by Kerry Larkan on July 14, 2010
In building leadership bench strength in your organization, which do you believe is most important: Competence or Character?
Those of you who have heard me speak on the topic of keeping talent may recall my thoughts on the difference between being trustworthy and building trust: it’s all about credibility. People know when you are not congruent— when you are merely mouthing words without having your heart in them.
Credibility comes from saying and also doing what you promise. When I see an instance of outstanding leadership or a business that I consider to be an “employer of choice,” there is always a high-level of credibility as well. But where does credibility come from? How can you develop yours?
Credibility can be split into two major parts: competence and character. These two are like brother and sister, ying and yang, chicken and egg. To be successful, people and organizations need both. Too much competence at the expense of character…or vice versa…and you run into problems.
Competence involves having the requisite capabilities, skills, and resources to execute a business plan. Competence is bench strength—the ability to get things done both efficiently and effectively. Competence is also about results—being consistent and having a track record of consistent results.
Character, on the other hand, is a question of mindset or attitude. Character is what you are made of and has a couple of key constituents:
- Intent is what you mean. For example, if you are forced to say something you don’t believe in or understand, chances are people will see through that. What is the intent of the meeting? The discussion? Your intent (your purpose) is an important part of both building and maintaining your credibility.
- Integrity is about your ethics, honesty, and principles. Do you do the right thing? What do you say and do behind people’s backs? How would you or your organization behave when given the chance to gouge a high price?
Now, in building leadership bench strength in your organization which do you believe is most important—competence or character?
As I said at the beginning, both are important.
People are usually hired for their competence. But while competence may get them the job, character blemishes may eventually put them out of the business. Perhaps a person is dishonest or can’t get on with other people? Someone may be capable of doing a job technically, yet have no concept of what it means to work as a team.
These represent character issues, not questions of competence. Ultimately, for an employment brand to reflect a true “employer of choice” culture, character is critical, and the integrity and character of the senior team in particular need to be beyond reproach.
Print This
Tweet This
by Kerry Larkan on May 26, 2010
Annita Roddick
In the piece I wrote called “Building Trust” I mentioned a Navy officer named Holly Graf and her litany of abuse and broken trust with fellow ratings and sailors. When reading that story and thinking about trust and the part it plays in great business environments, it occurred to me that Captain Graf might have watched Jack Nicolson in A Few Good Men one (or twenty-one) times too many!
It’s my observation that women leaders who attempt to model their behaviour on “the boys” come undone. Perhaps not immediately, but their approach eventually backfires. “Be yourself” is the best advice you’ll get.
After all, most of the blokes (that’s Australian colloquialism for men) aren’t that flash at leadership themselves, so why model yourself on their poor behaviour?
This is not to say that there aren’t any men who are great leaders and models, of course. One example is Sammy Lee, the CEO of Infinitus International in Hong Kong. The Infinitus business philosophy is based around the concept “In the Interests of Others.” Sammy’s grandfather, who founded the parent company Lee Kum Kee, wrote a small book by that name. Three generations later the business still operates that way…”in the interest of others”…and is doing very well.
Another great role model is the late Annita Roddick of The Body Shop fame––an inspiring female leader whose successful leadership style grew naturally not from imitating others but from her personal commitment to social and environmental responsibility.
Print This
Tweet This
by Kerry Larkan on May 4, 2010
Losing trust with a manager, a colleague, the board, the family, a supplier or a team member is unfortunately not difficult, whereas building trust is an ongoing process that requires focus, energy and an intent to do the right thing by others.
Employers of Choice have a conscious awareness of how to maintain trust and build an E of C culture. With our help they actually measure the amount of trust in the business.
The elements of trust and the behaviors measured include:
Congruence: the degree to which employers
- • have clearly defined and agreed behavioral standards,
- • make sure expectations are clear,
- • are willing to discuss and resolve disagreements, and
- • practice what they preach.
Openness: the degree to which employees
- • openly share information and opinions,
- • discuss feelings with one another,
- • do not withhold relevant information from one another, and
- • are comfortable receiving feedback from each other.
Acceptance: the degree to which employees
- • are really listened to,
- • are accepted for who they are,
- • feel it is safe to express conflicting views, and
- • encourage and support each other.
