Tech Jobsites » change management

Ready For Prime Time – The Executive Suite

Ingrid Baker — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 17:42:30 +0000

For those climbing the corporate ladder, you need to be prepared for what is ahead. Being part of the “Executive Suite” is essentially a whole new game – not at all like you’ve experienced before. Leaders in the organization would be ahead to spend some time with new executives, describing the lay of the land.

For the new senior executive, the perks are great, the responsibilities critical to the success of your company, and you are making great money. That’s the good part. The challenge is to stay there and succeed in the new role!

An article on this topic by Jim Swanson, senior director for the American Bar Association and former CEO for USAF Legal Operations was published in the online news, December 2011, for the Society for Human Resource Management. In it he outlines some of the differences as one assumes a leadership role.

One of the most significant differences might be obvious, but requires some thought. The new Big Bosses are a very different group than those in middle management. These people have a whole world of “bosses” to report to, including their board, shareholders, customers, and even Government. Their work schedules are generally 24-7, and their time is always stretched. Therefore a big part of your job is to communicate efficiently. A quote from a former boss of mine – “Be brief, be bright, be gone.” -might apply here.

Your attention and time will also be spent primarily on solutions to the overall company goals. Your focus should be always on the results, without getting tangled in the details and processes of your internal organization. Failing to deliver is a sure definition of failure in your boss’s eyes. You also need to steer clear of turf wars or spending time on personal status issues. These are NOT productive.

Don’t bring problems – bring solutions. If you simply bump tough problems up to your boss, you are not providing value in the role. If it is necessary to bring an issue to the Boss, be prepared with solutions and courses of action that are in line with the “big picture” as the Boss sees it. This means that you have to be constantly aware of the current situation in the company so pay attention.

Executive suite language often requires interpretation. The Boss doesn’t criticize in public, and speaks much like a diplomat – oblique and highly civil. It is for you to understand underlying messages. In public settings, compliments are “diplomatic” and you shouldn’t read too much into them. In one on one communications, compliments with a “but” in the conversation may be an expression of concern so listen carefully to the comments. Also, any time the Big Boss makes a suggestion or mentions something more than once, take it as “Do it ASAP”.

Finally, get used to NOT getting a lot of strokes from the CEO. Also get used to criticism, as it is part of the territory. There is usually not much time for coddling – the fact that you are still in the executive suite is reward enough.

For the “Big Boss” – help your new execs prepare for the role, and you will have a much more productive and stable group to support your success. Good luck.

Good Bosses vs Bad

Ingrid Baker — Thu, 06 Oct 2011 17:23:47 +0000

Because employers are at an advantage in the current job market, some leaders develop a superior attitude, implying that the employee is lucky to have a job (somewhat true but not nice to say). Others recognize that even with lots of job seekers out there, keeping their star employees is even more important because of the hiring and training costs involved in adding staff.

Those employers that appreciate happy productive employees are more likely to say things like “thanks, good job” or let me know if you need help” or even “why don’t you take the rest of the day off – you’ve worked hard to complete this project”. Their employees are also more productive overall (See my previous blog on paying for performance).

A column in Bloomberg Businessweek, by Liz Ryan (10/4/2011) gives some great examples of what “bad bosses” say and how it negatively affects the company. One I’ve already alluded to- “If you don’t want this job, I’ll find someone who does”. These bosses love to remind employees that it’s all about the money, and that “You work for me”. In actual fact money is not as important in a professional relationship as feeling like the employee makes an important contribution.

Another (and we’ve all heard it) is “I don’t pay you to think”. In my experience, those bosses felt threatened by anyone with a good idea, or they were stuck in old ways and didn’t want to make an effort to change. Any employee with a brain is going to look for a new job asap.

How about “I’ll take it under advisement”? Much like Mom or Dad saying “We’ll see”, and not a very positive response. It usually means the boss doesn’t value your input enough to make an effort.

“Bring me solutions – not problems” can be perceived in two ways. During the “re-engineering” craze in the ‘80s this was a catchphrase for the movement. It should be empowering to the employees , as those closest to the problem usually can find better solutions. It has also been misinterpreted as “don’t complain – just deal with it”, not nearly as positive an attitude. It is also possible, that in the complicated business environment we live in now, the solution is a much more complicated one, and needs a manager’s involvement.

