Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Is Your Sales Force Size Aligned With Your Sales Strategy?

Sales Force Size affects customers, salespeople and the overall company.  If the sales team is too small, it cannot serve the needs of the customer effectively.  If it's too large, reps become an annoyance to clients and a drain on company resources.  The goal of a sizing analysis is to ensure the size of a sales force correlates with market dynamics by matching selling capacity to actual demand. Doing so will ensure highest revenue potential and sales cost optimization.

When assessing your sales force, there are a few simple tests that provide keen insight into whether you are deploying the optimal sales force size to meet the market demand.  These include

  • Sales Force Morale Test
  • Customer Test

In addition to these straight-forward assessments, it is also critical to ensure there is alignment between your Sales Strategy and the number of reps you deploy into the market place.  As the Sales Operating Plan, a company's sales strategy allocates resources efficiently to drive selling costs down and revenues up.

As market dynamics change, so should a sales strategy.  Effective sales strategies consider three (3) inter-related life cycles: Industry, Company and Product.  Each follows the typical progression of Growth, Maturity & Decline.  Understanding where you are in the life-cycle will impact how you deploy resources.

Aligning Business Lifecycle with your Sales Force Size

Here are some examples…

  1. A company in a high growth industry launching a new product would increase headcount to capture market share and out-shout the competition
  2. A mature company in an established industry may strategically deploy more reps in certain territories to seize market share from the competition

Key Takeaway:  Understanding the marketplace is the key to properly sizing your sales force.  As the marketplace changes so too does a company's sales strategy.  Aligning your sales strategy with the life cycle of your industry, business and product will ensure you deploy resources to meet actual market demand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Thanks to George De Los Reyes / Sales Benchmark Index
http://www.salesbenchmarkindex.com//bid/77179/is-your-sales-force-size-aligned-with-your-sales-strategy?source=Blog_Email_[Is%20your%20Sales%20Force%20]

Amazon Magazine Subscriptions Amazon Books Amazon Kindle Store
Amazon Everyday Low Prices, Sales, Deals, Bargains, Discounts, Best-Sellers, Gifts, Household Consumer Products
 
 
 

Does Your Resume Read Like An Obituary Of Your Career?

Peter A. Professional's Career, 2000 – 2012

Here lies Peter Professional's career. A victim of the current recession, Peter's career has been on life support since a layoff from a healthcare consulting firm. Prior to its final demise, Peter took his career through a stint as a personal fitness trainer and ended it working as a car salesman with a luxury-car dealership.

Peter was a graduate of a prestigious university where he earned a degree in integrated science and technology. He immediately began employment as a tumor biology lab technician where he worked for two years before joining the consulting firm. While there, he "utilized empirical data and statistically significant best practices to influence positive change for client's capital efficiencies."

In addition to the above, Peter was a certified phlebotomist, published numerous medical research papers, and played high school soccer. Peter's Career was only seven years old. In lieu of flowers, please send condolences to the guidance counselors and college advisors who failed to help Peter find his best career fit and the writer who created the erratic document referred to as his "resume."

I hope you get the picture. Although the name is obviously fictional, the rest of the information is unfortunately true. I know this, because I took it directly from his resume. Like many professionals, Peter never thought of his resume as a marketing document that targeted a specific audience with a promise of adding value. "I'm not really sure yet what I want to do," he told me, "so I figured I'd just put it all in there so an employer could figure out how to use me." And they sure did "use" him!

To write an effective resume, don't begin by looking back over your shoulder to see where you have been.

I suspect your career path, like Peter's, was rarely a straight line. Most careers zig and zag in many directions. Take some time to delve deeply into all of your experience.

Look for common themes:

  • What knowledge and skills did you most enjoy using that you want to take to your next job?
  • What types of problems do you most enjoy solving?
  • What words do others use to describe you?
  • What specific details can you pull from your experience to illustrate your answers? If you don't know, you can hire a professional to help you.

Identify your target audience:

  • Who are they?
  • What do they do?
  • Who are their customers and what problems do they specialize in solving?
  • Talk to people in the industry. Read business and industry news. Print out job announcements and begin making a list of the knowledge, skills and experience employers seek in candidates.

Look for crossovers:

  • Who you are and what do you offer compared to what the employer wants and needs?
  • Identify the point where these two paths intersect and begin writing your resume from there.
  • When you look at your past, choose those items that are most relevant to your future and craft the content of your resume around them.

Don't let your career suffer an untimely death – or worse yet, linger on life support for years (maybe even decades). Look ahead, identify your target, and then assemble and deploy the tools you need to get there. Make sure one of those tools is a well-crafted, strategically focused, and uniquely branded resume!

Norine Dagliano, of ekm Inspirations, is an independent and nationally certified professional resume writer (NCRW) and job search coach specializing in working with successful professionals who have limited job search experience. For more than two decades, Norine has crafted powerful, achievement-focused resumes and provided logical and straight-forward job seeking tips and advice that has helped literally thousands of professionals in overcoming the anxiety of looking for working… and finding their ideal job.

Thanks to Norine Dagliano / Careerealism
http://www.careerealism.com/resume-obituary-career/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+careerealism+%28CAREEREALISM%29

Amazon Magazine Subscriptions Amazon Books Amazon Kindle Store
Amazon Everyday Low Prices, Sales, Deals, Bargains, Discounts, Best-Sellers, Gifts, Household Consumer Products
 
 

How To Work With Someone You Hate

Working with someone you hate can be distracting and draining. Pompous jerk, annoying nudge, or incessant complainer, an insufferable colleague can negatively affect your attitude and performance. Instead of focusing on the work you have to do together, you may end up wasting time and energy trying to keep your emotions in check and attempting to manage the person's behavior. Fortunately, with the right tactics, you can still have a productive working relationship with someone you can't stand.

