Put Your Oxygen Mask On First January 25, 2012
Posted by Tim Rodgers in Management & leadership.Tags: communication, job satisfaction, job security, manager
add a comment
This last week I was reminded of the safety briefing before every commercial airline flight, the one that includes “In the event of a loss of cabin pressure, oxygen masks will descend …” etc. There’s a part about putting on your own oxygen mask before helping others put on theirs. I’ve heard there’s a similar saying in hospital emergency rooms: when in the midst of a crisis, doctors should start by taking their own pulse.
When the company or division or organization appears to be in trouble, everyone looks to their leaders and managers to help them maintain perspective. A lot of people are still jumpy and feeling insecure after surviving the recession and the jobless recovery that’s followed, and they see any bad news as a possible sign of disaster and a reason to look for a new job elsewhere, or at least become paralyzed with worry. Leaders should be a calming influence in these situations, helping others sort out the facts from rumors and reinforcing the key messages to keep the team on-track. This is another example of the importance of knowing when it’s time to be a signal amplifier, and when it’s time to be a signal attenuator.
It also means being secure enough about your situation to be able to provide credible support to others. This isn’t a self-help blog, and I don’t have any universal suggestions here, but my point is that you can’t provide the leadership that the organization needs if you’re personally unsettled, and it can be particularly damaging if you’re visibly worried or paranoid or angry. Some people might recommend “fake it until you make it,” and I can see how that advice might seem helpful, but I’ve found that co-workers who are already on-edge can quickly detect hypocrisy. It’s important to take some time to process the news, sort through your private feelings, and figure out your own plan before you can help others.
When Is Job Hopping a Bad Thing? January 21, 2012
Posted by Tim Rodgers in job search, Management & leadership.Tags: career growth, hiring, job search, job security, management, retention
add a comment
I’ve got a couple of job openings in my team right now and I’ve been reading a lot of resumes. Most resumes these days are carefully-crafted. They’re edited and re-written, reviewed by friends and colleagues, and possibly even professionally assembled and formatted. The job titles and key words and phrases all start to look the same, turning resume reading into a forensic exercise, deciphering clues to figure out who this person is. Once we’re satisfied that a candidate has met the minimum requirements for the job we start looking for reasons to include or exclude them from further consideration. Overall it’s a highly-subjective process, but it’s easy to figure out how many companies this person has worked at, how much time they’ve spent in each job, and whether there are any unexplained gaps in the employment history.
Each transition or discontinuity reveals something about the candidate, but what? There’s a name for people who change jobs frequently: a job-hopper. Most hiring managers or interviewers seem to think that job-hopping is a bad thing, maybe a confused wanderer who lacks commitment or dedication or loyalty, or a poor performer or agitator who can’t hold a job because they’re fired or eased out after a brief probationary period. Of course in the current climate of privacy and confidentiality it’s impossible for a hiring manager to find out what happened from previous companies or managers (unless you have a trusted insider in your personal network who’s willing to blab), so all you can do is ask the candidate and believe or not believe their story.
Hiring managers seem to favor applicants who have worked long stretches at a few companies, or at least they’re less suspicious of those applicants. Why is that? I think it’s because we don’t want to hire someone who is likely to stay on the job for only a short time. It’s a fear of future turnover, with the corresponding transition costs and headaches.
On the other hand, how long do we really expect anyone to stay in their current job? When the job market is tight people tend to seek job security and stay longer, but as the economy improves mobility will surely increase, particularly for those who have attractive skills and are looking for new opportunities and career growth. Shouldn’t we give more consideration to what a person has accomplished during their time in each job, not just how much time they spent? Is the business better served by a strong performer who may leave in two years, or a less-strong performer who is more stable? I guess the answer depends on the business.
The Unpopular Promotion January 18, 2012
Posted by Tim Rodgers in International management, Management & leadership, Organizational dynamics.Tags: career growth, change management, China, hiring, leadership, manager, retention, training
add a comment
I think just about everyone likes the idea of “promoting from within,” filling an open management or leadership position by promoting a person who is already part of the team. It sends an important message to all employees: this is an organization that values its internal resources, and there is a possibility of upward mobility for those who have demonstrated the talents and capabilities to do so. Another plus: a person promoted internally should already have a good understanding of the issues facing the team and the larger business context, so they don’t need a lengthy transtional period in order to become effective in the new role.
Unfortunately this rarely seems to go well. Unless the decision is universally recognized as the obvious choice, other members of the team may become quietly jealous, passive-aggressive, or openly hostile toward the recently-promoted person, creating a lot of turmoil in the workplace.
