Berchelmann's Blog

Leaders Lead, Manipulators Manipulate

2008-11-18T07:14:00.002-06:00

I was recently asked about the types of manipulation that I see occurring in leaders. At first, I was puzzled why I couldn't come up with an immediate, pithy reply (my norm), and then it dawned on me...

The base premise is flawed.

Leadership is not manipulation, and anyone who resorts to same -- even the "positive spin" version -- is not leading. They are manipulating, or at best, managing (controlling).
Leadership -- true leadership -- is forward-looking and visionary. It sets a path, a course, and creates meaningful ways to accomplish the journey.

If the vision is strong enough, the leader has enough credibility, and the alignment is right, people will follow.

Don't confuse reactive manipulation with proactive leadership. And this isn't simply a play on words; the difference is fundamental to the core of effective leadership.

This premise is a problem plaguing faux leaders today -- they believe "I must be a good leader, since I got them to do what I wanted."

Nothing could be further from a true leader.

But that's just me...

KB
Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Leading during layoffs...

2008-11-17T09:09:00.003-06:00

Citigroup just announced job cuts of 53,000, on top of a prior 23K+

Pepsico 3K; Xerox 4K; Chrysler 17.5K; Sun 6K; DHL 9k.

Even e-Bay and NASCAR are facing layoffs. NASCAR!!

As leaders, what do we do? First, some context:

If we layoff staff, and can continue reasonably unfazed with general levels of productivity, we likely had too many people to begin with. that's a leadership issue.

If we could have forseeably determined a significant change in demand, and did nothing, that's at least partially a leadership issue.

If the market, or supporting industry, tanked without notice, perhaps we aren't entirely culpable. But it's still our responsibility. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Whether we are laying off staff ourselves, or merely reeling from the constant news barrage of others doing so our responses as leaders are largely the same: we must -- simply must -- demonstrate Responsibility, Vision, and Trust.

Responsibility, so employees know clearly who is in charge, that we hold ourselves personally accountable (quit blaming 'the economy' and acting like this is an equal-pain scenario).

Vision, since in good times and bad, people follow leaders. And leaders, to be successful, must have a vision that others can see, touch, and feel. It needn't be a plaque on the wall, or even stated specifically; people must know, however, that following us is a good thing, that we are taking them somewhere successful, and that -- to a large extent -- we know where we're going.

Finally, never forget that Trust is the currency of leadership. People charge hills, not because the general has silver stars, but because they believe the general knows that it's the right thing to do. And they trust that judgment. Employees share concerns, ideas, revelations... not because they have to, or because that suggestion box just looks so inviting, but because they trust that leaders will do the right thing(s) with that information, and because leaders have openly shared with them.

Stay focused. I've always said that leading is easy "as long as it's easy;" when it gets a little difficult, it becomes the purview of the skilled and learned.

Layoffs suck. They are hard on those directly effected, those who think they may be next, those who feel guilty to still be "alive,' and those who must make the really hard decisions.

Be a purposeful leader, and realize that others are watching.

But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Brother, have you got a dime?

2008-11-17T08:55:00.001-06:00

Bail out the auto industry, you say??

$25B sounds like a lot of cash to normal people, but it's barely a band-aid for the automakers' troubles. If we do this, they'll soon be back at the trough for more.

The problems with U.S. automakers are cost of labor, stupid supplier agreements, and way, way too many dealerships.

I say allow them to go into bankruptcy, use that as impetus for renegotiating labor agreements, changing inflated supplier contracts, and allowing many borderline, cash-driven dealerships to go away. If the government simply MUST provide bail-out cash, do so as a guarantee to whomever comes forward with post-bankruptcy DIP financing.

At least then it's a better structured industry receiving a bail-out.

A problem here is perception. Many seem to think that "going into bankruptcy" necessarily means "going away," and that millions of jobs will go away as soon as an automaker declares bankruptcy.

It doesn't.

It means potentially allowing a renegotiation of debt, of decades of bad labor agreements, poor supplier relationships, and some reduction in the "dealer-on-every-corner" mentality.

...and just to be clear: the UAW President, when not fighting automaker mergers/consolidation, has said they will push to "use" bail-out money to fund current retiree health care.

We should consider driving those inefficient monoliths TOWARD bankruptcy, not helping them avoid it.But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Slow Learner...

