(Missing?) Seat at the Table

When professionals in HR and training get together they often quiz one another on whether they have “a seat at the table” with other leaders of the organization. The answer to the question seems to be a barometer of how they are regarded. Are they seen as an essential and equal part of the lead team? Or are they regarded as more of a tactical service provider?

It would be a mistake to personalize the decision, making it only about the HR representative’s sense of prestige and or self-worth. Instead, it seems more powerful to treat this decision as a matter of language and culture. More specifically, does the executive team fully understand and appreciate the language of HR, and how its areas of expertise (recruiting, hiring, retention, succession planning, performance management, compensation, and change management, to name a few) are deeply connected to and impacted by every business decision? Likewise, does the HR executive fully appreciate and understand the language and daily challenges of the other functional areas, including finance, sales, marketing and operations?

It is so much easier to discount and dismiss a person, or entire department, if one is ignorant of their areas of specialization. This is compounded by the fact that those who possess strong subject matter expertise tend to make it look easy, which may lead others to falsely conclude that their role must be easy; anyone could do it.

If we could wave a magic wand, we might have executives walk in the shoes or sit in the chairs of their counterparts for a day or week to experience the challenges and nuances of business from their counterpart’s perspective. Until we discover such a wand, it falls to HR to embrace its role as a change agent to improve understanding across the functional boundaries.

Unless executives are deeply prejudiced against HR – and some are – bringing them around to see the value of HR may not be too difficult. Let’s assume that HR is not at the table and the executive team decides it needs to cut costs in order to survive. Further, they decided to reduce staff across the board. In such a case, the company leader might inform HR of the decision, and then request a host of implementation and execution plans. That would be a perfect time for the HR executive to raise questions that the lead team may have overlooked. For example:

* Have you thought about the impact on our recruiting efforts?
* Are you willing to accept legal exposures from the possible lawsuits that may arise from lay-offs?
* What is the plan for addressing productivity losses as morale takes a nosedive, and as we have to invent new processes to adjust to our headcount?
* What are we going to do about the star performers who interpret the lay-offs as a harbinger of more bad news in the future and decide to leave?
* Is this decision consistent with our values and culture?
* How will we adjust our performance objectives and incentives to account for the added responsibilities for those who survive the cuts?

From such a conversation, reasonable executives should be able to see that going to HR after a decision has been made with a laundry list of HR to-dos is the equivalent of closing the barn door after the horse has escaped. HR needs to be there before such decisions are made. It may take more than one event, but if HR consistently provides its expertise and post-facto, the executives will eventually see the importance of bringing HR to the table. Or, with a few compelling examples to draw upon, HR can make a strong, rational case for why it needs to be at the table.

While HR expertise is, or should be, invaluable to leadership decisions, we still live in a culture that places premium value on analysis, sales skill, operational efficiencies and other left-brain knowledge areas. For HR professionals to do the best job possible of selling the value and power of HR, they must, like any good sales person, better understand the language, culture and concerns of their internal customers.

Broadly speaking, to earn a seat at the leadership table requires greater credibility, and for many of the company’s other executives, credibility is associated with the Big Three knowledge areas:

* Financial Knowledge: Some HR professionals admit an aversion to numbers. If that is the case, and if the staff meeting agenda is strongly weighted toward financial reports and other metrics, then why have HR present for that conversation? These days, HR needs to know its own costs, and the financial impact of human capital on the company. It is probably not acceptable in any company for the HR professional to say, “I don’t do numbers.”
* Product/Industry Knowledge: While it is easy to become consumed and engrossed by one’s own subject matter, the HR professional gains enormous credibility with peers by undertaking to learn products, competition and industry drivers. It is not necessary to become an expert. But it does help to have enough grounding that you can ask good questions and connect these industry drivers with HR expertise like recruiting and compensation.
* Functional Knowledge: From an executive perspective, a reasonable understanding of the key functional areas may be seen as table stakes for being invited to staff meetings. This does not require an MBA, though coursework could be useful. Instead, one can learn about sales, marketing, operations, customer service and technical services by asking experts in your own company for tutoring and mentorship. Look for opportunities to sit on cross-functional teams, and learn to appreciate how experts in different functional areas view and operate in the business world.

