Can You Get Things Done Without Making People Hate You?

Psychological research on leadership locates the assertiveness sweet spot.

Some people believe that being an effective leader is about being tough and taking the hit to your likeability—like a drill sergeant. These sorts of leaders say things like: "It's not my job to be liked, it's my job to get things done."

Others—but probably many fewer—think that being more touchy-feely will boost the positive will towards you and help get things done.

Is there any evidence for either extreme or can you have your cake and eat it?

That's what Ames & Flynn (2007) tested with 3 groups of MBA students who filled in questionnaires about each other and managers for whom they'd worked. They looked at both social and instrumental outcomes of assertiveness: in other words, how much did people like them and how much did they get things done.

Here's what they found:

• Productivity: higher and higher levels of assertiveness produced diminishing returns. So in terms of results it's not much better to be highly assertive than moderately assertive, but it was definitely better to be moderately assertive than not assertive.
• Social outcomes: higher and higher levels of assertiveness lead to increasingly poor social outcomes. It was definitely better to be moderately assertive than highly assertive.

When you put both of the outcomes together you get an inverted U-shape (below; from Ames & Flynn, 2007). So that people who are low in assertiveness get less things done but people very high in assertiveness are socially insufferable.

In the middle, however, there's a sweet spot. Whether it's how leaders dealt with conflict, tried to influence others or motivated their teams, the assertiveness middle ground was clearly the place to be.

And it emerged that assertiveness is vital in how we evaluate co-workers and managers. It may be too little or it may be too much, but workers' assertiveness was complained about more than other important leadership qualities like intelligence, charisma and conscientiousness.

But when people are moderately assertive, we don't tend to notice. In the sweet spot assertiveness seems to disappear off our personality judgement radar: if you're doing it right, no one will notice.

So the tacit belief that you get the best results in business by riding people hard is probably wrong, as is the softly-softly approach. In particular being highly assertive may work in the short-term but in the long-term the productivity gains are small compared with the social damage that's done.

Thanks to PsyBlog / Spring Org UK
http://www.spring.org.uk/2011/10/can-you-get-things-done-without-making-people-hate-you.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PsychologyBlog+%28PsyBlog%29

Transformational Leadership

What Is Transformational Leadership?

 

Have you ever been in a group situation where someone took control of the situation by conveying a clear vision of the group's goals, a marked passion for the work and an ability to make the rest of the group feel recharged and energized? This person just might be what is called a transformational leader.

Transformational leadership is a type of leadership style that leads to positive changes in those who follow. Transformational leaders are generally energetic, enthusiastic and passionate. Not only are these leaders concerned and involved in the process; they are also focused on helping every member of the group succeed as well.

The History of Transformational Leadership

The concept of transformational leadership was initially introduced by leadership expert and presidential biographer James MacGregor Burns.¹ According to Burns, transformational leadership can be seen when " leaders and followers make each other to advance to a higher level of moral and motivation." Through the strength of their vision and personality, transformational leaders are able to inspire followers to change expectations, perceptions and motivations to work towards common goals.

Later, researcher Bernard M. Bass expanded upon Burns original ideas to develop what is today referred to as Bass' Transformational Leadership Theory.² According to Bass, transformational leadership can be defined based on the impact that it has on followers. Transformational leaders, Bass suggested, garner trust, respect and admiration from their followers.

The Components of Transformational Leadership

Bass also suggested that there were four different components of transformational leadership.

1. Intellectual Stimulation – Transformational leaders not only challenge the status quo; they also encourage creativity among followers. The leader encourages followers to explore new ways of doing things and new opportunities to learn.
   
2. Individualized Consideration – Transformational leadership also involves offering support and encouragement to individual followers. In order to foster supportive relationships, transformational leaders keep lines of communication open so that followers feel free to share ideas and so that leaders can offer direct recognition of each followers unique contributions.
   
3. Inspirational Motivation – Transformational leaders have a clear vision that they are able to articulate to followers. These leaders are also able to help followers experience the same passion and motivation to fulfill these goals.
   
4. Idealized Influence – The transformational leaders serves as a role model for followers. Because followers trust and respect the leader, they emulate the leader and internalize his or her ideals.

References

1 - Burns, J.M. (1978). Leadership. N.Y: Harper and Raw.

2 - Bass,B. M,(1985). Leadership and Performance. N. Y,: Free Press.

3 - Riggio, R.E. (2009, March 24). Are you a transformational leader. Psychology Today. Found online at http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/200903/are-you-transformational-leader

Thanks to Kendra Cherry / Psychology About Guide / The New York Times Company
http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/a/transformational.htm?nl=1

 

Nine Ways Employers Screw Up Hiring

Honesty tests, "Must know Excel," "Where do you see yourself in five years?" and all the other nonsense that bedevils the hiring process.

 

When it comes to the people side of a business, what's more important than hiring? If you don't have the right men and women on board, a great strategy won't get executed. But the hiring process in most organizations is anything but a well-oiled machine. In some companies, hiring people is such an afterthought that the only discussion of the hiring topic is an announcement at a staff meeting from time to time, such as, "I've got someone new starting on Monday—Sally Mason."

In other organizations, the system is so overwrought and hidebound that only the most patient, pliable, and long-suffering souls on the planet can survive the process. These employers delude themselves into thinking that the people who make it through their endless gates and sieves are the cream of the crop. More likely, they're the candidates with the fewest competing opportunities for their time and talents.

It has become obvious over the past few years that almost every employer (in the U.S., at least) makes a mess of its hiring processes, to the detriment of its bottom line and reputation.

The list of complaints from hiring managers and job seekers is long: The hiring process takes forever. Hiring managers wait for talent while job seekers wait for any word at all. The process is too cumbersome and mechanical.

We'll never hire great people to move our businesses forward by searching for keywords on a résumé. That way, interviewers aren't prepared for interviews. They haven't really even read the résumés. Their questions are off topic.

Here's our list of the top 10 ways employers drop the ball in bringing talent onto their teams. Any of these sound familiar from your own place of work?:

1. They don't know what they want
Jobs become open when the workload is too great for the team or when someone leaves the department. We're so quick to scribble out a job ad and post it that we often don't take the time to look at the team and the engine and say, "What's the most intelligent way to use a new person on our team?" We start the interview process before all the players agree on what the ideal candidate should do, much less what he or she should bring by way of background. The earliest stage of the hiring process, called job creation (creating a job opening and job description), is one of the biggest problems for employers. How to fix it? A good job-creation process asks a would-be hiring manager to begin by describing what isn't working now, in the absence of the hoped-for new employee. What does that person's absence do to the department, and what is that open seat costing us? That analysis will help us zero in on the cost of the vacancy (and determine the salary range for the job opportunity) while developing the list of qualifications, too.

2. They write bad job ads
Have you read a job ad lately? Most of them are atrocious. They give one boilerplate sentence on the company and the role, and then dive into an endless list of required ("must-have") and preferred job qualifications. That's no way to entice talent. We need to use our job ads to say more about why a smart person would want to work for our companies. Describe a day on the job and let readers of our job ads know how working with us will enhance their careers. In other words, we need to be marketers.

3. They ignore their networks
If you needed a plumber or a nanny, you'd tell your friends, right? Employers forget that they have friends and networks, and they post their job ads on mega-career-sites before tapping into the talent pools all around them. They either don't alert current employees to new job openings at all, or they do it in a desultory way (like sending out the same link week after week to the employees, showing them where they can learn about new job openings—but only by searching through tedious layers of the job-application site to find their own city). Past employees and people who interviewed for jobs unsuccessfully aren't even on the radar screen. We should be using these channels actively, before we ever post a cattle-call job ad on Monster.com, et al. Our employees, past employees, vendors, and clients make the world's greatest referral sources, and most employers horrendously underuse these powerful marketing channels.

