Reboot Your Career Episode 3
In the third of our series, we look at the skills you need to reboot your career. You can also find a more detailed episode on each of the areas by clicking on the following.
Reboot Your Career Episode 2
In episode 1 of this series, I talked about if you should reboot your career and where to start. Before we do a skill audit, I want to think through how we see ourselves. If we don’t accurately assess ourselves, we will never get our skills gaps clear.
The books I talked about are:
I have started a new series of LiveStreams on rebooting your career. I will upload them to this page as we complete them. They can be found on Youtube too.
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Have you heard the old joke about the difference between Heaven and Hell? In Heaven, it says: the French are the chefs, the Italians are the lovers, the British are the police, the Germans are the mechanics and the Swiss make everything run on time. In Hell: The British are the chefs, the Swiss are the lovers, the French are the mechanics, the Italians make everything run on time and the Germans are the police. Hell as we know, is not meant to be the perfect world.
In a perfect world we would all be perfect and nice to each other. We would get on well and everybody would be happy. Sadly, we don’t live in a perfect world. It’s full of people who make your work life more difficult. Bad team members can be a cancer for both your team and its chances of achieving its objectives.
Here are the 5 types of people who exist in my work Hell and who I want off my teams.
“If you think it’s expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur.” Red Adair, Firefighter
I have not been a great lover of the amateur in business, even an enthusiastic one. There is a sense that if you give someone long enough they will get the right answer. The problem I have is that they tend to go through a lot of wrong answers first. That is why Red Adair implies it’s expensive to hire an amateur. When the author Steven Pressfield talked about the habits of people he said, “The difference between an amateur and a professional is in their habits. An amateur has amateur habits. A professional has professional habits.”
So does this mean we should never hire someone without the right experience? Well, it depends what we mean by experience. Employees can bring many skills to the table and not all of them are necessarily related to the task. Additionally, we all have to keep learning and can not be ‘professionals’ at everything we do. When putting someone on a team, we need to be clear what they bring to the table, what we expect them to contribute and where they need to learn.
Our job at work is to meet our objectives in the best way we can, often in the shortest period of time possible. We can argue the need to train new members for the team but we should avoid being led by people who are ‘making it up as they go along.’
Over the years, the most commented on episode of The 3 Minute Mentor is the one on dealing with Passive Aggressive Behavior. Wikipedia describes Passive-Aggressive behavior as an “indirect expression of hostility, such as through procrastination, stubbornness, sullenness, or deliberate or repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is (often explicitly) responsible.” At work it is simpler to classify it as “saying ‘yes’ to avoid saying no, which is actually what you plan to do.”
If you believe in H-I-T (Honesty-Integrity-Transparency) in the workplace you owe it to the team and yourself to be honest about your intentions. The conflict this may cause is of course what people are trying to avoid, but that conflict may actually be helpful because you may be right. Avoiding the conflict and just saying “yes” is wrong, and may put the mission of the group at risk.
We can all fall into passive-aggressive behavior – to go-along-to-get-along – but in reality it’s a cancer that damages a high performing team. Either the behavior needs to be eliminated or the people will need to be!
What links Michael Jackson, Barbra Streisand, Tyra Banks and Martha Stewart?
The answer is that you can find quotes where they call themselves perfectionists. Not being a psychologist, I can not tell you the value of being a perfectionist to artists and achievers like this. Maybe to reach the highest levels of achievement as an individual you need to think this way. You can also find quotes about working for these stars – they are often called obsessive and difficult.
Being part of a team requires some level of negotiation and agreement. There will always be something that you might want to do differently than the team but to complete the mission you agree to put your view aside. The Passive-Aggressive agrees to the ‘compromise’ but doesn’t act on it, but The Perfectionist will typically want it their way or not at all. In the end, this can stall a team and make achieving the mission impossible unless The Perfectionist is ignored. This will either lose them from the team or turn them into a passive-aggressive. If you want to know if you maybe a perfectionist, check out this page called “10 Ways To Tell If You Are A Perfectionist.” Are you guilty or not guilty?
Teams can be sensitive and delicate. Their success requires compromise and balance. We have seen how people like The Perfectionist can damage a team but there are others that are equally dangerous. While we all want the brightest and smartest on our teams, we should however avoid what Netflix CEO Reed Hastings calls the “brilliant jerk.”
It doesn’t matter how smart you are if no one wants to work with you. Worse, if you put a Brilliant Jerk on your team, because of how smart they are, no one will want to work with them.
There is a great article by Marty Fukuda, Chief Operating Officer of N2 Publishing on entrepeneur.com giving reasons not to hire The Brilliant Jerk but it comes down to chemistry. At the end of the day people do not want to work with ‘assholes’ regardless of how smart they are.
While we may create teams as ‘learning experiences’, typically at work we create teams to get something done. That means there will be actions, follow-ups and to-dos. Therefore, another person to avoid having on your team is The Shirker. Wikipedia defines a shirker as “one who shirks a duty or responsibility.”
In a team, we define The Shirker as the one “who never takes any actions.” Typically, they are the person that is happy to contribute and give other people work but never take it for themselves. Worse, they maybe the one that takes actions, often under peer pressure, but never achieves them. Not for the same reasons as The Passive Aggressive (who never intended to) but just because, oh well, many reasons. Starting with ‘the dog ate my homework.’