Reliability: the degree to which employees
- • can rely on each other to get the job done,
- • do what they say they will do,
- • take ownership of their jobs, and
- • have high standards of quality in everything they do.
The process of measuring enables values and behaviors to be refined that are needed to be successful on a variety of levels.
Print This
Tweet This
by Kerry Larkan on April 21, 2010
With ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corp) day approaching (April 25th) I thought I might talk about the Australian concept of mateship. Politicians invoke this idea all the time to support their causes, but in my view, the term is mis-used more often than not.
The Australian Macquarie dictionary describes “mateship” as:
1. A bond between equal partners or close friends
2. Comradeship
3. (Aust.) Comradeship as an ideal
I have no issue with any of these definitions. My problem is with what people think it represents in contemporary society.
Living outside Australia I have gained a totally different perspective on how people in other parts of the world view Australia and Australians–as a country, as a people, and in our behaviour. Australians are frequently portrayed as beer-swilling, sport-loving, sometimes loud, outdoor people. Australian men are often assumed to be generally tough and macho–not afraid of a stoush (a fight) and not prepared to take a step back. Much of this stereotype emanates from sporting culture, but it is also has its roots in the corporate world and male management and leadership styles.
In all my study and reading about the ANZACs (the Australian and New Zealander soldiers of the great war), I could see that they were very clear about their intent and their relationship to each other. They were always prepared to put the other bloke (man or guy) first. When I asked my Kiwi mate (friend) Ngahi Bidois what he thought mateship was to the ANZACs, this was his response:
I am a New Zealand Maori and I was named after a grandfather (Patrick Tanirau) who gave his life as an ANZAC soldier. When it comes to defining mates I could not think of a better definition than being prepared to give all your dreams, aspirations, hopes, intentions, future and indeed life for someone else. My Grandfather was one of many New Zealand, Australian and other soldiers who gave their lives for their mates and for us, that we remember on ANZAC day – lest we forget.
This is a bit different, isn’t it, from the image of some macho fellow too ready for a fight? Being a mate means you care, you listen–really listen, and that you’re there when it’s least expected. You have empathy and can show compassion.
I felt this concept of mateship is beautifully expressed at one point in the new Australian feature movie Beneath Hill 60, which is set in World War I. There is a scene where a group of soldiers, traveling together in a truck on their way to the frontline, two of them simply hold each others’ hands–each man frightened and facing death, but at the same time offering a hand of support for his mate.
To me, that scene is the antithesis of how many Australian men are perceived today, both within and outside Australia. How have we wandered so far from that positive, humanistic view of what mateship can mean?
To learn more of Ngahi Bidois visit his website at Ngahi Bidois
Print This
Tweet This
by Kerry Larkan on April 13, 2010
They say if you really want to know what your faults are, ask an enemy. Not too many of us take that advice. After all, who wants to go through that kind of discomfort, even for the sake of self-improvement? In the workplace, it’s also true that the people who gripe about us have a lot to teach us if we’d but listen.
Just like hearing criticism on a personal level, listening to criticism of the way we do our job, supervise or run our business is no picnic. But it’s the way to get the honest truth about what we’re doing well, what we need to do better, and what we ought to stop doing entirely.
“Listening” doesn’t have to mean subjecting yourself to insubordination or a tongue lashing. It can be done discreetly, casually – paying attention to the conversation around you, to the jokes you hear employees make to one another, to their shared sighs and low-toned gripes. What are your people laughing about, shaking their heads about?
Take notes. Keep a journal page for remarks you overhear, and record them. You may not get the picture at first, but as you add employee comments to your page, a pattern will start to emerge. Maybe your crew is being overworked. Maybe one person is being unfairly favored. Perhaps your team feels like they don’t have much of a say.
When you’re listening, attune your ear to the phrases people use to describe the company or the office. Do they call it the snake pit? The sheltered workshop? Their roost? Think about the phrases they use and the message the phrases represent. A snake pit is a workplace without cooperation and support. A sheltered workshop is a company without accountability. A roost is a job that feels homelike and safe.
