Next Generation Next Destination

THOUGHTS FROM "WALL STREET'S HONEST MAN" (so dubbed by Forbes)

Yesterday I attended an interview style talk with JAY  S. FISHMAN, Chairman and CEO of The Travelers Companies, Inc., at Baruch College's annual program named for prominent alum Burton Kosoff and set up by his wife, Phyllis. Fishman was notably straightforward, authentic, down-to-earth - and interesting. Here are some nuggets  for all four of the generations attending and beyond.

• “No one plans to go into insurance. I just wanted to pay the rent on my apartment.”
• “Life is always two ways.”
• “Sandy Weill (one of his mentors and bosses) was unbelievable about asking everyone ‘What do you think?’ He understood collaboration.”
• About experience: You need touch points and instincts to have the capacity to be accountable in an organization. This is separate from intellectual capacity. (slightly paraphrased)
• “As a leader, be careful what you ask people to do. They will try ther best to do that. You might not like how they do it.” (i.e., what they do to accomplish what you ask them to do)
• Fishman worries about our being a generation of “here and now,” wanting the newest thing all the time. Not saving.
• People need to be involved and engaged, not just contributing to charitable giving.
• In response to the question: What is the best mentoring role we can play? “Honest feedback is a gem.”

 

EXCUSES TO AVOID SUCCESSION PLANNING

It’s not a secret that the majority of organizations are not doing succession planning and certainly not doing it below the highest levels though they give a lot of lip service as to how important it is. Many of those that do some sort of succession planning hold the process and the chosen successors close to the vest.

Why do organizations closely guard their succession plans? Several surveys cited in an article on Human Resources Executive Online indicate that the reasons are often based on internal forces as much as external ones.

So the reasoning behind the lack of succession planning is complicated. An article from HRE Online discusses a variety of rationales, including lack of transparency. These exist in companies of all sizes and at all levels, not just the C-Suite. The “secrecy” may be attributed to:

• Business competition and not wanting external competitors to know their plans.
• There may not be an actual succession plan.
• They fear those not on the list of candidates may become disengaged and disgruntled.
• Fear that another division in the company may poach the designated successor for its team.
• Circumstances may change affecting strategy and who is best to implement it.
• Top leaders may want to retain the flexibility to change the list of candidates.

Organizations grapple with not only whether or not to make the process transparent, but also if they should let the high potential candidates know they are being considered. The risk of telling them is they may get to feel entitled and others may feel disenfranchised and that they are not getting development attention. Whether or not the candidates are told of their status, the criteria for choosing successors should be specific, performance-based and widely communicated throughout the organization.

Phyllis Weiss Haserot     www.pdcounsel.com

 

BETTING ON THE UNKNOWN. HOPING POTENTIAL ACHIEVES GREATNESS?

Good news for the younger generation? Does this explain high salaries large firms pay to inexperienced law school grads?

As reported by the Wall Street Journal (7.25.12) a study by Stanford and Harvard scholars that consisted of 8 experiments with people in a wide variety of settings found they get more excited about individuals with promise and potential than they do about those with an actual proven performance record. Further, people are more willing to hire and pay more for the individuals with high potential.

The researchers could only speculate as to why this is so, but the findings were consistent.

Is uncertainty more appealing, the gamble that the high potential individual will achieve greatness? What do you think?

 

NEXT GENERATION LEADERSHIP - NAME THE STARS?

Should firms tell people they are “high potentials”? Most don’t. 

A recent report (October 2011) from Towers Watson found just 68% of 316 surveyed North American companies identify their high potential employees, but only 26% actually tell them they have been so designated.

Wouldn't letting them know be apt to inspire and motivate potentially star performers? The biggest fear is that labeling “high potentials” will alienate people who are not. Or it might create expectations the company cannot ultimately fulfill.

What do you think: to tell or not to tell? Please share your thoughts and comnents.

Phyllis Weiss Haserot     www.pdcounsel.com 

 

DO MERITOCRACY POLICIES WORK?

Sloan School of Management at MIT researchers found in The Paradox of Meritocracy in Organizations study that using a policy of meritocracy might do the opposite of expected results and result in management bias and disparate treatment for women and minorities.