2008-10-27T06:23:00.002-05:00

It took me 50 years (as of today, thankyouverymuch) to learn these lessons, and they only really mean something to me, but hey... this is my blog anyway.

Kevin's Lessons From Living Fifty Years (in no particular order):

1. I gotta be me. Sammy Davis Jr. nailed that one a long time ago. Any successes I've had in life -- personal or professional -- have come from "me being me." There's little value in trying to be something I'm not, though like most people, I've tried that a few times.

Some people like the "real" me, and that's good. Some don't, and that's, well, their loss. To coin another old song, "It don't matter to me."

2. Tell it like it is. We spend way too much time talking around things as if everyone comes to the party damaged, and needs us to patronize them so they wont be offended. I say be direct and to the point. You can clean it up later if needed.

This politically-correct garbage we see today is pure bunk.

If we would all "tell it like we see it," then people would know more about us, trust would be increased, and we'd communicate better and more frequently. If someone is offended by unoffensive language or conversation, they have an issue, not me.

3. People will disappoint you. Get over it. This includes me, family, and friends. We allow our expectations to grow beyond reality, so we set ourselves up for routine disappointment in others. Friends are friends; family is family. Neither are anointed with some "I am perfect" super-powers or intuition.

We can't hinge our satisfaction or value in relationships on some arbitrary (and fairly capricious) standard of performance and behavior that we levy on others without so much as a word of warning. In work parlance, we would at least insist on "setting and communicating performance expectations." We should do the same with our relationships, or even better, just realize that people will disappoint, and not intentionally.

Heck, they probably don't even know it most of the time.

4. There's always a mountain to climb. I have a small statue of a German mountain climber on my desk given to me by Roy Van Cleave, my graduate professor in Management. Dr. Van Cleave was a retired Marine Colonel, and one of the smartest men I'd ever met. He gave me that statue when I told him I was leaving the Air Force, saying I would always have a "mountain to climb."

He was right.

Sometimes big ones, sometimes just mole hills. There's always something big and bodacious staring right at us. Such is life...

5. We don't listen nearly enough. I'm not talking about "hearing," but really "listening." Tuning-out-distractions-focusing-on-the-present listening. Working hard at understanding what others are saying, without thinking about all those things our minds feel inundated with due to the stupid quantities of information we screen today.

I facilitate several leadership groups, all levels. One of the most common "ah-ha!" moments, from a year-long curriculum, is usually the art and value of listening.

Try it sometime. Sit next to someone speaking to you; tune out everything else, and try with all the fibers of your being to "get" what they are saying. Don't think about your next conversational volley, or judge the speaker's content prematurely. Just listen.

You'll be surprised at what you "hear."

I'm sure I should have learned much more over the course of fifty years, but I'm actually a pretty shallow person. Thanks for reading...

Cheers,

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Those Who Can't Do... TEACH!

2008-10-20T18:00:00.003-05:00

An article in today's Wall Street Journal extols the virtues of getting rid of performance reviews. It's written, of course, by a career academic and author who fancies himself a consultant as well.

Therein lies the problem. I have no problem with academics, per se. I just want them to remain in academia. It's when they venture out into the real world that their distorted perceptions and laboratory theories fall apart.

Someone need to lock those guys up, before they do real damage to some unsuspecting company.

In summary, this gown-wearing, tasseled professor believes that performance reviews have no impact on measurement, pay, development or, in fact, performance.

And perhaps, given his limited, myopic experience, that's been true. And I'm certainly not one to claim that all performance reviews are of great value. Some aren't. Sometimes managers, untrained and unprepared, fail at the effort. Sometimes, we don't communicate regularly enough to prepare them for success.

But to paint all performance management with the same "ineffective" brush is, well, just plain stupid. Well-trained managers, managing performance in a well-thought process, can create a higher-performing organization than would ever occur if we were all left to our own devices.

You would, of course, have to spend some time in the real world to know that.

The real reason for this article in the WSJ? The proposed alternative: "Performance Previews." That's right, an entry piece to introduce -- in all likelihood -- this pointy-haired ivory-tower resident's new book.

More consultant-speak and fads. Yes, that's what we need...

But that's just me.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Change is good... To WHOM???