How much expertise is enough? The answer is that one should never arrive at an endpoint of knowledge and say, “I’m done.” There is always more to learn. At the same time, the mere act of showing interest and having the intention to understand other functions can create a breakthrough with credibility. When I worked for the international division of Pfizer, I took a couple of Spanish courses but never became fluent. However, when I traveled to Latin America and attempted to speak words and phrases in Spanish to my hosts – who were fluent in English – every one of them expressed delight with my bumbling attempts. Likewise, attempts to learn the language of business will go far with non-HR executives.

So if you want to have a seat at the table, get better at helping others understand your “foreign language and culture,” and invest time in learning their language, culture and customs.

Mirror, Mirror...

As a business leader, it is essential that you look in the mirror, or more precisely, look in several mirrors. Failure to do so can lead to several unhappy outcomes. For example, some leaders are the last to know that a key employee is fed up and planning to leave the company. Similarly, a dependable customer may be looking for a new supplier without your knowledge, while you continually reassure yourself that all is well.

Another cost of failing to engage employees in honest two-way dialogue might come in the form of missing a key insight, such as an improved process or new product possibility. Finally, unexamined leadership can contribute to a culture of complacency and entitlement.

So, if you’re ready to take a deeper look at the circumstances of your business, the place to start is the mirror of your own perceptions. Ask yourself these questions:

· Overall, how is the business doing? What is the evidence for this? (Hint: Look at revenues, profits, customer satisfaction, retention of key accounts, etc.)
· How am I doing as a leader? What is the evidence for this? (Hint: Look at morale, turnover, the performance of others, the quality of employee input to discussions, etc.)
· What are my 2-3 greatest strengths as a leader?
· What are my 2-3 areas most in need of improvement?

While many people might squirm at the thought of such pointed questions, a self-aware leader committed to a successful business will find it relatively simple and easy to answer those questions. The follow-up questions about evidence are meant to stimulate objective answers to the questions. “I feel like things are going well,” is less compelling and believable than, “Revenues are up, profitability is higher and employees are often arriving early and leaving late without being asked. So it seems we’re doing well.”

While the mirror of self-awareness is of vital importance, it is not the final word. Good leaders need to see how their leadership appears to others, especially employees. Without these external data points, it is possible that the leader is oblivious or self-delusional, either overly optimistic, or overly gloomy about the company and leadership performance.

Before asking questions of employees, it is important to create an appropriate and safe mood and posture. Genuine curiosity and openness work better than a perfunctory check-the-box attitude. Here are a few sample questions to ask employees:

· Overall, how do you think the business is doing? Tell me more about your view. (Don’t prompt them. It will be interesting to find out about their benchmarks for performance.)
· What do you like most about your job? What do you like least?
· Compared to the best leader you have ever worked with, how am I doing?
· What are my 2-3 greatest strengths as a leader?
· What are my 2-3 areas most in need of improvement?
· If you could change one thing about me, what would it be?
· If you could change one thing about the company, what would it be?

Armed with that feedback, what’s next? The answer depends on how closely, or not, your self-perception differs from the consensus view of employees. Even if there is close alignment, a leader seriously committed to improvement needs to circle back with employees and describe the key insights and commitments to change. Otherwise, employees will dismiss the initial conversations as insincere and a waste of time.

Imagine how your staff would feel if you came back after the initial feedback sessions and said something like this:

“Thank you for your candid feedback on how we’re doing as a company, and how I am doing as a leader. This was an enlightening process for me. As a result of comments from you and others, here are the three things I intend to do differently from this day forward (list the three). As a company, we are going to look at a couple of new initiatives, including (fill in the blank). I am counting on you to continue to give me feedback, both positive and negative, with regard to these areas of improvement and anything else you might see.

So, if you tend toward the image of an ostrich with its head buried in the sand, it’s time to pull your head out of the ground and take a look around. There are many things worth seeing.

Learning to Be a Leader-Teacher

In the last post I made a case that too many business leaders ignore the vitally important skill of teaching, coaching and guiding the development of future leaders. They may feel they lack the skill to teach others, or they feel that experience is after all the best teacher. Or they may simply be focused on other demands of leadership.

The problem is, ignoring the pro-active, intentional development of future leaders has many detriments:

• Thin Depth Chart – What happens if a key “player” leaves or is incapacitated? Companies that depend too heavily on their top executives are vulnerable in the event of a sudden change.


