Are you limiting your options?

Recently I was giving advice to a college student, that many will remember receiving themselves.  Essentially, I explained that the key to picking an undergraduate degree is to pick one that:

 a) will keep you interested enough that you will graduate 

 b) gives you a good number of options when you are done.

I realized that the same advice holds just as true for making  a career move.   When you think about places to go in your career, it is useful to think about how that experience will help build your resume.  

Are you doing tasks that you are likely to complete successfully?    Is the role you are taking, one that you are well suited for?  Is it likely that you are going to be able to do a good job ?

In addition, you need to think about what kinds of roles you might progress to, after the current one. 

Are you picking opportunities that give you more choices later or are you typecasting yourself always doing the same things?  It’s not to say that you should not build depth in a specific area, but it is saying that you cannot define your career as a single step.  You need to be thinking not only about your current move, but the next one as well. 

Taking steps now, to have more options later, can give you that edge over time.

When More Isn’t Always Better

There have been a series of excellent posts, particularly Yuri’s, the last month dealing with the issue of getting value from Enterprise 2.0. Some companies are finding value while some are not having as much success doing so. Part of the problem is that there is an error in assuming that more collaboration is always better, when what’s really needed is more effective collaboration. As Hutch Carpenter points out, collaboration itself is not a benefit, but rather a means to an end. The objectives a company might be after vary greatly and could include higher productivity, enhanced innovation, increased employee engagement, etc. which in turn deliver business results in the form of increased revenue or lower costs (i.e. more profit). Collaboration is effective when it supports those objectives and results.

It’s possible to have collaboration that’s not effective. This can range from small-scale collaboration problems such as an overloaded key technical resource that becomes a bottleneck to the progress of several dependent teams to full-blown turf wars between two departments that results in a huge project being cancelled because the window of opportunity passes.

Collaboration tools by themselves don’t cause these ineffective, or even destructive, collaboration problems and by themselves won’t solve them either. However, these tools can be used by an organization that wants to address these types of problems, as part of the process. For example, they can help identify where overloaded key resources are and how to offload work to somewhere else. They can help find where the breakdown and conflict between two departments is centered so that it can be addressed (e.g. not starting the joint project at all under the current conditions, better prepare the organizations prior to project start, adjust the respective objectives of each department, etc.)

The point is that the tools and platforms in Enterprise 2.0 are only as effective as the organization is motivated and prepared to put them to good use. That use could be either or both addressing current obstacles to effective collaboration as well as enhancing current collaborations. What’s great about these tools and platforms, but sometimes overlooked, is that not only can they enhance collaboration, but they also can measure it. Organizations can use this measurement to find and test ways to make collaboration more effective. And that requires motivation and action by the organization and its leadership.

Two excellent books that are out now that cover these issues are:

Driving Results Through Social Networks: How Top Organizations Leverage Networks for Performance and Growth by Rob Cross and Robert J. Thomas – This covers the whole range of scale from individual performance and productivity impact of collaboration to the impact of collaboration on organization innovation, projects, and processes as well as the impact of organization culture and strategy on collaboration. There are many solid use cases provided.

Collaboration: How Leaders Avoid the Traps, Create Unity, and Reap Big Results by Morten T. Hansen – This is primarily focused on large-scale collaboration and paints it in the starker colors of “good vs. bad” collaboration. Hansen lays out the hidden traps companies fall into with collaboration, identifies the barriers to collaboration, and three levers to avoid the traps and overcome the barriers. It has many use cases as well. Oliver Marks has a great post about this research and our colleague Christine found this great Economist article about the book.

Photo: barnism

Are you a talent magnet?

I was reading materials on performance management and came across the concept of being a talent magnet.  We know that we want to retain top talent and we do a lot of good things to keep high potential / high performers in the organisation.  But taking the organisation perspective, and particularly the manager perspective, do you, as a manager have a good track record of retaining high potential / high performing employees?  Are you a talent magnet?

A manager who is a talent magnet will, over time, develop a reputation for leading high performance teams and for developing and retaining key employees.  The organisation will know this and respect them for this. 

Managers who lose talent, or who develop a reputation for driving talent away from their teams, will naturally end up with mediocre or low performing teams. 

I am hoping that we can find a good way to measure this, as a talent metric:  talent magnetism.  If you have a good idea of developing a metric for this, leave a comment on this post.  Personally I am thinking about the rate of loss of top talent, over a five year period (or some similar rolling average).  I think a long time frame, like five years, is really required in order to see the true trend regarding a manager’s track record.