4. They let excellent candidates slip through the cracks
It is easy for a hiring manager or human resource person to receive a stack of résumés (physically or virtually) and conclude that the worst of the hiring process is already behind them. They forget that a big pile of résumés doesn't guarantee a successful hiring process. Many of the best-looking résumés may be attached to people who sound good on paper, but don't live up to it when you meet them in person. Some promising candidates have already accepted other jobs by the time you call. The longer it takes for contenders to get to a live person after responding to an ad, the more talent you're going to let slip through your fingers. The more paperwork, the more steps, and the more insults we fling at candidates ("Thank you for completing that English test. Next, you'll receive an honesty test, which must be completed in 20 minutes …") the more awesome, capable people we'll drive into our competitors' arms.

5. They put up stupid gates
Stupid gates are hiring-process steps that exclude candidates for bad reasons. Here's an example. An HR person said to me, "I only want people who really want to work for our company. So as soon as I begin a phone interview, I ask candidates why they want to work for us in particular, and if they don't have a really good reason, they're out." "Why is that important?" I asked. "They need to know exactly why they want to work here, vs. another company," said the HR manager. "But why? If they simply like the landscaping on your front lawn and think you guys might be worth meeting, are they necessarily bad employees?" I countered. "That's just my rule," said the HR manager. This manager isn't hiring for brains or pluck or creativity or tenacity or vision. She's weeding out people for a reason that may have no correlation with job performance.

6. They neglect to design smart gates
Not all gates in the hiring process are bad. Some of them are brilliant. As HR staffers and hiring managers, we could save ourselves and the candidates much time by using simple, well-designed, logical gates to move job seekers from one stage in the hiring process to the next. Here's an example.

I wrote a job ad for an editor I was trying to hire. It said, "Read our latest newsletter at this link. I don't need your résumé or a cover letter, but I'd love to see a short explanation of how our newsletter could be stronger, in your view." That was the gate. I got 60 responses to my ad, and 50 of them didn't mention my newsletter at all. That was perfect—I had only to send a canned no-thank-you note to those 50 candidates. That allowed me to focus my time on the 10 people who read the ad and followed the instructions in it. Some of them had generic feedback on my newsletter. Those people got no-thank-you notes, also. Other editors had fantastic advice, and they got interviews.

7. They elevate "skills" over judgment and brains
In my pencil drawer, I keep a yellowed slip of paper from the Chicago Tribune. It's a job ad from a Sunday edition of the Trib back in the early 1990s. I hold onto that scrap because it reminds me of the inanity of the hiring process so many employers use. The ad says, "Administrative Assistant Needed. Word Perfect 5.0." That's all they wanted, a certain version of a software program that a reasonable person could learn in two hours. Not brains, not a lovely phone voice, not a sense of humor. Not a personality or empathy or the ability to think fast in a crisis. We're doing our hiring upside down and backward—emphasizing "skills" over the fundamental, human attributes that will make our teams and organizations successful.

8. They interview ineffectively
Every course on interviewing says to the manager, "Don't do all the talking." Yet managers get nervous, they get distracted, and pretty soon they're motor-mouthing their way to the end of the interview without learning squat about the person sitting in front of them. They ask horrendous questions, such as "Where do you see yourself in five years?" (who cares?) and "Of all the talented people in this process, why should we hire you?" They don't prepare; they've never seen the candidate's résumé and have no questions ready to ask about it. They ramble. They forget and can't distinguish one candidate from the other. On the other extreme, they line up five people to fire questions at an applicant and then wonder why they gained so little insight.

9. They don't understand candidates' needs
To compete in the 21st century, we can't hire drones. Talented people need to be sold, just like customers. Giving job seekers higher and higher hurdles to clear won't upgrade the quality of hires in our shops. Marketing and selling our opportunities to the talented people in our networks very well could. When we bring a job seeker through our selection process, we can't just be looking at whether this person is good enough for us. We have to know the candidate's needs and motivations, too.

For example: We have two candidates for our sales manager job. Since we've spent every second of our interview time asking them about their experience in skills areas A, B, and C, we know almost nothing about these two folks' interests, motivations, or goals. We don't know why they're interested in us or what they hope to learn by taking this job if it's offered. We don't know their long-term career aspirations. One of them might have a year less of experience but be passionate about working in a company like ours (for the international exposure, or the chance to mentor people virtually, or some other reason), and the other candidate may be looking at our opportunity principally because it's 10 minutes from his house. If we dug into our candidates' needs, eventually our trust instincts would tell us, "Candidate B has no mojo for this job, but Candidate A has tons of it." Salespeople continue to sell prospects while they're qualifying them, and we can do the same with job candidates, vetting and wooing at the same time.

Here is the crux: If we aren't selling opportunities because we believe we don't need to (believing, for instance, that employees should be lucky to work for us), we are aiming too low for talent. We can make our hiring a competitive advantage, but only if we transform it into a shared leadership goal to find the sharpest people in our industries and reel them in. That's a new mindset. Can your organization get good at it—in time?

Liz Ryan is an expert on the new-millennium workplace and a former Fortune 500 HR executive.

Thanks to Liz Ryan / Bloomberg L.P.
http://www.businessweek.com/management/nine-ways-employers-screw-up-hiring-09302011.html

 

Create A Stress Strategy BEFORE You Need It

This time of year, stress is a major problem. The holidays mean overflowing to-do lists and more family time than most sane people can comfortably handle. Plus, end-of-year craziness at the office usually creates a big push to complete projects and tasks before rolling over into the next year.

I'm a firm believer stress from home follows us to work and vice versa—even for those who say they keep the two separate. No, you don't. You can't. It's just not possible. Stress is stress and it doesn't care where you are. There's no way to compartmentalize life, no matter how desperately you'd like to. So, whether your stress is personal or professional, it can and will impact every aspect of your life.

There is good news, however. Stress is completely manageable. You have the ability to take control and keep it from breaking you down. Unfortunately, most people wait until it's too late. They don't bother thinking about stress until it's bearing down on top of them. At that point, managing stress feels like just another to-do item to put on your already overwhelming list.

So, what can you do? Take action NOW. You know stress is approaching. Don't just sit there waiting for the tidal wave to suck you under. Instead, be proactive. Create your strategy for minimizing and managing it today.

There's no perfect one-size-fits-all approach to this, so you'll need to do a little self-evaluation first. Here's the process I recommend for creating your personal stress management strategy:

• Figure out what your major stress triggers are and when/how they typically appear.
• Look at how you currently handle your stress and figure out what works (if anything) and what doesn't.
• Determine how stress is currently impacting your life and how much improving the situation is worth to you.
• Make the commitment to improve your stress management practices.
• Create a customized plan for combating the mental, emotional and physical challenges of stress.
• Work your plan and revise as needed.

You'll find, once you start taking an active role in managing your stress, you'll automatically feel more in control of it.

Chrissy Scivicque (pronounced "Civic"), founder of Eat Your Career, is an award-winning freelance writer/editor with a passion for two things: food and helping others.

Thanks to Chrissy Scivicque / Careerealism
http://www.careerealism.com/create-stress-strategy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+careerealism+%28CAREEREALISM%29

 

Social Anxiety Disorder: Cognitive Therapy Or Interpersonal Therapy?

If all you did was watch TV, you might think social anxiety disorder was as prevalent as depression — or as big a problem. Also called social phobia, social anxiety disorder is often treated first with medications, such as an SSRI antidepressant (you know, regulars like Paxil or Prozac). Psychotherapy is also an option — it's just not as popular as medication.

In a randomized controlled research study published recently, two psychological interventions were put head to head to see which one would come out on top.