In my last job in China I managed two examples of unpopular promotions. In the first case, a manager reporting to me wanted to promote a hard-working and detail-oriented junior engineer to a newly-created lead position with responsibility for managing schedules, resource planning, and customer communication. The junior engineer definitely had the skills to do the assigned job, and I gave my full support to the manager’s recommendation. The trouble started almost immediately when the other leads in the team resisted the junior engineer’s efforts to introduce new processes, and never gave that person the support they needed to be effective. Over the next several months the manager worked with the junior engineer and the other leads to try to make it work, but ultimately he had to surrender and reverse his promotion decision, which was obviously a disappointing outcome for the junior engineer, but necessary to get the team back on-track.
The manager and I struggled to understand why this didn’t succeed. Unfortunately neither of us spoke Mandarin, so we probably never got to the real reasons why the other leads didn’t support the internal promotion. We suspected that the junior engineer was a victim of sexism and cronyism. She possessed the capabilities to do the job, but she didn’t have enough self-confidence and social skills to break through the resistance from the other leads. Everybody involved took hard-line positions, and the situation deteriorated from there. The manager felt he had made a justifiable, merit-based decision, the junior engineer was working according to a mandate from the manager, and the other leads figured they could make enough trouble to eventually undermine the whole thing and get back to the way things were.
The other example was similar, but turned out a little better. I promoted a lead engineer to a recently-vacated management position, and before finalizing the decision I discussed it with my peers in other departments to get their assessment and buy-in. I was already convinced that this person had the right skills and temperment, but I wanted to estimate their chance for success. This new manager would be taking over an under-performing team, and I needed their help to drive some necessary-but-potentially-unpopular changes. I wasn’t entirely surprised when I heard there was some resistance to the new manager and his assertive style, and eventually I was invited to join an urgent meeting with several members of the team who presented a signed document (in English) threatening to resign. I have to admit I was stubborn about the decision to promote the lead engineer, and I decided I could risk the possibility of losing some people as part of a needed organizational transformation. At the same time, I worked with the new manager and coached him to reach out to the resisters to understand their concerns, instead of using his new authority to silence them. He was able to convince some of them to stay in the group, and we didn’t miss the ones who left.
What I learned is that when considering an internal candidate for promotion you have to assess their social skills and emotional intelligence to determine how well-equipped they are to overcome resistance from their former peers. Oddly, an external candidate typically doesn’t face this; maybe familiarity really does breed contempt. You also have to understand and anticipate the kind of resistance they are likely to encounter, for example if you’re asking them to take a lead role in change management. And, you have to line up allies and supporters from among the rest of the organization; people who support your decision and, more importantly, support the new person (or at least not actively undermine them).
I can imagine few things more discouraging to a person’s career than to be promoted to a position of leadership and to fail completely because of a mutiny from the team. I’ve learned that it’s not enough for the manager to make the “right” hiring decision and announce it to the team; the manager must also provide ongoing coaching and support to ensure the decision is successfully implemented.
Business Development, Not Sales January 16, 2012
Posted by Tim Rodgers in Supply chain.Tags: business development, career growth, job search, outsourcing
add a comment
Recently I had an interesting conversation with a former colleague who suggested that I consider another career change, this time to a job in business development representing a supplier or engineering service provider. After a few minutes I realized that it’s not an entirely ridiculous idea; I’ve got a lot of experience with outsourcing, both as a supplier and a customer, and I guess I have the kind of social, outgoing personality that people associate with that kind of position. However, my initial reaction was reflexive and negative, and I’ll bet there are a lot of engineers and other technical folks who would respond the same way.
I suppose this reaction derives from the stereotypical salesperson who tries to force-fit something from the current catalog of available products and services, using hard-sell techniques to close the deal. Unfortunately many of these people have a limited technical background, and probably just enough jargon to get their foot in the door. They lack credibility with skeptical engineers, and (more importantly) they lack the understanding to solve real-world problems by modifying or re-designing the offerings in their catalog to better meet their customer’s needs. It’s not a welcome phone call from one of these people, unless by some amazing coincidence you happen to need exactly what they’re offering at that point in time. I’m sure many of my friends and colleagues would look at me differently (and not in a good way) if I started down that career path.
Business development seems to be a relatively new way of thinking about sales, focused more on finding new customers than servicing existing ones. It sounds like something that includes hustling for leads and cold-calling, looking for an opening.
