I settled into my hotel room at about eleven o'clock at night. It had been a long day of travel: speaking in the morning in one city, flying to another city and then driving two more hours, the last hour of which was in the snow. Then, once I climbed the stairs with all of my luggage and arrived at my room, I had to cart all of my luggage back to the front desk so that I might make a request to change hotel rooms. They had assigned me a room overlooking the broken-down indoor swimming pool. I prefer a room with an outside view as I kind of enjoy the daylight in the morning and since there weren't a lot of guests in the hotel, there was no shortage of outside-facing rooms.
My presentation wasn't scheduled until the following afternoon so I made sure to place the "Do Not Disturb" sign on the door as I knew I would have a little extra time to sleep in a bit the next morning. I brewed myself a cup of tea as a "late supper" since Room Service and the hotel restaurants had already closed for the night. I really didn't feel the least bit tempted to indulge in the three-dollar chocolate bars in the room (the same ones you'd pay a buck for at a store). I went over a little paperwork, watched a little TV and then drifted off to sleep.
The next morning, although I had been awake for a little while, a thunderous knock on the door bolted me me upright in bed at 9:45 am.
"Housekeeping," bellowed the voice.
"There's someone in here," I shot back with surprise.
"Are you checking out today?" questioned the voice.
"What time is check-out?" I asked.
"Eleven o'clock."
"And what time is it now?"
"About a quarter to ten," responded the voice.
"Is there a "Do Not Disturb" sign on the door?" I questioned already knowing the answer.
"Yes."
"Then, if I have over an hour before check-out, and my sign's on the door, why are you disturbing me?" I asked dripping with sarcasm.
After a short pause, "I'll come back later," is all I heard through the door.
I simply shook my head, pulled out my Blackberry and began to record the events of what had just transpired. With about twenty minutes left until checkout, the phone in my room rang. As soon as I answered, the other party hung up. Who do you suppose could have been calling a hotel with all of the rooms empty except mine? I'm guessing it was my housekeeping staff who called to ensure I was roused out of my room.
As the last surviving customer of the hotel, I suppose I was in the way of the housekeeping staff going home early. But as a customer, I paid for my room, abided by the rules and l left my indication (the little sign) that I wished not to be disturbed - all of which were ignored.
Without customers, a hotel has no need for housekeeping staff do they? The same could be said of any business couldn't it? Without customers there really is no need for staff is there? So are you giving your customers the best experience possible or are you making it miserable for them to do business with you? Are you genuinely servicing your customers or annoying them? Is your customer in the way of you leaving early? Could you care less about their experience and do you care more about yourself?
The hotel I stayed in that night, had been in business for years. I am sure they have built a steady stream of repeat customers - the rest of the staff I encountered seemed normal in most every other way. Isn't it funny how years of hard work, dedication, attention to detail and genuine service by the rest of the staff could be undermined in one brief moment of selfishness by one staff member?
It's really not that hard to make the experience of doing business with your company positive for your customers. As an employee, remember that without a revenue stream (customers), there is really no need for useless expenses like - uh, oh I don't know ... employees!
The more happy customers you have, the more your company can reward employees. Customers are never an inconvenience. If ever you think they are, find a new line of work.
And if you give your customers some choices in how they choose to deal with you, then respect their choices. By respecting their choices, you have pretty much ensured that they will choose to business with you again.
Courtesy, respect and patience go a long way in turning an an ordinary customer into a happy customer. Happy customers spend a lot more money. Tick your customers off and they tell the world. Think before you act. Or maybe you were the one on the other side of my hotel room door. That would speak volumes.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Boss Tip #16 - Scout The Minors For Talent
I was a minor-hockey referee for fourteen years. I was also a professional hockey mascot for five years. And I played hockey up until I was fouteen years old. Roughly figuring, that puts me in hockey rinks for almost thirty years. I learned a thing or two about business in my years at the rink. It's a dream of every kid who straps on a pair of skates to play in the big league one day. Not so much for the glory of going to the "show" but mostly because of the paycheck that comes with it. When money is involved, it's business.
Without a doubt, on most game nights, there is at least one hockey scout (affiliated with a pro or semi-pro team) floating around the rink - at least if the home team is somewhat competitive. That scout, who works for a higher-calibre team is looking for young undeveloped players who may have enough talent to be able to play in the big leagues one day. It is the job of the scout to drive ridiculously long hours through awful weather and drink some of the world's worst coffee all in the hopes of finding that one player that the team can groom, train and mentally prepare to move up the ranks.
