The Regenerate Web

“I just can’t seem to get anything done,” lamented Ralph. “It seems that, all day long, people just line up at my door with questions and problems they cannot solve. I spend more time working on their problems than my own problems.”

I asked Ralph how accessible he was. “Oh, I have an open door policy. In fact, I cannot remember the last time I closed my door.”

An open door policy sounds like an admirable leadership trait, when, in practice, it can create unintended results. An open door policy can actually train your team members that you are the fastest way to solve a problem. As the manager, you can become the shortcut that prevents independent research, arriving at new ideas, or formulating original strategy.

On the wall, behind the swivel chair of one of my favorite clients, is posted the following phrase, “What are you going to do about that?”

You see, an open door policy has little to do with the door.

“But, the resume is their experience,” Alisha complained. “It’s the central document I use, in the course of an interview.”

“The problem is, you look at the resume instead of the role you are trying to fill. You ask questions about the resume, instead of asking questions about the role and the candidate’s experience and capability related to the role,” I responded.

“But the resume is their experience,” Alisha repeated. “It’s the biggest piece of paper in the process.”

“The reason the resume is the biggest piece of paper is because you haven’t documented the Role Description, and you haven’t created a bank of questions off the Role Description. You are not prepared.”

“That’s not true,” Alisha protested. “I have several prepared questions going into the interview.”

“How many is several,” I asked for clarification.

“Well, seven or eight,” she replied.

“What if I told you, that you needed 60-80 prepared questions to feel really prepared?”

“So, you think you have the upper hand in this interview process?” I asked. “Because you are the Hiring Manager and get to make the decision, you think you have the power during the interview?”

Alisha stopped. “Well, it is my decision.”

“When was the last time you conducted an interview for an open position on your team?”

“Nine months ago, we had to replace someone who left,” she replied.

“That’s part of the problem,” I pressed. “Hiring Managers don’t interview candidates often enough to get good at it. And when you do have to hire someone, there are all kinds of distractions that keep you from spending the time required to be fully prepared.”

“No, not at all. I have the time to spend to make sure I do this right,” Alisha pushed back. “I looked at the job description we updated last year for this position. It’s really pretty good. And we have some good resumes to look at.”

“So, you have some interviews scheduled this week?”

“Yes, I do, three appointments set up,” Alisha sounded confident.

“And, you’re prepared to talk to these candidates?”

“Well, yes. I have their resumes. That’s what I key off of. In my mind, I know what I am looking for, and I use their resume as a guide.”

“Did you ever think their resume was created by a professional headhunter, and that they’ve been coached, done role-play, all with the intent of beating you in a game of cat and mouse? If you use the resume to guide you in the interview, you are playing right into hands of the candidate. Is it possible the candidate has done more preparation for this interview than you have?”

Greetings from San Jose. I would like to welcome our new subscribers from Sacramento.

“I just don’t know if he can do the job,” lamented Morgan. “It always seems to be a throw of the dice.”

“Why should it be a gamble?” I asked. “Why shouldn’t you be absolutely certain if Randy can do the job? He has worked here for two years.”

“Yes, but he has never been a supervisor before. And if we promote him and he can’t do the job, we will be stuck. We will either have to demote him or fire him. And demotion doesn’t work very well.”

“How can you be sure that he can perform all the tasks of a supervisor before you give him a promotion?” I probed.

Morgan had a blank stare for a moment, and then he realized it was a leading question. “You mean I should give him the tasks of a supervisor before I promote him?” Morgan was smiling now.

“Yes, not all at once. If you test him with project work, identical to the tasks of a supervisor, over a six week period and he is successful, you promote him. If he fails, you just stop giving him supervisor stuff.”

Greetings from Sacramento.

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
What do you feel are truly the most effective skills that I need to think about as a new manager?

Response:
Hiring and firing, top of the list. The most important skill for any manager is the ability to select the right team members. This makes all other management skills seem like a walk in the park.

The manager who selects the wrong team members will forever spend time trying to fix the problems that come from hiring mis-steps. And that time spent trying to motivate, coach and correct behavior will be frustrating, life will be miserable.

Take a sports team and put them up against any other team. To pick the team who will win the game, you only have to know the answer to one simple question.