Cognitive therapy (CT) focuses on the modification of biased information processing and dysfunctional beliefs of social anxiety disorder. Interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT) aims to change problematic interpersonal behavior patterns that may have an important role in the maintenance of the problem.

According to the researchers, no previous direct comparison of these two treatment options exists.

In psychotherapy research, often researchers use a condition called a "waiting-list control" group. This group is told they will get treatment in a short time, but they have to be placed on a waiting list because no therapists are readily available. This allows the researchers to test to see if it's time alone that will result in a person's condition improving (rather than the therapy treatment).

A total of 117 subjects were gathered from two outpatient treatment centers, and out of those, 106 completed the study.

How was the study conducted?

Treatment comprised 16 individual sessions of either cognitive therapy or interpersonal therapy and one booster session. Twenty weeks after randomization, posttreatment assessment was conducted and participants in the control group received one of the treatments.

The primary outcome was treatment response on the Clinical Global Impression Improvement Scale, as assessed by independent evaluators [blinded to treatment conditions].

The secondary outcome measures were independent assessor ratings using the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale, the Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, and patient self-ratings of SAD symptoms.

What were the results? At the end of the study, the cognitive therapy group have a nearly 66 percent response rate while the interpersonal therapy group had a 42 percent response rate. The control group, in comparison, had only a 7 percent response rate — meaning that just waiting for the problem to resolve on its own is significantly less effective than getting treatment for it.

In the specific measurement of social anxiety disorder, cognitive therapy significantly outperformed interpersonal therapy. Both treatment conditions significantly improved social anxiety symptoms in comparison to the control group.

This study also did something special a lot of studies don't do — a one year followup. It's all well and good to measure the effects of a treatment immediately when the study ends. But a one-year followup tells us whether the treatment "sticks" or not.

At the follow-up, the differences between CT and IPT were largely maintained, according to the researchers. The cognitive therapy group again came out on top with significantly higher response rates (68 percent) versus the interpersonal therapy group (32 percent)

The cognitive therapy group also had better outcomes on the Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale at the one year followup.

So there you have it. For social anxiety disorder, cognitive therapy is the therapy of choice — it'll give you great results in just 16 weeks. And not results dependent upon taking a medication for a year or two — results that are long-lasting and permanent.

Reference:- Stangier U, Schramm E, Heidenreich T, Berger M, Clark DM. (2011). Cognitive therapy vs interpersonal psychotherapy in social anxiety disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 68, 692-700.

Thanks to John M. Grohol, PsyD / PsychCentral
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2011/09/29/social-anxiety-disorder-cognitive-therapy-or-interpersonal-therapy/

 

Why You Need To Flatten Your Organization

There are two basic management formats. One is the pyramid organization, where the head of the company, typically the owner, makes all the decisions and managers simply implement the company's mandates.

Alternatively, there is the flat organization, where managers make operational decisions, with the management team and owner only reviewing results or discussing issues and problems. Managers resolve daily operation issues, while reporting on a regular timely basis such as in a weekly managers' meeting. Of course, the owner can always review critical issues as required, but the company is run by the managers in this flat format.

There is a huge difference in these styles. The pyramid organization concentrates all power and decision-making typically in the owner's hands. The owner micromanages every aspect of the business with a constant flow of managers asking him or her for immediate short-term consideration and response to whatever is happening at the moment.

Typically few systems are in place, as the owner makes decisions on an issue-by-issue basis. This is more often called putting out brush fires and babysitting, as these are the main functions such a style promotes. It means endless hours of work and total self-absorption on the part of the owner.

In contrast, the flat organization allows, encourages and even requires managers to make operational decisions without going to the owner or CEO for the answers to every micro issue. A flat organization requires that managers be held responsible for success and also be held accountable for their achievements or failures.

Employees can also be empowered to contribute to decision making. This way, you involve the entire team in the responsibility and accountability for success. Holding periodic department meetings, managers can frankly and honestly discuss the workings of the operation and ways to improve it.

This approach works best when the employees are rewarded for success on an incentive basis. It puts everyone in the same boat, all pulling together trying to achieve the same goals.

To become a flat organization, start from the top. If you select a strong management team and let them manage, if the managers can create quality teamwork in each department, and if the departments can work together to create a larger team effort, success will be assured.

This requires a significant discussion with your managers to agree upon goals and objectives, but the managers are responsible for achieving them. Each division or group acts as if its manager was the chief executive officer of that group. The manager's answer is the final word, and he or she does not have to retreat to the mother ship for ratification, affirmation or permission.

It further requires a CEO who will expect that managers will make errors in judgment and will support them when this happens. This is critical since every decision will not be correct or the best. As long as enough of the decisions are appropriate, then the CEO should cultivate decision-making by supporting managers.

Managers should be encouraged to occasionally take risks and experiment, and maybe they will hit a home run, bringing additional profits into the company. They should be supported in their efforts and encouraged to try again if they fail, even if they fail more often than they succeed, as long as they reach their objectives and projections.

Ask your managers to draft their own department business plan and supporting budget, and then give them the authority to implement it. You will have the basis of a very successful flat organization, with far less management and babysitting for you.

Why not even leave hiring decisions to your managers? It's their team. Allow them to pick their own players.

This begs the question, what does the CEO do if he or she is no longer responsible for the operation and is running a flat organization with the managers controlling and operating the game? Plan, train, and review: That is the CEO's real job.

• Plan. Chart the future course and goals. Plan for capital investments, growth and development.
• Train. Make certain your managers are constantly learning new skills and acquiring additional capabilities. Provide training opportunities and make them mandatory.
• Review. Always monitor the results and the key indicators so you have a pulse on your progress and success. If faltering, you're there as soon as possible to help make corrections. You're supporting your managers' efforts, not doing their job for them. Inspect your managers' work, often and deeply.

That's a flat organization. Can anyone do it? It requires a CEO who can resist being a control freak and who can let go in exchange for the benefits of greater success with less work effort. Let your managers do their job. Why pay them to watch over the employees when they should really be managing them?

Finally, learn from the masters: Jack Welch, the most successful CEO in modern history, spent his career flattening General Electric, one of the most successful organizations ever. He spent years converting a huge pyramid to a flat organization, division by division, and he claims flat is the only way to go.

Thanks to Donald Todrin / Entrepreneur / Entrepreneur Media, Inc.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/220457

 

Lewin's Leadership Styles

In 1939, a group of researchers led by psychologist Kurt Lewin set out to identify different styles of leadership. While further research has identified more specific types of leadership, this early study was very influential and established three major leadership styles. In the study, groups of schoolchildren were assigned to one of three groups with an authoritarian, democratic or laissez-fair leader. The children were then led in an arts and crafts project. Researchers then observed the behavior of children in response to the different styles of leadership.

Authoritarian Leadership (Autocratic)

Authoritarian leaders, also known as autocratic leaders, provide clear expectations for what needs to be done, when it should be done, and how it should be done. There is also a clear division between the leader and the followers. Authoritarian leaders make decisions independently with little or no input from the rest of the group.

Researchers found that decision-making was less creative under authoritarian leadership. Lewin also found that it is more difficult to move from an authoritarian style to a democratic style than vice versa. Abuse of this style is usually viewed as controlling, bossy, and dictatorial.

Authoritarian leadership is best applied to situations where there is little time for group decision-making or where the leader is the most knowledgeable member of the group.

Participative Leadership (Democratic)

Lewin's study found that participative leadership, also known as democratic leadership, is generally the most effective leadership style. Democratic leaders offer guidance to group members, but they also participate in the group and allow input from other group members. In Lewin's study, children in this group were less productive than the members of the authoritarian group, but their contributions were of a much higher quality.

Participative leaders encourage group members to participate, but retain the final say over the decision-making process. Group members feel engaged in the process and are more motivated and creative.