Every team that wants to be competitive has scouts of their own visiting rinks in small towns and big cities. It doesn't matter whether it's hockey, baseball, football, basketball or ping-pong. If there's a pro league somewhere, there are minor league scouts looking for players to fill out the pro rosters. Scouting is necessary in sports just to remain competitive. Those without a good scouting system usually dwindle near the bottom of the league standings.
However, if a team chose not to scout at all, then that team would end up filling out their rosters with the players that no one else wanted. Oh sure, some of those players might end up being good utility players, but the real talent was spotted months and sometimes years earlier by the scouts. Those future stars were likely offered contracts or at least incentives by other teams long before they joined their new team. The team that doesn't scout - in essence - gets the leftovers and the throw-aways.
So, with that being said, let me ask this: is that how you run your business? Are you doing nothing for recruiting and development so that when it comes time to fill a position you end up taking what the rest of the market has left behind? Do you think you can run a strong team of superstars by hiring that way?
The truth is that competition for talent is heating up in the corporate world. Companies are sponsoring programs at universities and colleges, are donating money to build infrastructure at the halls of learning all in an effort to making their presence known on-campus. They too, just like sports teams, are looking for the next superstar or highly-talented employee. They are sending their recruiters to find these people. They have a plan of recruitment and development and will hire these future stars with no particular job in mind - just so the competition won't snap them up first.
As a boss, it's not just with customers that you need to be sharp. You need to be forward thinking and be ahead of the game when it comes to finding players for your team. You can't just expect to put an ad in the paper and attract the best of the best. The best of the best have been courted, contracted and are likely not looking for something else. Therefore, you're not likely to find them.
Once these future stars have been secured by a company, they'll end up jumping from department to department within the company in the hopes that they will either find a department they like or they get a little experience in each department as they are groomed for leadership positions. These forward thinking companies are far ahead of the curve and are snapping up the best people which gives them a tremendous business edge in the marketplace.
Make no mistake, if you're not actively seeking new recruits all of the time and have a strategy in place to keep in touch with these future stars regularly, someone else is going to beat you to the punch. You had better be prepared to accept mediocre performance from your people if you choose to not actively seek out the high-performer. But then maybe you're already reminded of that - everytime your competitor gets another one up on you.
Oh, and just so you know, the real superstars of tomorrow don't read newspapers. They won't see your ad anyway. Stop wasting your money and your time.
Without a doubt, on most game nights, there is at least one hockey scout (affiliated with a pro or semi-pro team) floating around the rink - at least if the home team is somewhat competitive. That scout, who works for a higher-calibre team is looking for young undeveloped players who may have enough talent to be able to play in the big leagues one day. It is the job of the scout to drive ridiculously long hours through awful weather and drink some of the world's worst coffee all in the hopes of finding that one player that the team can groom, train and mentally prepare to move up the ranks.
Every team that wants to be competitive has scouts of their own visiting rinks in small towns and big cities. It doesn't matter whether it's hockey, baseball, football, basketball or ping-pong. If there's a pro league somewhere, there are minor league scouts looking for players to fill out the pro rosters. Scouting is necessary in sports just to remain competitive. Those without a good scouting system usually dwindle near the bottom of the league standings.
However, if a team chose not to scout at all, then that team would end up filling out their rosters with the players that no one else wanted. Oh sure, some of those players might end up being good utility players, but the real talent was spotted months and sometimes years earlier by the scouts. Those future stars were likely offered contracts or at least incentives by other teams long before they joined their new team. The team that doesn't scout - in essence - gets the leftovers and the throw-aways.
So, with that being said, let me ask this: is that how you run your business? Are you doing nothing for recruiting and development so that when it comes time to fill a position you end up taking what the rest of the market has left behind? Do you think you can run a strong team of superstars by hiring that way?
The truth is that competition for talent is heating up in the corporate world. Companies are sponsoring programs at universities and colleges, are donating money to build infrastructure at the halls of learning all in an effort to making their presence known on-campus. They too, just like sports teams, are looking for the next superstar or highly-talented employee. They are sending their recruiters to find these people. They have a plan of recruitment and development and will hire these future stars with no particular job in mind - just so the competition won't snap them up first.
As a boss, it's not just with customers that you need to be sharp. You need to be forward thinking and be ahead of the game when it comes to finding players for your team. You can't just expect to put an ad in the paper and attract the best of the best. The best of the best have been courted, contracted and are likely not looking for something else. Therefore, you're not likely to find them.
Once these future stars have been secured by a company, they'll end up jumping from department to department within the company in the hopes that they will either find a department they like or they get a little experience in each department as they are groomed for leadership positions. These forward thinking companies are far ahead of the curve and are snapping up the best people which gives them a tremendous business edge in the marketplace.