Who is on the team?

Pick the right players and your life as a manager will be wonderful. Hiring and firing, top of the list.

My apologies to Michael Cardus for immediately using a sports analogy after his post yesterday, Sports Teams are not Work Teams. Quite good. Take a look.

Winging my way to Sacramento today, for a workshop tomorrow on the research of Elliott Jaques. Working with Lonnie Martin’s Vistage group.

Our 2012 edition of Hiring Talent kicks off today. This online program is now self-paced, on demand. For more information, follow the Sign-Up link.

This didn’t come from the mailbag, just a real conversation.

Question:
We’re glad that you’re here. We have a candidate down the hall. Our interview team has talked to him and everybody likes him. Can you spend a few minutes and see if you like him, too?

Response:
Sounds like an innocent question. But, no. Whether or not I like a candidate, makes no difference in the selection process. If you want to sit down with a role description and determine what capability, what skills, values and behaviors we need in that role, then you and I can have a conversation. Our conversation will help to craft 50-60 questions to ask the candidate.

But, in the end, I am not accountable for the performance of the selected candidate, it’s the hiring manager. I get to go home, the hiring manager is accountable for the output of the team. Part of that accountability is for the selection of team members.

Doesn’t matter if I like the candidate.

“But I don’t want to undermine the authority of the Hiring Manager,” Rene repeated.

“This is not a question of undermining authority. In the end, who will be accountable for the output of the new hire?” I asked.

“That would be the Hiring Manager.”

“So, who will make the final selection out of the candidate pool?”

Rene glanced at the ceiling, “The Hiring Manager.”

“So, you are not undercutting the authority of the Hiring Manager. You are ensuring that a specific process is followed. Your most important contribution has to do with the candidate pool than the final selection. It is your role and the role of the Manager-Once-Removed to create a selection process that ensures the Hiring Manager makes the right decision. While I hold the Hiring Manager accountable for the output of the new hire, I hold the MOR accountable for the output (the decision) of the Hiring Manager.”

Next Monday, January 23 begins the Orientation for our online program Hiring Talent. Follow this link to sign up.

We have been following the story the past few days of Rene, who had been asked to participate as a senior manager on a hiring team. Rene was NOT the Hiring Manager (who will ultimately be held accountable for the output of the new hire), nor the Manager-Once-Removed (who will be held accountable for the quality of the decision of the Hiring Manager). Rene’s role was to participate, and in most companies, the accountability and authority of that role remains undefined, most of the effort is wasted.

Neither Rene nor the hiring team knew what to expect of her. Rene’s participation on this hiring team was NOT a managerial role, carried no managerial clout, yet had distinct cross-functional accountability and authority. Rene was playing a collateral role at Stratum IV, collateral to the Manager-Once-Removed.

The collateral cross-functional role carries three distinct characteristics.

• Rene has clear access to the MOR (and the Hiring Manager) to persuade
• Rene has clear access to the MOR (and the Hiring Manager) to explain
• If there is disagreement between Rene and the MOR, then they must do what the CEO expects them to do. If that expectation is not clear, they must consult the CEO for clarity.

So, Rene has clear accountability and authority. If Rene observes that a defined process is not being followed, I would hold her accountable for approaching the team to explain the process and to persuade the team to follow the process. It is not Rene’s role to sit silent in those meetings.

“But, I am not the Hiring Manager. I don’t want to undercut the authority of the other people on the team,” Rene explained.

“I didn’t ask you undercut authority. I asked how you, as a senior manager in the company could bring value to this hiring process, even if you were only asked to be an observer. You observed an ineffective process. In what way could you have improved it?”

“I guess I could have insisted on a Role Description,” Rene replied.

“Exactly, as a member of the hiring team, even an observer, you can insist that a process be followed. How could you possibly be of assistance in a hiring process without an up-to-date Role Description?”

“Okay,” Rene hesitated, “but I am not the Hiring Manager driving this process. I am not even a member of this department.”

“Look, the hiring team thought enough of you to ask for your participation. I am often in the same boat, as an outsider. I have no authority inside the company, but I get invited to help. The best help you can provide is to insist in a defined process and that elements, like writing Role Descriptions, don’t get shortcut.”