2008-09-26T12:07:00.002-05:00

Frequently, we wonder Why don't these people get it? Can't they understand that this change is good? That we all will be better for it??

Well, in a word, NO.

"They" don't understand because we've done a lousy job explaining this change to them. And probably the three thousand changes that occurred just before this one. Yes, our folks did notice those myriad changes before.

Some of which were successful, many were not.

Remember, there's only two people who really, truly, no-kidding, appreciate change at face value: The person controlling the change, and the person(s) personally benefiting from it.

Everyone else needs to be sold on the advantages, purpose, and reasons for the change(s). Note to Leader: That's your job.

As usual, success in leadership distills down into the most basic form -- communication.

Until later...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Well, it's getting better...

2008-09-16T14:17:00.002-05:00

Recently, I was working with the front-line supervisors of a large client of mine. We were discussing how far senior leadership had come since we began down the path of change, evolving from a more "controlling" environment to a more empowered one, with resulting communications, performance expectations, etc.

It's been an interesting ride.

Anyway, when asked "So, are we making progress?" One supervisor participant offered the comment, "Well, it's getting better."

In leadership parlance, folks, that is a rousing success. A standing ovation. The "wave" at a football game. We reached that par-5 in two...

"We're getting better." That's the key to this whole thing, isn't it? There's no simple, three-line memo that we can send out that says, "Effective Tuesday, we'll become better leaders."

No, it's a process, and success looks like a series of small victories in succession. We've got to work -- proactively -- at becoming better leaders today to be capable and ready to deal with whatever changes tomorrow brings. And... there will be changes.

Are your folks saying -- when you're not within earshot -- "we're getting better."?

They should be...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Just be nice...

2008-08-29T07:50:00.002-05:00

Bullies. Jerks. Egomaniacs.

All have been used to describe domineering bosses. Leaders who are abusive, raise their voices, and intimidate. Personally, I call them something else.

Failures.

A leader who resorts to intimidation, brow-beating, threats and coercion is self-admitting the inability to successfully lead. I call it "business card leadership." The sole source of this leader's authority comes form a business card that says "you must obey me."

Remove the business card, and these unsuccessful leaders couldn't get a wolf to follow them while carrying raw meat.

Here's a suggestion: "Be nice."

For movie fans, remember the movie "Roadhouse" with Patrick Swayze? He's a "cooler" (apparently some bigwig bouncer), and in one scene is giving other bouncers the rules. His commentary goes something like this:

All you have to do is follow three simple rules.
One, never underestimate your opponent. Expect the unexpected.
Two, take it outside. Never start anything inside the bar unless it's absolutely necessary.
And three, be nice.

He ends this conversation with the parting statement, "I want you to remember that it's a job. It's nothing personal."

We could do well to internalize those three instructions above:

1. Expect the unexpected. "Stuff" happens. Remember that leading is only difficult "when it's difficult." When everything is running smoothly, all playing well with each other, everyone working at full competency, leading is easy. When something breaks down -- and it will -- it takes some skill.

2. Take it outside. Reprimand in private. Coach in private. never get emotional in a crowd. When you force defensiveness, career-altering emotions come into play. If you yell with others around, it's apparent to others you are incapable of leading effectively. is that what you want?

3. Be nice. That's right, be nice. At the end of the day, if someone simply refuses to be coached, comply with suggestions, etc., you can always fall back on "because I said so." Don't lead with that. Be nice. Calm voice. Phrase your demands as a question; reasonable (read :"keepers") employees don't really think a task question from their boss actually has a "no" potential response. It's just courtesy. be nice.

And finally, remember this isn't your life... it's a job. It's not a calling (for most of us), it's employment. A way to make a living. A way to pay for the things we do when we AREN'T working. Think of it that way, and remember when you lose control, "your leadership is showing,' and it's not the best example to set.

...and be nice.

Cheers.

KB

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Egalitarian Folly

2008-08-01T07:41:00.003-05:00

I recently read a blog posting from someone holding themselves out as a "contrarian" HR professional (consultant, of course).

Now, I consider myself something of a contrarian myself, as many have used words like that (and sometimes even MORE colorful) to describe my rants, thinkings, and positions on various issues, and I'm OK with that.

This particular blog entry, however, brought a couple of things to light...