Make no mistake, if you're not actively seeking new recruits all of the time and have a strategy in place to keep in touch with these future stars regularly, someone else is going to beat you to the punch. You had better be prepared to accept mediocre performance from your people if you choose to not actively seek out the high-performer. But then maybe you're already reminded of that - everytime your competitor gets another one up on you.
Oh, and just so you know, the real superstars of tomorrow don't read newspapers. They won't see your ad anyway. Stop wasting your money and your time.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Boss Tip #15 - Treat Your People Like ... Well ... People!
"Organizations work fine. It's people who screw 'em up." (Kevin Burns)
It is true though isn't it? Almost without exception, every single problem in every single business is created by a person. If you could just take the people out of your organization, you would eliminate almost every single problem that you, as a boss, are forced to deal with. Think of how much more you could get done if there weren't "people" problems to deal with. You could probably reduce your hours to part-time status and still get the job done if there weren't people to deal with.
Well good luck with that one. There ARE people to deal with. These are the same people you have either hired or at least had a hand in getting hired. These are your people. Without them, you wouldn't be needed. Thank your lucky stars for "people" problems. It's one of the things that keeps you, the boss, working.
So since you've hired people to help you do the job, perhaps you could cut them a little slack and treat them like, well, treat them like they are valued by you. How would you want to be treated if given the same job and responsibilities? C'mon, it's not that hard to figure out. You'd like to hear an occassional, "Good job," or "Thanks," or "What would we do without you?" It's pretty simple. We all want to know how we're doing so it becomes your job, as a boss, to make sure that your people are not only given the coaching they require, but even an occassiaonal bit of praise wouldn't hurt either.
I can guarantee that if you choose to praise your people on a regular basis, they will actually do more for you. How is that possible? When people take ownership of their work, they take pride in the workmanship. How can you get them to take ownership? Make a few heartfelt positive comments about their quality of work and watch the quality improve. People like to know that they are valued. The more you praise them, the more they are likely to perform for (not you) themselves. You get to take credit for a well-run and high-quality department.
All it takes is a little positive reinforcement once in a while. Treat your people like the valued people that they are. Your company's work wouldn't get done without them. And if you don't value their work, then one of two things is taking place: either they don't want to work for you or you hired the wrong people. Either way, they are not to blame - you are. You obviously don't know how to hire properly or can't coach worth a damn. Either way, the coach (boss) needs to be fired then.
Connect with your people on a personal level and they will begin to take their work and work ethic personally. When it gets personal, pride gets involved. When pride is involved, the quality of work has a much better chance of being top-notch.
Your people are both your most important asset as well as your greatest liability. Your job, as a boss, is being able to differentiate the two. If you can't differentiate the two, then your people aren't the problem. That just leaves you.
It is true though isn't it? Almost without exception, every single problem in every single business is created by a person. If you could just take the people out of your organization, you would eliminate almost every single problem that you, as a boss, are forced to deal with. Think of how much more you could get done if there weren't "people" problems to deal with. You could probably reduce your hours to part-time status and still get the job done if there weren't people to deal with.
Well good luck with that one. There ARE people to deal with. These are the same people you have either hired or at least had a hand in getting hired. These are your people. Without them, you wouldn't be needed. Thank your lucky stars for "people" problems. It's one of the things that keeps you, the boss, working.
So since you've hired people to help you do the job, perhaps you could cut them a little slack and treat them like, well, treat them like they are valued by you. How would you want to be treated if given the same job and responsibilities? C'mon, it's not that hard to figure out. You'd like to hear an occassional, "Good job," or "Thanks," or "What would we do without you?" It's pretty simple. We all want to know how we're doing so it becomes your job, as a boss, to make sure that your people are not only given the coaching they require, but even an occassiaonal bit of praise wouldn't hurt either.
I can guarantee that if you choose to praise your people on a regular basis, they will actually do more for you. How is that possible? When people take ownership of their work, they take pride in the workmanship. How can you get them to take ownership? Make a few heartfelt positive comments about their quality of work and watch the quality improve. People like to know that they are valued. The more you praise them, the more they are likely to perform for (not you) themselves. You get to take credit for a well-run and high-quality department.
All it takes is a little positive reinforcement once in a while. Treat your people like the valued people that they are. Your company's work wouldn't get done without them. And if you don't value their work, then one of two things is taking place: either they don't want to work for you or you hired the wrong people. Either way, they are not to blame - you are. You obviously don't know how to hire properly or can't coach worth a damn. Either way, the coach (boss) needs to be fired then.