Holiday Humor: Zombie Employer of Choice

CNN and Mashable bring to our attention an inspiring story about an independent film getting notoriety with a (nominal) budget of under $70. The story is remarkable just in the fact that is shows how someone like director Marc Price, with the right attitude (a hangover helps), imagination, and tools, can achieve a pretty amazing goal. Some might say the epitome of a BHAG. But there are some “employer of choice” tidbits as well. Read on.

Clever Use of Social Media

Price showed skillful use of social media such as Facebook and MySpace for recruiting. He laid it out simply by asking, “Who wants to be a zombie?” and then let the network do its thing. Price also used YouTube to build word of mouth buzz for the movie.

Keeping the Zombies Engaged

Rather than take a “Pay for Performance” approach, Price opted to find other, less expensive investments to keep the zombies engaged. In fact, other than a crowbar and a couple of tapes, the $70 budget was spent on “…some tea and coffee as well — not the expensive stuff either, the very basic kind. Just to keep the zombies happy.”

Photo: Mashable article

Huh? Asking questions does not mean you are dumb

Maybe it is having some experience looking dumb, or possibly I’m incredibly authentic, but I find that it is very easy to me to sport a puzzled look and say, huh?  Be honest, you can visualize me doing that can’t you?   I am also very willing to ask for directions (but that is an entirely different topic).

I find myself completely baffled, when people do not want to admit they are confused.  The fear of looking dumb seems to be so strong in many of us, that we will keep quiet and never ask vs. risking the idea that we are the only one with a question. 

Too many times, I have seen people choosing to go in an entirely wrong direction, hoping vs. knowing.    That’s right, in an attempt to not look stupid, they increase their risk of just that.

People, not understanding something is normal and expected.  Pretending you do understand, when you don’t, is dumb.

Gathering up the personal courage to admit what you don’t know, will set you apart and make your peers appreciate that you asked the question they could not bring themselves to ask. 

That’s right, asking questions doesn’t make you look dumb, it makes you look brave.  Quit trying to fake it people, it never works out in the long run.

Missing the point, so you don’t have to

Having had a career of [ahem] some length, I have learned a few hard lessons along the way.  Today’s topic is the performance review.

Now, I’ve mentioned before about the need to think about what a performance review means for you.  What I left off was a good story about what can happen when you get it wrong. 

There was a point in my life, when I worked in consulting.  As can happen in that profession, the person responsible for writing my performance review was not the person who observed my work.

Being young, idealistic and very new to the concept of formal performance reviews, I managed to make a series of rookie mistakes that taught me some life lessons about managing my career.  Thank goodness this firm had bi-annual reviews, so the results of my lameness, only set me back for six months.  For, while I was clueless, I am a fast learner and am inclined to put a lot of energy into fixing things that aren’t working.

To be fair, I did not receive a bad performance review, it would better be described as a lackluster.  The problem was that, being a typical over-achiever, I was not at all happy with getting mediocre recognition for hard work.

So what did I do wrong?

1. I assumed doing a good job was sufficient.  I knew I needed to be billing at a certain rate, complete my projects on time and keep my customers happy.  I did that.  What I did not do, was get any proof points that showed I was doing that better than average.   I did not think it was my job to prove my worth, I thought that was SEP.
2. I assumed the person writing my review would have an interest in adding information to my self-review, vs. just using the material I supplied.  This was particularly clueless on my part since I also didn’t ever attempt to provide my boss with status or progress.  He never asked and I never offered.  I decided that no news was good news and left it at that.
3. I left off the other things I had been doing that were unwritten and critical, to my success with the firm.  This included networking events, community work, etc.  I decided that those other things were small and unimportant (of course my peers did not take this narrow view).
4. I failed to calibrate with my boss, using his thoughts as input to my self-review to make sure I was exceeding expectations.

In summary, I thought it was all about doing the work, and not about the process.  And as a result I got what I deserved in my review.   I made no attempt to distinguish myself.

Since then, I have a whole different attitude about performance reviews.  I take them very seriously and I consider them my job.  I now see the performance process as an ongoing focus not a once-a-year drudgery.  

Things I do today as a direct result of this experience.

1. I keep a performance journal.  I regularly jot down things I have done that might be worth noting when I write my self-review.  I don’t always use them, but I am never lacking in material as a result.  I do not consider any accomplishment too small to note in my journal, since often it’s the sum of several small accomplishments that become meaningful.
2. I regularly ask for feedback of others, in writing.  I use this to support my case when appropriate.
3. I set quarterly goals for myself, trying to make sure I have a variety of things I’m attempting to do, across different perspectives and sizes (short term, personal, professional,etc).