Conventional wisdom suggests that if people perform better than others, they should be rewarded better. Instead, when study participants in what they believed was a meritocracy based company evaluated employees, they gave men an average of $50 more in bonuses than women in a study experiment. Further, women participants were as likely as men to discriminate against women according to the research reported in Human Resources Executive magazine (9/2/11). There was no evidence of bias when meritocracy was not mentioned. The study was co-authored by Emilio J. Castilla, an MIT/Sloan associate professor and Stephen Benard, an assistant professor at Indiana University. Castilla says the unequal treatment that he found in meritocracies could extend to minorities as well.

Despite the results of his survey, Castilla says that businesses should continue meritocracy -- after all, when it's implemented correctly, it's effective. "Although our findings identify the potential side effects of certain meritocratic conditions," he says, "businesses shouldn't abandon efforts to promote workplace fairness and equality [based on merit]."

How can managers avoid being too subjective in their evaluation decisions? Will using hard numbers solve the problem? Will hard numbers present the complete picture of factors that need to be evaluated? In addition to training for managers, giving a voice to employees being evaluated should help to bridge the gap and lead to better results. Please share your thoughts.

Phyllis Weiss Haserot    www.pdcounsel.com   

 

PROGRESS-ENGAGEMENT-PRODUCTIVITY: THE PEP FORMULA

Gallup estimates the cost of America’s disengagement in the workplace crisis is $300 billion in lost productivity annually.

Research by Teresa Amabile, a Harvard Business School professor, and Steven Kramer, an independent researcher, co-authors “The Progress Principle,” revealed the #1 factor that keeps people engaged in their work. It also revealed the disconnect with managers’ perception of the most important motivators. As Amabile and Kramer wrote in a New York Times Opinion piece, “Do Happier People Work Harder?” (9/4/11), “Conventional wisdom suggests that pressure enhances performance; our real-time data, however, shows that workers perform better when they are happily engaged in what they do.”

From 12,000 diary entries kept by 238 professionals in seven different companies, the researchers discovered that the single most important factor engaging people in their work – by far - is making progress in meaningful work.

Apparently, most managers don’t get it. Amabile and Kramer wrote ”When we asked 689 managers around the world to rank five employee motivations in terms of importance, they ranked “supporting progress” dead last. Fully 95 percent of these managers failed to recognize that progress in meaningful work is the primary motivation well ahead of traditional incentives like raises and bonuses.”

The catalysts for progress are: worker autonomy, sufficient resources and learning from problems. The researchers think that if leaders believe their mission is, in part, to support workers’ everyday progress, we could end the disengagement crisis that several studies revealed and increase the work force’s well-being and economic productivity.

The stats are there. How can we convince organizational leaders that the investment in “supporting progress in meaningful work” will have tremendous ROI in terms of productivity?  Please share your thoughts.

Phyllis Weiss Haserot    www.pdcounsel.com

 

SAME OLD TUNE: SUCCESSION PLANNING STILL LAGS

Nearly one-third (31 percent) of companies with more than 1,000 employees said they don’t currently have a succession planning program at their organization. This was reported in a new Career Builders survey. 50 percent of senior management (CEO, CFO, Senior VP, etc.) and 52 percent of those in a vice president position said they do not have a successor for their current role.

Responses when asked what is lacking in their current succession planning program:

•     Not enough opportunities for employees to learn beyond their own roles – 39 percent
•     Process isn’t formalized – 38 percent
•     Not enough investment in training and development – 33 percent
•     Not actively involving employees or seeking their input – 31 percent
•     It only focuses on top executives – 29 percent

Managers also reported that workers’ awareness of and input on their own succession planning is important. Forty-nine percent of employers said employees don’t set up career paths with their managers with timelines and milestones.

Still a top HR priority. Still little positive action.

The neglect of career planning is going to bite as the economy comes back to life and people have more options.  High potential personnel will be waving bye-bye for the places that promise an appealing career path at any age.

 

 

LIP SERVICE WON’T RESULT IN A SUCCESSION PLANNING AND TRANSITIONING WINNER

The American Management Association (AMA) surveyed 1,098 senior managers and executives in December 2010, and released the results in late March 2011. 43% said their senior management team is “sporadic in its commitment” to succession planning, 34% said their team is “genuinely committed,” while 14% said their team just “pays lip service” to succession planning. So at least 66% are not “genuinely committed” and working on their succession plans for all positions that are critical to avoid business disruption.