Connect with your people on a personal level and they will begin to take their work and work ethic personally. When it gets personal, pride gets involved. When pride is involved, the quality of work has a much better chance of being top-notch.
Your people are both your most important asset as well as your greatest liability. Your job, as a boss, is being able to differentiate the two. If you can't differentiate the two, then your people aren't the problem. That just leaves you.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Podcasts Now Available
Well, here it is. The long-anticipated release of Kevin's podcasts - audio versions of his Blog entries.
You can download Kevin's podcasts as well as getting an update every time a new podcast becomes available. Here is the list of MP3 audio file podcasts available right now.
Boss Tips - Leadership Tips For Bosses (And Those Who Aspire To Be)
Boss Tip #1 - Get Out From Behind Your Desk
Boss Tip #2 - Be The Dumbest Guy in the Room
Boss Tip #3 - Never Be Missed
Boss Tip #4 - Monkey See Monkey Do
Boss Tip #5 - The Leadership Lunch-Menu Test
Boss Tip #6 - Keep Your Mouth Shut
Boss Tip #7 - Uncross Your Fingers
Boss Tip #8 - The Credit Score
Boss Tip #9 - Recognize Your Stars
Boss Tip #10 - Stop Training The Old Way
Boss Tip #11 - There's No Such Thing As Teambuilding
Boss Tip #12 - Pruning The Garden Without Chemicals
Boss Tip #13 - Switching Drivers
Employee Workplace Tips - Tips For Employees On How To Improve Attitude And Performance.
Tip #1 - What To Do If Your Job Sucks
Tip #2 - You Have Simple Responsibilities
Tip #3 - You Need To Own The Corporate Values
Tip #4 - Job Satisfaction Is Not The Company's Responsibility
Tip #5 - Steer Clear Of Cynical Co-workers
Tip #6 - Productivity is More Important Than Attitude
Tip #7 - How To Work For A Jerk-Boss
You can download Kevin's podcasts as well as getting an update every time a new podcast becomes available. Here is the list of MP3 audio file podcasts available right now.
Boss Tips - Leadership Tips For Bosses (And Those Who Aspire To Be)
Boss Tip #1 - Get Out From Behind Your Desk
Boss Tip #2 - Be The Dumbest Guy in the Room
Boss Tip #3 - Never Be Missed
Boss Tip #4 - Monkey See Monkey Do
Boss Tip #5 - The Leadership Lunch-Menu Test
Boss Tip #6 - Keep Your Mouth Shut
Boss Tip #7 - Uncross Your Fingers
Boss Tip #8 - The Credit Score
Boss Tip #9 - Recognize Your Stars
Boss Tip #10 - Stop Training The Old Way
Boss Tip #11 - There's No Such Thing As Teambuilding
Boss Tip #12 - Pruning The Garden Without Chemicals
Boss Tip #13 - Switching Drivers
Employee Workplace Tips - Tips For Employees On How To Improve Attitude And Performance.
Tip #1 - What To Do If Your Job Sucks
Tip #2 - You Have Simple Responsibilities
Tip #3 - You Need To Own The Corporate Values
Tip #4 - Job Satisfaction Is Not The Company's Responsibility
Tip #5 - Steer Clear Of Cynical Co-workers
Tip #6 - Productivity is More Important Than Attitude
Tip #7 - How To Work For A Jerk-Boss
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Employee Tip #10 - Why Companies Don't Want You To Improve
Is the answer not already obvious? If I were to ask you for one good reason why any company wouldn't want you to get better at sales, better at customer service, improve your communication skills, study leadership, become more productive or just be a nicer person, could you answer that question? Do you think you could come up with the right answer?
The truth is, any organization's responsibility for improving its people ends once those same people attain a level of "competence." Think about it. Once an organization has all of its people achieving the level of "competence," it needs to do nothing more to train their people - provided the job doesn't change, the duties don't change and the market doesn't change. If the job is the same, "competent" training will suffice.
But here's what you, as an employee, may have never thought of: that all employees can be summed up into one of three categories: competent, high-performer and under-achiever. Which one are you? Honestly! Tell the real truth to yourself about where you would fit on this scale. How do you think your paycheck would change if you were to move from merely competent to high-performer?
Any company's Human Resources mandate could be summed up in three rules: 1) Don't mess with what's working (competent employees). 2) Do whatever is necessary to keep the superstar (high-performer). 3) Get rid of the deadwood (under-achiever).