Delegative (Laissez-Faire) Leadership

Researchers found that children under delegative leadership, also known as laissez-fair leadership, were the least productive of all three groups. The children in this group also made more demands on the leader, showed little cooperation and were unable to work independently.

Delegative leaders offer little or no guidance to group members and leave decision-making up to group members. While this style can be effective in situations where group members are highly qualified in an area of expertise, it often leads to poorly defined roles and a lack of motivation.

Thanks to Kendra Cherry / Psychology About Guide / The New York Times Company
http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/a/leadstyles.htm

 

How To Get A KPI Quick Win, Quickly

Paul is a Senior Executive in a large private sector company that has some KPIs but they're not great KPIs. If you're anything like Paul, you're searching for quick ways to ramp up the value of and engagement in performance measurement in your organization.

Go for the KPI Quick Win.

One of the best ways to start changing people's ideas about the value of performance measurement is to give them examples or experiences of exactly how it has transformed performance. And the KPI Quick Win is how to do that.

Essential steps in getting your KPI Quick Win.

If you go about setting up a KPI using the same old approach you've used for all your existing KPIs (the ones that no-one uses or sees value in), then you'll just create more of the same. You need to take a fresh approach, an approach that avoids the mistakes our old approaches are based on:

Step 1: Choose a goal you really want or need to achieve

Step 2: Make your goal measurable by teasing out the performance result(s) it implies

Step 3: Use sensory rich language to describe your result

Step 4: Choose potential measures that give evidence of your result

Step 5: Evaluate your potential measures and select the most meaningful one

Step 6: Name and describe your selected measure

Step 7: Define exactly how to calculate your measure's values

Step 8: Get the data and make it ready for analysis

Step 9: Calculate your measure's values

Step 10: Choose the presentation method that best highlights your measure's message

Step 11: Interpret what your measure is saying, and understand why it's saying that

Step 12: Make a decision, and take action to move closer to your goal

Bonus step: Shout it from the rooftops – share your KPI Quick Win with anyone who'll listen

Following these steps will be a lot easier, a lot quicker and a lot more successful if you follow a technique like Getting Started With Performance Measures – it details exactly what to do in each of the 12 steps above.

After you get your KPI Quick Win.

Don't rush to overhaul your organization's entire performance measure system just on the success from a single quick win. Many people will need more convincing, they'll need to see how it might work in their functional area, and they'll need to learn and understand the techniques of good performance measurement to build their confidence and conviction.

So right after your first KPI Quick Win, see if you can get enough people interested to participate in another Quick Win, and run two or three of them in parallel. Let the confidence and conviction grow organically, and when you have a critical mass, you're ready to develop a comprehensive organization-wide performance measurement system. That's what a methodology like PuMP will help you do.

TAKE ACTION: The best action I can suggest to get your KPI Quick Win is to get a copy of the Getting Started With Performance Measures How-to Kit and get started today. In a week or two, you'll have your quick win.

Thanks to Stacey Barr / Measure Up
http://www.staceybarr.com/measure-up/77-how-to-get-a-kpi-quick-win-quickly/#more-691

 

Five Principles For Performance Measurement Excellence (Lessons From Running)

Just as the principle of leverage can apply to many different situations and contexts, from bicycles to business process reengineering, the lessons I'm learning from my running coach, Rina, and other world-class athletes also seem to apply to my work as a Performance Measurement Practitioner. The pursuit of excellence in anything, it seems, is based on a core set of principles.

I don't profess to know what they all are, but through running training with my coach, I've learned a few that mean a lot to me. I hope they can help you too, in your endeavours to lead your organisation to excel through measuring and achieving what matters.

Principle 1: Run the kilometre you're running right now, not the kilometres you're yet to run.

A weekly training session in my running program is to do a series of 1km intervals, as fast as I can. I started out having to do 5 of them, on an interval of 6 minutes and 30 seconds. If I finished the kilometre in 4 minutes 30 seconds, then I had 2 minutes to recover before starting the next one.

When you're running flat out for a kilometre, it absolutely and positively DOES NOT help to think about how many you have left to do. What happens is that in your head you're running the kilometre your legs are running right now in addition to each of the other kilometres you have left. It feels many times harder and sometimes even impossible. That's why my coach Rina says, 'Just run the kilometre you're running right now and focus on nothing else.'

Overwhelm and premature defeat in establishing a powerful performance measurement system in an organisation is caused by a similar problem: you're thinking about how much there is yet to do, or how much different things should be to how they are now. To pursue excellence, you're better off focusing just a few smaller areas first – perhaps one team or one strategic goal or one business process at a time. Then you'll keep building on those smaller successes, to bigger and faster successes.

Principle 2: Be bold and push yourself: you'll be surprised how far outside your comfort zone you can go and you'll still be okay.

My coach Rina calls those 1km interval sessions the 'vomit sessions' because the idea is to push yourself to the point of almost throwing up, where you've hit your lactic threshold. Rina says that most people don't get faster because they're scared to push themselves hard enough. But because our bodies, like any adaptive system, have the default set at degenerate, we have to keep giving it challenges, pushing its boundaries, to shake the default and ask it to achieve new levels of performance.

I've nearly thrown up several times during these 1km interval sessions, but it was more than worth it to now say that my average times have come down by 20 seconds over 3 months. But I had to trust that I'd be okay if I pushed myself where I'd never gone before, and that my body would handle it just fine.

If we want organisational or business performance to shift to new levels, we have to do the same. We've got to push the boundaries, push the threshold of what feels possible, be bold enough to go into uncomfortable territory. Nothing will truly change otherwise. Usually, for performance measurement, this means pushing the social boundaries, pushing the misbeliefs and limiting attitudes people have about measuring.

Principle 3: When your goal is backed by an action plan, it's all downhill (so to speak).

If you've ever done any kind of sport or exercise, you'll remember times when you woke up in the morning and thought 'Good grief, I just can't do it today,' and rolled over and went back to sleep. I used to do it too! The difference now is that I have a goal, to run 10km in 45 minutes this year, and it's backed by the training program Rina writes for me each month. I don't have to think about it, I just have to do it. (And it doesn't hurt that I want Rina to keep taking me seriously!)

When you know exactly what to do, when to do it and why you're doing it, it's so much easier to get it done. So even though I know some of my running sessions will be very hard and have me doing uphill surges, it still feels downhill because I don't have to think about how far I'll run or where I'll run or how hard I'll work. I just follow the plan.

Too many organisations take an ad hoc approach to performance measurement, not realising that to get it right, and get it right quickly, there is a deliberate process to follow to select the best measures, implement those measures and make it easy to use those measures to improve performance. To pursue excellence in performance measurement, you need a deliberate action plan to design and execute your measurement process, so each week you know what to focus on, what to aim for, and why.

Principle 4: Be your goal, be the success you aim for, not just while you're running but all the time.

Rina moves fast every time I see her, not just when she's running. She seems to throw herself into whatever she's doing and I love being around her energy. Have you noticed that about other high achievers? World champion ultra distance and mountain runner Lizzy Hawker says "Looking back… I was 'training' in the raw each and every day of my life. Endurance for me is a way of life rather than a sport."

For me, I can now see that to achieve my running goals, I need to act right now like the person who achieves lots of goals, the person who is always getting better at something, who loves pursuing goals. It keeps me in a mindset of possibility, and strangely, a mindset of enjoying the journey even more than the destination.

My business coach, Robert Gerrish, said something like this once: "A leader, a REAL leader, is someone who leads ALL the time, is inspiring ALL the time, is empassioned ALL the time – not just turning it on for 60 minutes. It's on ALL the time." That's how we need to be as performance measurement practitioners. We have to always be that person who loves pursuing excellence in performance. And soon, others just won't be able to resist that infectious energy and spark.