“I know you were asked to sit in on the hiring decision, and that you felt you were just an observer in this process, but you still feel responsible for what may turn out to be a poor hiring decision. What could you have done differently?”

Rene searched the corner of the room for an answer. “By the time we got into the interview room, I felt powerless to step in. I was not the prime interviewer, not the Hiring Manager.”

“You are right,” I insisted. “Your role, as an observer could have been much more powerful, much more effective in this process, but only if you had started earlier. Where do you think you should have dug in?”

“Well, I mean, I don’t even think they had a Role Description. How could I have helped, if they didn’t even do the basic groundwork?”

“Indeed,” I smiled. “How could you have helped? What groundwork could you have insisted on? Don’t think that just because you are an observer, you can’t have influence on the quality of this process. What groundwork could you have insisted on?”

Rene was frustrated. “I was asked to sit in on this hiring committee,” she began. “I am not the Hiring Manager, not even the Manager-Once-Removed, but I was asked to be a member of the Hiring Team. We sit with the first candidate, asking questions for about ten minutes, then the Hiring Manager spends 25 minutes talking about what a great company this is.”

“And?” I prompted.

“And the candidate walked out, the Hiring Manager turned to me, said he kind of liked the guy, and wanted to know what I think. I don’t know what to think.”

“You didn’t ask any questions during the interview?”

“No,” Rene replied, gathering her thoughts. “I was just asked to sit in on the decision. I thought I was playing the role of the observer.”

“And what do you think will happen?”

“I think we are going to hire this candidate and we don’t know anything about him.”

“Yet, even though you were the observer, you feel responsible for what may turn out to be a poor hiring decision?”

“Yes!” she responded, shaking her head.

“What could you have done differently, as an observer?”

From the Ask Tom mailbag -

Question:
I understand the concept of Time Span as it relates to a manufacturing environment, based on the the examples you used in your workshop. Our company is a software company, we write code, software as a service based in the cloud. Having trouble translating Time Span to this model.

Response:
The first piece of translation is to calibrate your production activity. In a manufacturing environment, production (individual direct output) is most often calibrated as a Stratum I role (Time Span tasks – 1 day-3 months).

Software programming (production of software code) requires a higher level of capability. Task assignments to write code that produce specific software functions, appear to fall within a short Time Span. A coding project might take two weeks to construct, code, de-bug, and test. Seems like a short Time Span task. But in the role of a programmer, the longest Time Span task (which calibrates the complexity of the role) may have less to do with programming and more to do with learning.

I often ask programmers, if you stopped learning about new routines, new programming objects, how long would your code be effectively written, current with the state of the art. The joking response is five minutes, but the real answer is somewhere between three months and one year. It’s not that their published code would stop working, but there are more efficient routines and ways of manipulating code invented every day. Time frame to obsolescence is somewhere between three months and one year.

A good example of this is the move to HTML 5. HTML 5 solves the current dilemma in the way video is handled on the internet, particularly with mobile computing, in a dispute between Apple and Adobe. Adobe would like all video to be handled using its Flash player, Apple says HTML 5 makes the flash player obsolete (and refuses to support it in their iPad and iPhone products). It will take some time for adoption of HTML 5, but programmers are having to learn its new routines. A year from now, programming code that ignores HTML 5 will still work, but fall short of generally accepted programming standards. So, the longest Time Span task, for a programmer, is not necessarily producing code, but continuously learning about new developments in code construction, requires minimum Stratum II capability (cumulative processing).

But writing code is not the whole story. A simple stand-alone function is useless. Software typically contains hundreds of functions collected together in a system that creates value for the user. Stringing those functions together requires Stratum III capability, a serial state of thinking. So, you may have programmers, but somewhere in your personnel mix, you will have a manager, also likely a skilled programmer, who decides how the functions are put together.

But a software system is not the whole story. Software systems, to be truly valuable are integrated with other software systems, with interoperability hooks, not only among internal software systems, but external software systems, like Facebook and Twitter. This integration will likely require a manager with Stratum IV (parallel processing) capability.

All of this discussion centers around production. Software companies have other disciplines which must also be integrated, like sales and customer service. Effectively integrating those systems into the mix requires Stratum IV and Stratum V capability.