Rule #1 - Don't mess with what's working. If everyone on staff were competent, the company would have no need of training and development programs anymore. Everyone would have the tools necessary to complete the assigned tasks and everything would roll along quite smoothly. Think of an assembly line. Each person is required to do a single job that contributes to the final outcome of a product or service. If everyone is competent, the product or service produced is exactly the same every single time. The company would enjoy a higher corporate profit because all of its people are competent.
Rule #2 - Do whatever is necessary to keep the superstar. In order to keep a high-performer in a competent environment, there are going to have to be discrepancies in pay levels, perks, freedom and expectations. If a company has a whole team of nothing but superstars, I think for a boss that the experience would be like herding cats - an exercise in futility. In order to keep high-performers from looking for better remuneration elsewhere, a boss would need to give more (money, position, perks) to keep the people who achieve more. It will cost the company more to keep these high-performers but then the trade-off should come in the amount of work done. Therefore, the net profit to a company would be lessened initially but perhaps they might make that profit back in the results of their high-performers.
Rule #3 - Get rid of the deadwood. I don't think much more needs to be said here other than if there is someone not pulling their weight (competency) then they need to be let go. It's the key to keeping the company moving forward and not being held back by poor performers. Poor performers are a hardship on a company's net profits. Poor performance means poor profit potential.
So, have you figured out why companies don't want you to improve yet? The answer is simple. The company is more likely to make a better net profit because no one needs expensive training programs, staff retention is high and there are no staff members who require high-maintenance perks to keep them there. If, however, you become a high-performer, the company must pay you more, must give you perks like extra time off, a corner office, a little more freedom on hours and stay out of your way all in an effort to not have to search for someone to replace you and then to train them to pick up the work you used to do. Managers have to get better at managing and leading because if there are no mentors for high-performers, they'll go elsewhere looking for coaching at the next level. When you improve, it forces your boss to improve. Management training is expensive and not all mangers can move to the next level of management. Some just aren't any better than competent. You can't have a simply competent manager leading a group of high-performers. It would be embarrassing to the manager, not to mention the company.
You, as an employee, if you really want to wreak havoc in your company, all you have to do is improve: your job performance, your attitude towards the job, your attention to detail, your customer service skills as well as your personal demeanor. Improve those things and your company must respond to your increased value or risk losing you. It's an expensive venture to replace a high-performer. It's actually cheaper to try and keep them with bonuses and perks. That's what you get for raising your personal worth. It forces your boss to get better. it forces the company to get better. it forces the people you work with to get better because you have helped raise the bar to what is possible, not just competent.
So, are you up to the challenge?
The truth is, any organization's responsibility for improving its people ends once those same people attain a level of "competence." Think about it. Once an organization has all of its people achieving the level of "competence," it needs to do nothing more to train their people - provided the job doesn't change, the duties don't change and the market doesn't change. If the job is the same, "competent" training will suffice.
But here's what you, as an employee, may have never thought of: that all employees can be summed up into one of three categories: competent, high-performer and under-achiever. Which one are you? Honestly! Tell the real truth to yourself about where you would fit on this scale. How do you think your paycheck would change if you were to move from merely competent to high-performer?
Any company's Human Resources mandate could be summed up in three rules: 1) Don't mess with what's working (competent employees). 2) Do whatever is necessary to keep the superstar (high-performer). 3) Get rid of the deadwood (under-achiever).
Rule #1 - Don't mess with what's working. If everyone on staff were competent, the company would have no need of training and development programs anymore. Everyone would have the tools necessary to complete the assigned tasks and everything would roll along quite smoothly. Think of an assembly line. Each person is required to do a single job that contributes to the final outcome of a product or service. If everyone is competent, the product or service produced is exactly the same every single time. The company would enjoy a higher corporate profit because all of its people are competent.
Rule #2 - Do whatever is necessary to keep the superstar. In order to keep a high-performer in a competent environment, there are going to have to be discrepancies in pay levels, perks, freedom and expectations. If a company has a whole team of nothing but superstars, I think for a boss that the experience would be like herding cats - an exercise in futility. In order to keep high-performers from looking for better remuneration elsewhere, a boss would need to give more (money, position, perks) to keep the people who achieve more. It will cost the company more to keep these high-performers but then the trade-off should come in the amount of work done. Therefore, the net profit to a company would be lessened initially but perhaps they might make that profit back in the results of their high-performers.
Rule #3 - Get rid of the deadwood. I don't think much more needs to be said here other than if there is someone not pulling their weight (competency) then they need to be let go. It's the key to keeping the company moving forward and not being held back by poor performers. Poor performers are a hardship on a company's net profits. Poor performance means poor profit potential.
