Senior Management: Misguided or just Disconnected?

With all the recent CEO terminations, I started thinking about my and my friend's experiences. And although one can argue that the CEO owns and drives the corporate culture and senior management team (aka, the Board), it's often a chicken-and-egg syndrome and all are partially to blame when things go wrong.

So are senior management teams misguided...or just disconnected?

In my opinion, it's a combination of the two.

1. The Board is inherently a bit too disconnected from the frontline--the people who actually run the business.
2. This is further exacerbated if they make poor hiring decisions and insert managers/directors who do not have the skills and experience to lead their staff and the business to success. 
3. The result is that not only is the Board not aware of what is important to its staff  (and therefore business), but they also have a false impression, as fed to them by their mishires in an attempt to protect their own self interests.

So what are some possible solutions?

First off, as I've mentioned before, value human resources as your most precious asset. You are nothing without your people and if you motivate them, they will gladly think of ideas to take your company to the next level. So why not combine the two? Reward good ideas and overachievers by taking them to lunch. Turn off all your electronics for the hour and really listen to your shining star. Ask him/her what works and what doesn't. What would they do differently. How could x product/process be improved. And try to take this feedback to heart and if you can't, let the employee know why. Either way, they'll feel vested and valued, share this with everyone else on the team, and before you know it, everyone will be trying to earn that hour of your time.

If the above sounds too optimistic, try it before you discount it. And if this method doesn't work in your company, find something that does. But remember that the purpose is to reconnect with your frontline staff and make them feel like their ideas matter; it's not to "pay them off" with a nominal fiscal reward (which does have its place and time, but this isn't it.)

Motivation and Corporate Culture

Have you ever had to rank attributes in the order they're most important to you? This may have been for self-assessment purposes or to prepare for an annual review, and each company's version is probably almost interchangeable.

Do you remember what was most important for you? Is that still the case? I'm a big proponent of any activity that helps you know yourself better, since succeeding at work and life will depend on this.

As many have heard me say, and as I know has come up in previous blog posts, to succeed and be happy at work, the job has to play to your strengths. But that is unfortunately not enough. Imagine a brilliant innovator that needs collaboration and mistakenly finds himself at a company where the culture is to work independently and quietly, and where bouncing ideas off each other is frowned upon. Do you think he'll be able to succeed even if the job itself plays to his strengths? How about the manager who is good at motivating staff and making things happen, but needs authority and autonomy to work at her best. Will she succeed with a micromanager?

How do you make sure you end up with a good corporate/team fit in addition to a job that plays to your strengths? I actually think that companies, as part of pre-screening potential employees, should give them a self-assessment. It is in the company's best interest to ensure employees will be happy and productive. I just read yesterday that Zappos, after putting all new hires through a four-week training program, offers them a $3000 bonus to quit. A small percentage actually take them up on this offer and they consider the ROI well worth it since they only want employees who really want to be there.

If HR won't pre-screen for good fit, it's up to the hiring manager and employee. For the manager, I would give the employee the self-assessment quiz as soon as they walk in your door and explain that it's to see if the two of you would make a good team. If you think this is too harsh, then ask leading questions; for example:

1. What three adjectives best describe you?
2. What type of manager have you worked best with? Worst with? Why?
3. What kind of environment brings out the best in you? Worst in you?
4. Would previous managers or peers disagree with any of this? Why?

Consider these examples, but cater the questions to the level you're hiring for, what matters most to you, and to what you need most in a direct report.

For the potential employee, Scott Ginsberg wrote a great article called "7 Interview Questions to Uncover Corporate Culture" for theLadders.com. Since that link won't work if you don't have a Ladders account, I've copied and pasted the questions below:

1. If you could describe your corporate culture in three words, what would you say?
2. If you were going to give public tours of this company, what stops would the guide make?
3. If the local paper were going to run a four-page article about your company's culture, what would be impossible not to include?
4. What's the best part about working in this environment that I won't be able to see from just a walk around the office?
5. What are the most common complaints employees make about your company culture?
6. May I speak with a few of your veteran employees or new hires?
7. What do you love best about the culture here?

 As they say, it takes a village, so make sure it's the right village for you so that you're motivated to do your best--for yourself and the village.

Feedback

Feedback is a wonderful thing, and when it comes to business models and process, it's pretty straightforward: when something doesn't work, there's a problem and you know it. When it comes to people, giving feedback is anything but straightforward.

Whether you're a manager, team leader, colleague, parent, teacher, friend--and we're all at least one of these--at some point you will have to give another human being feedback. And even if the feedback is positive, read on.

If you're having a team building session or a status meeting, it is sometimes okay to give short, on-topic feedback right then and there, but be sure that it's not personal, not too critical, and will not embarrass the person. If you're not sure, wait until after the meeting. This goes for positive feedback, too, since there are some people who hate being the center of attention.

Many of us were taught to treat others the way we want to be treated, but to be a good manager, you should treat staff the way they want to be treated. Think back to the example above. Although an introvert by nature, I've learned to be the center of attention and don't mind being praised in public. I've managed brilliant, dedicated people who barely said a word in a meeting but were eloquent in private and/or in writing. Had I praised them in front of all my staff, they probably would have been more hurt and offended than pleased, even knowing my intent.