“Who gave you permission” is such an antiquated attitude, but does still prevail. Any organization has rules and guidelines for the workplace and the business, but when employees want to stick their collective necks out and try new ideas, there should be support and advice available from management – rather than roadblocks. Companies that can respond quickly to new opportunities or crises don’t use that phrase.

Others – “sounds like a personal problem to me”, “drop everything and do this NOW”, and “everyone here feels the same way” can be belittling and create a negative work environment to those having to hear these comments. So, whether you are just leading a meeting, or leading a department, think before opening your mouth “how would this sound if a boss said it to me”? Thinking before speaking is always a good idea!

Start-ups Generate Fewer New Jobs

Ingrid Baker — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 16:12:42 +0000

Many of the news stories on job losses/job creation/unemployment state that small businesses, led by start-ups, generate over 50% of new jobs in the economy. An article in the Wall Street Journal (9/15/2011) quotes the Small Business Administration as saying that 65% of new jobs over the last 17 years were due to small employers.
That same article “With New Technology, Start-ups Go Lean”, says that the number of workers needed to launch a new company has decreased by almost half in the past decade. Start-ups are being launched with an average of 4.9 employees vs. the 7.5 workers in the 1990s. At the same time, the number of start-ups has held steady, or even showed a slight increase since the recession, according to a study by the Kauffman Foundation. This factor can have a huge impact on overall job recovery.
Efficiency is a good thing, but how do they do it? As it turns out, using Web-based business tools, and working with contract developers/workers online has reduced the need for bodies in the company. The availability of web-based collaborative tools allows disparate groups to work together on projects, and eliminates the need for a large staff.
One thing occurs to me – maybe the start-up or small business doesn’t add to its staff, but the work (managing the projects, ordering supplies, keeping financial records, etc) still needs to be done. Someone outside the company is getting paid for providing these services in another setting. Whereas the work may be done more efficiently, we still have a job opportunity for some bright soul. It might be interesting to compare costs for outside services and support between today’s start-up and the earlier versions.
Sadly there’s one part of this story that doesn’t help our jobs picture – the ease of collaboration with overseas talent. Good for keeping costs down, but not so good for the job market either.
In the meantime, the really good news is that start-ups are continuing to launch at a steady rate, and our innovative talent is still at work. Keep up the good work!

Mobile Learning – A Good Thing?

Ingrid Baker — Sat, 09 Jul 2011 16:57:06 +0000

Of course, because mobile computing devices,(smart phones, etc) are so popular now, companies are looking at the ability to offer training on these devices. It is projected that by the end of the year over 50% of phones sold will be smart phones. A whole new frontier for organizational learning!

SO – is it a good idea? The Society For Human Resource Management (SHRM) July publication reviews a study by the American Society for Training and Development that recommends piloting mobile learning programs to find out what works. They suggest rolling out the programs incrementally and take advantage of the mobile device features that enhance learning,.
So far the ASTD survey finds that 15% of the 1546 organizations responding to their survey use mobile learning. Interestingly, those organizations that were using mobile learning found a high correlation between that factor and better performance – specifically in market performance and effective instructional design.

Another 41% of organizations surveyed said they were considering developing mobile learning programs in their institutions. Michael Green, research manager for ASTD cautions that this is no replacement for traditional formal learning, but augments that venue by making relevant content easily accessible to employees, and by providing real-time learning.

Recommendations for mobile learning initiatives from the report:
- Try to remain “agnostic”, as developing mobile applications and then having to provide devices represent big upfront costs.
- Don’t focus only on the importance for training. Realize the other benefits, to help manage a workforce and improve productivity in the organization.
- Remember it’s OK to wait and see. This market is still fragmented, so maybe being a beta test organization isn’t right for you.
- Take small bites – try one or two applications as a start.
- Utilize the unique capabilities of this type of device – otherwise you might as well stick with webcasts or internet-based products.
Good luck!