Once you’ve got a clue what your people think about your workplace, what are you going to do about that? It’s easy to ignore what you heard, or discount it. But clearly these things matter to your crew. Retaining good people, keeping them motivated and productive, and succeeding in your business goals all depend on having a staff that feels respected, appreciated, included, fairly paid, and safe (emotionally and physically).
It pays to listen around the workplace only if you’re willing to make improvements based on what you learn. Treat yourself to the pleasure of hearing the comments and jokes start to shift in your favor, as your employee problems begin to evaporate. Both will happen, if you let your people’s cares and opinion matter to you.
Print This
Tweet This
by Kerry Larkan on April 13, 2010
All of us make mistakes. In fact it is one of the ways we learn and hopefully grow and develop as people and as a community. Sometimes, though, people don’t learn, and it’s not until the weight of the law comes a-calling that they even become conscious of other possibilities.
In my piece about James Hardie, the Australian firm recently found guilty of some major misdemeanors, I remarked:
Society provides the opportunity to operate provided we do the right thing. Often referred to as; “social license to trade.” Losing the right comes about when the community deems an organization has acted in an inappropriate way. In short they withdraw their trust.
The same is true at an individual level. If you are not up to the mark as a manager, a leader, a colleague, a board member or a business owner, people withdraw their trust. And when people don’t trust you, doing business becomes that much harder. Even the US Navy has seen fit to fire six officers this year due to their performance––or lack of it.
By far the dumbest is Captain Holly Graf––the “Bligh” of the US Navy it would seem––or should that be, the alleged Bligh?
I know a bit about Captain Bligh. One of my forebears was Commander John Larkan, who in HMS Pandora chased the Bligh crew around the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) and Northern Australia before running aground inside the Barrier reef off the coast of Queensland.
So here are some lessons to be learned from Captain Graf’s case:
• Trying to be one of the boys is not the way to go.
• Having sailors (or staff) doing personal favours is not bright, nor right, in a public organization.
• Being loud and or abusive doesn’t make you right.
All of this simply diminishes TRUST––and any semblance of power you may have had. You may well be trustworthy, in fact. But the question is, do you and your people build trust…or destroy it?
Print This
Tweet This
by Kerry Larkan on March 9, 2010
Ever wonder what makes some companies so successful? Wonder no more.
The Australian Center for Industrial Relations, Research and Training at the University of Sydney undertook a study on the best workplaces in Australia. From the results, the center compiled a list of 15 key drivers for achieving workplace excellence.
How does your own company measure up on these?
1. Quality working relationships
The way people relate as friends and co-workers, support each other and get the job done.
2. Workplace leadership
How the immediate supervisor, team leader, manager or coordinator presents to their subordinates – focus on leadership and energy, rather than on management and administration.
3. Having a say
The way people participate in decisions affecting the day-to-day business of the workplace.
4. Clear values
The extent to which people can see and understand the overall purpose and individual behavior expected at work.
5. Being safe
The level of personal safety people feel, both physically and psychologically – a sense of stability and of being protected by the system.
6. The built environment
The quality of the physical work environment – comfortable, user-friendly, with visual appeal and a high standard of accommodation.
7. Recruitment
Getting the right people to work in the location, people who share the same values and work ethic as the rest of the group.
8. Pay and conditions
Levels of income and physical working conditions (hours, access, travel, etc.) – met to a standard employees perceive as reasonable.
9. Obtaining feedback
Always knowing what people think of each other, their contribution to the success of the place and their individual performance over time.
10. Autonomy and uniqueness
The organization’s capacity to tolerate and encourage differences – people have the sense they’re the best at what they do.
11. Sense of ownership and identity
People take pride in the workplace and in their contribution to it, feeling they know the business and control the technology.
12. Learning
Ability to learn on the job, acquire skills and knowledge from everywhere, and develop a greater understanding of the entire workplace.
13. Passion
Energy and commitment to the workplace, high levels of volunteering, excitement and a sense of well-being – people actually want to come to work.
14. Having fun
A pleasant, psychologically secure workplace where people can relax with each other and enjoy social interaction.
15. Community connections
Being part of the local community and feeling the workplace is a valuable element in local affairs.
