Talent Management: Right people, right roles, right tasks

Your organization is changing. This year, more folks are changing jobs than at any time since 2008. It’s happening to well run companies and poorly run companies. A client of mine has seen two top level departures, and hired 5 new senior level positions. Another has seen virtually a whole senior leadership team go out the door. These types of top talent changes are natural challenges to successful business operations.

As an organizational leader, you need to be thinking about how best to manage your top talent. True talent management, however, goes beyond just managing existing employees and projects. Traditionally, leaders who excel at talent management have recognized that a successful organizational strategy depends on having the right people in the right roles focused on the right tasks.

Yet even this traditional model of management is changing in response to the current transitional employment environment. Roles and responsibilities certainly need to be clearly defined, but at the moment, the people you use to make it all happen are considering where best to deploy their talents.

The only way to respond to this environment is to join your top folks in the conversation. Often I recommend leaders use an acronym to remember the process for top talent management: AREA. As a leader you need to consider how to Attract, Retain, Engage, and Activate your top talent.

Attracting top talent. Skilled professionals today are looking for more than a great compensation package. In fact, when considering knowledge workers or intellectual capital type positions, compensation level is only moderately correlated with job motivation. Once the baseline of a fair or competitive compensation package is set, boosting financial reward is unlikely to highly motivate folks. You need to be thinking about what it is like to work in your organization – are you a “top place to work” in your industry or geography?

Retaining top talent. Most of the current work satisfaction research tells us that people don’t leave bad companies – they leave bad managers. Stress related to supervisor relations drives talent out the door. It is critical that you don’t assume that highly skilled employees don’t suffer from this type of stress. Just because they are smart, talented, capable employees doesn’t mean they don’t require a strong management relationship. Just the opposite is true: top talent want to be recognized and supported in their efforts. Create strong relationships – know how these folks are doing and what they experience in the way of challenges and successes.

Engaging top talent. When you create a relationship with your talented employees to the degree you understand the challenges and successes of their work, give them the space to think these items through. Sometimes this can occur by providing a professional coach, or a senior leadership team facilitation. The key is that these talented people have the opportunity to explore their own success factors in a meaningful way as they go, with a non-judgmental support structure. Engagement isn’t strengthened when these types of conversations happen in a performance review – there are conflicting interests at that time. Engagement comes from eliciting the best ideas and skill development your employee can provide – because it is exciting or meaningful to them personally and professionally.

Activating top talent. In his best-selling book “Drive”, author Daniel Pink identifies autonomy, mastery, and self direction as critical motivational factors in today’s workforce. Someone you identify as a top-performer is very likely to value these factors highly. To activate your top-talent don’t micromanage; be clear about due dates and outcomes expected, but give them a free hand to determine how and with whom they will best complete the work. Remember, you can’t disengage from them or you risk employee frustration and stress. Rather, encourage their creativity and recognize that they have the talent to excel. Clearly indicate your willingness to respond to requests for support, and determine the frequency of interim reporting.

Go beyond thinking about what you need to pay to attract and retain your top talent. Talented folks what to be engaged in the work they do. Provide them with the support they need to become engaged and activated, and watch your organization thrive.

Stuart G. Danforth is the Director of Positive Leadership Dynamics in Wayland.  He may be reached at www.positiveleadershipdynamics.com

Conveying important messages

A personable CEO of a fast-growing company asked me for help recently.

I had a hard time thinking this guy needed help. His company had experienced strong growth even in the dull economy. His employees were very motivated and engaged in their work. His leadership team had recently realigned to best use their particular strengths and talents in their roles. The company had successfully rolled out new products and services that clients liked.

The problem, it turned out, was related to the rapid success of the company. As the company grew and added products and services, the sales team was sensing that the strong story they had always provided to prospects was becoming diluted.

This wasn’t a problem of being unclear about the value the company provided. Rather, it emerged as a difficulty in the communication of that value. In other words, the sales team was asking for a new direction on how to present the firm’s value in a way that would get a strong response from prospects.

I drew an analogy for the CEO. When a person is a professional writer, their job is to get their expression out on the page. They need to be clear. They need to be descriptive. They need to be engaging.

However, the role of the editor is to make sure that the intended reader will understand the writer’s expression. I might write a fantastic column, but if my editor becomes confused when I submit it, we know the reader will be too. It is the editor’s job to be sure the message is clear and to help to present the writing in a manner that the intended reader will understand.