That’s the stereotype, but maybe there’s another way to look at business development. Instead of trying to get people to buy something they don’t really need or want, perhaps there’s a role for someone to match suppliers with customers (A broker?), with an emphasis on finding a good fit for a longer-term strategic relationship rather than a one-time transaction. That could be an interesting job, requiring technical expertise to properly assess the opportunity, a portfolio of potential solution providers, and a stake in ensuring a successful match.
Does anything like that already exist? It might be fun and actually serve a useful purpose.
Consistency and Predictability January 9, 2012
Posted by Tim Rodgers in Management & leadership, strategy.Tags: change management, China, communication, management, performance measures, strategy
add a comment
During my time in China managing a team that had a limited understanding of English I was reminded every day of the value of keeping it simple. This was harder than I thought, partly because I’m used to “thinking out loud” and bouncing ideas off others, inviting opposing views, weighing pros and cons, and brainstorming possible solutions before coming to a decision. I’ve always believed that being comfortable with uncertainty is a valuable state-of-mind in the workplace, but the language barrier that I faced in China (and the typical urgency that came with working in a high-volume factory) made it necessary for me to ask simple questions and give simple directions. I tried to reduce ambiguity and possible confusion by being as consistent as possible, with the hope that this predictability would help guide the actions and decisions of the team when I was unavailable.
It’s hard to work with a manager who is inconsistent and unpredictable. Every team relies on their manager to provide a framework that allows them to work independently with a high confidence that they’re doing the right things and making the right choices, aligned with the objectives of the business. Individual performance objectives are a good foundation, but the team also needs implicit guidelines from their management in order to exercise the judgment necessary to deal with unplanned events. An unpredictable manager can deprive the organization of that independent judgment with confusing and even conflicting direction.
Being consistent doesn’t mean that a manager has to behave exactly the same way under any and all circumstances. A manager isn’t a machine that generates the same output every time from the same input, but ultimately the team deserves to know what actions and behaviors are necessary for business success, and their manager has a critical role in providing that context. It starts with an aligned set of department performance measures and individual objectives, but those are empty words unless the manager uses every meeting and informal conversation as an opportunity to reinforce objectives, recognize achievement consistent with those objectives, and challenge actions that are inconsistent with those objectives. It also means quickly communicating strategic changes to help the team re-align around new objectives. Without this framework and active reinforcement people are less productive, and more likely to become disoriented and discouraged.
Developing Tactics January 6, 2012
Posted by Tim Rodgers in Management & leadership, strategy.Tags: change management, leadership, power, strategy
add a comment
When senior management announces a strategic change in direction or priorities, they rely on lower-level managers and leaders to adapt and develop the tactical plans necessary to implement that change. Given enough time, these changes may eventually be translated into new objectives and performance measures for teams and individuals, but perceptive leaders in the organization shouldn’t wait. Instead of going into a holding pattern until an updated flight plan becomes available, leaders should be able to quickly internalize the new information and set a new course. Businesses need leadership at all levels, and the value that leaders provide comes in part from how they interpret and execute, not waiting for someone else to provide step-by-step instructions.
Managers Who Aren’t Leaders, And Vice Versa December 30, 2011
Posted by Tim Rodgers in Management & leadership, Organizational dynamics.Tags: career growth, change management, leadership, management, networking, organizational models, power, project management
1 comment so far
This recent post by Linda Hill and Kent Lineback from the HBR Blog Network got me thinking: “I’m a leader, not a manager”. One highlighted quote from that post: “Both leadership and management are crucial, and it doesn’t help those responsible for the work of others to romanticize one and devalue the other.” The authors suggest that the emphasis on leadership starting in the late 1980s and early 1990s came about in part because “traditional management as practiced by U.S. businesses didn’t promote change and innovation.” This has led to a devaluing of the skills traditionally practiced by managers — including “steady execution and control” — and a romanticizing of leadership.
It does seem that the practice of leadership has come to represent a noble endeavor in the business world. I think it’s pretty widely-understood that you don’t have to be a manager to be a leader. One could even argue that a leader who isn’t burdened by the administrative responsibilities of personnel and expense management might be more effective in building cross-functional networks, organizing others to execute plans, and driving change. I would go further and say that a person should be considered qualified for a management position only after they have demonstrated their ability to do all these things in a non-management position.
Note that aspiring managers can learn resource management skills in a program/project management role that does not include accountability for the performance of subordinates, what I sometimes call “management with a small m.”
Management (with a capital M) is clearly an important practice in any organization, and it’s hard to imagine how a business can succeed with leaders and no managers. That being said, I recall an interesting HBR case study from my MBA years involving W.L. Gore & Associates and their flat organization structure with no formal chain of command and “associates” who follow leaders rather than “bosses,” but this is an uncommon model that has not been widely adopted (Why? Is it too risky or “unnatural?”).