More dangerously the shirker can be one who tries to avoid being part of the decision making processes. They believe that by not being part of the decision, they will have ‘plausible deniability’ should the decision turn out to be a bad one. Of course this seldom works out that way but you will hear them say, “I never thought that was the right decision.” Trust me, it’s never too early for them to leave the team.
A team is only as strong as its members. If I have the power or the opportunity, these are the first people I get out of the way of getting work done.
Can you see these people in your work world? Maybe you have a type you would like to add to the list. Let me know.
If you believe an article in Fast Company last October, “Accenture, GE, Adobe, Netflix, and dozens of other organizations are killing annual performance reviews as they aren’t enough for today’s workplace.” In Forbes they declare at IBM that “… yearly goals are a thing of the past.” It’s all because these annual reviews, according to Kris Duggan, CEO of BetterWorks on CNN Money, are “entirely demotivating.” Cleary we can all breath-out and relax knowing there is no need to fuss anymore about our company’s annual review cycle.
Not so fast.
This desire to kill the old-fashioned review process is part Millennial-reality and part HR frustration. Whatever you do, or don’t do, the need to set objectives and goals doesn’t go away. The framework in which you provide feedback to employees on how they did against their goals is, however, changing. In this episode of The 3 Minute Mentor, I reviewed how to set good goals using SMART, but let us think for a moment about the review cycle.
There seem to be two arguments against annual reviews. First comes from the over-worked and ‘down-trodden’ HR departments, and one comes from people who are actually looking at the changes in the workforce. The first, in my experience makes no sense. The second will become the way of working for all of us – more on that later. First to the HR departments.
Over my career I have worked with many great HR teams and partners. I do not mean to paint them all with this broad brush but there are some recurring messages on the annual review cycle. They go something like this:
“Most managers are bad at doing annual reviews or do them badly. They either rush through them and give poor or useless feedback or they look to avoid them all together. This frustrates the employees and demotivates them. Worse still, if you force a skew (tell some people they are better and more valuable than others) you disrupt and destroy everyone’s productivity. We should all back away from this very 1970’s GE view of ranking people and move to a more modern approach. We need to more regularly review employees progress against their goals and give them better feedback.”
Does that sound familiar? I know I have heard this a number of times. This statement does have four points to it, each of which is worth discussing.
This is not an argument for keeping things the way they are – they need to change. But they need to change because the workforce is changing, not because people ‘suck’ at doing reviews.
By 2020, around 50% of our workforce will be Millennials or younger. By Millennial, I mean that they were born on and after 1980 and started work in the 21st Century. There has been a lot written about managing Millennials and if they are a mystery to you, I would suggest some good reading. I wrote a blog called “5 questions that will stop you talking to yourself and motivate your Millennials” which might a good starting point.
One of the stereotypes I hear about Millennials from managers who are struggling with them is a perception that they need constant ‘reaffirmation of their value’. What I think that manager is seeing is not a need for constant ‘reaffirmation of their value’, but a desire for continuous feedback.
In Anna Liotta’s book “Unlocking Generational Codes,” she talks a lot about how the different generations think and work. Using her perspective, and my experience, here is how I think the different generations view the issue of feedback from their manager.
While this view is a little simplistic, I do think it can help us to think through how to feed back to our teams. It does imply that one size does not fit all. Managers and leaders are going to have to tailor their review process to the people they are reviewing. This clearly supports the idea of a more regular process, but it does not necessarily deny the need for an annual process of some sort.
We create organizations and companies to achieve objectives and goals. Without these unifying elements there would be no need for us to come together as a group other than to achieve purely social connections. If these end-games exist, then we need to have a view as to whether we are moving towards them and achieving them. In business, there are greater pressures than just pure strategic goals. We need to pay wages and this requires money. This money is probably derived from selling a good or service. If we fail to make enough money, then at some point we cease trading.
Setting objective in a SMART way, maximizes your ability to achieve your aims. If you don’t both communicate and delegate these down the organization, then you cannot be surprised if you fail. Once you delegate them, in whatever form you do that, you have to hold the people who receive them accountable for their role in achieving them.
Across the whole team, some people will do more to help you achieve these objectives and some will do less. Some work harder and some slide-by doing just enough. In the end, while it may not be politically correct to say so, business has winners and losers. Unless you can find a Utopian world where everything is fair and equal, there are tough decisions that have to be made.
Whatever the reason, it is clear that you are going to have to judge how each member of your team did and tell them what you judged them by.
While the rigid system based tools of the last century seem out of date with today, talking to your team is not. Telling people what you expect them to achieve and letting them know if they achieved it, is never going to be out of style. If once a year is too infrequent, then do it quarterly or monthly. Do it daily if you need to. Whatever the cycle, you still have to do it. So if the idea of no annual review makes you or your management team think they are getting out of anything, think again. The alternative is clearly more often, not less.
Finally, all of this can be made better with training and mentoring. You need your team to get clear feedback and you need your managers to know how to give it. If they don’t, the answer is to help them, not to prevent them talking to their teams.
Let me know what you think.