other goals: goals related to your customers, your employees, or the meat of what your business offers. By developing your goals according to relationships and business effectiveness, you're going to focus your energy (and that of your employees) on how you can be better, rather than the somewhat vague intention to grow.

Here are a few questions to ask yourself:

1. Does our mission statement really reflect the company we are and want to be?
2. Are we about making money, or about doing something great?
3. What are the messages we send to our employees about what's important to the business?
4. Do our clients think that we're partners instrumental in their success, or are we just another vendor?

Tomorrow, I'm going to start a series of posts about management skills for the new manager.

You stab my back, and I'll stab yours

In business, there has always been an epic conflict between Sales and Service. To hear Service talk about it, Sales is the girl who can't say no (think Rizzo from "Grease"): they'll promise everything, to everybody, ever time. They don't think the down side, they never play devil's advocate, and they don't worry about setting realistic expectations.

Of course, Sales thinks that Service is the buttoned-up good girl (think Sandy from "Grease"): they're no fun, they're unwilling to bend the rules or shake things up, and they don't worry about making the customers happy.

There's probably a grain of truth (or more) to both of these characterizations, but they're small potatoes compared to the smaller-scale battles that many of us fight every day. That's right, kids: I'm talking about office politics. It's bad enough that we have to "fight"  with our competition; it's worse that we have to fight the sales/service conflict; let's find a way to make things really hard on ourselves - and our employees - by fighting each other, too. Because no day is complete unless you walk out of the office feeling as though you've been beaten up by  people who are supposed to be on the same team as you.

And of course, because the computer gods are fickle, the rest of my post got lost when my TypePad connection fizzled at 4:30 this morning. Don't you love it when that happens?

Rather than attempt to recreate the genius that was my original set of thoughts (not really), I'll just give you a few tips to survive an ugly political landscape:

1. Be true to yourself. If playing the game has you so stressed out that you're sucking down antacids like candy, then you might be in too deep. Perhaps it's time to reconsider your position - or your employer.
2. Sometimes, politics can work to your advantage without killing your soul in the process. Don't automatically equate office politics to evil.
3. Bottom line, remember that it's not your life, and it's not a reflection of your value as a human being. It's just a job, not matter how much you love it. Your family, your friends, and your self-esteem will always matter more - so don't sell your soul for empty success.

Tomorrow, we'll talk about growth as a strategic driver of business.