This must be one of the most feared phrases that a good recruiter can hear, unfortunately, it and phrases like it are not uncommon. A better name for it is “reckless hiring,” as such demands are essentially a directive to source candidates who are the real-world equivalent to Homer Simpson. While I certainly understand the pain a vacancy, particularly one in a highly visible role, can cause, such shortsightedness often ends up backfiring.

The cost of hiring a weak employee like Homer Simpson in many cases exceeds the cost of leaving the position vacant until you can get a top-quality hire. Superior recruiters rarely cave to pressure and find ways to talk managers out of this silly request. Following are some arguments that I have developed to respond to “butts in chairs” recruiting requests.

(Incidentally, the same arguments can also be applied to existing weak employees in cases where layoffs or terminations are being considered.)

The Top 30 Arguments against Hiring “Butts in Chairs” a.k.a. Warm Bodies, “C” Players and Homer Simpson

Business Impacts of Butts in Chairs

• Lost productivity — a new hire who produces in the bottom quarter of employees in a position can produce between 25% and 600% less than a top performer. The quality of their work may even be lower than the volume of their output.
• Reduced revenue — if the new hire happens to be in a revenue-generating or revenue-impact position, the loss of revenue could be significant.
• Lost innovation – in a fast-moving world, high rates of innovation are critical to maintaining competitive advantage. Organizations cannot tolerate employees who are resistant to change and whose work may actually distract other employees.
• Customer impacts — customers know when they are dealing with a weak employee, so hiring a subpar employee into a role that interfaces with customers can measurably reduce sales, customer satisfaction, and increase customer turnover.
• Error rates – poor performers make many mistakes generating work that must be redone. Weak employees may also cause more accidents, hurting themselves and others.
• Slower time-to-market — weak employees are slower in both their work and their thinking. As a result, they can slow the progress of the entire team, especially in important areas like product development.
• Competitive advantage – hiring weak employees sends a message to competitors that you are getting weak. This might encourage and empower them to become more competitive and confident.

Increased Management Time and Effort From Butts in Chairs Employees

• More management time — weak hires are “high maintenance” requiring more coaching and concern. The time spent on weak employees can’t be spent on the best employees or on business planning.
• Weak hires must be replaced — even though “warm bodies” may appear to help in the short-term, eventually (when their weak performance can no longer be tolerated), they will have to be replaced. Unfortunately, weak hires have little chance of getting poached, so if your organizations is averse to firing, they may stay with you forever.
• Performance management and termination costs — weak employees require frequent performance management, sucking up management/HR time and development resources. Unfortunately most statistics reveal that such efforts fail, so all invested resources are essentially lost.

The Hiring Manager’s Image Is Impacted

• Being branded as a “C” manager — it’s a well-known business axiom that weak managers routinely hire weak employees (C managers hire C players). Hiring weak employees will send a clear message to everyone in the organization validating that a manager has become a “C” manager.
• Loss of your colleagues’ respect — Once a manager makes the decision to go down the butts-in-chairs road, they will instantly lose the respect of other managers. This loss of respect may negatively impact their willingness to cooperate, to share ideas, as well as their responses to 360° reviews.
• Reduced bonuses — for managers who hire and retain a significant percentage of weak performers, performance bonus opportunities will be significantly reduced.
• Impacts on promoteability — hiring weak employees will be noticed by superiors, which coupled with poor business results will limit chances of promotion. It may also limit opportunities for jobs at other firms.

People-management and Team Impacts

• Resentment by co-workers — better-performing employees often resent being on the same team with “losers.” They may have to spend a significant portion of their time helping out or fixing the mistakes of weak employees, ultimately reducing their productivity.
• Lost leadership and promotional opportunities — every weak hire is a missed opportunity for building leadership bench strength. If your organization’s attrition rate is high, you may be faced with a situation where a long-tenured weak hire may by default eventually become a team leader. Over the long term your internal candidate pool for promotions will be dramatically reduced.
• Increased turnover — hiring and keeping weak employees may send a clear message to high-quality employees that standards are being reduced and performance is no longer important. This may cause them to transfer or to quit the organization altogether.
• Reduced internal transfers — as other employees learn of reduced standards through informal channels, the number of quality employees who will consider transferring into affected departments will drop like a stone.
• Opportunity costs — every slot taken up by a weak employee can’t be filled with a great employee. Without as many great employees as possible, you won’t have an effective team that produces superior results.
• Negative impacts on future hiring — when candidates meet and interact with weak employees, they may reconsider and pursue other opportunities.
• Legal issues increase — weak hires are much more likely to file formal complaints and grievances. In addition, they often require extensive discipline. If a lawsuit or government complaint results, the cost of making a bad hire will be significantly amplified.
• Hiring costs — it costs no more to hire a better performer. The salary costs of weak hires are not lower than average employees.
• Lost agility — if your organization operates in a fast-changing business environment, every team needs to have agile members. A weak hire cannot contribute to that competency and will slow down everyone else on the team.
• Longer ramp-up time — weak new hires will require more intense and time-consuming onboarding, taking longer for them to reach minimum levels of productivity if even possible. As their salary will not be reduced during this time, your ROI will.
• Reduced learning — other members of the team can’t learn anything positive from weak employees, thus reducing overall team learning speed. If weak employees do coach others, they may actually hurt their productivity by steering them in the wrong direction.
• A loss of competitive intelligence — new hires who come from direct competitors can provide you with intelligence and best practices. Unfortunately, any “hurry-up” hiring is unlikely to capture even a single employee from your best competitors.
• Lower technology competence — candidates with the most technology experience and skills are difficult to land. As a result, a butts-in-chairs approach will likely yield fewer candidates with advanced technology skills and experience.
• More training is required — throughout their lifecycle, weak hires will require more access to training and retraining, which in addition to their lower levels of productivity may result in them costing more than they produce.
• A loss of diversity — rapid hiring of any kind without sufficient pre-work almost always results in lower-quality candidates. If you expect to hire diverse candidates, expect any “butts-in-chairs” approach to have a well-below-average yield in this area.
• More temporaries required — weak employees are more prone to absenteeism and tardiness, which will require more use of costly temporary workers to fill in.