What the Experts Say
If you work with someone you don't like, you're not alone. The detested co-worker is a familiar archetype. Robert Sutton, a professor of management science and engineering at Stanford University and the author of Good Boss, Bad Boss and The No Asshole Rule, says this is part of the human condition. "There are always other people — be they relatives, fellow commuters, neighbors, or coworkers — who we are at risk of tangling with," he says. Avoiding people you don't like is generally a successful tactic but it's not always possible in a workplace. "Some people are there, like it or not," points out Daniel Goleman, the co-director of the Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organizations at Rutgers University and author of The Brain and Emotional Intelligence: New Insights. Next time you find yourself shooting daggers at the person in the cubicle next to you, consider the following advice.

Manage your reaction
Your response to your dreaded co-worker may range from slight discomfort to outright hostility. Goleman says the first step is to manage it. He suggests that if there is someone who is annoying or abrasive, don't think about how the person acts, think about how you react. It's far more productive to focus on your own behavior because you can control it. To handle your triggers, Goleman advises you practice a relaxation method daily. This will "enhance your ability to handle stress, which means the annoying person isn't that annoying anymore," he says.

Keep your distaste to yourself
While working through your displeasure, avoid the temptation to gripe with other coworkers. Don't corner someone by the water cooler and say, "There's something about Jessica I don't like, don't you agree?" Sutton notes that we all have a tendency to look for confirmation of our own opinions, but we should also resist it. "Because emotions are so contagious, you can bring everyone down," Sutton says. Besides, complaining about someone in your office can reflect negatively on you. You may garner a reputation as unprofessional or be labeled as the difficult one. If you find you have to vent, choose your support network carefully. Ideally, choose people outside the office.

Consider whether it's you, not them
Once you have your reactions in check, think about what it is you don't like about the person. Is there something specific that sets you off? Is it that she's just different than you? Does he remind you of your father? Do you wish you had her job? Jealousy and other negative emotions can cause us to wrongly assess and mistreat others. "When someone is doing better than us, we tend to scorn them," Sutton says. Differences can make us biased. "Our favorite person in the world is ourselves. The more different someone is from us, the more likely we are to have a negative reaction to them," he says. Focus on the behaviors, not the traits, that irk you; this will help you discern stereotypes from true dislike. "Start with the hypothesis that the person is doing things you don't like but is a good person," says Sutton. By better understanding what is bothering you, you may also be able to see your role in it. "It's reasonable to assume you're part of the problem," says Sutton. Be honest with yourself about your share of the issue. And be on the lookout for patterns. "If everywhere you go there's someone you hate, it's a bad sign," Sutton warns.

Spend more time with them
"One of the best ways to get to like someone you don't like is to work on a project that requires coordination," says Sutton. This may seem counterintuitive since you likely want to run from the room screaming whenever the person is there. But by working together, you can understand him better and perhaps even develop some empathy. "You might feel compassion instead of irritation," says Goleman. You may discover there are reasons for his actions: stress at home, pressure from his boss, or maybe he's tried to do what you're asking for and failed. Spending more time with your foe will also grant you the opportunity to have more positive experiences. But before you sign up to lead the next task force with someone you don't like, remember that there is one exception: "If it's someone who violates your sense of what's moral, getting away isn't a bad strategy," says Sutton.

Consider providing feedback
If none of the above has worked, you may want to consider giving your colleague some feedback. It may be that what bothers you is something that regularly gets in her way as a professional. "Don't assume the person knows how they are coming across," says Sutton. Of course, you shouldn't launch into a diatribe about everything she does to annoy you. Focus on behaviors that she can control and describe how they impact you and your work together. If shared carefully, you may help her develop greater self-awareness and increase her effectiveness.

But proceed cautiously. Goleman says whether you give feedback "depends on how artful you are as a communicator and how receptive they are as a person." If you feel he might be open and you can have a civilized conversation focused on work issues, then go ahead and tread lightly. But if this is a person you suspect will be vindictive or mad, or will turn it into a personal conflict, don't risk it. "The landmine when giving emotional feedback is that they take it personally and it escalates," says Goleman. You also need to be open to hearing feedback yourself. If you don't like him, the chances are good he isn't very fond of you either.

Adopt a don't-care attitude
In situations where you are truly stuck and can't provide feedback Suttons recommends you "practice the fine art of emotional detachment or not giving a shit." By ignoring the irritating behaviors, you neutralize the affect on you. "If he's being a pain but you don't feel the pain, then there's no problem," explains Goleman. This type of cognitive reframing can be effective in situations where you have little to no control.

Principles to Remember

Do:

  • Manage your own reaction to the behavior first
  • Practice emotional detachment so the person's behaviors don't bother you
  • Spend time trying to get to know the person and better understand what motivates him

Don't:

  • Assume that it is all about the other person — you likely play some part
  • Commiserate with others who could be unfairly influenced by your negativity or may judge you for your complaints
  • Give feedback unless you can focus on work issues and can avoid a personal conflict

Case study #1: Get to know him
Bruno West*, a senior executive in technology, was responsible for a post merger integration team that included members from both of the pre-merger companies. "It was a highly charged environment with aggressive deadlines and near endless work days," he says. Harry*, the CFO from one of the companies was particularly challenging; he had a caustic style, often spoke in a pejorative way, and even withheld critical information from Bruno and others. Harry was frustrated by Bruno but tried hard to withhold judgment. "I always ask — do I really not like the person or does their experiences and background cause them to address issues different than I do?" he explains. Whether he liked him or not, Bruno knew that he needed Harry's participation to be successful. He decided to spend time with Harry's colleagues in the former company to better understand what it was that Harry brought to the table. They spoke highly of his experience and his long history with the organization. Bruno then took Harry out to dinner and let him vent. "He voiced many concerns and was quite derogatory," Bruno said. Then he asked Harry to talk about some of the projects he had heard about from his former co-workers. "He shared with pride the teamwork, the late evenings filled with collaboration, shared success and accomplishment." At the end of the dinner, Bruno felt he better understood Harry and where he was coming from.

