Strategy Insight

Much appropriate discussion has taken place regarding President Obama’s vetting process in selecting his team. It remains unclear whether his appointees witheld information or that the process was flawed. For the most part, though, the people that he has chosen have been hailed as competent choices.

In implementing every strategy, finding the right people is essential. It is equally essential to know who should be part of the team and who should go. People need to be moved into the right position without doing too much damage to short-term performance. Beyond that, there must be goals, incentives, and performance measures that propel people in the right direction.

Here are some common traps that you should avoid.

• Keeping the existing team too long. By the end of the 90 day period, the leader should have a clear understanding of his team and their individual capabilities. By the end of six months, it is appropriate to communicate your proposed personnel changes to HR and your boss. In certain STaRS situations such as a turnaround, these decisions may be required sooner.

• Fixing the airplane in mid-flight. It is very dangerous to repair an airplane in mid-flight. Develop options such as hiring additional people and allowing them time to learn the ropes, and/or explore whether people down the command chain can take over.

• Losing good people. When you shake the tree, good people can fall out too. Always look for ways to signal to top performers that you recognize their capabilities and want them to remain.

• Undertaking team building before the core team is in place. Premature team building exercises may strengthen bonds between staff that will ultimately be displaced. This does not mean that you should not meet as a group, however.

• Making implementation-dependent decisions too early. Weigh the benefits of moving quickly on major initiatives against the lost opportunity of gaining buy-in from people who will be brought on board later.

• Trying to do it all yourself. Remember, that restructuring a team involves emotional, legal, and company policy complications. Do not take this on by yourself. A solid HR person is indispensable.

To assess your existing team, establish criteria. These criteria may include competence, planning ahead and risk mitigation capabilities, judgment, professionalism, energy, focus, relationships, and trust. Match these criteria against the circumstances and requirements of the job and evaluate them accordingly.

Regardless of all of the analysis or perhaps, even as a result of it, we will discover that there are certain performers who are not in the right job or simply do not belong in the organization. These are people who are not achieving their performance goals or are failing to exercise leadership effectively. An effective leader must address this situation as well.

Failure to do so exhibits false kindness. While it may be easier to leave these professionals in their roles, doing so harms the leader, other staff, and the whole company. Additionally, it sends a message that non-performance is acceptable in the company.

An employee may not be effective in the job because of any of six reasons. The person lacks the ability, was improperly trained or oriented, has the wrong attitude, demonstrates the wrong behaviors, lacks the required skills, or lacks experience.

To remedy these situations, there are four options. You can train the employee, coach him or her, shift the person to another position, or let the person go. There is a way to determine what the appropriate remedy for each situation is.

• If it is a matter of skills, training is the appropriate remedy.

• Attitude related issues may be remedied by discovering what is causing the difficulty, and then addressing the issue while coaching and motivating the employee.

• Correcting behavioral issues requires coaching and patience. Behaviors shift over time. In order for the supervisor to determine whether that amount of effort should be expended, s/he must determine whether the employee adds significant value in other areas.

• If the person lacks sufficient experience, it may be possible to shift the employee to a position where her/his experience level is appropriate.

• If the person lacks the ability, that individual should be let go. No amount of training, coaching, or shifting will allow him or her to make a meaningful contribution. If there is a need to let the person go, do so respectfully and in accordance with the management philosophy that you wish to inculcate. Direct reports will form a lasting impression based on how this part of the job is managed.

Strategy is most effectively implemented when there is a compensation and reward system designed to focus people. Typically, strategic goals will be distributed among functional departments and then further distributed among each department’s employees as employee goals. Performance is encouraged through effective incentives and clear criteria for measuring performance.

A blend of push and pull tools may be employed to reach strategic goals. Push tools, such as compensation plans, performance measurement systems, annual budgets, and the like motivate people through authority, loyalty, fear, and the expectation of rewards for productive work. Pull Tools, such as a compelling vision, motivate people by inspiring them and enrolling them in a new future. Methodical and risk aversive employees are more likely motivated by push tools while high energy performers respond better to pull tools. It is important that an effective mix be developed that rewards collective (where interdependent work is most important) and individual (where independent work is most important) performance.

This entry was posted on February 8, 2009 at 2:58 pm and is filed under Hiring, Leadership, Strategic Plans, Strategy. You can subscribe via RSS 2.0 feed to this post's comments.

Tags: Barack Obama, Compensation, firing, group executives, Hiring, Leadership, leadership development system, Management, Michael Watkins, Skills, Strategy, Team, training, Transition Team