Final Thoughts
Although it’s quite common for individual shortsighted managers to request that you stoop to a “butts-in-chairs” level, resist such demands. If momentary drops in standards catch on, it could decimate the organization. While not a scientific study, most informal assessments peg the cost of a bad hire to be 150-300% of their annual salary each year they remain employed. Professional recruiters have both a professional and fiduciary responsibility to their organization’s shareholders to ensure that new hires not only perform but also have the capability of continuous learning and eventual promotion. For external recruiters, the battle is even more difficult, but it still must be won unless they are willing to permanently damage their reputation.

Almost all “butts-in-chairs” hiring can be attributed to a failure to plan ahead. Forecasting hiring needs, developing candidate pools, and building candidate relationships are tried and true approaches that can prevent reckless hiring. If you are ever forced into a “butts-in-chairs” mode, it is essential that you use a “quality of hire” measure so that next time you a request, you will have supporting data demonstrating the dollar cost of the damage done by use this approach.

About the Author: Dr. John Sullivan is a well-known thought leader in HR. He is a frequent speaker and advisor to Fortune 500 and Silicon Valley firms. Formerly the chief talent officer for Agilent Technologies (the 43,000-employee HP spin-off), he is now a professor of management at San Francisco State University. More recruiting articles by Dr. Sullivan can be found in the ER Daily archives. Information about his numerous other articles, books and manuals about recruiting and HR can be found online.

Reprinted with permission of ERE Media.

Recommended Training Resource: Actions Speak The latest on behavior-based interviewing from thought leader, Dr. Paul Green. Content and examples are presented in an entertaining style perfect for a new generation of interviewers!

By Katherine Crowley and Kathi Elster

Most studies of different generations and how they behave at work focus on each generation’s values based on the cultural context of their upbringing.  We know that Gen Y employees are considered tech savvy, accustomed to positive reinforcement, and committed to work/life balance.  Gen X workers are presumably more independent, self-sufficient, and resourceful. Boomers equate work and position with self-worth, so they’re viewed as achievement-oriented, dedicated and career-focused. Finally, the over-65 Silent Generation is known to be hardworking, loyal, and technologically challenged.

While cultural context is extremely valuable, we think it’s important to approach the multi-generational workforce from a slightly different perspective.  We want to consider how one’s behavior at work is driven by more than cultural context and upbringing. In our view, each generation is also at a specific stage of psychological development.

This means that in addition to the economic, political and cultural influences of their upbringing, each generation is operating within a specific stage of their adult life.  And that psychological stage informs the employee’s needs, capabilities and limitations.  

Why is this important? Because, while you can see how a Boomer is frustrated with a Gen Y’s idealistic views of what technology can do, it may not be as clear that this Gen Y employee has the same idealism that her Boomer colleague once possessed when he or she was the same age.  Not true, you say? Think again. Research by Dr. Jean Twenge, professor of Psychology at San Diego State University proved that current claims that Gen Y adults are more idealistic than their Gen X or Boomer predecessors were at the same stage in life is false. 

This is because we all move through and experience the same stages of psychological development as adults.  Consider this example:

While leading a staff development retreat for a hospice organization, it became obvious that several Gen Y employees were feeling misunderstood and disrespected by their Gen X CFO.  These junior employees sat together in a group, with a look of fear on their faces, arms and legs crossed. The Boomers in the room could not understand what was happening. They did not take the CFO’s moody and dismissive behavior personally.  The Boomers (who included the CEO and VP of Patient Services) respected the CFO’s ability to repeatedly deliver excellent results.

From a developmental perspective, each group of employees at this retreat displayed age-appropriate behavior. The Gen Y’s were exhibiting responses typical of their stage in life: they were naturally self-conscious, peer-oriented, and unsure of themselves.  The Boomers were also reacting In a manner consistent with their stage in life: confident in their experience, able to take other people with a grain of salt, and appreciative of a job well done. Finally, the Gen X CFO, who’d been targeted as the problem, was simply doing what came naturally at her stage in life: Laying down the law, setting her standards, and expecting everyone around her to comply.