Bruno then slowly began to bring up the other stories about past projects during team meetings and asked Harry to explain what he felt they could learn from those experiences. "Momentum became our friend. He wanted to be recognized for his past accomplishments in the eyes of the new company members. Everyone in the former company knew his great value but he felt he needed to prove himself again," he said. Harry was much more cooperative when others asked for his viewpoint and acknowledged his expertise. Bruno had a much easier time working with him. Harry eventually left the new company but the two parted on good terms.

Case Study #2: Keep a healthy perspective
When Alex Vanier*, a logistics officer with the Canadian Army, returned from a tour of duty in Kandahar, he was assigned to work for Major Newton*, a maintenance officer in Petawawa, an hour and a half northwest of Ottawa. Alex found the major to be standoffish and quick to criticize. Even worse, the major often unloaded work on Alex. "He gave me things that were his to do and were inappropriate for me to handle," he says. The major didn't mentor the people below him and it often seemed he was only looking out for himself. He would ask Alex for candid advice on supply issues and when Alex replied with what he thought was his confidential perspective, the major would forward on his reply unfiltered to the commander. "I didn't really enjoy working with him at all. He had this real 'better than you' attitude," he says.

Alex tried not to do anything that would put him in close proximity to the major. Since he was his boss, this wasn't always possible. "I went to work and did my job," he says. He saw that the major behaved that way with everyone. "I looked at him and thought 'he has flaws' but I didn't take it personally," he says. He also turned to friends outside of the office with whom he could vent. At one point, Alex thought he would go to the chief of staff to share what was going on but then thought better of it. "I didn't feel it was my job to go and topple him," he says. Plus he didn't want to be seen as a complainer and wasn't sure sharing his opinion would change anything. Since assignments in the military are often short, Alex decided to wait it out. Eventually the major was sent to another position and Alex filled in for his role for four months. He said it was a vindicating experience because people commented on what a better job he was doing. In the end, Alex says he has no ill will toward the major. He believes it made him more self-aware. "I often ask myself, 'Is this something I do with my subordinates?" Ultimately he feels he's a better manager because of it.

Amy Gallo is a contributing editor at Harvard Business Review.

Thanks to Amy Gallo / Blogs HBR / Harvard Business School Publishing
http://blogs.hbr.org/hmu/2012/01/how-to-work-with-someone-you-h.html?referral=00563&cm_mmc=email-_-newsletter-_-daily_alert-_-alert_date&utm_source=newsletter_daily_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alert_date

Amazon Magazine Subscriptions Amazon Books Amazon Kindle Store
Amazon Everyday Low Prices, Sales, Deals, Bargains, Discounts, Best-Sellers, Gifts, Household Consumer Products
 
 

Five Myths Of A CEO's First 100 Days

It's tough at the top and getting tougher. CEO turnover in medium and large U.S. companies is speeding up: Today CEOs last just six years on average, down from eight years a decade ago.

More than 15% of current CEOs are freshmen. Starting off on the right foot is crucial, especially during "the first 100 days," when new top executives are under intense scrutiny to prove they're equal to the job.

Unfortunately, the 100-day strategy has fallen victim to several myths that make it more difficult for leaders to lead.

MYTH #1: New CEOs should look outward and move quickly, rapidly inspecting personnel and procedures and identifying shortcomings in order to "sort out the mess." One CEO, newly installed in an ailing industrial goods company, wasted time investigating and disparaging his predecessor. After a year of "I'm-not-the-other-guy" leadership, this executive hadn't stamped his own identity on the business or made any distinctive decisions.

FACT: New CEOs benefit from introspection, not just inspection. They should reflect on their leadership style in order to adapt and harmonize with the company. One CEO, for example, excelled at communicating to small groups, delegating and team-building. Because he initially concentrated on assembling a strong team and personally communicating with them, he was able to develop a firm launch-pad for a variety of initiatives aimed at transforming the company.

MYTH #2: New CEOs should make an impact as soon as possible, notching up some "quick wins." Consider one American executive who took over a foreign-owned manufacturing company. Without pausing to fully appreciate the company's culture, ownership structure and tolerance for change, he developed a turbo-charged reorganization and growth plan. The Board of Directors rejected it, forcing him to backtrack, rebuild credibility and endure increased scrutiny.

FACT: New CEOs should find out what makes a company tick and work with this reality to achieve goals. In this spirit, the CEO-elect of an established media company devoted eight months prior to her accession to soliciting the views of stakeholders and identifying areas of future innovation and growth. After taking office and completing her review, she assembled her team. Her patience and precision instilled confidence, enhanced morale, and was rewarded with impressive growth.

MYTH #3: New CEOs should establish their executive team by recruiting the ablest functional and line leaders. One over-enthusiastic food company CEO established a team of outstanding executives, only to find that it wasn't a team at all, but rather a group of individuals with divergent and conflicting approaches. His role became that of compromise-seeker and peacekeeper, not leader.

FACT: "Teamability" may be more important than individual ability. New CEOs should look for team players, rather than individual superstars, when they establish the inner circle. A top talent who can't work effectively with colleagues is a liability, not an asset.