Success In Hiring Executive Talent Takes Planning

Ingrid Baker — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 22:23:52 +0000

Studies show that high-performing executives add millions of dollars to their firms’ bottom lines. Here is an overview of the executive search process and some recommendations for success.
The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) wrote a report on the recruiting process for executives based on surveys conducted with member companies. One of the main points of the report was the need for preparation as you begin to search. If you have clear goals for the position you are much more effective in the search and in the candidate evaluation part of the hiring process. It also helps combat the tendency to hire someone “like yourself” or just because you are comfortable with them.

So, one of the main requirements for success was understanding your business as it exists and what type of leadership you need for the future. For example a startup company is going to need a leader who is comfortable “working without a net” in that they will be establishing processes and building a team as they progress. In a more established business, the candidate will need to be able to work within the goals and processes already established and to be able to motivate the team to work within these goals, as well as looking for new opportunities for growth. Finally a company in a rapidly changing market will need a good strategic planner to keep the company in the game and growing.

Once the company has defined their leadership needs, then they need to look at the types of managerial skills the job will require. The SHRM report defined three broad sets of skills, technical, interpersonal and conceptual. The perception is that technical skills are most important at the middle management level; interpersonal skills are important at all levels, and conceptual skills are important at the executive level. A more recent approach added another factor – business acumen – to the mix, and there are many different opinions on which skills are most important.

Within these broad categories each company can define specific factors that are important for their organization. Once that is done, building a job listing, interview questions and a set of criteria to evaluate the candidates becomes easier and more effective.

Successful hiring of executive talent is one way companies can survive and beat their competition. In the market today there is a lot of talent that can help your company be successful. Good luck!

Performance Reviews – Are They Worth The Pain?

Ingrid Baker — Tue, 03 May 2011 19:00:32 +0000

Performance reviews are not fun for either the employee or the reviewer, but in the past were viewed as a necessary evil of working in an organization. The fact is, however, that they are not a requirement except in the case of some governmental or union employees. The other fact is that they take an enormous amount of time and create lots of stress for everyone. So why do them?
An article in Legal Section of the Society for Human Resource Management site brings up some interesting points. The April article by Judith Droz Keyes discusses both the reasons for and the pitfalls of performance reviews.
The formal review system was developed predominantly as a defense against discrimination lawsuits in the 50’s and 60’s, to justify terminations and disciplinary actions. They were also supposed to serve as an honest and accurate assessment of an employee’s job performance relative to the employer’s standards and, to the performance of the team. They were intended to motivate the employee to achieve great things and improve the morale of the company.
The problems with these evaluations are many. First and foremost, most supervisors are not good at reviewing their staff, and tend to avoid confrontation. Therefore the employee may have been reprimanded in some way during the year, and at review time will get a satisfactory rating, so as not to cause waves. In other cases, the language used in the review is not clear – saying “I would like to see” rather than “this job requires”. In addition, most supervisors are not held accountable for the quality of their review process, so there is no consequence, until the employee is let go and a lawsuit is file.
That brings up the second problem. Many times the review process is designed more as a career path management tool than a disciplinary tool and so problems with employees may not be accurately documented in the process. Then, when an employee files a “wrongful termination” suit, they cite their years of positive reviews as evidence. Sadly this means that the supervisor must now always look at the process as a potential legal pitfall rather than a helpful tool for management.
Yet another problem with the process is the lack of timeliness of the feedback. Management should be addressing problems or achievements as they occur, rather than waiting a prescribed amount of time to give praise or criticism. As a supervisor I had to keep careful notes during the year to avoid the “feeling of the moment” – the employee had just done something to irritate me that might affect my attitude during the review.
Finally (though there are probably more issues I haven’t thought of) there is the legal side of employment which says you need to be careful about commenting on things such as “professional attitude”, excessive absences, or cases where there is a conflict with the supervisor. Any comments must be weighed against the protected rights of the individual employee, which tends to lead to a very bland review. It is very difficult to deal with an employee with serious health issues when their position is vital to the organization and slows down the whole business process. A supervisor must be very careful to comment in language that addresses the goals of the company and how they are not being met…or some other cleaver way to discuss the problem.
So if not performance reviews, what? As mentioned earlier, timely addressing of the issue, either positive or negative, is much more useful for both employer and employee. Record of these discussions need to be documented just as in a review, especially when compensation is tied to performance. In place of a review, a “career plan” showing goals for the employee to work toward would be much more useful. The goals should be developed through mutual input and allow the employee to show how they would like to grow in the business.
Whether you are a manager or part of the staff in an organization, it is a challenge to keep dialogue open and keep everyone on the same page. Good luck!