And therein lies the challenge:  A multi-generational workforce, where each player is operating from a specific stage in his or her adult development.

Awareness of these internal differences at each phase of adult life is the first step to managing all four generations (Gen Y, Gen X, Boomers and The Silent Generation) effectively.  There is no one-size-fits-all management strategy when dealing with such an age-diverse workforce.  Each generation needs to be managed based on their psychological needs and capabilities.  This can make the job of a manager quite complicated.

So here’s a sampling of what each developmental stage looks like:

Generation Y              Ages: late teens to late twenties

How they define themselves: “I am my relationships.”
Greatest focus: Peer relationships – being accepted and affiliated with friends and co-workers of a similar age.

New to the workforce, these individuals are idealistic and energetic. Although they may seem confident and entitled on the outside, inside they are unsure of themselves and very fearful of committing to the wrong career path.

Management needs: To try-out different jobs, and receive help with prioritizing.

Generation X            Ages: Early thirties to mid forties

How they define themselves: “I am my internal government.”

Greatest focus: Establishing a professional identity. Living by personal rules regarding career, family, community.

Having identified their chosen field or profession, they seek to make a mark and achieve results in the areas that matter to them.

Management needs: To be supported in achieving goals, obtaining credentials, and attaining work/life balance.

Baby Boomers                    Ages: Late forties to early sixties

How they define themselves:  “I am my experiences.” 

Greatest focus: Feeling a sense of mastery (and reward) in chosen field while incorporating a better quality of life.

Aware of the fact that they’re on the tail end of a career track, these individuals want to be recognized and rewarded for their hard-earned expertise.

Management needs: To be encouraged to showcase and share expertise; to continue learning new skills.

Silent Generation                   Ages: Mid-sixties to retirement

How they define themselves: “I am part of a larger whole.”

Greatest focus: Desire to establish legacy at work; interest in planning for retirement years.

Phasing out of formal work roles, these individuals focus on quality of life and doing the things they’ve always wanted to do.

Management needs: Allow flex-time and reduced schedule. Encourage documentation of institutional memory.

From this sampling of the generational orientations, we can point to some specific ways that management can help each generation work well with the others.

• If Boomers want to be appreciated for their expertise, is there a way that they can mentor Gen X and Gen Y employees – helping them figure out their career paths and establish their professional identities? 
• If Gen X’ers need to establish their credentials, can they use the idealism of Gen Y employees to accomplish their goals while being sensitive to this younger generation’s insecurity and need for reassurance? 
• If Gen Y employees have high ideals and technological savvy, can they appreciate the fact that their veteran colleagues need to be respected for their experience in order to follow their lead? 
• And what about the Silent Generation? Can their historical perspective and wealth of knowledge be documented so that it becomes part of the institutional memory of any organization?

The challenge of blending generations at work is not new. Our current workforce has one important difference: The youngest generation has the greatest facility with technology, and the older generations depend on that acuity for their organization’s growth. This dependence on the youngest generation to bring each company into the future has changed the balance of power in a way that is disconcerting for Gen X, Boomer and Silent Generation employees who’ve earned their experience the hard way.

With a greater understanding of each generation’s capabilities, needs and internal workings, you can lead the way in creating a workforce where the four generations grow more tolerant of each other’s differences while capitalizing on each other’s strengths.

About the Authors:  Kathi Elster and Katherine Crowley are authors of the books Working With You is Killing Me, and Working For You Isn’t Working For Me. Used with permission. Visit their website: http://www.ksquaredenterprises.com/

Recommended Training Resource:  While focused primarily on cultural influences, Please Respect My Generation! is a great program for sparking discussion on how people of varying ages can work best together.

Recent leadership failures in several high profile companies draw increased attention to the reality that achieving goals – performance – is only part of the formula for success. Another critical piece is the way leaders do it, which impacts others – relationships.  Leaders who are low in self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy and social skills lack something called “emotional intelligence” (EQ), a behavior model popularized by the work of Daniel Goleman.

Rather than being one of the many leadership fads that shed fleeting light on how those in power can be more successful, EQ is an enduring mirror that reflects back who a leader is and how he or she behaves, defining “tone at the top” more compellingly than any words on email, paper or video.

EQ also has a direct bearing on corporate reputation, something that boards of directors have watched impact stock price, media coverage, public opinion and a leader’s viability. Consider how public sentiment turned more negative against BP after former CEO Tony Hayward made the comment, “I want my life back,” and later watched his yacht race while gushing oil was destroying the livelihoods of Gulf residents.

Recently, retired Coast Guard Adm. Thad Allen gave BP credit for doing about as well as any company could have in stopping the oil flow, but Allen, in charge of overseeing the government and industry response to the Gulf spill, gave BP low marks for how it dealt with the people and communities affected. If leaders don’t feel or know how to genuinely express empathy, it makes it that much harder for them to be trusted or supported.

Ethical Failures

Korn Ferry’s Robert Hallagan, Vice Chair and Managing Director, Board Leadership Services, says the percentage of cases where EQ derails a CEO is higher than what we read about in the media, but still a small percentage of the total population of CEOs. “However, because of the press around it,” Hallagan says, “boards are becoming more sensitive to EQ.” Korn Ferry uses various assessment tools to assess EQ and other leadership competencies in the searches they do.