So, have you figured out why companies don't want you to improve yet? The answer is simple. The company is more likely to make a better net profit because no one needs expensive training programs, staff retention is high and there are no staff members who require high-maintenance perks to keep them there. If, however, you become a high-performer, the company must pay you more, must give you perks like extra time off, a corner office, a little more freedom on hours and stay out of your way all in an effort to not have to search for someone to replace you and then to train them to pick up the work you used to do. Managers have to get better at managing and leading because if there are no mentors for high-performers, they'll go elsewhere looking for coaching at the next level. When you improve, it forces your boss to improve. Management training is expensive and not all mangers can move to the next level of management. Some just aren't any better than competent. You can't have a simply competent manager leading a group of high-performers. It would be embarrassing to the manager, not to mention the company.
You, as an employee, if you really want to wreak havoc in your company, all you have to do is improve: your job performance, your attitude towards the job, your attention to detail, your customer service skills as well as your personal demeanor. Improve those things and your company must respond to your increased value or risk losing you. It's an expensive venture to replace a high-performer. It's actually cheaper to try and keep them with bonuses and perks. That's what you get for raising your personal worth. It forces your boss to get better. it forces the company to get better. it forces the people you work with to get better because you have helped raise the bar to what is possible, not just competent.
So, are you up to the challenge?
Employee Training Ends At Competence
I got into a conversation recently (on a Human Resources Message Board) with a Management Consultant. His questions got me to thinking. He asked for a further clarification of my assertion that an employer's responsibility to improve its employees ends once they become competent at the job. The following is my clarification.
When an employer goes looking for a potential employee, they are looking for someone who can accomplish the job. They are not looking for someone to exceed expectations or they would have advertised that. They just want someone merely competent. And if they find that competent person, if the person doesn't improve over time and if the job doesn't change, they will be happy with their employee for years to come. If the employee can live with doing the same job every day getting the same paycheck every week and not testing his/her abilities, then they have a match. The company only requires someone competent. Nothing more.
However, over time we all know the employee will eventually begin to feel they are being taken advantage of. They haven't been given big raises (but the job hasn't changed either) and they become disgruntled. The company however, doesn't feel they need to pay more. The job hasn't changed, the responsibilities haven't changed and the employee is doing exactly the job that was originally advertised.
The company is only responsible for training the employee to do the job. That's it. If you take the job you agree to the expectations. If you are better than the job then don't take the job. Clearly you will not be happy. If you are under skilled for the job, then I'm not sure the company would hire you but if they did, their responsibility for "training" ends once you are able to do the job competently.
In order to better one's position in life, they have to become more valuable. It's not the company's job to make the individual better. Sure, the company can provide an environment where self-improvement is encouraged but ultimately it's not the company's responsibility to improve the individual beyond the expectations of being able to do the job. That's it.
However, as an employee, one can't use the excuse that they won't improve because the company won't pay for it. (Anyone who would dare say that in my shop would be fired immediately and I would gladly pay the legal bills to get rid of a cancer like that.) Sitting on the sofa watching TV reruns is no replacement for opening a book and becoming better at the job or better as a person.
We have to all accept accountability. We are what we are and where we are in our lives by our own doing. We have said "yes" all the way along. It's how we ended up where we are. Now, if we are being paid what we are perceived to be worth (and we are), wouldn't it make sense to self-improve, get better at the job or the next job up the ladder, raise our worth, raise our profile, raise our stock which, in turn, would raise our paychecks?
If you won't raise your personal worth, why should the company pay more? If the job hasn't changed and the individual hasn't changed then the paycheck shouldn't change.
One can't ever use the excuse "that's all the company pays" for not doing better. Look around. There are others in the company making more than you. The truth really is, "That's all the company pays ... you."
The company will do whatever is necessary to keep a high-performer (including money, status, position, perks, etc.). The company will do little to upset the apple cart of someone who is doing a competent job.
In a nutshell, here's a simplistic overview of how a company can run a clean ship (organization): 1) Don't mess with what's working (competent employees). 2) Do whatever is necessary to keep the superstar (high-performer). 3) Get rid of the deadwood (under-achiever).
It's imperative that the individual honestly figures out where they, as an individual, are on that scale. The company makes their choices based on #1 and #2. That's their choice. The individual now must figure out where they are on the scale and hope that it's not #3.
When an employer goes looking for a potential employee, they are looking for someone who can accomplish the job. They are not looking for someone to exceed expectations or they would have advertised that. They just want someone merely competent. And if they find that competent person, if the person doesn't improve over time and if the job doesn't change, they will be happy with their employee for years to come. If the employee can live with doing the same job every day getting the same paycheck every week and not testing his/her abilities, then they have a match. The company only requires someone competent. Nothing more.