Principle 5: Surround yourself with the best support team you can muster.

Luck did play some part in my being able to hire an Olympic athlete as my running coach – Rina lives in my town and is a personal trainer these days. But that shouldn't discount the fact that hiring her was a smart move. I want the speed, I want the endurance, I want the fitness – more than I was going to ever achieve on my own. Rina knows what she's doing – her achievements are testimony to that – so I confidently do what she tells me to do.

Trusting my coach takes a huge load off my mind in pursuing my running goals. I don't have to research running training techniques, I don't have to work out what's right for me or what's not right for me. I just focus on doing the best I can at what Rina tells me to do. And that makes the hard work heaps easier. And the same goes for the physiotherapist and masseur and I regularly visit – I trust the work they do on my tired and strained legs and feet.

You won't be able to single-handedly lead excellence in performance measurement in your organisation. You'll need a team too, of people who believe in your vision, who each bring an important capability to make that vision a reality. You might even need a performance measurement coach, who can guide you out of ruts and around potholes so you reach success much sooner.

All in all, pursuing excellence in anything – performance measurement especially – often requires a change in who we are being and how we are thinking, more profoundly than what we are doing.

TAKING ACTION:
Does one of these principles resonate with you today? Reflect on why it resonates with you, check if there's an area in your pursuit of performance measurement excellence that feels a little flat, or is falling short. What's the advice you'd give yourself to pop up out of the rut, or more nimbly avoid those upcoming potholes?

Thanks to Stacey Barr / Measure Up
http://www.staceybarr.com/measure-up/45-a-few-principles-for-performance-measurement-excellence/

 

How To Fatten A Flat Salary

If the last few years have been unpleasant in terms of your total income, what can you do to boost your bottom line in the near future? Read on for several tips.

Request a Variable Pay Program

Due to concerns with attracting and retaining talent, Hewitt Associates, a global human resources consulting and outsourcing firm, reports that 90 percent of companies have at least one type of broad-based variable pay plan. Variable pay plans include awards, bonuses and incentives. If you're unhappy with getting a raise that barely equates to a cost-of-living increase, talk to your supervisor and human resources department about how you can tie your pay to your performance. Set aggressive goals with your boss and agree on the compensation you'll receive if you meet them.

Consider Relocating

Where you work may be as important as the work you do in determining the size of your raise next year. A 2011 Hewitt survey shows that salaried exempt workers in some cities, such as Detroit and Dallas, will enjoy higher-than-average increases in 2012, while their counterparts in other cities, such as Washington, DC, and New York City, will receive lower raises. Keep in mind, though, that cost of living varies from city to city, and a minor bump in salary may not counter the sharp increase in housing.

Change Industries

If gains are stagnant in your industry, consider switching to one that is enjoying more lucrative times. Industries expecting to see the highest salary increases in 2012 include energy/oil/gas (3.6 percent), real estate (3.6 percent) and construction/engineering (3.5 percent). Many jobs can be found in various industries. Don't remain tied to one if it's going to limit your earning potential.

Plan to Get a Raise Anyway

Even in lean times, Norman Lieberman of Thepayraisecoach.com says you can still get a raise. "Companies use negative news to their advantage regardless of their profitability," he says. "It's fodder for keeping the masses down in terms of pay raises. It works for them to say to raise-seekers: 'You see the papers. Here's the headline: Plants are closing. A recession is coming.' But what they don't tell you is that the top eight people at the company got raises." This tactic works "because most people just shut up and go away,"  he says.

Rather than having to retreat, Lieberman has three tips to help folks get a raise in the coming year:  

Have a Plan: Position yourself as an irreplaceable employee. "Perception is reality here," Lierberman says. "If your employers think that you are a rubber stamp of everyone else, they can go out and easily replace you; you're not an added benefit." Plan to take on additional work, volunteer for special projects with higher-ups and master other tasks that make you stand out from the crowd.
 

Keep Track of Your Progress: Don't spend six months trying to stand out only to forget all you've done when you're in front of your boss. "Keep an informal journal that lists what you've accomplished," Lieberman says. "Show how you've saved money and time, increased income, or created a new methodology. If you want a 10 or 15 percent increase, you have to show that you've contributed in a major way."
 

Don't Beg -- Request a Raise: People falter when they're in the hot seat if they're not prepared, Lieberman says. Instead of thinking of a raise as a gift or begging, he states, "You're reminding your employer of your value." If you've laid the proper groundwork and can speak confidently and specifically about your accomplishments, Lieberman says, "It will be really tough for a boss to turn a blind eye to that."

Thanks to Caroline M.L. Potter / Yahoo! HotJobs / Career Advice Monster / Monster
http://career-advice.monster.com/salary-benefits/salary-information/how-to-fatten-a-flat-salary-hot-jobs/article.aspx?WT.mc_n=CRMUS000096

 

 

Learning The Rules For Raises

You've been working hard, earning praise from your boss and coworkers. So when will those kind words translate into more money? To find out, start by arming yourself with facts -- about how your company works and the strength of the labor market.

A Complex Equation

US companies increased their overall salary budgets by 2.8 percent in 2011, with a 2.9 percent increase projected for 2012, according to the WorldatWork 2011-2012 Salary Budget Survey. The salary budget is the total amount of money a company has for merit increases or cost-of-living adjustments.

How large a raise you can expect -- and when -- can depend on many factors beyond whether you're performing well: your company's culture, its financial performance and how much you make compared with your peers, for example.

Get Details from the Boss

It's always a good idea to have a general talk with your boss about how and when raises are handed out. "Good bosses would be very open to having that conversation," says Gail Ginder, a leadership coach in Healdsburg, California. Ask what it takes to get a raise, when decisions on raises are made and how you can find out if you're on track.

"They really need to find out what it is they can expect," Ginder says. Even changing bosses within one company can mean a different set of criteria, if the company gives managers a lot of latitude in awarding increases. If your boss doesn't know, someone in human resources should be able to answer your questions.

Every Employer Is Unique

Bear in mind, though, that some companies are more organized than others when it comes to pay increases. Some simply give everyone average raises, says Shari Dunn, managing principal of CompAnalysis, a compensation and HR consulting firm in Oakland. Others are trying to move away from giving everyone an annual increase and instead look at whether you're being paid what the market says your work is worth.

At many companies, raises depend on a mix of your performance and how much you make compared with others doing the same job. You may find that if you're nearing the top of the pay bracket for your position, you'll need to earn a promotion to get a raise.

For example, Dunn says, an average performer who is paid an average salary for employees at that level would get an average raise, but an average performer who was paid near the top of the company's range for his job would likely get less. A top performer who is paid less than others in the same job could be in line for a larger-than-average raise.

"The linkage to performance is sometimes tenuous," Dunn said.

Demonstrate Your Value

While you're asking your boss to explain how raise decisions are made, should you also ask for a raise? Again, it's important to know how your employer operates.

Large, traditional companies and government agencies often use clearly defined processes to determine raises, and asking for more money mid-year will just make you seem out of place. On the other hand, more entrepreneurial companies may be more open to requests for raises -- as long as they're backed up by solid data about your performance and what it's worth, not just a list of things you'd like to buy if you had more money.

"Employers like ambitious employees, especially if they're good performers," Dunn said.

Thanks to Margaret Steen / Yahoo! HotJobs / Career Advice Monster / Monster
http://career-advice.monster.com/salary-benefits/negotiation-tips/learning-the-rules-for-raises-hot-jobs/article.aspx?WT.mc_n=CRMUS000096

 

Tip Of The Day: Influence Is A Super Power

It's a good news/bad news thing. Your team members watch and listen to everything you do and say. They talk about it among themselves. That's the bad news.