“Leaders’ lack of emotional intelligence can lead to ethical failures if they believe they will never get caught and feel smart enough to worm their way out of it,” says Keith Darcy, Executive Director of the Ethics and Compliance Officer Association. “Arrogance distorts a leader’s capacity to read accurately situations. They can reach a position of power and sometimes develop contempt for ‘the small people’ as BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg was quoted describing the Gulf residents.”

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Jonah Lehrer talks about the contradiction of power, essentially how nice people can change by having authority. To the point on vulnerability to ethical lapses, Lehrer says that “people in power tend to reliably overestimate their moral virtue, which leads them to stifle oversight. They lobby against regulators, and fill corporate boards with their friends. The end result is sometimes power at its most dangerous.”

Lehrer points out that company surveys are a good barometer of what is happening in the culture of the organization, and surveys provide evidence that the vast majority of rude and inappropriate behavior comes from the offices of those with the most authority.

One of the fallouts from former HP CEO Mark Hurd’s ouster seems to bear witness to this. Immediately after his resignation was announced, past and current HP employees began commenting on blogs about Hurd’s arrogance, rudeness, and treatment of people he disagreed with in meetings. He had the lowest employee approval rating (34 percent) of major tech industry CEOs.  Granted, few CEOs who are credited with significant cost-cutting and layoffs win popularity contests, but a healthy amount of EQ can mitigate the impact of difficult decisions.

Importance of Soft Skills

Recent publicized leadership failures do invite thinking about what it takes to be a good boss, a theme in an article in the most recent McKinsey Quarterly.  Self-awareness wins as probably the most important skill good bosses must have because, aware of their flaws, these bosses work not only to overcome them and reverse the resulting damage, but involve others to help compensate for whatever their own weaknesses might be – and the organization is stronger as a result.

In the rush to find what works, what will create leadership success, something has been staring us in the face, not often acknowledged. Executive coach Jordan Goldrich, who works with the Center for Creative Leadership, points out that “increasingly, research is showing that what we used to think of as the soft skills (building and mending relationships, communication, and humility etc.) are completely connected to the business results.”

A recent story about incoming General Motors’ CEO Daniel Akerson used the headline “Brash, Blunt, Demanding.” Recognized for his discerning questions and for holding others accountable, a style that gained him respect on Wall Street in his role as a GM board member, Akerson will take over on September 1 as CEO. Tagged with a style of being brash, blunt and using colorful language, he will have a chance to demonstrate if soft skills are also important to the success of the new GM.

“It’s interesting (that) leaders lacking EQ see no higher purpose generally than themselves, hearing nothing more than the sound of their own voice, and can’t see beyond quarterly results,” says ECOA’s Darcy. “Those with a well developed sense of self are capable of hearing the deep moaning in the world. They realize everything that we do gets done with, by, for, and through people. They understand that the well being of people translates into a well functioning organization.”

About the Author: Gael O’Brien is a Business Ethics Magazine columnist. Gael is a thought leader on building leadership, trust, and reputation and writes The Week in Ethics.  Business Ethics is an online magazine with a strong heritage in the fields of ethics, governance, corporate responsibility and socially responsible investing. The mission of Business Ethics is “to promote ethical business practices, to serve that growing community of professionals and individuals striving to work and invest in responsible ways.”

Training Resource: Ethics 4 Everyone provides a powerful ethics overview for any type of organization and features a Bonus Leadership Segment which outlines 10 Ethics Guidelines specifically for those in a leadership role. Footage covers how to hold yourself accountable for ethical behavior, how to regularly communicate organizational values and ethical standards to staff so they are certain about what is/isn’t acceptable and why it’s important to recognize those who act ethically.

There’s a definite difference between focusing on not failing versus striving for success.

When we focus on not failing, fear rents most of the space in our mind, and we see monsters in need of slaying everywhere we turn. We lose track of the original vision that propelled our actions, and the sheer act of working becomes at best a passionless exercise and at worst, drudgery.

Lousy Leaders Achieve “Not Failing” at a High Price:

Sadly, many leaders provide fuel for the “don’t fail” machine through their actions.

Show me a project team or functional group that exhibit all of the energy and passion of a collection of late-night television zombies, and I’ll guarantee there’s one or more dysfunctional and often micro-managing leaders at the source of this environmental problem.

Often, these leaders are motivated by some perverse view that success comes from not having their name associated with screwing up.  As a result, their every motivation is to make certain you and your co-workers achieve that objective.  While they may succeed in helping their teams navigate the issues of “not failing,” these leaders suck the life out of their teams in the process.

The Scarlet “F”

The “don’t fail” disease isn’t limited to the corporate world. I know small business owners and solopreneurs who have stepped into this gooey emotional muck during the past few years of economic unpleasantness. Instead of lessons-learned serving as fuel for problem solving and innovation, setbacks are worn for all to see as Scarlet F’s, where F stands for failure. Of course, what they forget is that no one can really see the Scarlet F’s unless they go out of their way to show them off.