1. Can you really call yourself a contrarian? Isn't that for others to determine? Kind of like calling yourself "easy to get along with." Yeah, maybe... but who says??

Someone else, that's who.

2. The specific "contrarian" issue was about performance evaluations and pay. We can argue for hours about the concepts and ideas surrounding this, but the most significant (I'm guessing "contrarian") comment was:

"I am an advocate of 'when the team wins, we all win.' In my opinion when you reward individuals for their individual effort you can unconsciously promote a zero sum game where I win at another employee’s or the company’s expense."

Huh?? "When the team wins, we all win?" Maybe, but what if that "team" is being carried by just one or two super-performers? And of course employee pay is a zero-sum game; dollars (including payroll dollars) are fungible, not infinite. Dollars spent in one direction are potentially at the expense of another direction. Not everyone can be a star employee, and those who are should be rewarded -- those who aren't, well, shouldn't.

Let's not dumb-down performance management -- and subsequent pay initiatives -- to the lowest denominator. We should manage performance responsibly, and pay appropriately for the results and accountability defined.

This isn't rocket science. But it's not "everyone is the same" either.

Rant over...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Strategic, yes, Planning, no.

2008-07-30T17:47:00.002-05:00

Strategic Planning is dead. Long live strategic planning...

An interesting conundrum; we know that strategic planning is valuable. Intuitively. Yet, we seldom march lockstep behind that big blue binder when it's complete.

Why is that??

I have an opinion (surprise!). During a recent strategy session, the client's chief executive stated that he doesn't even consider it strategic planning at all. He doesn't even like the term.
He uses Strategic Discernment.

I hate doing this, but I visited dictionary.com for the definitive definition of discern/discernment...

1. to perceive by the sight or some other sense or by the intellect; see,
recognize, or apprehend: They discerned a sail on the horizon.
2. to distinguish mentally; recognize as distinct or different; discriminate: He is
incapable of discerning right from wrong. –verb (used without object)
3. to distinguish or discriminate.

Now this is something we can get our arms around. It's not the strategy, stupid, it's the planning (or in this case, the discernment). It's the act of discriminating among choices; of choosing one path, direction, or vision over another.

It's to recognize something distinct or different. Remember, strategy has never been simple trending of current results -- that's simply forecasting, and can be done via Excel spreadsheet.

No, real strategy is creating our future among the myriad possibilities; it's determining in advance what we intend to be, who we intend to be, and what will matter to us. Then, making that happen.

Instead of simply watching in awe as things happen around us.

We make it happen.

I can get into this Strategic Discernment thing.

Thanks, Glenn.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

"Stupid should hurt..."

2008-06-23T10:34:00.002-05:00

I was recently involved (as a participant) in a strategic planning event; the facilitator, Alan Pue, was discussing many of the ways that planning -- and its subsequent implementation -- can go wrong.

In part of that commentary, he mentioned as an example a firm's inability to adapt to a necessary change in the market, and how that inability adversely affected their performance. Alan wasn't sympathetic to their plight, nor even empathetic. In fact, he made it clear that the problem was their own doing, and the resultant pain was of their own creation. They did it to themselves, have no one else to blame, and these lessons -- though valuable -- can be painful.

I agree.

When we act so dumb in business that we can't get out of our own way, the resultant pain is our own doing. Sort of like touching a hot stove, we hopefully learn that we shouldn't do that again.

Stupid should hurt.

Cheers,

KB
Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Comfortable being uncomfortable

2008-05-28T11:32:00.002-05:00

So, I've got this client (lots of my stories start this way)...

Well-run construction company, with a pretty darn solid management and executive staff. Recently, we promoted a mid-level manager to an executive level.

Big shift, major change.

I had worked with this new executive in the past; he was a participant in one of our leadership development efforts, and though he brought a lot to the table, I like to think those development efforts played some part in his promotion (a little shameless self-promotion there). Back to the story...

Anyway, this promotion thrust this new executive into a role far different from his previous position. Instead of functional, project management, he was now accountable for sales, a geographic P&L, and general management of a business unit.

Again, way different from his prior role.

In a conversation with him last recently, he said one of the most difficult points of the transition is the discomfort in knowing that he must now rely on others to accomplish anything and everything. In his prior life, he could personally control most of his world, and now, he was experiencing the discomfort we all face when our level of personal "control" is diminished.