The good news is that they take what you do and what you say as clues to what they should do and say. That's what influence is, how you act determines how your team members act.

That makes things simple, though not easy. Make sure that what you do and say sends the right messages and sets the right standards. Influence is a super power. Use it for good.

Thanks to Wally Bock's Three Star Leadership Blog
http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2011/10/06/bosss-tip-of-the-day-influence-is-a-super-power.aspx

 

Be Clear with Your Feedback

Most managers have good intentions when it comes to delivering feedback to employees. But the reality is that most of them aren't very good at it. What's the cause? Few role models combined with few training opportunities.

It's something that Phil Reynolds, a senior consulting partner with The Ken Blanchard Companies, runs into all the time.

"After almost every class I give on feedback, I will have participants come up to me and say, 'I wish I would have gotten this type of feedback when I was an individual contributor.' They can see the value in learning the skill because they realize that they can make a bigger impact on their people by using it."

The Importance of Clear Expectations

One of the biggest issues that Reynolds sees with feedback as it is delivered in most work environments is a general "fuzziness" that doesn't change or reinforce behavior.

This fuzziness usually starts with managers not setting clear expectations of what a good job looks like in the first place. These managers are often surprised later when they find out that their people aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing.

Why the fuzziness? The response Reynolds hears most often is, "They should know what they need to do."

As Reynolds explains, "Leaders often think that people should know something through their own devices and so they don't give them feedback, or clear expectations, or redirection toward the target that they are looking for."

Striking the Right Balance

By avoiding the situation and not addressing it early, managers will tend to create a lot of emotion around the issue when they finally deal with it. At that point, the tendency is to come down hard, and say things like, "You're doing this wrong; fix it!"

The basic mistake here is not separating the performance from the person. Now the feedback sounds like a personal attack. Once that happens, resistance goes up.

With newer managers, Reynolds will often see behavior swing to the other side of the scale. Now the emotion centers on the relationship and how the feedback may damage it. As he explains, "Younger managers want to project a positive image and have people like them. When feedback gets tied up with emotion, these younger leaders find it difficult to give corrective feedback or to hold people accountable."

Feedback and Trust

One negative aspect of poor feedback is the impact it has on trust. When managers give feedback poorly, or avoid it entirely because they are unsure about their ability, it causes problems.

Feedback is an important part of a healthy relationship. When a direct report is not soliciting feedback and a manager is not giving feedback, that's a pretty clear sign that there's a lack of trust in the relationship.

Our closest friends, for example, are the ones who usually serve as our truth tellers, the people we can talk to about anything. At the other end of the spectrum are the people we never share anything with. These are the people we don't trust with information about ourselves.

When a manager is not confident in his or her ability to give employees straight feedback, employees can feel as if they are not getting the complete story. This lack of trust impacts the leader's ability to lead and influence employee performance.

Three Ways to Improve Feedback in Your Organization

As a leader, there are a couple of things that you can do to help improve feedback in your organization and get conversations happening again.

• Provide training. People can only do what they know how to do. It's unreasonable to ask people to do something at which they don't have the training or skill set to be effective.
• Model what effective feedback looks like. Demonstrate what positive and redirecting feedback looks like for the people reporting to you.
• Take a look at your organization's culture. Culture drives organizational behavior more than anything else. Make feedback a priority, recognize people who are good at feedback, and let people know that feedback is something that is valued and encouraged.

Feedback Pays Dividends

A focus on feedback is an essential ingredient in today's work environment. People want to work for managers they trust and who will be honest with them and tell them what they need to know. It can be a challenge at first but it's worth the trouble, says Reynolds.

"Feedback is not for wimps. But the bottom line is that there's going to be better performance. When you are getting more effective feedback and trust is being built, there is a higher possibility that an individual will open up and share what is going on with their job. That lets the manager be more helpful in providing individual employees with the direction and support that they need."

What kinds of conversations are occurring in your organization? Are people having the type of performance-related discussions they need to be having? If not, take a look at the skill level your managers have with feedback. It's a great way to make a big difference in everyone's performance.

Thanks to The Ken Blanchard Companies
http://www.kenblanchard.com/Business_Leadership/Management_Leadership_Newsletter/October2011_main_article/

 

Nine Ironman Tips For Performance Measurement Success

"No-Meat Athlete" and Ironman Triathlon finisher Susan Lacke wrote an article called "From Couch Potato to Ironman – In 20 Months" and it discussed the 9 keys to her successful accomplishment of that great feat. Those 9 keys, to me at least, seem to perfectly apply to the successful accomplishment of great performance measurement. So here's my take on how Susan's 9 keys can work for we performance measurement practitioners too:

Key #1: Start small

Zoom in on a single goal or performance result and work to only measure that. They say a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, and I say a measure you can use right now is worth dozens you're putting off until later.

Key #2: Commit

Lock it into your diary the tasks to choose that single goal or performance result, to design its performance measure, to get the data and graph it, to use the measure to improve performance. Keep a reminder close to your person at all times about why it matters (a note, a picture), so your commitment stays true to real performance improvement and you don't just jump through performance measurement hoops for the sake of having a measure.

Key #3: Find those who know

Make a list of all the experts or specialists or authors or colleagues who have succeeded to measure the right things and improve performance. Learn from them, take their advice, model their approaches so you don't waste time reinventing wheels or falling into traps.

Key #4: Build gradually

Start with meaningfully measuring a single goal, and when you've succeeded at that, continue with two goals, and when you've succeeded at those, continue further with four goals. Practice takes multiple iterations of action learning: select an approach, try it out, learn from the results, improve the approach.

Key #5: Make mistakes

Make mistakes, but make new ones. Don't repeat the mistakes that others have already shown you how to avoid. If you're stuck on how to do something, then design a little experiment and try it out. Learn, whether it fails or succeeds.

Key #6: Balance, not sacrifice

Yes, you're super busy. Yes, your colleagues are super busy. That's not a reason not to measure performance. It's an excuse. The idea is to take the time you can get. Give 15 or 30 minutes to design a better measure this week, rather than delaying for months until you have a full day to design 10 better measures.

Key #7: Have a support system

Form a Measures Team of four to six volunteers in your business or organization and meet weekly or monthly to share the performance measurement workload. Grow a network beyond your organization of fellow performance measurement practitioners for sanity checks and inspiration. Find and use templates that save time. Be organized so you always make the time.

Key #8: Blinders on

People have more objections to performance measurement than just about anything else. They're very well practiced at saying why it doesn't work, why it fails, why they can't do it. Don't let anyone's objections get into your head. Hold on to your beliefs about why measuring matters, how it can work, what the true value is in doing it.

Key #9: Enjoy it

Stay connected to the reason why we measure performance – ongoing improvement and excelling at what our organizations exist to do. Rise to the challenge and enjoy the success of making things fundamentally better. Experiment with ways to inject fun into performance measurement tasks.

TAKE ACTION: Is there just one of these nine keys that resonates with you, that feels like improving it would make a noticeable difference in your performance measurement success? Give it a two-week focus, thinking about it each day, coming up with ideas to strengthen your ability to do it, testing those ideas. Aren't you tired of waiting for the planets to line up before you make some real-deal performance measurement progress?

Thanks to Stacey Barr / Measure Up
http://www.staceybarr.com/measure-up/79-nine-ironman-tips-for-performance-measurement-success/#more-712

 

Why Good Leaders Pass The Credit And Take The Blame

A few years ago my colleague Flemming Norrgren and I asked a long-tenured European CEO how he came up with the idea for his company's radical and new strategic direction. "Oh, that's an interesting question," he said. "I never thought about it in that way. Certainly it was not only me. I had a big role, but it was not me, me, me. This is not an American organization."