Remember, You Own Your Attitude:

Striving not to fail is like walking up to take your turn at bat when the only thought running through your mind is, “don’t strike out.” The last two words, “strike out” are all that you remember as you flail wildly at everything thrown your way.

If you’re caught up in an environment where an evil leader holds court, remember that you still own your attitude. While it’s not easy to escape the fog of uncertainty and doubt created by these characters, it’s unlikely that their attempts at mind control can survive in a pitched battle against your own good attitude.

If you are your own boss and you feel weighted down and exposed by the Scarlet F’s you believe you are carrying around with you, it’s critical to rediscover the feelings of excitement, hope and opportunity that likely propelled you off on your own in the first place.

Rediscover or Reset Your Sense of Purpose:

Somewhere buried beneath the baggage and stress of the past few years, you had a sense of purpose that fueled your efforts. Whether it was providing for others or an intense desire to change the world, it’s important to scrape off the muck and recall that sense of greater mission.

Of course, we change over time, and what fueled us at one phase of life may not be so relevant at another stage. I know many people who have recharged their lives and their work as professionals by resetting their sense of purpose from a focus on success to an emphasis on making a difference for someone or some group.

The Bottom-Line for Now:

It’s easy to focus on failure or on the pursuit of not failing. It’s a lot more fun, it’s a lot healthier and it darned well is a lot more inspiring to rationalize our efforts and actions and combat our demons in the context of our bigger purpose.

Those who focus on success see victory around every corner.  They view obstacles and setbacks as minor challenges to be overcome on a longer journey towards something worthwhile.

No one can take away your sense of purpose, unless you let them. Focus your gaze clearly on the bigger picture and longer term, take a deep breath and then take the first step forward. You’ll quickly remember that steps taken with a purpose in mind are effortless.

Now, keep moving.

About the Author:

Planning for every eventuality is one of the leadership factors taught at West Point. While it might sound contradictory, the best planning allows the greatest flexibility. No plan survives contact with the “enemy”— whatever form the “enemy” takes — be it time, budgets, competitors, or changing conditions. Planning for all contingencies establishes the competitive edge.

Communication and planning go hand in hand. A plan is only as good as the leader’s ability to communicate it to the team, and to receive information from the team as to whether or not things are going according to plan.

Also, learning from Failure is a key skill that must be understood and mastered by the cadets at West Point. A strong leader understands and uses the value of mistakes as a learning tool. He or she manages failure not by running from it or avoiding it, but by chasing problems and seeing how they can contribute to future success.

Activity Instructions:

The first part of the activity should be completed individually. The second part is a group activity. Tell participants they will have 15 minutes to complete the individual and group activities on the Worksheets. Ask them to choose a discussion leader for the group activity part of the Exercise.

At the 8-minute mark, suggest to the groups that they move into their group discussions.

Debrief the Activity (10 minutes)

Ask for volunteers to share any insights gained on the questions they reviewed individually. Prompt one or more participants to share how one or the other of the skill points makes a tangible difference in their department or organization.

For the group activities:

Ask one of the groups to discuss the relationship between Planning and Failure:

• How do they depend on each other?

• Is it possible to discuss one without the other?

• How do they connect in this organization’s environment?

Ask one of the working groups to share their ideas for a learning experience focused on Planning or Failure. If time permits, ask one of the other groups to share one of their ideas for a development experience on the other skill factor.

ASK:

When you think about it, discussing a failure with peers and subordinates is extremely difficult for any of us to do. Have any of you had experiences where discussing a failure has provided noticeable benefits to yourself or to the organization?

Worksheet: Planning & Learning from Failure

On Your Own

As a Group

Work together in your group to complete the following activities.

Excerpted from the Leader’s Guide to the video program Leaders of Character: Leadership - the West Point Way

Training Resource: At the US Military Academy at West Point, cadets are taught to lead with honor and character. Leaders of Character: Leadership - the West Point Way documents how it’s done and visits the workplaces of West Point grads who now apply these skills in the public and private sectors.

Making assumptions is bad, right? The standard answer is ‘yes,’ because most of us have had those moments when we made a decision based on a certain assumption, and then discovered the decision turned out to be wrong because our assumption was wrong. Not good. And to make matters worse, the person pointing out our mistaken assumption probably also felt the need to become a linguist and write out “assume” as a three syllable word on a nearby white board. (Unfortunately, we know the punch line to that one.)

As leaders, it’s considered bad practice to take business matters for granted. We know that when someone is called out for making a bad assumption, he or she is being accused of not asking critical questions to get important information in service of the organization’s goals.   

But are all assumptions bad? In other words, to prevent more unsolicited linguistic lessons on how to break down the word “assume,” should we question everything we encounter and take nothing for granted?

Consider this example.
A few years ago during a morning car-pool commute with a colleague, I was drinking a cup of coffee from a drive-thru. I never actually saw the coffee itself because it was in a paper cup with a lid on it. As I’ve done hundreds times before (actually, perhaps thousands), I drank the cup dry, but this time my last sip contained some coffee grounds. I don’t particularly enjoy the taste of coffee grounds, so I was vocal in letting my colleague know what had just happened.