MYTH #4: New CEOs must promptly define and communicate performance metrics. An incoming CEO of an entertainment company, eager to secure first-mover advantage, instituted an ambitious growth strategy and set specific targets for managers. The board, concerned he had taken his eye off the core business, forced him to start again.

FACT: Before defining standards and evaluation criteria for others, new CEOs should first establish and communicate how they themselves will be evaluated.

MYTH #5: New CEOs must strive to be the smartest person in the room; you're the chief, right? After a healthcare executive was promoted over longer-serving colleagues, he took a crash course in their fields of expertise. Whenever they made constructive suggestions, he knew better. Except, of course, he didn't, and he suffered for it.

FACT: Omniscience is unattainable and does not guarantee great leadership. Smartness is helpful, but so are humility and inquisitiveness. The new CEO of a financial services business, an outside hire, studied just enough to ask the right questions. He acknowledged and deferred to those with superior expertise, but knew enough to challenge easy assumptions. This enabled him to slowly reset the organization's goals, with his senior colleagues firmly on board.

Perhaps the most dangerous myth of all is that a new CEO's worth can be judged in the "first 100 days." That's often not the case.

New CEOs need to maximize job preparation through research, consultation and introspection. They need to listen to others, seek impartial, external counsel who can discuss the un-discussable, and differentiate between self-interested counsellors and the advice of team players.

The most successful CEOs are not always the leaders who are most knowledgeable and decisive. Often they are the leaders who create the best teams, inspire peers, and set a coherent vision in keeping with the organization's mission.

Thanks to Roselinde Torres And Peter Tollman / Blogs HBR / Harvard Business School Publishing
http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2012/01/five_myths_of_a_ceos_first_100.html?referral=00563&cm_mmc=email-_-newsletter-_-daily_alert-_-alert_date&utm_source=newsletter_daily_alert&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alert_date

Amazon Magazine Subscriptions Amazon Books Amazon Kindle Store
Amazon Everyday Low Prices, Sales, Deals, Bargains, Discounts, Best-Sellers, Gifts, Household Consumer Products
 
 

Are We Bad At Forecasting Our Emotions? It Depends On How You Measure Accuracy

ScienceDaily (Jan. 27, 2012) — How will you feel if you fail that test? Awful, really awful, you say. Then you fail the test and, yes, you feel bad -- but not as bad as you thought you would. This pattern holds for most people, research shows. The takeaway message: People are lousy at predicting their emotions.

"Psychology has focused on how we mess up and how stupid we are," says University of Texas Austin psychologist Samuel D. Gosling.  But Gosling and colleague Michael Tyler Mathieu suspected that researchers were missing part of the story. So the two reanalyzed the raw data from 11 studies of "affective forecasting" and arrived at a less damning conclusion: "We're not as hopeless as an initial reading of the literature might lead you to think," says Gosling. The study is published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

If you look at it in absolute terms, says Gosling, it's true. Take a group of people, ask them to make an emotional prediction, and on average they will get it wrong. "But there's also a relative way of looking at it," he explains. You thought you're going to feel really, really awful when you saw that red F on the top of the paper -- and you ended up feeling only awful. I guessed I'd feel moderately bummed and, after flunking, felt only mildly so. You forecast you'd feel worse than I forecast I was going to feel -- and relative to each other, we were both right.

The authors combed through the literature with two criteria in mind: the study had to be "within-subject," meaning the same person did the forecasting and reported the later feeling; and the two reports had to be about the same event. They ended up analyzing the raw data of 11 articles, comprising 16 studies and 1,074 participants. The results: Indexing relative affective forecasting -- that is, looking at individuals and their positions in the group -- we're better predictors than if you measure only the average absolute accuracy.

One way of thinking about it is not objectively better than the other, says Gosling. But relative accuracy might be useful in real life. His example: An HIV clinic has learned that its clients are generally less upset than they thought they'd be at receiving a positive HIV test. But rather than throw counselors at clients at random, the clinic might serve people better if they know in advance who is going to have the worst time of it, and prepare those people for possible bad news.

"The story here is not, 'are we bad forecasters or aren't we?' For me, the story is that past literature says we're bad at this. And in truth we are bad at it in some ways, but not in others." The central finding: "It's complicated."

Story Source: The above story is reprinted from materials provided by Association for Psychological Science. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

Thanks to Science Daily
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120127162751.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Latest+Science+News%29

Amazon Magazine Subscriptions Amazon Books Amazon Kindle Store
Amazon Everyday Low Prices, Sales, Deals, Bargains, Discounts, Best-Sellers, Gifts, Household Consumer Products
 
 

Monday, January 30, 2012

Role Playing

Preparing for Difficult Conversations and Situations.

Think back to the last time you prepared for an important meeting.

Perhaps you needed to convince a prospective client to do business with your organization. Or maybe you had to present to executive board members, and you knew that they would be peppering you with questions about your proposal.

Whatever the situation, chances are that you were nervous about the meeting; and practicing in front of a mirror may not have helped you overcome your anxiety, especially with respect to answering difficult questions.

This is where role playing can be useful. In this article, we'll look at what role play is, and we'll see how you and your team can use this technique to prepare for a variety of challenging and difficult situations.

Uses and Benefits

Role playing takes place between two or more people, who act out roles to explore a particular scenario.

It's most useful for preparing for unfamiliar or difficult situations. For example, you can use it to practice sales meetings, interviews, presentations, or emotionally difficult conversations, such as when you're resolving conflict.

By acting scenarios like these out, you can explore how other people are likely to respond to different approaches; and you can get a feel for the approaches that are likely to work, and for those that might be counter-productive. You can also get a sense of what other people are likely to be thinking and feeling in the situation.