• Higher Costs – Acquiring talented executives in the “free agency market” is expensive. Proven leaders will justifiably demand bigger paychecks and benefits.


• Negative Mood – What is the impact on those with aspirations to rise up in the company when that company hires outsiders for the top jobs? Mostly, it’s a negative impact that will lead those with the best potential to leave, while others may simply act out their resentment in other ways.


• A Culture Resistant to Change – It really does not work so well for leaders to say, as my old football coach liked to declare, “Do as I say, not as I do.” Employees look to their leaders as role models. If those leaders are not themselves learning and teaching, then why should the employees invest in learning and change? A system that is not learning and growing is stagnating and declining. Which do you prefer?
  
  I contend that even without natural teaching abilities, executives and managers can become effective leader-teachers. There are two facets of developing as a leader-teacher, Being and Doing. While there are many techniques (i.e., ways of doing) for teaching and coaching, the most power comes from your essence, your intention, your way of being.
  
  Some ideas on Being…
  
  Be a Beginner. My first attempts at snow skiing were miserable. Somehow, cold, bruised, wet and incompetent left me eager to exit the sport. I gave it another shot a couple years later when a buddy dared me. With better equipment, better conditions and a bit of friendly coaching, I made rapid progress and was bitten by the bug. Similarly, few people in business are child prodigies who instinctively know what to do. Most learned the hard way. Encounter future leaders where they are today, where you were earlier in your career, and work from there. Think back to your own early challenges when you tripped and stumbled. Have compassion, for them as leader wannabes and for yourself as someone who may not yet be a skilled teacher and mentor.
  
  Be Curious. In the first place, curiosity will help you become a better teacher as you search for and experiment with new processes, approaches, and methods. Ask other leaders. Ask coaches. Ask your mentors. Ask those you are teaching. Equally important is finding genuine curiosity about each person you teach. Allow yourself the wonderment (and yes, sometimes frustration) of the unique blend of talents and eccentricities in each individual. Be curious about how to understand their perspective on the world, how to unlock their potential, how to get through.
  
  Be Patient. Learning new skills takes time and practice. We know this about taking up a new sport or hobby, but in business we often forget this truth. This does not mean you must be infinitely patient. If the person you are teaching refuses your advice and support, fails after many attempts, or simply lacks the ability, there comes a time to call it quits.
  
  Be Positive. The way many people house train their pets is to yell and scold them when they do something wrong. Turns out, this is bad training technique. While the technique might control some behaviors, it does it in a mood of fear and dominance, which is not constructive, especially with people. Animal, and human, behaviorists understand you get much better results by rewarding and recognizing positive behaviors. Even when faced with negative results or other mistakes, you can offer positive expectancy, i.e., “I know you can do this.”
  
  Be Transparent. Followers often see their leaders through idealized glasses. When the leader speaks, everyone listens. When the company needs to make a strategic decision, the leader acts with clarity and conviction. The truth is that leaders are often not decisive, clear or effective. Or if they do something with apparent ease, it may be because they have handled similar situations many times. All of this is great material for the teacher-student relationship. When the leader-teacher reveals her past mistakes and conflicted thoughts it provides a powerful perspective to the student. Too many business books and case studies ignore or over-simplify the emotional elements of a decision, or the shades of gray that had to be considered, or the inner flip-flopping that occurred behind the facade. In real life, students need to see and understand the hows and whys in order to get the most powerful learning.
  
  While the BE’s are of utmost importance, there are a few “DO’s” to consider as well:
  
  Do Make Time. It’s kind of like being a good parent: you may not have available all the hours you would like to spend with the kids, but you can largely make up for that with good quality time, being completely present with your children when possible. Likewise, managers blossom when you join them in their world.
  
  Do Ask Questions. It’s unfortunate and ironic: When you are old enough to have acquired experience and wisdom, the younger generation of workers tend to ignore that wisdom as old-fashioned or irrelevant. So rather than tell your protégés how to do things correctly, spend a disproportionate amount of time asking them how they plan to do something, or why they did what they did. As Covey says, seek first to understand. By listening you might: a) learn something new (yes, it is possible); and b) you make them more amenable to eventually listening to your perspective.
  