“That’s what you get for assuming the coffee was fine,” he said with that certain smugness of a person who doesn’t drink coffee.

Of course, that’s not the response I was looking for. My initial, unvocalized retort was a “Yeah, I should have poured the coffee into a clear beaker and checked for sediments and then have run a toxicology test.” Instead, I kept my mouth shut and drove on. After all, I had done what any reasonable person would do: I observed nothing out of the ordinary in the coffee place (as usual, it was clean and the server was courteous), and the cup and lid looked pristine.  Nothing appeared wrong, so I assumed everything was okay. 

As we drove on, I continued pondering these matters about making assumptions. I noticed that my colleague wasn’t concerned at all when I drove through green-light intersections without slowing down to make absolutely sure that the cross-traffic would not run their red lights and crash into us. We approached the intersections, saw nothing was amiss, and drove through with the relative confidence that our assumptions about the way people obey the traffic laws were valid.

It struck me that if we didn’t make hundreds of assumptions a day about navigating through our everyday world, we’d be stopping at all green light events and never get anywhere.

In light of the sheer volume of things we need to accomplish in a given day, making assumptions can be useful. At a fundamental level, almost all of our assumptions work almost all of the time. 

Unfortunately, since we make so many correct assumptions every day based on “nothing seems wrong,” it’s easy to get into the habit of not asking probing questions when we should—especially when our business goals seem to be cruising along on auto-pilot. In those cases when a project seems to be going well, during a meeting we might ask, “Does anyone have any problems or concerns?” Quite often—and for a variety of reasons— the answer will be a “no,” and we’ll move on because we’ve reinforced an assumption that since nothing was wrong then everything must be okay. 

But then comes the kicker a few days, weeks, or even months later: A serious problem within the project, seemingly out of the blue, but painfully obvious in hindsight, blindsides us. And then we get into some “what ifs” that come down to “If only I had asked the right questions back then.” 

In the case of an organizational initiative where nothing is overtly wrong, one way we  leaders can challenge our assumptions is to ask questions like: “Is there any chance people are reluctant to say what’s really going on?”  Or, “do I encourage the people on my team to challenge things they have doubts about?”.  Depending on the answers, we may need to create a safe atmosphere where assumptions are identified and, if need be, tested.

So, to get back to the issue of whether or not people are correct when they spell “assume” as a three-syllable word, we’ve got to think about the consequences of the assumptions we’re making.  When is it time to see that nothing is wrong and move on through the intersection, and when is it time to see that nothing is wrong and slow down and ask questions? It’s okay to get a sip of coffee grounds every 6 months or so, but it’s not okay to let your team fail.

Training Resource: The Abilene Paradox. Instead of assuming everyone is on-board with a decision, leaders must make it safe for people to speak up if they think the team is headed in the wrong direction. This all-time bestseller drives home a powerful message about the importance of getting everyone’s honest opinion.

The best leaders train and empower their team so others can step up and move projects ahead without hesitation in the leader’s absence. Here is a case study that can help leaders and managers think through the preparation, training and delegation necessary to be away from the office, using a very realistic scenario.

Explain that the participants are going to explore a case study in order to help them review the skills needed to plan for delegation. First, though, split the class into two groups (or let them self-select a group): Delegators and Delegatees.

Either aloud or individually, have everyone read the Case Study (see below). After everyone has read the Case Study, lead a discussion among the Delegator group on the following questions:

• What portions of the General Manager’s responsibilities can he delegate, and what portions should he “shelve” until his return?
• What skills are necessary to perform the delegated tasks?
• Among the General Manager’s staff, who might be a candidate for delegation? Why?
• What kind of support will the General Manager need to provide?

Now, ask members of the Delegatee group to imagine they are the Dining Room Manager. Then lead a discussion on the following questions:

• What portions of the General Manager’s responsibilities can he delegate to you, and what portions should he “shelve” until his return?
• What skills will you need to be able to perform those tasks?
• What would you gain from accepting these delegated tasks?
• What demands will be placed on you?
• What kind of support will you need from the General Manager? From other staff members?

Bring the whole group back together and ask:
• What did this case study bring to light for you?
• How will you plan and delegate differently the next time you will be traveling for work or on vacation?
• Would your employees know what to do if you were unexpectedly out sick tomorrow?
• How can you communicate ‘who is empowered to do what’ in your absence?

Case Study
In a medium-sized restaurant specializing in high-end seafood cuisine, the General Manager is responsible for all marketing, advertising, inventory, hiring, training, budget management and controls, reservation and private party booking, and security, among a variety of additional day-to-day tasks such as discipline, crisis management, and maintenance. Inventory and budget reports are due monthly, and the other responsibilities are ongoing, and constant. Working for the General Manager are:

• A Chef
• A Sous Chef (Assistant Chef)
• 12 cooks and prep-cooks
• A Dining Room Manager
• A Bar Manager
• A 25-member service staff that includes hosts, servers, bussing help and bartenders.