However, over time we all know the employee will eventually begin to feel they are being taken advantage of. They haven't been given big raises (but the job hasn't changed either) and they become disgruntled. The company however, doesn't feel they need to pay more. The job hasn't changed, the responsibilities haven't changed and the employee is doing exactly the job that was originally advertised.
The company is only responsible for training the employee to do the job. That's it. If you take the job you agree to the expectations. If you are better than the job then don't take the job. Clearly you will not be happy. If you are under skilled for the job, then I'm not sure the company would hire you but if they did, their responsibility for "training" ends once you are able to do the job competently.
In order to better one's position in life, they have to become more valuable. It's not the company's job to make the individual better. Sure, the company can provide an environment where self-improvement is encouraged but ultimately it's not the company's responsibility to improve the individual beyond the expectations of being able to do the job. That's it.
However, as an employee, one can't use the excuse that they won't improve because the company won't pay for it. (Anyone who would dare say that in my shop would be fired immediately and I would gladly pay the legal bills to get rid of a cancer like that.) Sitting on the sofa watching TV reruns is no replacement for opening a book and becoming better at the job or better as a person.
We have to all accept accountability. We are what we are and where we are in our lives by our own doing. We have said "yes" all the way along. It's how we ended up where we are. Now, if we are being paid what we are perceived to be worth (and we are), wouldn't it make sense to self-improve, get better at the job or the next job up the ladder, raise our worth, raise our profile, raise our stock which, in turn, would raise our paychecks?
If you won't raise your personal worth, why should the company pay more? If the job hasn't changed and the individual hasn't changed then the paycheck shouldn't change.
One can't ever use the excuse "that's all the company pays" for not doing better. Look around. There are others in the company making more than you. The truth really is, "That's all the company pays ... you."
The company will do whatever is necessary to keep a high-performer (including money, status, position, perks, etc.). The company will do little to upset the apple cart of someone who is doing a competent job.
In a nutshell, here's a simplistic overview of how a company can run a clean ship (organization): 1) Don't mess with what's working (competent employees). 2) Do whatever is necessary to keep the superstar (high-performer). 3) Get rid of the deadwood (under-achiever).
It's imperative that the individual honestly figures out where they, as an individual, are on that scale. The company makes their choices based on #1 and #2. That's their choice. The individual now must figure out where they are on the scale and hope that it's not #3.
Friday, November 02, 2007
Employee Tip #9 – Working For An Under-Performing Boss
I received an email this week which asked for my opinion on high-performers. The email read, “It would be great to hear your ideas/tips for Bosses and Employees regarding working with “high performers”. I was specifically thinking about the high performance employee working with a boss that doesn’t fall into this category. However, getting some tips on the opposite would no doubt be helpful for many as well.”
If you’re a high-performing employee and work for an under-performing boss, I feel for you. It can be an exercise in futility to go to work each day and have the motivation to be your best sucked out of you and five and a half minutes into your workday. Just being around people who are clearly not as talented as you (especially your boss) can, over time, diminish your work ethic while at the same time increase your ego. This is where you need to be careful.
Clearly you are a star player. Your performance would indicate it. Perhaps your paycheck indicates it. Maybe even some of the perks that come with the job my indicate it. But if the person who is your boss can’t offer you anything in the way of coaching, mentoring or self-motivating, then you have a problem.
I suggest that you find a company that is willing to offer you what you need. If you are a star-performer, there is nothing I can say or do that will improve your work experience. You will need to get better and improve and coach yourself on your own. If your boss is an under-performer, then he or she is going to stand between you and your true potential.
However, with that being said, there is still the chance that even though your boss may be an under-performer, they may still be able to help pave the way for you to reach your potential. Perhaps they offer to send you to courses that can improve your performance. Perhaps they may give you a few perks like Friday afternoons off or performance bonuses. Just because the boss may not be able to do the job as well as you doesn’t mean they can’t help you develop yourself.
Years ago, I wanted to become a sales trainer within the company I worked for. I was told I had to sell more. In other words, the company wanted to ensure that the trainer was the best salesman. Now, I don’t subscribe to that point of view for this reason: not every coach of every sports team was the best player in their league. Some people are better players. Some are better coaches. (The greatest hockey player in the world, Wayne Gretzky, is having a tough time coaching a winning hockey team).