  Do Encourage Experimentation. These days, with the pace of change, it’s understandable that managers want to avoid mistakes – their own and those of their direct reports. But if you think about how you learned, it was mainly from doing things, making mistakes, correcting things on the next attempt, and iterating your way forward. Guess what? That’s exactly what is needed by the next generation of leaders. So rather than preventing mistakes by disempowering underlings with burdensome processes and micromanagement, give them some rope. You can surely afford a few small losses if it produces powerful learning and helps boost leadership confidence in the long run. They need to feel psychologically safe to make mistakes, admit those mistakes, ask questions and share their views. This element of culture is a far more compelling environment for quality workers than one where people are punished for mistakes, and shushed when they offer a contrary point of view.
  
  Of course, there is plenty more to think about and apply in becoming a better teacher. But these ideas should get you started.

See One, Do One, Teach One

In case you hadn’t noticed, the pace of change today is staggering. Businesses cannot survive using yesterday’s strategies and tactics. Heck, even today’s thinking will become obsolete very quickly. This does not mean you have to adopt every new fad that comes along. But if you are not regularly reinventing how you do business, you are doomed to eventually fall behind.

Looking at the other side of the coin, perhaps the best hedge against a rapidly changing global marketplace is to adopt for yourself and your organization the mantra of continuous learning.

The word “learning” may conjure up visions of classrooms, teachers and homework where the learning formula seems mostly about memorizing information for long enough to pass a test. For a business – and most other professions – learning must have a component of enabling action. Information alone is useless unless it generates new ways of thinking and acting – better products, better service, reduced costs, improved efficiencies, etc.

One simple way to think about action-oriented learning was depicted in a scene in the long-running NBC series ER. This was back in the day when then-unknown George Clooney was a regular. There was a scene where a young, impatient resident was reminded of the medical learning mantra: see one, do one, teach one.

In the medical model, a resident first learns to perform a task, say, heart surgery, by watching an expert. (OK, there’s a lot more to it, like reading text books, studying related fields of knowledge, etc. But at some point, the resident watches LOTS of surgeries.) Eventually the resident is allowed to do one, that is perform the surgery herself under close supervision. After she has done enough of them, she may become part of the faculty and eventually teach other aspiring surgeons. It’s a nice complete circle, and it describes the progression in life toward mastering subject matter.

This learning model does not always play out fully. For example, business professionals will sometimes disparage academics by saying, “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach.”

If there is any merit to the criticism of teachers it is that success in academia requires retention of conceptual knowledge and rewards the ability to read, study, debate, and excel on tests. But many teachers do not have to apply their knowledge in "real life." They seem to graduate from seeing it to teaching it without having the in-between phase of doing.

There is nothing wrong with this model per se, and many teachers thrive within this model and effectively impart and guide learning. But in some subjects, the lack of doing can undermine true learning. Imagine a shop teacher, for example, teaching from a text book without demonstrating expertise with the tools. Similarly, it falls flat for some business leaders when a business school professor with little experience outside the ivory walls presumes to teach leadership.

The business community also has a significant gap in the learning hierarchy. Many (most?) owners and executives spent years observing and learning how to perform the essential moves of running a company. But while they succeeded in the see-one and do-one phases, they often shirk the teach-one element. As a consequence, they may not have a good pool of managers ready and willing to step into leadership roles.

I have a client who is a talented senior executive in a large company. She recently complained to me about the slow progress of one of her department heads. She was especially frustrated at breakdowns and disconnects in their communication. Fortunately, I was able to help her see that for her, leadership and management have become easy and obvious. But her underling is still in the do-one phase. So vast is their difference in experience – and perhaps in natural talent – that it is difficult for the seasoned, accomplished pro to relate to the “rookie,” and vice versa.

Of course, not every business person has the natural aptitude or desire to be great managers and leaders. And some things in business are almost impossible to teach. Imagine Wayne Gretzky trying to teach an up-and-coming hockey star how to anticipate where the puck is going to be before it gets there. This is instinctual knowledge that may not be transferable, even by the greatest teachers.

Still, unless there is a lack of natural ability or motivation, future leaders need good teachers, and a masterful executive should have some skill in teaching and mentoring.