Flemming and I (both Europeans) laughed, and the CEO talked more about why leaders should praise their team instead of themselves.

Later, as I reviewed the heaps of interview transcripts from our Higher Ambition research, it struck me that the American and British CEOs, in general, tended to talk about themselves more than the team — they used me much more than we (or related words). This seemed to reinforce the European CEO's stereotype. The opposite was generally true for the CEOs from the rest of Europe and India, who tended to use we more than me (I tested this quantitatively).

But when I looked more closely at the challenges these "me" CEOs were confronting, I realized that the truth is actually a bit more complicated, and a whole lot more interesting than simple geography. As it turned out, a CEO's tendency to stress me or we related to whether or not he or she was dealing with a turnaround situation (and there were more turnaround cases in the American/UK sample).

It's no big news that leaders in turnaround situations tend to play a more prominent role in their companies than leaders in business-as-usual scenarios. What's interesting is, in interviews, the CEOs who had led turnarounds took personal responsibility when things went wrong and did not hesitate to share the credit with their teams when things went right.

These types of higher-ambition CEOs acknowledge the role they must play as exemplars. They see the willingness to accept personal responsibility — especially during tough times — as critical to winning the trust of employees and other stakeholders. Leaders, in their view, need the endurance and stamina to lead their organizations through thick and thin. They also need to contain the anxiety of their employees. A leader who spreads the blame, who fails to accept that he or she is ultimately the one in charge, increases the insecurity of their people and lessens the likelihood that they'll take ownership of initiatives.

A leader's individual focus, in other words, is what allows the collective enterprise to flourish. Take Carl Bennet, primary owner and chairman of Getinge AB, a global medical-technology company based in Sweden. In the late 1980s Bennet and his colleague Rune Andersson bought Getinge — which they saw as a diamond in the rough — from Electrolux, a white goods manufacturer. Getinge was losing money by the day, but both Bennet and Andersson invested their own money, each taking on millions of dollars in personal debt. Within six months, Getinge had lost half its value and the banks were knocking on the door.

Today, Getinge is valued at more than a hundred times its original purchase price, but Bennet downplays his role in the company's turnaround. "Anyone could have done it. It was a great company just waiting for somebody to care about it." The key to Getinge's turnaround, in his view, was how he unleashed the power of his employees by letting them do what needed to be done. Bennet jump-started some initiatives, but for the most part it was his employees who saw where the needs were and decided how to address them. Bennet also stressed another key element to Getinge's turnaround: He let his people know that he would stay "lashed to the mast," even when the wind blew hard. The CEO would not abandon ship.

However tempting it may be to assign cultural stereotypes, the truth, at least for the 36 companies we studied, seems to be that higher-ambition CEOs assume personal responsibility when things are bad and they give collective credit when things are good. These companies exemplify elements of both strong collective and individual leadership. Both — when used in the right situations — are essential for creating economic as well as social value.

Tobias Fredberg is Associate Professor of Management at Chalmers University in Gothenburg, Sweden, and a fellow at the TruePoint Center for Higher Ambition Leadership. He has researched and consulted across many industries on strategic change and the management of innovation. He is co-author with Michael Beer, Russell Eisenstat, Nathaniel Foote, and Flemming Norrgren of a new book, Higher Ambition: How Great Leaders Create Economic and Social Value.

Thanks to Tobias Fredberg / Blogs HBR / Harvard Business School Publishing
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/10/why_good_leaders_pass_the_cred.html?referral=00563&cm_mmc=email-_-newsletter-_-daily_alert-_-alert_date&utm_source=newsletter_daily_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alert_date

 

Hiring Ex-Offenders: A Case For Discrimination?

Criminal background checks are an integral aspect of the recruitment process for many organisations, yet many recruiters remain unsure of their legal rights and responsibilities when presented with a candidate who has a criminal history.

First Advantage executive vice president for Asia Pacific, Wayne Tollemache, said recruitment decisions should only be based on 'disclosable court outcomes'.

"If you are requesting candidates to disclose criminal records as part of the recruitment process, it is possible that they will inadvertently reveal events that would not be considered disclosable court records."

Tollemache said that asking the candidate to provide their criminal history may put recruiters at risk of making a decision based on information they are not legally entitled to consider as part of the recruitment process.

The Federal Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (HREOC) said they have received complaints claiming discrimination on the basis of having a criminal record, and there are laws in place which have made blanket policies of this nature illegal.

The commission's charter states: "A basic principle of anti-discrimination is to enable an employer to refuse to employ someone if their criminal record is genuinely relevant to the essential requirements of the job."

Tollemache outlined key points for employers to consider when a candidate has a criminal record, namely:

1. Conduct a recognised police check. Without supporting the process with a check through a recognised police authority, you are at risk of making a decision on information that you are not legally able to consider as part of the recruitment process eg spent convictions. 
2. Discuss the outcome with the candidate and provide them with an opportunity to respond. It is important that decisions are not based entirely on an outcome presented in a criminal record. There is always the potential that a record presented by a police authority does not relate the candidate in question. They may have been the victim of identity fraud or they may have identical details to an individual with a criminal record. In rare cases, the police authorities may have made an error in disclosing the information to you.
3. Consider the outcome in relation to the inherent requirements of the position that they are applying for. The severity, nature and frequency of convictions should be considered in respect of the inherent requirements of the role that the candidate has applied to be considered for. A criminal record may not automatically disqualify a candidate if the offence was minor, it was not repeated and it will have no impact on the candidate's ability to perform the particular role.
4. Make a record of the decision making process. Protect yourself with a record of the decisions that you have made as part of the recruitment process, including consultations you have held with the candidate. It is important that you do not record details of the convictions in your permanent records as there are legal obligations to delete this information within three months.
5. Provide the candidate with an opportunity to apply for other roles where applicable. Where the candidate has been unsuccessful in their application for a particular role, encourage their attempts to obtain other roles that may be more suitable to their background. Remember that convictions may become spent over time. In this scenario, what was once disclosed to you may not be considered as part of the recruitment process at a future date.

Thanks to HCA Mag / HC Online / Human Capital / Key Media Pty Ltd
http://www.hcamag.com/newsletter/content/118313/

 

 

Why True Leadership Involves Less Talking And More Listening

Have you heard of the book "The One-Minute Manager"? I know a guy I call the 18-Minute Manager, or Jake, for our purposes. Jake was having a hard time getting through to his employee, Sophie, about significant problems in her performance. I agreed to sit in the next meeting he had with her.

Less talking, more listening. Jake started the meeting and talked for 18 minutes. He did not pause. He did not ask Sophie one question. Soon he dismissed Sophie from the room. As she left, I asked her what she heard Jake say. She said, "I don't know what he's talking about." I seriously doubt that, but I don't blame her for saying it.

As human beings we can be uncomfortable with conflict or confrontation. Despite the temptation to avoid a conversation that raises defenses, leaders guide employees through it. It is both unkind and irresponsible not to.

It takes a leader to do it well. To conduct these conversations as a leader would, it is your job to invite the other person into the conversation, keep their defenses down, and create a space for them to see how they are accountable and show you are on his or her side at the same time.  How can you too achieve this?