Often in business and organizational settings, you need to be your own editor – this is true whether you are writing a mission statement, delivering a sales pitch, crafting a public presentation or meeting with your senior leadership team.
You need to answer these four questions anytime you have an important message to convey:

1.  Who is my intended audience and how do they best receive communications?

It’s not about how you like to present information that counts, it is all about how your intended audience likes to receive the information. Don’t email someone whom you know prefers telephone calls; don’t hand out a 20-page report when your prospect responds better to a 10-minute presentation; don’t write long paragraphs when your blog readers prefer short statements.

2. How will I connect with my audience?

Whether giving a speech, meeting a team member or writing a sales letter, if you don’t find a way to connect with your audience, your communication will likely fall flat.

Look people in the eye when you speak to them – even on stage; tell a story they can relate to; ask questions that engage your audience either in a new concept or their own experience.

3. Do I get to the point fast enough?

This question will help you immeasurably. Few professionals get to the point right away – they make a long introduction, send a long email and put hard-to-read statistics into their presentation to prove a point. Put the main point of your communication upfront – then provide the backup if you need to afterwards.

4. Do I ask if I am being clear in a way that solicits feedback?

If you don’t find a way to help your audiences tell you they don’t understand, you will think they do – and that’s a problem. Check in with your audience during your presentation; submit your sales letter to folks who can review it before it is sent; and go see the team member in person when the email trail becomes confusing.

So, what about the CEO and his company? He decided to go take his ten best clients to lunch and ask them how they see the value of his company, and to agree to review his new presentation, too – before he and his sales team take it on the road. I’m thinking if he wants more clients like his best clients, he’s on the right track.

 

Did Google get leadership right?

This is a story that has been around the press loop a bit, including my column in the Metrowest Daily News.  What do you think?  Did Google get it right?

The giant Web search firm Google has done something remarkable – again.

Eschewing all of the leadership and management best-practice literature available to them – even through its own “Google Scholar” academic article search function – the company set out to learn what makes a great manager.

I guess independent research is kind of the point, if you work at Google. Apparently, the folks who study leadership development at Google felt that the company is unique enough to warrant discovering the traits of successful managers specific to the Google culture and operations.

The project was begun in 2009. Two years of research resources spent to help the company decide what works best for Google. Thoroughness appears to be another Google cultural icon.

Before I share the eight precepts of succeeding as a manager at Google, I want one item to stand out. Having advanced technical knowledge was at the bottom of its eight-point leadership list. In other words, you don’t have to be smarter than the folks who work for you to succeed at Google. You need to be smart, to be sure, but being a brilliant technologist is not the most important quality.

Google had assumed it was – and it seems a large part of its manager qualification and selection process was based on the brilliant technologist theory.

So, what were the eight characteristics of top managers? Is what Google discovered applicable to other organizations? You be the judge.

Here are the top four traits in order: Be a good coach, empower your team and don’t micromanage, Express interest in team member’s success and personal well-being, and don’t be a sissy – be productive and results-oriented.

I would summarize these first four points as: be involved and engaged with your team. Things like providing one-on-one time, giving specific and constructive feedback, giving your team room to work, being interested in your team-members’ well-being, and setting priorities are all core competencies of any manager or leader. Why? Because time after time these interpersonal and guiding skills have been shown to be what makes teams happy and productive.

On to the second four points in order from five to eight: both listen and communicate clearly, help your team with career development, have a clear vision and strategy for the team, and have key technical skills so you can provide advice.

My summary for these four points would be: listen carefully and lead. Group dynamics tells us that teams with an identified leader who doesn’t fill the leadership role adequately tend to struggle. Setting clear communications that go both ways is a leader’s responsibility, as is pointing out the goal and pathway to get there.

What about Google’s knowledge or technical skill leadership requirement? Most good managers and leaders in business have a level of knowledge or technical skill that will provide helpful advice and direction to their team. Yet most of the best leaders I know surround themselves with brilliant team members.

A manager who needs to be the smartest in the room isn’t necessarily going to build the best team, which leads me to Google’s identification of management three pitfalls. These were: trouble making a transition to the team, lack of consistency in performance management and career development, and spending too little time managing and communicating.

My summary of these pitfalls: management by title. Some folks are promoted, but don’t have the skills or ability to engage in the management role. It can be hard work requiring specific attention. Few teams are fully self-directed. Organizations designate managers and team leaders because good teamwork requires this role to be filled. Yet, as Google discovered, giving a smart person a new title doesn’t ensure top performance of the team.

I am not trying to be too hard on this remarkable company. Their incentive and desire to create and maintain a high performing culture in a highly technical business is admirable. They also got the initial assumption right: high performing teams require talented managers.

So, are the Google eight leadership characteristics applicable on a wider scale? Can you post them on your wall or slip them in your desk drawer as a reminder of where to focus your management efforts? Probably wouldn’t hurt. But then again, you can probably Google them anytime.