I know there are some business executives who will argue that teaching is not a strength of theirs. Further, some will argue that they learned without a mentor in a kind of trial-by-fire fashion, so they expect that others should also learn that way. While experience is indeed the best teacher, it is also a slow and sometimes expensive teacher. Some of my clients ask me to work with new managers. Although it’s not said explicitly, I know part of the motivation is to help these rookie managers avoid catastrophic mistakes, the kind of mistakes that might lead to lawsuits or mass mutiny. It is also understood that timely coaching can help a new manager recognize and recover more quickly from the inevitable mistakes that come with the territory.

Certainly a Darwinian approach will sometimes produce future leaders. But in these times of accelerated change, companies are often impatient to get leaders so fast that experience can't keep up. A company can also turn to the free market for proven, accomplished leaders, but this can be expensive. Bringing in an outsider has the added downside of potentially demoralizing the internal candidates who wanted or expected a promotion. Finally, if a company’s leaders are unwilling or unable to teach and coach, they can bring in outsiders to provide this help.

But ultimately, the most holistic and cost-effective approach to develop future leaders is for today’s leaders to make teaching a high priority. Even if teaching does not come easily to a business leader, most leaders can become better teachers if they're willing to learn.

As someone once said, “A leader’s legacy should not be judged by the results they generated so much as by the number of leaders they produced.” In the next post I’ll offer a few guidelines for becoming a better leader-teacher.

Bad Bosses Bring Everyone Down

My last post on weighing the assets and liabilities in each employee provoked this comment:

This is very one-sided. Management has a lot to do with whether an employee is an asset or a liability. I think you should address that in a blog. You have to consider the "fatigue" component in employees who work with limited resources or for bad managers, and there are a lot of those.

Amen to the last line. Live long enough and you will work for a bad boss, or two. If you read Dilbert you surely know a leader who looks and sounds like the pointy haired boss, at least some times.

Think about your level of performance under that bad boss vs. what you and your team COULD have done with someone less odious. Bad bosses will have employees chasing their tails, spending time on frivolous tactics rather than core strategic initiatives. They will reward appearances of effort over substantive output. They will castigate and demean employees, thus creating pervasive fear and anxiety. They will crush initiative, innovation and new ides with bureaucracy, indecisiveness, and play-it-safe politics. They will pursue their own agenda of advancement at the expense of everyone around them, resorting to back-stabbing others and stealing credit if it furthers their ambition. Bad bosses can absolutely compromise the ability of individuals and groups to perform.

What may be worse is that because of how the power elite often works, many bad leaders go unpunished and unchallenged, and frankly, unacknowledged for their badness. If they are hired for the wrong reasons – friendship, loyalty, sucking up, getting things done no matter how badly they ruined morale, etc. – then the person or group that promoted them will not easily see their true colors. The bad boss usually aids and abets the cover-up by blaming and scape-goating peers or direct reports for all bad occurrences. In such a scenario, everyone suffers. The employees are totally demoralized, the rest of the organization is adversely impacted and performance suffers all around.

What is the antidote to this downward spiral? The answer is really simple and straightforward, though perhaps difficult to implement if an organization’s culture is too contaminated by bad bosses.

First, top management needs to seek input and assessments from throughout the organization. If mistrust is running high, it will likely take an outsider and some truly anonymous data collection tools like Attitude Surveys and 360s.

Second, after data collection there must be a substantive response from leadership, letting employees know they have been heard and specific actions are about to be launched.

Third, every employee, from top to bottom, needs to be part of a fair and balanced performance management system that acknowledges their strengths, provides support for addressing areas for improvement, and is conducted with a sense of fairness and thoroughness. For executives, 360 degree feedback from bosses, peers and direct reports provides strong evidence of managerial and leadership abilities. Done with sincerity, integrity and commitment for improvement, performance management systems help unearth chronically bad performers – including and especially bosses.

Finally, leaders must maintain vigilance for good and bad behaviors among the organization’s executives, managers, supervisors and individual contributors. Malaise, complacency and more negative aspects of culture tend to grow slowly, quietly and in subtle ways. Pay attention to metrics, such as voluntary turnover, quality and productivity. Notice the mood in a department or on a floor or in a meeting when the spotlight is turned off. Watch for how dissent and conflict are managed – or avoided. Probe deeply when an employee is nominated for promotion or punishment to check for the merits of the recommendation.

While personal skill, motivation and experience are the greatest determinants of an individual’s performance, we cannot overlook external factors. Of these, none is more potent than the influence of the organization’s leaders and managers.