I firmly believe that the bonus I lost with my lackluster review, has been made up from over the years as I learned a much more valuable career lesson as a result.   What about you?  What hard lessons have you learned about the performance process (and yourself) that others could benefit from?

Do you have an awesome pit crew?

I have been watching in delight as Jenson Button has taken four chequered flags in the last five Formula 1 Grand Prix races.

The meteoric rise of the Brawn team has set this F1 season alight, and Jenson naturally does not hide his excitement or pride in the current situation.

The F1 drivers are the attention-grabbers, the celebrities who dominate the air-time and headlines. It’s the excitement and speed of the race itself that commands the full focus of the cameras and the spectators, with only occasional glimpses of the pit crew. You could almost forgive the drivers for having huge egos.

Yet, what’s the first thing that Jenson did as he crossed the finish line in every one of his four wins this season? He elatedly screamed his gratitude to his team, broadcasting his thanks for the world to hear on the Team Radio.

His team: the guys huddled in the pits, wearing anonymous overalls and balaclavas. The guys who spend sleepless nights just before the event dealing with last minute glitches to get their machines out to the starting line in race-winning condition. “Thank you, thank you! …You guys rock! …The ride was awesome! …You guys did an amazing job!“

Recently, I was that driver. I drove a demo to a wide audience of colleagues across a number of teams. Apparently it was a great success – let me rephrase that – it was a great success! The demo ran smoothly and I received a great deal of kind and enthusiastic comments from my peers who were evidently enlightened and entertained by the event. But I wasn’t the success; I didn’t make the demo rock; I was simply the representative who presented the terrific work and dedication of many others around me.

So, I want to share the positive comments and encouragement that I’ve received! I’m taking this opportunity to turn this post into my own Team Radio and give a heartfelt shout-out to our amazing pit crew who themselves spent sleepless nights just before our event, dealing with last minute glitches to get to the starting line in winning condition. “Thank you, thank you! …You guys rock! …The ride was awesome! …You guys did an amazing job!“

Authenticity is the new black

I tweeted this the other day, as one of those random things you think to yourself, and somehow end up writing down.  It’s possible this is just my own personal way of responding to the voices in my head.   Don’t judge.

At the time, I was thinking specifically about leadership.  How, as a leader, the more you try to hide from your team, the dumber you look, since they already know what’s wrong with you (probably better than you do). 

Your team doesn’t need you to be without flaws, but they do need you to be a good leader.  I believe that you cannot be a great leader without authenticity. 

This does not mean that you need to be without privacy.   Sharing  personal information is not authenticity, it’s a personality trait.  In fact, being authentic requires you to establish boundaries that are in line with your personality.

Without authenticity there is no trust and without trust you do not have a high functioning team.  Authentic leaders build trust because they can acknowledge when they have gotten off course.  That helps the team correct and sets the example for collaboration.

When you find yourself wanting to hide behind a facade, remember authenticity is the new black and those who lead with authenticity will ultimately be the most successful.

The May HR Carnival of Chaos is Here

Susanna Cesar Morton has assembled a “…completely random Carnival of HR” which she says on further observation shows a surprising pattern of connections, so it’s more chaotic than random. You can judge for yourself.

In any case, this presents a great opportunity for you to sample a wide selection from 30 different blogs, some of which you made not have been aware of. Who knows, you may find one or more that you’ll want to subscribe to. So go check out the carnival!

Photo: SantaRosa OLD SKOOL

The Accidental Successor

There are two kinds of successors. Which are you planning for?

1. The cherry-picked successor – this is a person that has been identified for long-term potential based on things like cultural fit, learning agility, career ambition, etc. This individual is not likely ready for the job tomorrow, but instead needs a series of development opportunities (stretch assignments, coaching, other jobs) to become ready. It takes work to identify these successors and even more work to groom them properly.

2. The accidental successor – this is a person who would take the job tomorrow if the incumbent was hit by a bus. The organization could limp along indefinitely with this person at the healm. It’s easy to put this person’s name on the succession slate – there’s really no work involved. They could do the job (sort of) and there’s no development necessary. Wasn’t that easy? Who said succession planning was hard?

You can certainly have both, but if you only plan for #2, the best you can hope for is getting hit by a bus. Is that any way to run a business?