Also, by preparing for a situation using role play, you build up experience and self-confidence with handling it in real life; and you develop quick and instinctively-correct reactions to situations. This means that you'll react effectively as situations evolve, rather than making mistakes or becoming overwhelmed by events.

You can also use role play to spark brainstorming sessions, to improve communication between team members, and to see problems or situations from different perspectives.

How to Use Role Playing

It is easy to set up and run a role playing session. It will help to follow the five steps below.

Step 1: Identify the Situation

To start the process, gather people together, introduce the problem, and encourage an open discussion to uncover all of the relevant issues. This will help people to start thinking about the problem before the role play begins.

If you're in a group and people are unfamiliar with each other, consider doing some icebreaker exercises beforehand.

Step 2: Add Details

Next, set up a role playing scenario in enough detail for it to feel "real." Make sure that everyone is clear about the problem that you're trying to work through, and that they know what you want to achieve by the end of the session.

Step 3: Assign Roles

Once you've set the scene, identify the various fictional characters involved in the scenario. Some of these may be people who have to deal with the situation when it actually happens (for example, salespeople). Others will represent people who are supportive or hostile, depending on the scenario (for example, an angry client).

Once you've identified these roles, allocate them to the people involved in your role play exercise; they should use their imagination to put themselves inside the minds of the people that they're representing. This involves trying to understand the characters' perspectives, goals, motivations, and feelings when they enter the situation. (You may find the Perceptual Positions technique useful here.)

Step 4: Act Out the Scenario

Each person can then assume their role, and act out the situation, trying different approaches where necessary.

It can be useful if the scenarios build up in intensity. For instance, if the aim of your role play is to practice a sales meeting, the person playing the role of the potential client could start as an ideal client, and, through a series of scenarios, could become increasingly hostile and difficult. You could then test and practice different approaches for handling situations, so that you can give participants experience with them.

Step 5: Discuss What You Have Learned

When you finish the role play, discuss what you've learned, so that you or the people involved can learn from the experience.

For example, if you're using role play as part of a training exercise, you could lead a discussion on the scenarios you have explored, and ask for written summaries of observations and conclusions from everyone who was involved.

Further Tips

Some people feel threatened or nervous when asked to role play, because it involves acting. This can make them feel silly, or that they've been put on the spot.

To make role playing less threatening, start with a demonstration. Hand two "actors" a prepared script, give them a few minutes to prepare, and have them act out the role play in front of the rest of the group. This approach is more likely to succeed if you choose two outgoing people, or if you're one of the actors in the demonstration.

Another technique for helping people feel more comfortable is to allow them to coach you during the demonstration. For instance, if you're playing the role of a customer service representative who's dealing with an angry customer, people could suggest what you should do to make things right.

Role Play Example

In an effort to improve customer support, John, Customer Service Manager for Mythco Technologies, sets up a team role-playing session. Acting as the leader/trainer, John brings together a group of software developers and customer support representatives.

He divides the 12 people into two role playing groups: Group A represents the customer support representatives; Group B represents the customer.

John tells Group A that the customer in this situation is one of Mythco's longest-standing customers. This customer accounts for nearly 15 percent of the company's overall annual revenue. In short, the company cannot afford to lose her business!

John tells Group B that the customer has recently received a software product that did not live up to expectations. While the customer has a long-standing relationship with Mythco, this time she's growing weary because Mythco has previously sold her faulty software on two separate occasions. Clearly, her relationship with Mythco is in jeopardy.

John now allows the groups to brainstorm for a few minutes.

Next – with this particular approach to role play – each group sends forth an "actor" to take part in the role play. The actor receives support and coaching from members of the team throughout the role playing process. Each team is able to take time-outs and regroup quickly as needed.

John runs through the scenario several times, starting with the "customer" behaving gently and ending with the customer behaving aggressively. Each time, a best solution is found. Of course, John can always ask for additional role playing and suggestions if he feels that the process needs to continue, or that the team has yet to uncover the very best solutions.

Once it's clear that they cannot identify any more solutions, John brings the two groups together and discusses the session. During this, they discuss the strategies and the solutions that the actors implemented, and how they could apply them to a real-life situation.

John also asks all of the participants to write a short summary of what they learned from the role playing exercise. He then combines the summaries and provides a copy of everything learned to everyone involved.

Key Points

Role playing happens when two or more people act out roles in a particular scenario. It's most useful for helping you prepare for unfamiliar or difficult situations.

You can also use it to spark brainstorming sessions, improve communication between team members, and see problems or situations from different perspectives.

To role play:

  1. Identify the situation.
  2. Add details.
  3. Assign roles.
  4. Act out the scenario.
  5. Discuss what you have learned.

Thanks to MindTools
http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/unhappy-customers.htm#np

Amazon Magazine Subscriptions Amazon Books Amazon Kindle Store
Amazon Everyday Low Prices, Sales, Deals, Bargains, Discounts, Best-Sellers, Gifts, Household Consumer Products
 
 

D.I.S.C.O. The Good Hire Process

There are few things more important to the success of an organization, than getting the right people into your organization (and then keeping them). The costs of a bad hire are enormous in terms of the financial investment in the hiring process, cost of poor performance, lost time and energy in needless management, decreased morale and employee retention (there is growing evidence that good employees don't leave organizations, they leave bad bosses).

When you think of the worst things about your organization, you can probably trace it back to a bad hire. Likewise, when you consider what is working well, you will probably trace it back to a good hire.