Looking at your own company, how does it measure out in terms of these 15 categories? What areas is it strongest in? Weakest in? Give some thought to your three weakest excellence areas. Brainstorm four or five things you might do for each weak category to shore up that sagging sector.
Circle the best ideas you came up with. Then the most important question: what you will do to implement them?
Print This
Tweet This
by Kerry Larkan on December 10, 2009
What are the things you look for in your job? What makes you want to get to the office in the morning?
Think about that for a second. Better yet, take a moment to jot down the answers that come to mind.
What did you write? Chances are that making money wasn’t the only thing on your list. Job challenge, work relationships, the appreciation of peers, team leaders and supervisors – those provide satisfaction that can’t be measured in dollars.
What do you think is important to the people who work for you? Are the reasons they come to work likely to be very different from your own? Whatever the job rank, all people desire similar things from employment. Grasping that fact, and making decisions accordingly, puts you paces ahead of employers who just don’t get it.
Employee retention depends on this understanding. Accenture conducted a study of 500 full-time middle managers in the United States and found them all either looking, or planning to look, for another job. That tells us business is failing to meet the needs of the people it depends on. Business itself suffers the brunt of the consequences.
As Generations X and Y move up and into the workforce, the interpersonal and spiritual aspects of employment will rise in importance. Younger people tend to base job decisions on factors other than money. Respect, expressed appreciation for a job well done, shared values, a homey work environment, flexibility in hours and scheduling, joviality and emotional security in the workplace – such are the factors that increasingly drive the movement or secure the stability of our younger human resources.
Think about what you want from your job, then think how to give the same to your people. The more you understand the similarities between you and your employees, the better you’ll relate to their needs. That will pay off in better productivity, reduced absenteeism, and fewer losses of valued staff. It won’t hurt your reputation with the home team either.
Print This
Tweet This
by Kerry Larkan on July 29, 2009
Let’s say you have no alternative but to let people go, yes, that horrid “R” word “retrenchment” how do you choose who goes?
Do you know right now most businesses are doing it based on the costs of the individual to the corporation? In other words, those earning the most dollars.
Any wonder young people take a cynical view of big business?
Right now I know of several organizations preparing to lay people off based solely on dollars. Not only that, but little or no discussion with people whom the anointed redundee reports to.
Let me suggest, recommend and cajole you to take another perspective:
• Have you conveyed the facts of the situation?
• Do you truly know the situation?
• Have you tripled your communication efforts to allay fears and anxiety or is it all closed doors?
• Are you adding and deducting costs to perpetuate a lie?
• Who adds least value to the operation not who costs most?
• What skills are critical to recovery and the bounce back when it starts?
• Have you asked managers for their opinion?
• Have you sought out volunteers to go?
• Have you planned for some intervention and expenditure for those remaining?
How you and the senior team manage redundancy has a far greater impact on morale and productivity than any fancy words you might care to utter. It is all about “what” you do (behavior) not what you say.
That aside, communication is critical in any change management work and needs to be increased not decreased. Engage an outside expert if you need help and just remember communicate often, with brevity, honesty and transparency.
Print This
Tweet This
by Kerry Larkan on June 16, 2009
One of the things I noticed, while writing ‘THE TALENT WAR’ and WINNING THE TALENT WAR, is that many of the good leaders I’ve met and interviewed don’t rush to copy the best business practices without considering the impact to their business.
I’ll leave the final word to Sidney Winter and Gabriel Szulanski in a piece they wrote for the Harvard Business Review:
“Businesses often fail when they try to reproduce a best practice. One reason: in-house “experts” don’t truly know why it worked in the first place.”
In his book, ‘Corporate DNA’, Arnold Kransdorff states:
“In reality, copying others ignores the context of both place and time and disregards the dynamic of ones own organization-specific circumstances. It kills innovation and learning opportunities. Most businesses only learn from worst practice.”
There is now empirical evidence that creating a workforce that is committed and engaged will produce greater productivity, higher job satisfaction for employees and better total return for shareholders.
Print This
Tweet This
RSS of Hiring and Keeping Talent Blog
Email
LinkedIn
Twitter
Facebook