The Dining Room Manager has several years of experience, but has only been with the restaurant for three months. A new bartender has also just come onboard. She was a Bar Manager in her former job, but since there wasn’t currently a manager position available here, she accepted a bartender position. The Chef is creative, hard working, and an excellent cook, but inexperienced as a manager, and has recently lost two frustrated employees.

The General Manager has just received 2 calls: the first from a VIP client requesting that the restaurant host a private party for his company, with 250 guests and a budget of $20,000, to be held four days from now. The second call informed the General Manager of a serious illness in the family, and he will need to leave immediately for at least a week.

Excerpted from the Leader’s Guide to the CRM Learning training program Delegating for Diehards.

Training Resource: Everest. See how a blind man’s quest to reach the summit was only possible through leadership and teamwork. When the climb leader had to drop out halfway up due to illness, you’ll learn how the other members of the team stepped up and made the climb a success.

There is an easier way and a harder way to get results as a leader. The easy way is where you have a team of people around you who want to help you achieve results, even in difficult circumstances. The hard way is to push and demand results from your team. Because they don’t want to see you succeed, they find a way of only doing the bare minimum to get you off their back.

So what makes employees want to help their boss succeed? Part of the answer lies in whether the boss treats them like people or like objects.

Thanks to the recommendation of a client of mine,  I read two excellent books from the Arbinger Institute: Leadership and Self-Deception and The Anatomy of Peace. The central theme in both books is whether you see others around you as people or as objects and how that view of others distorts reality.

This concept really hit home for me personally as I sense that at times I can view my wife, children, friends and even clients as objects instead of people. I can be less sensitive and intuitive than I should be.

When we see others as objects, we dehumanize them. This often makes us feel superior in our own beliefs and behavior and become judgmental about the motives of others.

For example when you are driving and another driver cuts you off, you might think to yourself, “What a jerk!” In fact the other person might be perfectly nice 95% of the time and did something jerk-like 5% of the time. You might also occasionally do something inconsiderate towards someone and not really be a jerk.

In reality television the producer and editor can make someone look either intelligent or buffoon-like depending on which clips and sound bites they show and which clips they leave unseen and unheard. Think about having yourself video recorded 24/7 and how you could be made to look either brilliant or stupid depending on which clips others saw.

As a leader, when you see your employees as human beings, you can appreciate that they have strengths and weaknesses just like you. How you treat them will make a big difference in your success as a leader.

Reflection Questions

Do the people around you want to see you succeed or do they actively or passively resist your goals and ambitions? How could being more personable build stronger business and personal relationships?

Action Items

• · Reflect on your view of others. Chances are that you unconditionally accept some people while being more judgmental towards others.
• · Replace judgement with curiosity to discover more about your team.
• · Take time to get to know people and build relationships.
• · Become the type of leader who earns loyalty and respect instead of demanding it.

About the author: Unique Training & Development specializes in helping its clients generate better operating results by training front line supervisors and team leaders and their managers in how to lead change and engage employees. Greg Schinkel is the author of three books: Employees Not Doing What You Expect, What Great Supervisors Know and Awakening the Workplace. http://UniqueDevelopment.com

Training Resource: Leadership and Self-Deception  Based on the best-selling book, this video and its accompanying materials explore our human tendency to look elsewhere for the cause of our problems when we should really be looking within. Also, view this success story about the Leadership and Self-Deception video and workshop.

According to the latest studies, the average employee is delivering only 50% of what they are capable of offering to your organization. As a leader, you’re frustrated by this lack of performance. You’d like to clone your high performers so you can become more results oriented like the entrepreneurial companies you see in the marketplace.

To capture the talents and potential of today’s knowledge workers, you must recognize the dramatic rise in numbers of these employees. Knowledge workers are the individuals who use their ‘brains’ instead of their ‘brawn’ to get work done. These are the information specialists, researchers, marketing and sales experts whose talents drive the success of your business. To ensure high performance, you must manage these talented individuals differently than employees of the past.  Their talents can help you take your business to the top. But like a spirited racehorse, they must be handled with care.

Avoid these five deadly sins and you’ll capture knowledge workers’ discretionary energy and build enthusiasm:

#1. Focus only on what’s wrong.
The “no news is good news” approach to leading knowledge workers is a recipe for disaster. You might think that if employees aren’t screwing up, they don’t need to hear from you. But knowledge workers want to be recognized. They need your attention. Recognizing progress and giving recognition fosters their talents, helps them move in the right direction and fuels their enthusiasm. Avoid focusing only on what’s wrong and acknowledge what’s going right.

#2. Ignore poor performers.
High-performing knowledge workers want you to deal with poor performers – otherwise the problem lands in their lap. You must address performance challenges by coaching the employee, reassigning the individual to an area where their talents are best suited – or remove them altogether. In any case, pay attention to problems and take corrective action. Don’t let laggards linger, derail your progress and de-motivate other employees.

#3. Overlook boredom and talent misfit.
Job uncertainty and fear may prevent employees from speaking up about a change that’s needed. It’s your job to notice when individuals lose interest, struggle in their current position, or slack off for some unknown reason. Address these issues head-on instead of allowing them to continue. There’s no joy in just getting by. You don’t help employees by allowing a bad fit to continue. Tough love with self and others is part of moving into the new economy.