Levels of work
Stratum IV – Parallel processing
Stratum III – Serial processing
Stratum II – Cumulative processing
Stratum I – Declarative processing

From the Ask Tom mailbag -

Question:
What do you do when a person wants a job that, as their manager, you KNOW is beyond their capability?

Response:
A false sense of his own skill level is not such a bad thing. Between you and me, let’s call it self-confidence, perhaps over-confidence. Some managers may try to adjust a person’s over-confidence by calling them out, chopping them off at the knees or otherwise belittling them. Waste of time. In fact, counterproductive.

Marcus Buckingham, in his book, The One Thing You Need to Know describes a superb managerial response. He assumes that, in some cases, over-confidence may actually be helpful in the face of a true challenge. So, rather than try to adjust this young man’s confidence level, spend time asking him to articulate the difficulties of doing a high quality job in his role with the company.

Most people underestimate the real difficulties, which contributes to over-confidence and also contributes to under-performance. Don’t cut this person off at the knees. Talk about the work. It’s all about the work. Your job, as a Manager is to help the person explore those difficulties.

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
In your Time Span workshop, you say that people max out during their lifetimes, related to capability. Can a person’s situation stunt growth so the individual can never grow to their maximum potential?

Response:
Happens all the time. Sometimes, those factors are internal, some external. Elliott Jaques, Requisite Organization, now available from Amazon, identified these factors as critical to success. Any of these could be a deal-breaker, preventing success. Any of these factors can have an impact on a person’s applied capability related to maximum potential.

1. Skill – without a specific skill, I may not be able to reach my potential. If you are my manager and you recognize this, you would likely send me to training.
2. Interest, or passion for the work – I will be interested in or passionate about work on which I place a high value. If I place a high value of a type of work, it is likely I will be interested or passionate about it. If I do not place a high value on a type of work, it is likely I will NOT be interested or passionate about it. If you are my manager, we will talk about values and you will most likely place me in a role with work on which I place a high value.
3. Reasonable behavior – comes in two flavors, one is positive, one is dark. The positive side of reasonable behavior is my habits. There are habits I have, that contribute to my success, there are habits I have that inhibit my success. My habits will contribute or inhibit the application of my ability. If you are my manager, we will talk about my habits.

   The dark side of reasonable behavior, Elliott described as Minus-T. The “T” stands for Temperament. Most psychometric assessments attempt to tie specific behaviors to temperament. These instruments will typically divide behaviors (temperament) into four quadrants and assign a letter or color to designate that temperament. While Elliott observed no positive correlation any “normal” temperament, he did observe that an extreme negative temperament could be a deal killer for success. Extreme negative temperament might relate to elements like defensiveness or arrogance.

Any of these factors can get in the way. Some may have internal causes, others external. AND I expect the manager to pay enough attention to tell the difference.

We are gathering the next group for our online program Hiring Talent, which kicks off January 23, 2012. As the economy (slowly) recovers, your next hires are critical. This is not a time to be casual about the hiring process. Mistakes are too expensive and margins are too thin.

Purpose of this program – to train managers and HR specialists in the discipline of conducting more effective interviews in the context of a managed recruiting process.

Candidate Interview

How long is the program? We have streamlined the program so that it can be completed in six weeks. We have also added a self-paced feature so participants can work through the program even faster.

How do people participate in the program? This is an online program conducted by Tom Foster. Participants will be responsible for online assignments and participate in online facilitated discussion groups with other participants. This online platform is highly interactive. Participants will interact with Tom Foster and other participants as they work through the program.

Who should participate? This program is designed for Stratum III and Stratum IV managers and HR managers who play active roles in the recruiting process for their organizations.

What is the cost? The program investment is $499 per participant.

When is the program scheduled? Pre-registration is now open. The program is scheduled to kick-off January 23, 2012.

How much time is required to participate in this program? Participants should reserve approximately 2 hours per week. This program is designed so participants can complete their assignments on their own schedule anytime during each week’s assignment period.

Pre-register now. No payment due at this time.