There are three ways to get the Best People into your organization. You can Hire them, you can Inspire (or develop and retain) them or you can Retire (reposition or fire) them. Firing people is necessary but difficult and at times carries with it risk. Repositioning is often a good alternative as long as the problem was poor fit rather than poor emotional intelligence or incompetence. Developing is always good but you can only develop people within their capacity to truly learn. It is hard to take an average employee and develop them into a star (and even more difficult to take a low-performing employee even to only the next level). By far and away, the best option of getting the work force that you want is to hire them. It is easier to hire a star than attempt to develop them over years. And let's face it, not everyone is teachable.

One of the favorite things that I do as a consultant is to help organizations hire good-fit, emotionally intelligent leaders and then to help integrate them into their new position (and possible new work culture). Below is the five-step choreography that I use, let's D.I.S.C.O.

Define the position.  Not enough time is spent on thinking about the position to be filled. What exactly are you looking for and what kind of person would fill it?  We often assume that we should just fill the same position that is vacated. If you think like that you will at best get what you already had. Think about what you need now and into the future. We are currently helping the president of a company hire a COO. We are suggesting to him to think 2-3 years ahead. Who do you want or need this person to be in two years? Consider the position that you are looking to fill, a new position that is aligned with your current strategic plan (if you have one). Once you do that, describe the KSA (knowledge, Skills and Aptitudes) of the ideal person. As consultants we use a system that profiles that ideal candidate, one that we later use for assessment and interviewing purposes and even later for measuring success after they are hired.

Identify the best (and fewest) candidates. There are many ways to identify the best candidates. You can identify candidates as simply as advertising the position on the web (e.g. Craig's List or Monster.com) for lower level hires to employing a search firm for C-level executives. Although very expensive, the advantage of using an executive search firm is that they can locate people who are already working and currently not-looking. Although we do not identify and recruit we help you determine the best way to do it. We also partner with recruiters and search firms as well. What is important in the Identification process is to get the best prospects, and not one more. This involves not just identification but also good screening.   You can screen candidates by reviewing their resumes, doing a standardized phone screen or hire a search firm to do the screening for you.

  • Selection.  Once you have a final group of good candidates you now need to go through a thorough selection process. Here are the ABCs of this process:
  • Assessment. We put candidates through a battery of assessments that assess fit to ideal profile, strength assessment, their team role, cognitive capacity and personality fit. We then use this information to guide the interviewing process.
  • Behavioral Interviews. The typical interview has about a 50% accuracy (might as well flip a coin) for predicting success.  Do you want to improve your odds? Then you need to do what is called a behavioral interview. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. In the interview, you want to assess how a person performed and therefore will perform in your organization. If you do this, you improve your predictability to 80%. I would take those odds. As consultants, we have both guided this process and will actually sit in on interviews. And speaking of sitting in on interviews, generally speaking the more touches (the more people in the interviewing process)–up to a certain reasonable amount, the better chances of making a good hire (and avoiding a bad one).

Confirm. You want to confirm what you are told. This includes actually following up with references, confirming allegations and doing background checks. We worked with one company that was hiring a very important general manager. The chair of the hiring committee found someone who was a friend of a friend (not the best way to identify a candidate) and he had everything that they were looking for in a GM. The chair of the committee loved him was ready to hire him on the spot. Fortunately, three other people interviewed him. One seasoned executive who interviewed the candidate had a "bad feeling" about this prospect. The assessments that we did indicated an average to poor fit for the position. This instigated enough concern that a background check was done. And when they did a background check, they found that he had a history of serious problems that would likely follow him into this next position.  If the chair selected this person–in a manner that most organizations do– without following the ABCs of Selection, they would have hired their next huge headache and unnecessary expense.

Choose.  This is the shortest but obviously most important decision you will make in the DISCO process. Bring together all the stakeholders, interviewers, data from assessment, information from references and background check and make a decision. Honor people who have a "bad feeling" about someone.  Don't necessarily trust "likeability" (remember narcissistic people are notorious charmers).  You need to tie likeability to performance and fit. And when you choose someone, think emotional intelligence. You can have a very talented person but if they cannot regulate their emotions or they relate poorly to others, you will get more than you bargained for.  After having the basic KSAs in place, few things are more important than emotional intelligence, especially if this person works with clients, needs to work in a team or manage or lead others.  

Onboarding. The hiring process does NOT end with the hire. This is a mistake that many organizations make. In our process we will stay with the new hire over the course a several months helping them integrate into the new position–and the new culture if they are an outside hire. Monitoring and assessing their progress and enhancing important communications along the way. We will use all the assessment data to both coach the new hire and direct his or her boss on how to mentor the new hire. The purpose of onboarding is to instigate a soft landing (integration), detect any issues early that might be problematic down the road and hone in the performance to the strategic needs of the position.

If you are going to cut costs in an organization, do not cut costs in the hiring process. It will come back to haunt you for years.  Instead learn to do the D.I.S.C.O. and you will not regret it for a minute.

Written by Sam Alibrando, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist and president of APC, Inc. his own consulting firm that works with organizations and senior executives.

Thanks to Ken Nowack / Result Envisia Learning / Envisia Learning
http://results.envisialearning.com/

Amazon Magazine Subscriptions Amazon Books Amazon Kindle Store
Amazon Everyday Low Prices, Sales, Deals, Bargains, Discounts, Best-Sellers, Gifts, Household Consumer Products
 
 

Larger Waistline, Lower Pay Check; Facial Flaws Not Countenanced

Research has revealed that higher numbers on the bathroom scales result in lower numbers on the pay check, and unconscious bias can mean candidates with facial flaws don't even get a look in.

A new study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology has found that job candidates with facial blemishes such as birthmarks or scars, fared worse in interviews than those who didn't.