#4. Let them say ‘YES’ to everything.
Help knowledge workers curb their appetite to work on interesting projects that are unrelated to business priorities. No matter how exciting a project is, you must help employees discern: “Is this project contributing to the goals of the business? Can I justify the time and energy I’m spending on it? Will this initiative help us achieve the outcomes we want?” Many times, knowledge workers bite off more than they can chew. A wise leader helps employees set limits and say ‘no’ – for their own sake as well as for the business.

#5. Fail to give feedback.
In corporate life, no one wants to hear “This isn’t working.” But individuals need to know when their attitudes and behaviors are causing others a problem. No matter how exceptional the person is, he or she can make a mistake – sometimes without knowing it. A wise leader helps individuals recognize problems and learn from problems. Don’t wait until there is a crisis to raise a touchy subject and give feedback. Regular feedback helps employees grow.

Your primary role as a leader is to help knowledge workers contribute their talents. Involve them in key decisions and welcome their input. Encourage collaboration with others who will stretch their minds and capabilities. Make sure employee talents are visible, seen and appreciated by others in the organization. Remember, knowledge workers want to use their talents to help your business grow.  Put these ideas into action and watch teamwork and performance skyrocket!

Article source: http://www.articlesbase.com/self-improvement-articles/avoid-these-5-leadership-pitfalls-when-leading-knowledge-workers-2278768.html#ixzz13P7qNDpi

Training Resource: Not Everyone Gets a Trophy is a wise and humorous look at the challenges of training and managing the newest generation of employees.  This dynamic program is packed with laughter, stories and practical examples of techniques that any manager can use to transform these young employees into “the highest performing workforce in history.”

1.) Make copies of the Worksheet below and distribute to the participants.

2.) Ask them to list ten attributes of a leader or manager in their organization. List both what they feel are “good” and “bad” attributes as well as those they may consider neutral. As an option, if participants are from a single organization or department, you may direct them to evaluate the same leader or a manager. Or, if desired, they may use this exercise to evaluate their own leadership style or that of their own manager.

3.) When completed, have the participants put a checkmark in the circle by the left of those attributes that characterize an open-leadership style that includes free discussion, non-judgmental attitudes, and acceptance of divergent thinking. Have them put a checkmark in the box to the right by those attributes that characterize a closed-leadership style, one that includes tightly-controlled discussion, highly-defensive posturing and lack of tolerance of divergent thinking in favor of consensus.

4.) Total up the number of checkmarks on the left and give ten (10) points for each, but give minus ten (-10) points for each checkmark on the right. Add, or subtract, to reach your final score. Note that neither a completely open- nor closed-leadership style is ideal. A score of –40 to –100 indicates a highly closed-leadership style which may inhibit all but the most aggressive group members from expressing their true feelings. A score of –20 to –40 indicates a moderately closed-leadership style which may be conducive to rapid decision making, but may leave the group susceptible to the effects of groupthink. A score of +40 to +100 indicates a highly open-leadership style, which may be ineffective, because without direction from the leader, the group may be unable to reach decisions at all. An ideal score would be +20 to +40 indicating a moderately open-leadership style, which may be effective in reducing the effects of groupthink.

Leadership Style – WORKSHEET

The leader’s style can have a lot to do with how group decision-making is conducted and, therefore, whether there is a likelihood that groupthink can gain a foothold or not. In the box below, list ten characteristics, both positive and negative, of a leader or manager in your organization. As an option you may use this exercise to evaluate your own leadership style.

When completed, put a checkmark in the Ο by the left of those attributes that are open, such as “allows free discussion”, “has non-judgmental attitude”, or “loves to brainstorm”. Put a checkmark in the � to the right of those attributes that are closed, such as “tightly controls discussion” or “defends his/her ideas vigorously”.

 Attributes of _____________’s Leadership Style

Ο __________________________________________ □

Ο __________________________________________ □

Ο __________________________________________ □

Ο __________________________________________ □

Ο __________________________________________ □

Ο __________________________________________ □

Ο __________________________________________ □

Ο __________________________________________ □

Ο __________________________________________ □

Ο __________________________________________ □

SCORING: Total up the number of checks on the left and give ten (10) points for each, but give minus ten (-10) points for each checkmark on the right. Add, or subtract, to reach your final score. Note that neither a completely open-nor closed leadership style is ideal. A score of –40 to –100 indicates a highly closed-leadership style which may inhibit all but the most aggressive group members from expressing their true feelings. A score of –20 to –40 indicates a moderately closed-leadership style which may be conducive to rapid decision making, by may leave the group susceptible to the effects of groupthink. A score of +40 to +100 indicates highly open-leadership style which maybe ineffective because without direction from the leader, the group may be unable to reach decisions at all. An ideal score would be +20 to +40 indicating a moderately open-leadership style which may be effective in reducing the effects of groupthink.

Excerpted from the Leader’s Guide for the video program Groupthink.

Training Resource: CRM Learning’s best-selling program, Groupthink, shows how bad decisions can be made when teams fail to fully discuss potential risks.