“So they might not be as great with ‘X’ (skill gap), but I’m sure we can teach them that … I think the skills they’re going to bring overall will far outweigh any concerns we have about X.”

With the benefit of hindsight, so many of us can think back to the recruitment process and know we should have been more rigorous in looking at that issue.  Often the ‘gap’ goes on to haunt the manager and the organisation.  Sometimes the nightmare begins just after the probation period ends.

The other common thing I notice is the skill gap, is likely some sort of quirky behaviour or comment made by an applicant at interview.  It’s the sort of thing that appears unimportant, but should grab attention.  In an environment when each candidate is putting their best foot forward, we need to be alert for ‘behavioural’ signs that they might not be the best fit.  Sometimes the concerns may be a good ‘hunch’, or a ‘practice wisdom’, and we need to back ourselves to at least explore an issue further in an interview process.

Have we designed questions that go beyond simple expressions of interest?  A common question I see asked by panels is “are you willing to be part of a team?”  I’m yet to hear of the applicant who answered;

“No sorry, I tend to get off side with colleagues quite a bit, and in my last team one of the main reasons I left was I couldn’t stand working with half of them!”

Questions need to have a rigour to assist panel members to determine someone’s real demonstration and attitude to teamwork, beyond a typical platitude.  A more useful question could be;

“How do you go about handling differences and conflicts in a team, yet still maintain productive relations with others?”

We can overestimate our capacity as supervisors to change or modify a new recruit’s behaviour and skill.  Yes, its true people do develop and grow over time, but we must question how much time it will take to develop the skill gap.  Very often we need new recruits to hit the ground running, and a substantial skill gap can take years to overcome, or may never be resolved.  Skills that relate to getting along with colleagues or the supervisor are particularly difficult to modify, as it relates to a person’s values and social skills.  From my experience, it’s very difficult to teach someone to appreciate the values you have for your company; they either do or they don’t.  Jack Welch, the former CEO of General Electric said;

“Challenging your employees correctly to grow toward their potential is far easier said than done.  We want to correct their deficits, but not demoralise them.  We want to push them, but not so far that they go right out the door.”

Next time you are recruiting, ensure the panel (in advance) is clear on the ‘behaviours, traits and qualities’ that are most crucial to performing the role in question.  Then design interview questions to elicit information about these key areas.  If you have indications there is a skill gap or value concern, don’t back your ability to fix this through supervision and training.  Conduct further analysis during the interview, or set up a secondary interview process.  The time it takes to do so, will be insignificant in comparison to the realisation your new recruit won’t be able to change, in time.

Remember the revolutionary insight common to great managers (Buckingham & Coffman; 1999);

People don’t change much

Don’t waste time trying to put in what was left out

Try to draw out what was left in

That is hard enough.

While it’s difficult to argue with the necessity of managers who produce results, it’s how those results are achieved that matter. And essential qualities of character and positive relationships are a fundamental component.

Working with supervisors from dozens of organisations at any one time gives me an incredible window into what works, and the strengths and weaknesses of leaders and managers.  One thing that always strikes me about the best performing supervisors is they maintain ‘compassion’ for their staff, even in the midst of major performance difficulties.  Even when someone has been incredibly difficult to deal with, the compassionate supervisor can see past the ‘antics’ and the blame game, and recognise that judging the person beyond the behaviour is not helpful to either party.

Over time I’ve developed a comprehensive framework and set of tools for managing people, and most requests I receive for assistance come from supervisors who want tools to work more effectively with their ‘poorer’ performers.  Used well it’s very difficult for any staff member ‘playing games’ or attempting to undermine the supervisor, to get any traction.  However, at times I’ve been concerned about the potential for these strategies to be used for the wrong motive.  Sounds a little ‘Darth Vader’ I know, but a supervisor lacking compassion could use the techniques for ‘bad not good’, trying to derail a staff member.  While likely not a conscious agenda, it’s important we check our own process, and if we’re unable to hold some level of compassion for a staff member then we may need to consider pulling back from the role with them.

Treating people with respect and compassion is easy with people you like, but is truly tested with people you don’t.  Even if you don’t get on with the person you can remain ‘neutral’.  Any performance improvement process should have at its core an effort to effect change, and an effort to work in partnership with staff.  Even in the worst case scenario, compassion can be demonstrated.  At a ‘termination’ meeting, the supervisor needs directness but can still demonstrate a genuine compassion for the staff member; 

“I need to inform you that you’re being terminated…I’m sorry to give you this news, and understand how difficult this must be to hear.” 

Also managers need a clear ‘evidence base’ for their decision making to ensure their strategy is much wider than a personal ‘hunch’ or opinion.  This also ensures managers are able to check their own potential bias, against the evidence.

Whenever I’ve asked training participants to identify a supervisor they most looked up to, there is a clear pattern of responses.  Firm but fair!  People respect supervisors who can be direct, but who also have their back.  Those who ‘call it as they see it’, even in a disagreement, but at the same time listen as much as talk.  Some may call it soft, but I call it a fundamental approach to being an effective leader or manager!