Researchers at Rice University and the University of Houston found that HR managers and interviewers tended to be distracted by unusual body characteristics and recalled less information about job candidates as a result. "Our research shows if you recall less information about competent candidates because you are distracted by characteristics on their face, it decreases your overall evaluations of them," co-author Dr MikkiHebl from Rice University said.

The study also revealed that hiring managers' seniority, amount of experience or education in hiring practices had little impact on their ability to remain focused on the content of an interview. "When evaluating applicants in an interview setting, it's important to remember what they are saying," Dr Hebl commented.

The new research coincides with another recent paper which found a significant wage gap between those within a healthy weight range and those who are obese. Wage gaps were especially pronounced among females, and it was found that obese women incur an average remuneration penalty of 14.6%.

The report by George Washington University (GWU) researchers found that wage disparities were greater for individuals who held jobs "requiring a high degree of social interaction," often meaning contact with customers such as retail, hospitality, and health care.

Dr Christine Ferguson from the GWU Department of Health Policy said the findings "reinforce how prevalent stigma is when it comes to weight-related health issues."

Thanks to HCA Mag / HC Online / Human Capital / Key Media Pty Ltd
http://www.hcamag.com/newsletter/content/121808/

Amazon Magazine Subscriptions Amazon Books Amazon Kindle Store
Amazon Everyday Low Prices, Sales, Deals, Bargains, Discounts, Best-Sellers, Gifts, Household Consumer Products
 
 

The Resume Is Not Dead, It's Just Evolving

Despite the growth of social networking and the increasing use of LinkedIn and similar sites on which candidates can get their name out, the resume is not dead; it's being adapted, according to leading recruiters.

The recruitment industry is finding itself in an evolving landscape and the way candidates, employers and recruiters view the process is being transformed. Currently some 100 million people use LinkedIn and nearly 700 million people use Facebook, so the resume becoming more of a supplementary document rather than the primary method of picking a candidate is an obvious next step.

"Many organisations are now using online application forms and e-recruitment methods, where the resume is uploaded as an attachment and it's really just reviewed if additional information is required," said Cherie Curtis, head of psychology at Onetest.

John Rawlinson, Group CEO of Talent2, agreed that the resume is not becoming irrelevant, but that it is clearly in a state of evolution.

"I can actually see a time when the whole resume ends up online and it will have more than just a profile – it will incorporate some testimonials, like on LinkedIn, and it could include psych assessments," he said.

He predicted that as the process continues to evolve, more and more people will direct potential employers to their online resume space. Further, it makes good sense to keep the resume online, as "it's a bit like a living, breathing document." If it can't be regularly and easily updated, it's hardly worth it, Rawlinson said.

Guy Cary, managing director, First Advantage – Australia & New Zealand, said the resume is still important because it allows a candidate to present themselves to an employer the way they want to.

"While the employer may have seen a candidate's profile on LinkedIn, it may be somewhat generic and not appropriately targeted to the company or job in question," he said. "A strong resume that represents what a candidate brings to a particular organisation or role is still critically important."

Thanks to HCA Mag / HC Online / Human Capital / Key Media Pty Ltd
http://www.hcamag.com/newsletter/content/121805/

Amazon Magazine Subscriptions Amazon Books Amazon Kindle Store
Amazon Everyday Low Prices, Sales, Deals, Bargains, Discounts, Best-Sellers, Gifts, Household Consumer Products
 
 

Casual Dress At Work: In Or Out?

Nearly two thirds of Australian HR professionals support casual dressing on Fridays – and CEOs are increasingly agreeing that relaxing the dress codes at the end of the week makes good sense.

A survey from Talent2 revealed that 59% of CEOs now support casual dressing on Fridays, yet a third of employees believe the end-of-the-week casual dress code has lowered the standard of overall workplace dressing.

Karen Wells, senior account director at PR firm Text 100, said her firm encourages employees to express their personalities through their dress code.

"We don't mind at all if people want to have pink streaks in their hair, or if they feel like wearing shorts on a hot day," Wells said. She added that when meeting with clients, the expectation would be for the employee to "dress appropriately" and "mirror the client's style or expectations".

Perhaps casual dressing is the expected policy from youthful businesses with a hip image, but what about a major bank?

Kate Stevens, corporate affairs manager, people & culture from National Australia Bank (NAB), said some business units have an optional casual dress day where appropriate and at their discretion on which employees are invited to dress in a smart casual manner – in other words, employees must still maintain a smart, neat appearance at all times.

NAB also makes a corporate wardrobe available to all employees;  NAB customer/retail employees wear the corporate wardrobe at all times.

John Rawlinson, CEO, Talent2 agrees with leaving dress codes to employee discretion, but said his employees are expected to "dress appropriately to their working environment". "Our policy is that everybody should dress appropriately for their client base - but we don't stipulate," he said.

Rawlinson said that increasingly in Australia he has noticed organizations taking a discretionary approach. "If they aren't dealing with customers, why would you make them wear shirts and ties every day?" he said.

Rawlinson said Talent2's dress code is simply to 'dress appropriately', but on the topic of dressing casually, he felt that anything that can make the working environment more comfortable and therefore more dynamic "has to be a good thing".

Thanks to HCA Mag / HC Online / Human Capital / Key Media Pty Ltd
http://www.hcamag.com/resources/HR-Strategy/casual-dress-at-work-in-or-out/121732/

Amazon Magazine Subscriptions Amazon Books Amazon Kindle Store
Amazon Everyday Low Prices, Sales, Deals, Bargains, Discounts, Best-Sellers, Gifts, Household Consumer Products
 
 

Redundancy, Survivor Guilt And Its Long-Term Effects On Your Organization

Restructures, redundancies and layoffs are now part of the lifecycle of most businesses and organizations are required to act responsibly towards those who have lost their job.

