I created a Talent Scorecard to help leaders think through what they have been doing around connecting with their people to make sure they are focused, understanding their challenges, getting their needs met, and receiving feedback on their progress. In the human resources world we call this talent management. To most of the rest of the world this is called leadership, management, or friendship.
The first set of numbers shocked me. Here they are and remember that I asked HR leaders to fill these out as if their CEO was doing this survey. The only two measures are 100% and <100%, because those are they only two measures that matter. 100% means you are doing the right things. <100% means that there is a person out there with a name, friends, bills to pay, skills/talents, and goals . . . that is not getting their needs met. These are basic needs. Here are the numbers.
Key Habits for Managing Talent
I delivered all of the evaluations on time.
I have one-on-one discussions with each member of my staff at least once a month.
I have reviewed all the evaluations of my team’s staff.
Each person on my team has a development plan.
Too many people are getting late evaluations and do not have any sort of development plans.
Remember the Gallup Q12? The first two questions are: I know what is expected of me at work and I have the tools I need to do my job. On-time performance conversations and frequent one on ones to hear progress, identify needs, and solve problems make these questions a reality. The development plan is critical in getting people thinking about the future and helping them grow.
Based on these numbers, it is not happening enough.
For a quick look at a performance conversation tool/development plan that works see trUTips #13.
I am a father of four. With a sixteen year-old driver as part of that mix I sometimes think I have seen it all, but I am still hit by things that make me go Hmmmmm. Here is one of those moments . . . . .
At swimming lessons for my 8 year old I looked down and saw 30+ kids, 5 instructors, and in the middle a lone lifeguard watching everything. I saw the need for the lifeguard, but did not recall them being present for past lessons. Later I asked my wife about it because one of her summer jobs was being a lifeguard, and sometimes she has proven more observant than me. 🙂 Her response – There is always a lifeguard because when you are teaching it is difficult to watch all the kids all the time. There is real risk in not watching young children near water, when being 99% safe is not enough because the 1% has a name, parents, friends, and a beating heart.
My mission is to be a guide for others so they realize the excellence they were born to achieve, and in living that mission I often engage with and worry about the safety of new leaders and teams. My world is growth organizations and leaders/teams in transition, and I see the real risk in not having a lifeguard around to monitor safety/progress in their pools. Here are three ways organizations create lifeguards for leaders/teams:
Mentors: Assign mentors(not their boss) to meet frequently (1-2x a month) with new leaders to see how they are doing, watch the team during the transition for evidence of issues, and just provide support.
Six month transition plans: New leaders need to connect with their teams, build the trust of their teams, and get assignments where they can generate wins for themselves/their team. Formal written plans helps make this happen.
Leadership peer groups: Some call it Leadership Orientation or New Leader Training. Fortune 500 companies can afford a program, but the main benefit of these programs is to create a peer support network. Peer support can happen with no impact on the income statment, so any organization can afford it.
One myth . . . Our human resources leader is our lifeguard:You mean the HR leader who has to respond to daily people emergencies, do it now calls from the CEO, worry about legal compliance, and answer frequent questions about benefits/payroll/etc? Reality check . . . Do you want your lifeguard watching the pool 70% of the time?
Lots has been written about leadership transitions. Michael Watkins is an expert in leadership transitions and his research has determined 40% of leadership hires from outside of a company fail within 18 months. Brad Smart is an expert in hiring and his research suggests that it takes organizations 18 months to let go of a bad leadership hire at the cost of 14.6x their base salary.
A 40% failure rate is a lot of drownings. I think organizations need to do a better job having lifeguards around.
It makes great headlines to talk about hiring “A” players. Guy Kawasaki makes the statement that “People need to hire people smarter than they are”, but the reality is “A players hire A players; B players hire C players.” In his book Topgrading, Brad Smart outlines an approach that is designed to ensure 90% of your hires will be A players in the role they are hired into. Few would argue that having great people doing the right things is critical for a business to be successful. To start this discussion, here are three realities for hiring A players.
1. Organizations have a tendency to transform A’s into B’s and C’s: What keeps A’s acting like A’s? The Gallup organization did extensive research that resulted in identifying 12 questions(Q12) to measure engagement, among other things. The first three questions say a lot about what keeps A’s acting like A’s: 1) I know what is expected of me at work 2) I have the tools and resources I need to do my job 3) I have an opportunity to do what I do best everyday. At the core of keeping A’s acting like A’s is communication. This includes keeping them informed about changes in the business and listening to their questions/needs/opinions.
2. Hiring people ‘smarter than they are’ is hard. It takes a tremendous amount of self-confidence and cultural support: This starts with the CEO, and their willingness to allow their executive team to lead, which might result in them not have all the answers all of the time. A key challenge to hiring smarter people is delegating the work (because they are better able to do it) and giving them space to make decisions. This will put leaders in a position to not know all the decisions being made all the time. So, the CEO needs to provide some space to bring information back and leaders need to be comfortable saying and allowing the comment “I don’t know, but let me look into that.”
3. Hiring – Do people really have the time to be that rigorous? Hiring the best people for a job takes a clear understanding of the role (job description), a vision of how this role will impact the direction of the company (operational/strategic objectives), and time to really get to know the candidates. In Topgrading, Brad Smart outlines a rigorous process that could easily take 6+ hours per candidate. Teaching managers the reason for these three pieces and the importance of spending time to find great people is critical.
If you are a CEO trying to attract and keep the best talent, it is worth a 2-3 hour discussion with your team to explore this topic and find ways to fine tune your hiring and onboarding of people so they are successful. Some questions to consider in that process:
How do you define A players, B players, and C players?
What do you see as impediments in your own organization to hiring A players?
What are practical ways you have seen to make sure A’s do not get turned into B or C players? What are you doing? What should you be doing?
Here are some extra thoughts on how to use your existing time and performance evaluation process to get your B players more engaged. B players are not necessarily coasting or hiding, many are waiting. Waiting for someone to ask them to help. Waiting for someone to give them some feedback, to say it is okay to not want a promotion, and to recognize they have lots of value to the organization.
Do NOT hide behind the performance evaluation form or process as being a barrier to having a great conversation with your people. It is NOT the form.