Talent Poaching An Issue

Ingrid Baker — Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:17:57 +0000

Recruiting firms and companies themselves are noticing that talent poaching, especially in the technology industry, is becoming a big issue this year and will be in the future. Talent poaching means one company snags a competitor’s talent with the lure of hirer salaries or other perks. Bloomberg Businessweek reported recently that poaching in tech companies is an epidemic. Firms use email or LinkedIn to contact passive candidates. Bottom line is this can affect YOUR company’s future plans significantly.

First let’s look at why. The economy is reportedly recovering, and sections of the technology industry are part of that recovery. Computer hardware and software, as well as renewable energy businesses are planning for growth. Meanwhile, the pool of qualified talent in science, engineering and math skills is not going to be able to meet our predicted demands. Companies also need experienced leadership to take them to the next level. Logically hiring managers will look at the existing workforce to try to fill those gaps.

An even bigger issue is that most organizations aren’t prepared to address this threat. How can you prevent your top talent from leaving for what they perceive as greener pastures? The first step is to take a good look at which of your employees might be a target for poaching. Then look at what your company can do to avert the threat.

In the current economic climate, giving folks a raise isn’t always an option, but money isn’t always the answer. As long as the compensation is competitive in the industry, there are other things that might encourage loyalty to the current employer.
It sounds like a broken record, but flexible work hours is one of the things employees really appreciate. One candidate I know is wanting to make a change, but the thought of losing 4 weeks vacation a year and flexible work hours holds him back.

Another possibility is to assign your star performers to exciting and stimulating projects. A challenging, interesting assignment can be as satisfying as a raise for some.

There is always to option of asking employees to sign noncompete agreements or other legally binding contracts, but that’s not always a morale builder, and has to be carefully crafted. High tech companies with a lot of research going on may be an instance where this is important.

In the end, your successful and talented staff are an asset to protect as you plan for your own growth and success. Include them in any strategic planning as you go!

Ramifications of Doing More With Less, For Companies and Workforce

Ingrid Baker — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 22:32:27 +0000

As we all have heard, corporate profits dropped significantly (some sources say by 1/3) in the latest economic downturn, and companies were cutting and slashing wherever they could, including eliminating some product or service lines. Because of the belt tightening companies have become very efficient at delivering their product or services with fewer resources. As a result, second-quarter 2010 profits for industrial companies in the S&P 500 stock index were $189 billion, up 38% from a year ago. The outcome in many cases was as much a result of cost savings as revenue growth.
But..how does that affect the staff that got to keep their jobs? And what are the long-term effects of this new way of working?
An article in the Society for Human Resource Management news (1/7/2011) highlights some of the problems in doing more with less. Companies know they cannot continue cost-cutting to success, but for the last two years that was the major tool in the toolbox.
Among the problems mentioned in the article are: Diminished capacity, capability and agility, misaligned organizational structure, broken business processes and declining workforce engagement. These issues can greatly affect future success.
Diminished capacity refers to not having enough staff, which can directly affect the company’s cost structure and ability to deliver the goods. In well-staffed organizations there is the ability to shift people rapidly to respond to shifting business needs. In a reduced-staff organization the employees have to focus on their immediate responsibilities, leaving little time to help in other areas. Obviously the inability to respond will affect the company’s ability to compete.
Misaligned Org Structure can, as a result of rapid reorganization, leave an organizational chart that no longer is aligned to support the business. There are resulting gaps in roles, work process, accountabilities and information flow. Structural gaps also occur when companies eliminate middle management positions without eliminating the work, forcing employees to take on added responsibilities. Employees unprepared for management issues often end up “winging it” to the detriment of the company.
There are also broken business processes, partly as a result of prior reliance on long-term employees for “tribal knowledge” of the operation. By failing to document or address the broken processes the companies can lose core efficiencies – and have to re-invent the wheel.
Eventually the workforce becomes disengaged. In the short term everyone was glad for the job, and willing to pitch in. It has become obvious, however, that this situation is going to continue for quite awhile. Not only that, but these loyal employees aren’t seeing monetary rewards for their efforts. These employees are hunkered down until new opportunities arise, and then some organizations may lose a lot of valuable talent.
Unless companies address the problems created by the downsizing, they will start to lose the advantages gained by the initial cuts. They need to be able to manage the new structure and reevaluate skills needed to stay competitive – and be ready for the next wave of new business!