January 23, 2012

• Orientation

Week One – Role Descriptions – It’s All About the Work

• What we are up against
• Specific challenges in the process
• Problems in the process
• Defining the overall process
• Introduction to the Role Description
• Organizing the Role Description
• Defining Tasks
• Defining Goals
• Identifying Time Span

Week Two

• Publish and discuss role descriptions

Week Three – Interviewing for Future Behavior

• Creating effective interview questions
• General characteristics of effective questions
• How to develop effective questions
• How to interview for attitudes and non-behavioral elements
• How to interview for Time Span
• Assignment – Create a bank of interview questions for the specific role description

Week Four

• Publish and discuss bank of interview questions

Week Five – Conducting the Interview

• Organizing the interview process
• Taking Notes during the process
• Telephone Screening
• Conducting the telephone interview
• Conducting the face-to-face interview
• Working with an interview team
• Compiling the interview data into a Decision Matrix
• Background Checks, Reference Checks
• Behavioral Assessments
• Drug Testing
• Assignment – Conduct a face-to-face interview

Week Six

• Publish and discuss results of interview process

Pre-registration is now open for this program. No payment is due at this time.

From the Ask Tom mailbag -

Question:
You talk about how important it is to match a person’s capability with challenge in the role. You also say that as people grow and mature, so does their Time Span capability. What do you do with talented people when promotional opportunities are limited?

Response:
It’s a dilemma for every organization and why it is important for every company to stay “green and growing.” When personal opportunity stops, it is inevitable that you will lose that person. This can be traumatic, or it can be planned.

Look at any McDonald’s store. Inside you have a team of motley teenagers flipping burgers, sizzling fries and making chocolate shakes (my favorite). While I often joke that any employee who shows up for their shift five days in a row can be the manager, the long term potential for advancement is limited. For most companies, the prospect of short careers and high turnover would not be desirable, for McDonald’s, it’s their business model. Traumatic, or planned?

For McDonald’s, it’s planned, predictable and normal. For most kids behind the counter, it’s their first job and 1-2 years is all that’s expected. Any company with limited opportunity for advancement has to face that fact. Managers-Once-Removed (MORs) should be trained to look for the signs and be prepared for those coaching conversations. As a rule the company should gear its training programs to handle the normal course of turnover and gear it’s systems to accelerate proficiency in performance. That’s why fry baskets have timers and hamburgers are cooked on conveyor chains.

So, if the organization can stay green and growing, perhaps it can create those opportunities internally. But rarely for everyone and rarely forever.

From the Ask Tom mailbag -

Question:
In your Time Span workshop, you talk about the breakdowns in communication that can occur when a manager skips a layer, for example a Stratum IV manager working with a Stratum II supervisor. How can you tell when you have a lost-in-translation issue?

Response:
Communication breakdowns can occur for many reasons. Elliott Jaques, in his Time Span research often found, that problems we attribute to communication breakdowns or personality issues, turn out to be a misalignment in organizational structure.

A Stratum IV manager and a Stratum II supervisor are typically working on goals with markedly different Time Spans. Even looking at the same problem, their analysis will be different. The Stratum II supervisor may piece some of the elements together while the Stratum IV manager looks to see how this problem impacts other related systems down the road. Indeed, they may describe the problem using different words (terminology).

The S-II supervisor may wonder what the S-IV manager is talking about while the S-IV manager wonders why the S-II supervisor cannot see what is altogether clear. They use different words and see the world in different ways, creating that lost-in-translation syndrome.

But, your question was, how can you tell if this is Lost-in-translation? More importantly, how can we recognize the difficulty and what steps can we take to prevent it or cure it?

Underperformance of any kind indicates a problem. Any time performance does not meet expectation, there are three places to immediately look.

• Is it a problem with the performance?
• Is it a defect in the expectation?
• Is there a problem with the communication of the expectation?

If it’s a problem with the communication, then lost-in-translation could be the culprit. And the accountability lies with the manager. It is (always) the manager who I hold accountable for the output of the team member.

What needs to change? What managerial behavior needs to change? I see two steps.