I was on OK player but I knew my strength was in coaching. I had to leave the company to prove it. I have had several conversations with the same company (social conversations) since then and they admit now that I was right.
As a high-performer, know this: you are going to become attractive to your competitors and other industries alike. Don’t follow just the money. Make sure you have a good sense of what you want to do with your life, what you want to accomplish and what you aspire to become. Once you have identified those key ingredients to your long-term picture, you will start to attract yourself to people and organizations that can help you get it.
Ensure that you don’t become the pack-mule for the company (the one everyone else dumps their stuff to because they know you’ll get it done). There is nothing more debilitating than feeling you are being punished for being a high-performer. You must have a clear set of principles and articulate them to your boss and your co-workers.
Don’t worry about being fired for being a little more demanding than others. If you are a high-performer, you’ll find another job in no time.
How do you get to be a high-performer and have companies falling all over themselves to hire you? You improve your value. The better you get and the more you work on you, the more you raise your personal value to a company and the more those same companies will come looking for you. You have to be disciplined in your pursuit of excellence within yourself. Make a plan each day to work a little bit more on you. Over time, you will rise above the rest and stand out. That’s when the opportunities come to you.
Are the companies knocking on your door? Could your paycheck be more than what it is? Do you currently have the freedom within the job you would like to have? No? Then that’s would be a pretty good indication that the market doesn’t think you are worth it. You can’t argue with your results. You are obviously not a high-performer. The market knows the truth. You need to change your perception. You can’t demand high-performer perks without being a high-performer. Do the work on you first – the rest will follow.
Boss Tip #14 – Leading/Managing High-Performers.
I received an email this week which asked for my opinion on high-performers. The email read, “It would be great to hear your ideas/tips for Bosses and Employees regarding working with “high performers”. I was specifically thinking about the high performance employee working with a boss that doesn’t fall into this category. However, getting some tips on the opposite would no doubt be helpful for many as well.”
High-performers indeed. The conversation on this one has two sides. So in this installment, I will explore high-performers from an “under performing” boss perspective. See Employee Tips #9 for the employee’s perspective.
In a nutshell, here is my opinion: a boss who under performs his or her own high-performer won’t be able to keep them, hire them or find another high-performer to replace the one who just left.
Now, let me expand my thoughts. There are a few myths out there about high-performers. The first is that high-performers don’t need to be managed and secondly, that high-performers don’t want to be managed. Both are true while at the same time, both are also myths.
Both statements are true when it comes to under performing bosses. High-performing employees don’t want to be lead by a boss who couldn’t do the same job on a good day. That would be just a joke.
High-performers want to follow someone they can look up to and aspire to be. If your employee can do the job better than you, step aside and let them run the place. No really, I’m serious about that one. If, as the leader/manager, you are impeding the development of your best people by trying to lead people who are clearly better than you at the job, then you’re just going to irritate them and they’ll go looking for a new and more challenging place to work. If, as a boss, you won’t develop yourself, what kind of message are you sending to those who are under you clearly outperforming your abilities?
Word gets around that if you’re a high-performer or even aspire to be one, then don’t join that company. The boss is clearly under qualified and working for him/her will be a frustrating experience and will impact your income potential. High-performers are attracted to the companies with outstanding leadership, recognition and remuneration. High-performing companies attract high-performers. High-performers need to be managed and mentored but they need it to come from someone who has achieved what they want to achieve.
High-performers, because they are just that, high-performers, want to continue to grow, to expand and to test their own limits. If, as a boss, you have no program in place that can help your best people get better, then they will go looking for a place to make that happen. They don’t want to be left alone. High-performers want to have a little elbow room and some freedoms but also want to learn how to turn up their own performance even more. If you can’t offer that then be honest and tell the high-performing candidate that they would be better off trying to find work for one of your high-performing competitors. Hey, don’t kid yourself. You won’t keep them for long. They’ll soon find out the truth and you’re out one high-performer who knows your company’s secrets and weaknesses. They’re going to make you pay one way or the other.
So, if you’re an under performing boss, don’t embarrass yourself by hiring someone who is clearly better than you unless you are an outstanding example of how to self-motivate, self-start and have some outstanding leadership skills you could pass on. It will soon become apparent to the rest of the staff who carries the weight of accomplishments and who gets the glory for the work getting done.
If you’re an under performing boss and want to develop a team of high-performers, well then you have a little work to do don’t you? That work is on you. When you as a boss get better, you will be able to attract a better caliber of employee who wants to perform, wants to reach the top of their earning potential and wants to test their outer limits. In other words, when you get better, your team gets better. Your results get better and your company gets better. So, better get to work.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)