Read on…. for what the research says about compassion in leadership

Robert Sutton, a management professor at Stanford University, examined the behaviour of abusive bosses, published in his book, The No-Asshole Rule: Building a Civilized Workplace and Surviving One That Isn’t.  In his research he ran across many examples of Silicon Valley and high-tech leaders who extolled the virtues of Steve Jobs abusive behaviour as being necessary to build a successful company.  Sutton contended, “it is troubling that there’s this notion in our culture that if you’re a winner, it’s okay to be an asshole.”

Sutton argues that despite Jobs’ and Apple’s success, his research shows that abusive bosses are bad for the bottom line, and there are far more successful companies—such as Google, Virgin Atlantic, Procter & Gamble and Southwest Airlines, for example—that are not led by abusive bosses.

According to Lynn Taylor, author of Tame Your Terrible Office Tyrant, bad boss behaviour seems to be pandemic and now, a new survey reveals that self-oriented bosses are more prevalent than ever. In a survey Taylor commissioned of 1,002 adults, 86% of Americans felt that too often, bad boss behaviours fly under the radar until it’s too late, affecting too many people. According to an earlier study, 70% of workers said they believed employees must be careful when managing up with bosses, or they could lose their jobs. A five-year, national study compared bad, childish traits, including stubbornness, self-oriented, overly demanding, impulsiveness, interrupting and tantrum-throwing in bosses between 2004 to 2009, and found “self-oriented” spiked by 50% to the top spot in that period. In the same study conducted by a global research firm, seven in 10 Americans said “bosses and toddlers with too much power act alike.”

Swedish researchers, led by Anna Nyberg at the Stress Institute in Stockholm, have published a study in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine on the issue of leaders’ behaviour and employee health. They studied more than 3,100 men over a 10-year period in typical work settings. They found that employees who had managers who were incompetent, inconsiderate, secretive and uncommunicative, were 60% more likely to suffer a heart attack or other life-threatening cardiac condition. By contrast, employees who worked with “good” leaders were 40% less likely to suffer heart problems.  Nyberg said, “for all those who work under managers who they perceive behave strangely, or in any way they don’t understand, and they feel stressed, the study confirms this develops into a health risk.”

A study of 6,000 British office workers found employees who felt that their supervisors treated them fairly had a 30% lower risk of heart disease. A 2008 meta-analysis of the connection between health and leadership by Jana Kuoppala and associates concluded that good leadership was associated with a 27% reduction in sick leave and a 46% reduction in disability pensions. The same study concluded that employees with good leaders were 40% more likely to report the highest levels of psychological well-being including lower levels of anxiety and depression.

Manley Hopkinson in his book Compassionate Leadership sums it up;

“Compassion is having the peripheral vision to see others and help them along the journey of awareness, courage, confidence and joy.” There is much talk these days of leaders having empathy for those they lead. But Hopkinson points to the distinction that the Dalai Lama draws between the two. “Empathy is a desire to know the other person. Compassion is to act on that knowledge with positive intent.”

It’s critical we all spend time considering a ‘Plan B’, and actively preparing ourselves for an employment exit strategy.  We may not use the exit, but there is comfort in knowing you have an escape whenever you feel necessary. 

For those of you in jobs where things are going well thinking, “I’m glad this is not relevant to me”.  I would argue the same rules apply.  You never know when a role may be made redundant, or a new boss takes over you don’t like, or you become bored and need new challenges.  The important realisation is that creating an exit strategy or alternative job option requires planning, and typically networking.  If it’s something required in a hurry you may be backed into a corner to stay in a crappy job, or leave for something equally as poor.  Plant the seeds now and actively keep your options open. 

Remember each person you meet could be your next ‘Plan B’.
 

It’s quite common to hear my clients talk about being sent to training that focuses on topics rarely ‘modelled’ back at the office.  I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard supervisors say things like, “we’ve been calling for these types of programs to be implemented but it never happens… or, I haven’t had my own appraisal for the last 3yrs so why should I be expected to provide to my staff.”  In addition, participants are sent to training when there are no ‘systems’ in place back at their workplace to compliment the training developments.  Despite getting some terrific feedback at training about the value of the tools we provide, I know the chances of managers implementing new strategies in an environment where the systems and procedures are inadequate is highly unlikely.  The manager is pushing against the tide to introduce new routines in this context, despite best intentions. This is a poor outcome for the organisation and a disappointment for me as the trainer, knowing the workshop isn’t maximising the potential for follow through.  

To develop an ‘integrated’ leadership development approach requires putting aside some strategic/planning time, but will provide considerable long-term benefits to tailoring your training activities. Our suggestion process is as follows;

1.       Have your Executive identify the ‘skill gaps’ across the organisation, so these topic areas are well defined.

2.       Identify where the Executive are ‘modelling’ (or not) those areas for improvement (a challenging but critical question!)

3.       Ensure there are ‘systems and processes’ in place to support skill development, such as forms, policy and procedures, resources. 

4.       Identify the ‘internal mentors’ to support skill development and follow up from training. 

5.       After these things are in place ‘training’ can prove an effective final piece of the puzzle.

Set up a follow up session with the trainee within the first week after the training, and have them present an action plan for implementing their learning back at the office.  Invite the trainee to present their findings at a team meeting and have them develop a set of reflection questions to prompt and engage their colleagues. Provide public acknowledgement to staff that follow through on training initiatives.

Every learning investment must incorporate follow up back at the office if you expect a benefit to the organisation.  Otherwise training only provides a false sense of security that you are developing your people.