Belt Tightening for 2011; Managing Work Expectations

Ingrid Baker — Tue, 28 Dec 2010 17:15:21 +0000

Various publications continue to predict that we will not see huge economic recovery gains in the new year. One of the steps companies and employees can take to improve their business success is to improve efficiency within the work groups.
An article in December 2010 HR Magazine talks about “slackers” and how to better manage them. Adrienne Fox writes about workers who know how to be adequate performers without pushing too hard. She defines “slackers” as people who know they could be much more productive but make a conscious decision not to be. One consultant group survey showed that 44% of employees admitted that they knew how to increase effectiveness but didn’t. One HR manager at the University of Oklahoma stated that the lack of commitment to the organization tended to result in more counterproductive work behaviors.
Various factors affect employee commitment. Sometimes the worker doesn’t understand the job clearly. Others see co-workers slacking off without consequences and become disheartened. In other cases there may be a lack of resources to do the job well. There may also be a situation where workers feel efforts are not matched by the rewards offered, and so “make do”.
Most of us know someone that we went to school with that was able to make excellent grades with little effort. In the education system many of the good students end up bored or unmotivated because they weren’t challenged, or because no one seemed to care about the results they delivered. These same talented people may end up in a job that doesn’t keep them interested.
In my workplace experiences, the leaders I worked the hardest for were ones I respected and that had a clear vision of what to do and how to do it. They kept me involved through their leadership skills and their ability to engage others. In some jobs, the situation was so frustrating or the politics so overwhelming that I did what I had to and started looking for a way out!
Solutions offered on how to manage the slacker range from motivational efforts to get them committed to the goals, or to weed out those that are just plain lazy. In many cases the individual is accustomed to being rewarded for natural talent rather than effort or commitment, and may give up when the going gets tough. It is always the manager’s challenge to identify and deal with these employees. If not, the end result can be a demoralized workforce, or one where all the hard workers leave for better opportunities. Such is the agony of management!

Retraining for the New Careers

Ingrid Baker — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 21:22:35 +0000

As we are all aware, the jobless rate hasn’t dropped much in the last year. Hiring is happening, but piecemeal, and for specific talents. So, one way to set your target is to watch industrial/business news about what positions have been difficult to fill.

An article in the SHRM Magazine, June 2010, highlights a projected severe shortage in workers for the utilities industries. According to the article, electric power industry companies estimate that 30-40% of its 400,000 workers will be eligible for retirement in the next two years. These positions range from executive level to skilled craft workers and may create a huge demand for people to fill these slots.

HR folks in all utilities have been aware of this issue for years, but there has been a lack of future workforce planning to make sure the right people are available to meet the need.

One company in this industry, Southern Co. built a statistical model that highlighted particular hot spots..technicians, system operators, control system engineers, water and wastewater operators and operations management. So – hiring ahead is part of the plan.

There is, however, a problem finding qualified replacements for the industry– inadequate training and education of workers. Companies are even willing to train on the job but the candidate needs to be science-savvy and a high school graduate.

Another industry that will need (and does now) more skilled workers is the healthcare world. There are not enough trained nurses and techs to fill the needs now. One nursing educator in southern California said most of her students were preparing for a second career. The healthcare insurance industry will also be adding folks as more of the population obtains formal insurance coverage.

Job seekers need to check business/hiring surveys put out by local departments of labor or professional organizations. Educational institutions will also have hiring and salary information for the area. Then, get the tools you need to fill the jobs there are.