 This is a critical issue for Fortune 500 businesses, where 1 in 5 executives are reaching retirement age with no named successor in sight. It is also critical for professional firms, whose main assets walk out the door every night, and not-for-profits and many other types of institutions as well as small business.

Why is so much succession planning talk just lip service? Why does a process so obviously an asset in avoiding business disruption and client defections so widely resisted?

There’s a lot of denial underlying the widespread inaction. To varying degrees I believe it’s about:

• Individual’s, particularly Baby Boomers now, fear of losing influence, clout with colleagues and clients;
• Fear of change of direction, personalities and policies;
• Reluctance to admit that talent will defect
• Unwillingness to confront mortality

Can you add other reasons?  Please do comment.

One solution is to establish an ongoing process for succession planning and transitioning as an institutional and cultural expectation. That becomes an integral part of the business model and is applicable to everyone. It’s not a personal judgment. It’s a business imperative and a foundation for sustainable success.

Enough of silence and lip service.

Submit your comments here. Thanks!

Phyllis Weiss Haserot     www.pdcounsel.com

 

 

NEXT GENERATION OF MANAGEMENT INCHING UP TO SPRING TRAINING AND CULTURE CHANGE

I often use baseball references in my work and writing. Many of those who know me know I am a big New York Mets fan (after being a huge Yankee fan through age 18). All baseball fans know that the Mets have had a string of bad years. The new manager, a veteran manager, Terry Collins has a new approach for himself as well as the team.  First off, though naturally intense, as a manager he wants to have fun, and for the players to have fun with each other, according to a recent interview in the New York Post by reporter Kevin Kernan.

Here’s his plan: bowling, communication, involving players and management together in their daily work life, giving the players a voice. The bowling (with bowling balls displaying the Mets logo) and pizza is meant to be fun and draw the team together.

Collins admits to doing a bad job managing the clubhouse in previous stints as a manager. But he thinks his communication skills have improved and his approach is changing. He told the coaches he wants them to have input into clubhouse life too and to have their lockers with the players. And he wants the players to have a voice in things. His formula for the players is preparation, self-discipline, maximum effort and a thoughtful process.

For the manager’s part, he promises communication and stability and spelling out expectations so that each player will know where he is playing and what he is expected to be doing.

He seems to have a grasp of management as Harvard Business School professor Linda Hill (not advising the Mets) defines it: it’s about interdependence and getting things done by working with and through others.

Collins is a Boomer managing Gen Xers and Gen Y/Millennials. My reading is that he is expressing humility, openness, challenge, approachability, collaboration, consistency, high expectations, confidence and ability to make decisions - which should be appealing.

For the Mets and other organizations that have been struggling with some dysfunction, this sounds like a good start. Whatever your team, what do you think of this approach? Is it a winning formula for success and fun?

Phyllis Weiss Haserot      www.pdcounsel.com

TRANSITIONING - NEW ROLES MINDSHIFT

Recently I was asked to contribute my thoughts on the mistakes commonly made by young managers for a seminar Graham Millington was delivering at the University of London. He was kind enough to compile the contributions he received and, while there were few surprises to those of us who consult and/or coach on such topics, what was interesting to me is that a number of the mistakes or challenges apply when higher level experienced managers are promoted to top positions.

Debra L. Lee, chairwoman and CEO of the BET Networks talks of her mindshift and style modification when she was promoted from General Counsel to COO and then CEO in an interview by Adam Bryant of the New York Times in the Sunday Business “Corner Office” column on March 28, 2010. Here are some of the lessons she had to learn as an experienced manager when she stepped up to the top position. The take-away is that transitioning requires a mindshift at any level.

 

*   It's necessary to change from a technical skill focus to emphasis on managerial skills.

*   You need to maintain a professional distance from subordinates who are friends or former teammates and be more precise and decisive in giving them direction.

*   Challenging the status quo and how people choose to do things from their comfort zone is part of the job when change is needed.

*   Seek guidance - often from peers outside the organization.

*   Adjust your natural style to fit other's needs or the circumstances, going from strategy to creativity to execution.

*   Effective communication becomes even more important.

*   Don't fear making mistakes or constructive conflict.

 

Have you experienced these challenges? At what point(s) in your career?

 

Phyllis Weiss Haserot    www.pdcounsel.com