However, those that lose their job are only one part of the equation. On the whole, companies focus only on those who are retrenched with little or no attention paid to those left behind. They do this at their peril. There is a large body of research that shows that survivors of retrenchments and restructures are at risk, often exhibiting behaviors that result in reduced productivity, low engagement and absenteeism (Brewer 1995).

The everyday experience people recount is of having to deal with seeing one of their colleagues emerge from a suddenly scheduled meeting, pack up their things and get escorted to the door.

Rather than being relieved and elated that it's not them, the feelings are less helpful; guilt if they are the one who did the firing leading to feelings of distress (why am I in this position?), wakefulness, self-doubt (surely there was another way?) or even shame. These all come under the umbrella of survivor guilt.

Other versions of survivor guilt include "Why her and not me?" leading to stress from uncertainty and lack of confidence; or "Will I be next?" leading to feelings of insecurity.  Another is resentment at being the one left to clean up the mess, or take up the slack left by shouldering others' work.  And being the one that delivers the layoff message unleashes emotions that can potentially overwhelm the messenger and lead to long-term effects.

Recognize the problem

Companies need to address the problem of survivor guilt. The first step is to recognize the problem as affecting individuals and therefore workplace productivity and the culture of the organization.

Being able to express the emotions of survivor guilt is important.  Questions such as "why not me?", negative thoughts such as "he was better than me", "my performance is not that good", "probably they chose me because I'm cheaper" need to be given expression and normalized, as does the effect of further guilt arising from thoughts like  "I should be grateful, or relieved". Furthermore, as the workload increases and people are asked to take up the slack, survivor envy can set in "I envy them, I am left to clean up the mess, I wish I had been laid off".

Tread carefully

Some people may be lucky to have a coach or confidant who they can talk through these feelings with, helping to resolve the emotions and reducing the stress that can be so damaging to their well-being.  The important thing is that it is normal to need to express these things and they are normal reactions.

Leaders need to treat those who are laid-off with respect.  And, they also need to be aware that that the people left behind may be struggling as well. A leader's role is to give those who remain behind confidence about their future. Open discussions about the situation with employees about why retrenchments are happening and what can be expected in the future will lead employees to feel more secure and engaged with the company.

Minimize long-term effects

What should be more worrying to employers is what the research says about the long term effects of retrenchments and layoffs. Consequences such as reduced productivity and engagement can linger for many months, or even years, especially when the process has not been handled gracefully.

Individual responses of people include; shutting down, becoming more internally focused and more controlled and rigid. This does not bode well for staff and customer engagement or innovation, creativity or healthy risk taking - arguably things that organizations need in more difficult times.

Added to this, it seems that when there have been large job losses there is increased staff turnover, because prolonged uncertainty and insecurity is a very real factor in increasing stress. Often the ones who leave are the marketable ones – potential new leaders who will reach the conclusion that leaving is an attractive option because of the culture left behind.

This can all be managed through open conversations about the situation and why the lay-offs happened. Employees need to know that there is a process and that it is as fair as possible.  After all, we are dealing with people's lives and livelihoods.

Retrenchments are not pleasant, but it is a situation that has to be dealt with, not shied away from. Leaders can't ignore what is happening because they delegate to others the unpleasant task of enacting redundancies. They must accept responsibility and continue to lead the business by looking after the people, knowing if they do this the results will look after themselves.

Dr Hilary Armstrong is the director of education at the Institute of Executive Coaching.

Thanks to Dr Hilary Armstrong / HCA Mag / HC Online / Human Capital / Key Media Pty Ltd
http://www.hcamag.com/resources/HR-Strategy/redundancy-survivor-guilt-and-its-long-term-effects-on-your-organisation/121648/

Amazon Magazine Subscriptions Amazon Books Amazon Kindle Store
Amazon Everyday Low Prices, Sales, Deals, Bargains, Discounts, Best-Sellers, Gifts, Household Consumer Products
 
 

Performance Reviews: Scrap Them?

The New Year period often means a plethora of performance reviews, which, depending on how they are administered, can mean a heavy time burden for HR directors and their teams. But having performance-reviewed the performance review, some more innovative organizations have decided to do away with the process altogether.

Australian software development company Atlassian took this step. According to its HR director, traditional performance reviews cause anxiety for all parties and act as a demotivator. "Instead of discussion about how to enhance people's performance, the reviews caused disruptions and anxiety, and demotivated team members and managers," Joris Luijke said.

Atlassian abolished official performance reviews two year ago, and replaced them with a brief weekly self-analysis that employees complete online by dragging a dot along an axis in response to questions.

The results of a 2010 survey by Sibson Consulting and WorldatWork indicated that in fact many organizations continue to conduct performance reviews simply out of convention; only approximately 1% of businesses in the US have scrapped them.

Some 60% of US HR managers rated their employer's performance management protocols as 'C or below'. A further 600 employee-feedback studies found that two-thirds of appraisals had zero or even negative effects on employee performance after the feedback was given.

While no statistics are available for the Australian market, most organizations continue to carry out reviews once or twice a year.

Thanks to HCA Mag / HC Online / Human Capital / Key Media Pty Ltd
http://www.hcamag.com/news/latest-news/performance-reviews-scrap-them/121553/

Amazon Magazine Subscriptions Amazon Books Amazon Kindle Store
Amazon Everyday Low Prices, Sales, Deals, Bargains, Discounts, Best-Sellers, Gifts, Household Consumer Products