One final note: As a coach I would be remiss if I left the impression that bad bosses LIKE being bad, know they’re bad, and will never get better. While there are some diabolical sociopaths in the executive ranks (like Mr. Burns, pictured here), the majority of bad bosses don’t have to be bad. Some do not realize they are crushing morale and hindering performance. Some are aware but don’t know how to change. Some are just inept. I have found that armed with a genuine desire and the right coach or mentor, ANYONE can improve.

Tipping the Balance

A client was recently complaining about a long-time employee. I asked him two questions that helped shed light on the employee’s value to the company:

1. If you were to estimate the revenue that this employee helped generate in the past year, would it be greater than her salary?
2. If this employee was to voluntarily leave tomorrow, would you replace her?

In this particular case, my client answered both questions “No.” Those replies are loud signals that a change needs to be made.

If you look at many company mission statements, odds are pretty good that you’ll see some phrase like, “People are our greatest asset.”

The truth of the matter is, your people are your greatest liability. In financial terms, the amount you spend in salary, benefits, equipment, training and other employee-related costs probably dwarfs other costs of doing business.

Employees can be liabilities in non-financial ways. How many of your people need hand-holding, coaching, training, reassurance, corrective action? How many of your people have work habits that interfere with overall productivity? How many of your people are chatter boxes who waste not only their own productive hours, but also the productive hours of anyone they’re able to rope into a good gossip fest? How many refuse to follow process, no matter how many times you ask-tell-demand?

Now it’s also true that each employee adds at least some value, and is therefore an asset. Even the least skilled and motivated might handle tasks or help get work done in a pinch. Those with moderate competence are steady, reliable and useful. And of course there are all-stars who seem to rise to every challenge you throw at them.

So the question a manager has to assess for each employee is: net asset, or net liability? Think of it as placing the employee on a balance scale, or teeter-totter. If the cost of maintaining them about equals the value they contribute, this employee “breaks even” and at least is not draining the enterprise. This might be especially true for newer employees who have to learn subject matter, processes, how things get done around here before they add maximum value.

With sales people, assessing the asset-liability question is easier than with some other roles. Although there are exceptions, in most sales organizations it is clear how much a sales rep contributes in terms of revenue, and their salary and other costs are also pretty easy to roll together. Operational roles are relatively easy to assess when metrics exist to demonstrate output and productivity.

Other roles are more difficult to measure. What is the contribution in terms of revenue or profitability of someone in finance, marketing or HR? What is the contribution of a manager or executive who does not sell or make, but rather leads, coaches and directs? But even these “squishy” roles can be rendered into financial terms with good assumptions and by evaluating alternative costs. For example, if you outsourced HR functions, what would that cost you? If you don’t know, get some bids from HR consultants. And let your HR department be part of that value assessment.

Going back to the mission statement, my editorial tweak would be as follows:

“Great people are our number one asset.”

With great people work gets done on time with extraordinary quality. With great people you spend little time coaching performance and inflicting consequences. Instead you provide fuel, ammunition and direction and then sit back and watch them make things happen. With great people there is a strong sense of teamwork, of being part of something special. With great people the company develops a reputation that attracts customers, as well as other great people who want to work there. With great people you are delighted to incur the liability of salary, benefits, etc. because they pay that back in multiples.

In your company, or your department, if you place each employee on the scale, which way does the scale tip?

For employees who are net assets, you may want to think about retention strategies – more money, faster promotion, more visibility.

For employees who are net liabilities, and before you terminate them, look at the context. Are they clear about what’s expected? Do they have the training and resources to succeed? Are you evaluating them fairly? Are there short-term obstacles they could overcome to eventually become net assets? If they refuse to improve with time, then reassignment or termination are in order.

I know that firing and hiring are among the least enjoyable tasks for many managers. The client referred to at the beginning of this post knows he should terminate the employee in question, but will probably not take that action for some time. It is always tempting to rationalize keeping a mediocre performer: “As bad as they are, we could get somebody worse.” But a powerful leader will continually strive to upgrade the talent on the team. And if the economic downturn has one silver lining it is that more and more strong performers are now looking for jobs!

One final thought: while you are assessing your employees, it might be worthwhile to put yourself on the scale. Are you a net asset or net liability?