What about negative feedback? Except for the rare occasion (mentioned above, when in meeting and it's short, impersonal, and on-topic), negative feedback should always be given in private. Keep it professional and unemotional; stick to concrete facts and how he/she can rectify the problem; and end off on a positive note. Do not drag it out, do not  belabor the point, and do not get emotional or angry. Check-in with the employee in a week or two (this depends on the severity of the problem) and ensure they're improving; if not, be more specific as to your expectations.

And if you've noticed, I did not mention performance reviews. Yes, official reviews provide feedback and are useful (more or less depending on the system), but feedback needs to be frequent and continuous, not just once or twice a year. If your employee is surprised by anything on his/her official review, you've failed in your job--that simple, that straightforward, and that true.

What is the worst and best feedback you've gotten?

Micromanaging

Micromanaging is bad both for the employee and the manager. It's obvious why from the employee's point of view, so let's focus on why it's bad for the manager.

When a manager micromanages, it could be one of countless reasons, but at their root is really only two: control or lack of trust. The manager either prefers to keep control of all aspects and have it done their way, or he mistrusts his staff to do a good job. Any other reason boils down to one of these two.

If there is reason for you, the manager, to doubt your staff's abilities, it's your job to provide them additional training. If this still doesn't work--and you've given them ample opportunity to try--then it's in both your and his best interests for you to either find him another job within the company, one he is more suited to, or if that's not possible, fire him and give him the opportunity to find one where he can succeed. However, if you don't fix this problem and still keep rechecking his work, perhaps your boss will start wondering whether you have enough of your own work and/or can't manage your staff properly. See where I'm headed? Your job can be at risk if you spend too much time doing someone else's job instead of the job you're being paid to do.

Now for the second reason: control. As a somewhat reformed perfectionist, I know how difficult it is to let go and I know how hard it is to sit back and watch others stumble when you can do it quicker and better...but learn to do so. As mentioned above, it's not safe to always be doing someone else's job, but beyond that, as long as your employee gets from point A to point B in a timely fashion and with good results, then they've done their job. There is no right or wrong way of doing things and you need to allow people to do it their way. Yes, if they make mistakes and/or take too long, you can offer advice. Yes, if they ask for help, you can offer advice. But if they're doing their job--let them. They will never learn or be allowed to shine if you keep stepping in. And ultimately, their success is yours, so let them make you proud.

If you really don't have enough to do so that micromanaging is needed to look busy, well then, perhaps there's too much redundancy between you and your direct reports and you need to have a frank discussion with your own boss.

Either way, if you're micromanaging, you're not doing your job well and you're not allowing your staff to do theirs well, so stop. Remind yourself of what you'd feel like if someone was constantly hovering over you and checking your work, dictating what you should do and how. I highly doubt you'd appreciate it, so don't subject anyone else to this either.

And I will freely admit there are different degrees of micromanaging, so if you're barely a micromanager, maybe just check-in with your staff during your next one-on-one to see if there's a problem.

Are you a micromanager or have you worked for one? How did you handle this? And if you disagree with any of the above, please tell me why.

What Type of Production Editor Are You?

Since I was fortunate enough to attend MediaBistro's Career Circus yesterday, I came away with a lot of food for thought on careers and what one should look for in a job. One of the top debates of the day was doing what you're passionate about versus what you're good at, and I'm a firm believer of a mix of the two: it's easier to do well if you do something you're good at, but try to do it at a company or industry that you can get passionate about.

This reminded me of a conversation I recently had with a friend on the four types of PEs (production editors) I've come across--and managed--in my career:

1. the Lifer: This PE loves nothing more than being a PE and making books. She is not interested in advancement or anything that will take her away from working on the books she loves. 
2. the Nine-to-Fiver: This PE is often good at the work they do, but it's only a day job for them and allows them to do what they're passionate about after hours, whether it's music, writing, theater, etc.
3. the Ambitious: This PE does her job well but sees it as the first of many stepping stones to her ultimate goal, whether it's running the department or higher.
4. the Ill-Suited: This PE is not good at what they do and is just not suited for the work of a PE. 

Although I speak of PEs in particular, the above categories are probably true for many jobs out there and it's very important for an individual to know which category they fall into and for their manager to know this as well. If you happen to manage a Lifer, promotion is not the way to motivate her; nor is it the way to motivate anyone but the Ambitious. If you manage a Nine-to-Fiver, respecting the work-life-balance and rewarding her with extra time off may be the key. For the Ill-Suited, if the person does not respond to all your efforts at training or development, it's in both your best interests to figure out what job they would be suited for.

One of my all-time favorite books on management is First, Break All the Rules: What the World's Greatest Managers Do Differently by Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman. It inspired me and introduced me to the "Strengths Revolution." The premise is that although skills and knowledge can be taught, talent and strengths are innate; to succeed at work and gain satisfaction from it, your job must play to these inherent strengths. It is a manager's job to help their staff do so, and to do so for themselves. If you manage staff and want to do it well,  I highly recommend reading this book.

So do you know your strengths and what motivates you? What type of PE are you?