Managers are vested with authority for work assignments, performance reviews and administration of HR policies, however managers who are not perceived as leaders risk becoming marginalized as bureaucrats who strictly follow established processes and are not open to new ideas. Managers who feel threatened by leaders from outside the chain of command may use their positional power to maintain the status quo and resist needed change. Businesses need effective leadership and effective management (small m or capital M), and a culture that balances and values both practices when they’re exercised throughout the organization.
Opposition and Options For Better Decisions December 21, 2011
Posted by Tim Rodgers in Management & leadership.Tags: leadership, management, power
add a comment
Last month I wrote about the quality risks that an organization faces when a senior manager won’t take “It can’t be done” for an answer. See Accidentally Sacrificing Quality. When faced with opposition to their ideas and proposals, it’s natural for leaders to look for barriers that can be identified and overcome. When the arguments against the new plan aren’t supported by data or logic, it’s unlikely that leaders will take them seriously and will instead insist on full speed ahead.
Decision makers may rely on their own intuition and judgment, but they need information to guide their choices. If you really want to get a better result, then don’t tell me what we can’t do, and don’t just go along with the first idea that pops into my head. Give me options and help me assess the costs and risks of each. This means coming up with alternate ways of getting the desired outcome, which also means that you have to understand what the desired outcome is (and if that’s not clear, ask). Also, don’t assume that we face hard constraints. There are laws of physics that can’t be violated, but some of the best ideas come from imagining what we could do if we weren’t limited by time or money or other resources. Good leaders invite opposition and alternatives, and those who work with them should find a way to provide both.
The Limits of Power December 17, 2011
Posted by Tim Rodgers in Organizational dynamics.Tags: hiring, leadership, manager, power
add a comment
About seven years ago I needed to hire a couple of first-level managers for a growing team. There were quite a few people already in the group who believed they were qualified for the job, and I decided to open the process to all internal candidates. Everyone who applied got a 30-minute screening interview. I asked questions that were intended to help me assess each person’s maturity and readiness for a management job, and I hope each person learned something from the conversation that helped them reflect on their own motivation for management. I wrote about this process in one of my earliest blog posts: Born To Be a Manager.
When I asked why they wanted to be a manager, several people replied that they were looking forward to finally being able to get others to do what they wanted them to do. These applicants seemed to want the job in order to become more powerful, and then use that power to advance their personal agenda. Some of them were visionary, others were petty, but they all failed to recognize the limits to the positional power that accompanies the job description of any manager. The title may provide a soapbox and a microphone, but managers must work within a constrained ecosystem made up of other people with their own agendas. Even the CEO has to deal with investors, customers, and suppliers.
A manager’s ability to “get others to do what they want them to do” has less to do with positional power and more to do with the power of personality, ideas, communication, and achievement. It’s not about how many people report to you; it’s about how many people listen to you. When you look at it that way, the power has little to do with being a manager at all. Leaders have power that’s limited only by their range of influence.
Job Satisfaction and Job Security December 15, 2011
Posted by Tim Rodgers in job search.Tags: career growth, early stage companies, hiring, job satisfaction, job search, job security
add a comment
The recent recession and lingering jobless recovery has created a situation where many people feel grateful to have any job at all, even if that job doesn’t give them opportunities to exercise their talents or develop new skills. Some of my former colleagues seem paralyzed in their current positions, lacking the confidence to pursue new opportunities that would enable them to perform at a higher level because they’ve traded job satisfaction and career growth for perceived job security, often illusory.
This is unfortunate for both individuals and companies, and perhaps even for the economy at large. Look, people certainly can find satisfaction and a sense of achievement elsewhere in their lives: from their families, hobbies, volunteer work, and other activities. Everyone has the right to make their own decisions about the direction of their career, but I think it’s a tragic waste when people settle for working at a level below their capabilities, afraid to take a chance on changing jobs or changing companies.
When personal mobility is limited by job security concerns or other barriers, businesses are deprived of fresh talent who often bring new insights from their diverse backgrounds. This can be particularly damaging to start-ups and early-stage companies that need experienced people to develop new products and services and move into new markets. At the risk of sounding melodramatic, the larger economy is under-performing because of the cumulative effect of people working in the wrong jobs at the wrong companies.
In any event, the job security that people may be counting on is much less certain these days. It doesn’t matter how many years you’ve worked at a company or what kind of contribution you’ve made in the past. The real job security derives from your abilities and talents, your self-confidence, your ability to recognize opportunities, and your willingness to seize those opportunities.