1. Get it all out. Like Jake, you might have a certain level of frustration. Don't take this for granted. If you have a lot to say, write it out or vent to an appropriate partner. Do this before you get in front of the employee.
2. Keep your part brief. Practice and plan to only say two sentences and one question at any one time. The longer you talk, the more they build up their defenses. The more airtime you use, the less likely you'll uncover what is going on in the employee's head that you need to address.
3. Get them talking as quickly as possible. After appropriate greetings and getting comfortable, a manager in Jake's position could start with: "Sophie, you and I have talked about an aspect of your performance a few times now. I want to make sure you understand the impact it's having on both your co-workers and your own performance. What have you been thinking about this?"
4. Dialogue, dialogue, dialogue. Don't just plunge forward as if with a script. Ask questions building on their responses. Be curious. If you offer two statements, use them to summarize what you heard. An opinion or fact may be appropriate at some points. But remember, you are to lead them through a discussion to where they can examine their own thinking and behavior that is causing them problems.
5. Inspire hope and action. Keep going with the good questions and assertions, using their responses until you have a plan of action you both can go forward with. It should not all end up on your to-do list. The person in front of you should leave the room encouraged and realize one action they can take immediately to improve.

This approach, to me, is true leading. When people are sitting there, already feeling defensive, we as humans can only take in so much at one time.  Taking that into consideration, by planning and putting your own frustration aside will allow you to lead an employee through a discussion that helps them think through what got them there and how to see their way to success.

This post is by contributor Mary C. Schaefer, a speaker, coach, trainer and consultant specializing in creating manager-employee communication breakthroughs and functional and positive work cultures.

Thanks to Mary C. Schaefer / SmartBlog On Leadership / SmartBrief, SmartBlogs
http://smartblogs.com/leadership/2011/10/04/why-true-leadership-involves-less-talking-and-more-listening/

 

How To Know When To Hire A CFO

A: You could probably invoke all sorts of business-school metrics to answer this one, although a better measure might be your chronic insomnia.

Plenty of entrepreneurs battle anxiety, says Ken Kaufman, founder and CEO of Utah-based CFOwise, which provides part-time CFOs to small and midsize businesses. It's a common symptom among business owners who don't have a solid grasp of their firm's financial picture. "Anxiety turns into fear, which causes lots of bad decisions to be made," Kaufman says. If you're not sleeping well, he believes a CFO might be just what you need to help bring order to your firm's finances--and to help you get some shut-eye.

Beyond sleep patterns, however, Kaufman uses some metrics of his own. In most cases, he says an entrepreneur should hire a CFO when the business reaches $25 million to $50 million in annual revenue. But revenue is not the only factor. To help entrepreneurs decide whether they need a CFO, Kaufman considers three factors: a company's complexity, its size and the pace of its financial trajectory.

Complexity: If your business produces a single product from a single site for just a handful of nearby clients, your financial picture should be fairly simple to navigate. But if you're making scores of products for hundreds of clients across the globe, you're obviously looking at a more complex operation--one more likely to require the services of a finance executive.

Size: Even if your company is not overly complex, its sheer size could make it difficult for you to stay on top of revenue streams, payrolls and tax implications without a CFO.

Trajectory: Whether you find your business rapidly spiraling downward or growing at breakneck speed, a CFO might be needed to help you respond to a quickly changing financial landscape.

"If it's a real steady, stable business--a million a year, every year--it gets pretty easy to understand what's happening," Kaufman says. "When you're moving really fast in either direction, it gets really convoluted and hard to predict."

The need for a CFO is likely to change as a business evolves. When you start a business, Kaufman says, you generally know your customers and suppliers personally and can gauge your company's performance by a regular dialogue with them. But as the business grows, Kaufman says, the owner can no longer rely solely on those discussions--which helps explain why Kaufman considers hiring a CFO a watershed event.

"It marks the point in that organization's life, as well as in that entrepreneur's life, where they are going to be transitioning to running the business on quantitative information rather than using just qualitative information," he says.

An in-house CFO can also bring intangible benefits. "With a CFO in place, CEOs feel empowered, because they have a financial executive who knows how to solve problems and run the business financially," Kaufman says. "They can delegate that responsibility, which they weren't managing."

And thus ensure, finally, a good night's sleep.

Thanks to Christopher Hann / Entrepreneur / Entrepreneur Media, Inc.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/220353

 

Tip Of The Day :- Play The Odds

No management technique works every time, but you'll do better over the long haul if you play the odds. Start by choosing the technique or choice that's proven most likely to work. If it doesn't work or if it doesn't work well, try something else.

 

Thanks to Wally Bock's Three Star Leadership Blog

http://blog.threestarleadership.com/2011/10/05/bosss-tip-of-the-day-play-the-odds.aspx

 

 

Sales Leadership & Innovation Lessons From Steve Job

As the world memorializes Apple founder Steve Jobs this evening, we're meditating on how the innovations of one man have pushed so many sales leaders to go above and beyond their highest aspirations for their companies and their teams.

Selling Power magazine publisher Gerhard Gschwandtner has often noted that Steve Jobs has always been "at the center of the innovation process." When the iPad was first released, Gschwandtner bought one immediately, and declared that the device was destined to fundamentally change how salespeople work, sell, and play. He outlined three ways the iPad represented visonary innovation:

Laptops are not designed for sharing. The iPad will pull people from isolation to a place of co-creation.

Laptop screens are not dynamic. The iPad screen automatically orients itself in relation to your movements. The image on the screen flips from horizontal to vertical and from top to bottom automatically.

Laptops emerged at a time when the world was still linear. The iPad allows people to leave that static world so they can connect with the dynamic flow of human intelligence online and offline.

In a conversation economy, driven by Sales 2.0 technology and process, social networks and real-time exchanges, the iPad has come to represent a new age for sales teams trying to start meaningful and engaging conversations with prospects and customers. Gschwandtner describes a meeting he had with a CEO:

I brought my iPad; he had his laptop. During our conversation, we discussed how many different tasks salespeople need to perform to drive customer value. The conversation brought to mind an interesting chart I received in an email the same morning. I pressed the start button on my iPad, and it came to life instantly (there is no staring at a blank screen for two minutes). Within seconds, I pulled up the email, clicked on the message, and handed the iPad to [the CEO], who studied it and asked for the URL so he could share it with his team. I simply forwarded the email and the conversation resumed.

The iPad added instant value to the conversation, and it blended in naturally, which added a touch of elegance to the discussion (and of course a little iPad envy). In this case, the iPad delivered content in real time. In effect, this experience would not have been possible with the use of a laptop. After all, who would want to wait two minutes to make a point?

To invent and produce this kind of technological product -- one that courts customers with an unparalleled combination of elegance and function --  Jobs had to maintain a ruthless focus on the end goal. During a presentation in 1997 (as outlined by Jon Steel in the introduction to his book Perfect Pitch: The Art of Selling Ideas and Winning New Business) Steve Jobs described innovation as an exercise in discipline. He drew more than a dozen boxes on a dry erase board and labeled them with names of Apple products still in their project stages: Cyberdog, OpenDoc, G4, iMac, etc. Jobs told the assembled group that Apple had invested millions of dollars in pursuit of each product. Then he began crossing them out.

"In the past days, I've killed this one, this one, this one…" Jobs said, until all that were left were G4 and iMac. "These two projects that remain represent what we always wanted this company to be about; they're technologically superb and visually stunning. And I'm going to bet the future of this company on them."

At the heart of innovation is change. Jobs' legacy is a reminder for sales leaders that technology is a powerful driver of change. But the nature of change itself -- the necessity of letting go of one thing to make room for something new -- is also a reminder to seize the day. As Steve Jobs said in a 2005 Commencement address at Stanford:

No one wants to die. Even people who want to go to heaven don't want to die to get there. And yet death is the destination we all share. No one has ever escaped it. And that is as it should be, because Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new. Right now the new is you, but someday not too long from now, you will gradually become the old and be cleared away. Sorry to be so dramatic, but it is quite true.

Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking. Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition. They somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.

Thanks to Selling Power / Personal Selling Power Inc.
http://sellingpower.web6.hubspot.com//bid/74227/sales-leadership-innovation-lessons-from-steve-jobs?source=Blog_Email_[Sales%20Leadership%20%26%20I]