1. The manager should recognize the time span framework of the team member. Here is a quick set of diagnostic questions – “What is the task? When should this task be completed?” The response from the team member is a clear indication of the Time Span the team member has in mind. This Time Span is impacting every decision surrounding this project. The adjustment for the manager is to speak in terms of the other person.
2. The manager should examine the language (words) being used to make sure the meaning of the words is common and clear. During a task assignment, I will often ask the team member to take written notes and feed back to me their understanding of the work instruction. In there is confusion, it can generally identified in this step.

It is the manager I hold accountable. The manager is 100 percent responsible for the communication in this lost-in-translation issue.

From the Ask Tom mailbag –

Question:
In your workshop, it was clear, the research you presented supports hierarchy in an organization. I am still not sure I buy that. There is so much talk these days about “tribes” as a better, more flexible structure.

Response:
Notwithstanding how great Mel Gibson looked in his Mayan costume in Apocalypto, all the talk of modern tribal systems is misguided.

One reason is the misunderstanding of the purpose for hierarchy. We think, because we watch too many military movies, we think hierarchy exists to create a reporting protocol in the organization. Here’s the bad news, you are NOT a manager so people can report to you.

The fact is, we report to people all over the organization. I contribute to a project for Paul. I am responsible to compile a forecast for a report for Frank. I have to procure some super-special material on a project for Bill. I sit in on a steering committee for Jim. I report to people all over the organization. There is no lack of flexibility. It might even have the appearance of a tribe.

But even in a tribal structure, every once in a while, like every day, I will run up against a problem or a decision where I need some help. I may have a conflict priority between Bill’s project and Frank’s project. Who do I go to for help? If I go to Bill or Frank, I may get the wrong answer. So who is accountable for that decision. In a tribal system, no one is accountable. There is ambiguity. And ambiguity kills accountability.

A tribal system is great, unless we are trying to get some work done.

The purpose of the managerial relationship, the mandate for every manager, is to bring value to the problem solving and decision making of the team member. And that’s the purpose for hierarchy, to fix accountability at the appropriate decision level. The right decision on the conflict between Bill’s project and Frank’s project may require perspective on BOTH projects, as well as capital budgets, multiple customer initiatives and the availability of technical support. If I don’t have that perspective (to make the right decision), then who?

In a tribe, there is no one accountable for that perspective? It’s all about flow and luck.

In a hierarchy, it is my manager who is accountable. I may report to people all over the organization, but there is only one person accountable for my output, and that is my manager.

From the Ask Tom mailbag:

Question
In your workshop, you use a manufacturing business model to illustrate the levels of work. How does that translate for a professional service organization?

Response
I use a manufacturing model because most of us can remember that video clip at Ford Motor Company, with automobiles coming down the assembly line. It is a quick picture for production work in a manufacturing environment. With that in mind, here is a typical table describing levels of work. The time frame designates the longest Time Span task associated with the role. In manufacturing, most production work falls easily into Stratum I.

Levels of Work

In other business models, like professional service firms, production work (direct output to the customer) may be more complex and require a higher level of capability to effectively complete that work. Supervisory work and managerial work remains the same, it is the shift in the complexity of production work that changes.

For example. A patent case in a law firm, production work (direct output to the customer) might necessarily be done at Stratum III, IV or even V, depending on the complexity of the case. We can measure that complexity using Time Span as our calibration. A patent case still unresolved after five years of litigation might necessarily have required Stratum V capability to effectively deal with the uncertainty in the case.

In a CPA firm, tax production work might effectively be performed at Stratum III. Tax code is typically nailed down in 12 month increments. How a company might prepare for the tax/penalty implications of Obamacare might require Stratum IV capability (2-5 year decisions) to effectively make the right choices.

In summary, the levels of work in a professional service firm will hinge on the complexity of its production (direct output to the customer), and most often, that complexity shifts production toward higher Stratum capability.

This is the time of year we create resolutions and set goals. It’s valuable thinking.

“What is the most significant thing you wish to accomplish in 2012?”
“What is the major benefit to you, if you are able to accomplish that?”

Two good questions.

What has to change about your story to make that happen?

We all have a story. Our story creates the meaning for our behavior. What has to change about your story? In your story, what do you have to let go of? In your story, who do you have to become?

When your story changes, your ability-to-accomplish changes. And what-you-accomplish, changes you.

What’s your story for 2012?