Then, however, this guy said something that I thought was incredibly profound. He said, "I'm starting to get comfortable being uncomfortable."

Think about that. In this crazy world, with our way-too-hectic jobs and never-ending responsibilities, he realized that there were things he just couldn't control, and that his ability to influence would need to carry the day.

He simply became comfortable being uncomfortable.

And that's not a bad idea for many of us...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Micro-Managing, or Micro-Meddling??

2008-05-08T10:04:00.004-05:00

I've recently had a couple of clients resort to "micromanagement" during some tough economic times. I know these executives; they are smart, on-the-ball, and savvy about their business and their people. My conversations with them surrounded the dangers of that micromanagement, and why that might be the precisely wrong move.

The dangers to me are straightforward: in times of economic scrutiny, we need employees to be thinking MORE, not less. A controlling environment may aid in the immediate task at hand, but from a downside, it also:

1. Limits an employee's growth, and subsequently their inherent ability to "do more (presumably 'with less')."

2. Micro-managing, to be effective, consumes an inordinate amount of management's time; effectively empowered employees (don't get lost w/the fad word, just the concept) free up a manager's time to think and contribute -- presumably at a higher level of value.

3. Micro-managing frequently over-tasks managers unaccustomed to it. In an effort to "touch" everything, they become micro-MEDDLERS instead, interjecting just enough to cause chaos and confusion, then flitting off to the next victim.

Counter-intuitively, micromanaging provides less reaction to turbulent times instead of more, burns out managers, and frustrates employees.Better to simply constrict existing parameters at some reasonable level, such as spending levels and authorities, and micro-manage by exception in those few areas (or with those few people) who need it.

I can tell you with certainty that managers prone to micromanaging anyway will feel vindicated, and that "this is THEIR time" to shine. It's not... quite the opposite.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Airline CEO = Rocket Scientist

2008-04-23T06:27:00.002-05:00

Finally, someone gets it.

Delta Airline's CEO, Richard Anderson, announced to reporters that airlines needed to raise fares as much as 20% just to offset increased fuel costs.

Wow... ya think!?!?

The bigger question, of course, is which Airline bigwigs have the intestinal fortitude to be the first to bring such an increase to bear.

Never forget, a substantial part of successful leadership involves sticking your neck out and taking well-thought and necessary risks. Having said that, I'm not sue how risky this "announcement' really is. Regardless of which airline boss takes the initiative, all other carriers will follow suit mosh kosh.

Here's a layman's analysis: Airlines -- even when wildly profitable (huh??) -- operate on net earning margins that hover around 2%. TWO PERCENT. Now, they obviously have big-time depreciation in there, what with all those aging aircraft, but nonetheless, two percent doesn't provide much cushion to weather a storm.

So, continuing on... fuel typically makes up around 25% of most airlines' costs, when in pursuit of that elusive 2% mentioned above. Jet fuel has gone from $1.85 a gallon last March, to $3.50 per gallon today.

That's a 90% increase in one year.

Now, true, airlines have already been raising prices this year; but it's been a "death by a thousand cuts," adding a couple of bucks here, a couple there. Someone needs to realize that, strangely enough, when costs increase, prices must do so also. This isn't "rocket surgery,' folks. It's simply leadership. Good leadership.

Of course, another significant issue is airlines' outrageous labor costs (40%+ of total expenses), "fueled" by the idiot pilots we discussed in earlier blog posts; however, this post is about "fuel,' so I'll leave that be.

For now...

Cheers,

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Continental Idiots Refuse to be Left Out

2008-04-15T15:33:00.003-05:00

Not to be left out of the "Let Me Show How Stupid I Am" competition (described in earlier blog post below), Continental Pilots take a preemptive strike against the hint of a potential merger:

...unionized pilots from United and Continental said they would not permit a merger of the carriers unless the pilots support the terms of any proposal. "The management teams of United and Continental must understand one hard fact," the union leaders said. "The pilots of our respective airlines will not allow any merger unless management meets or exceeds our demands to be treated fairly and equitably. "Our concerns will be addressed before we ever agree to allow our airlines to merge."

Yes, this is productive, folks. The airlines, bolstered by the pilot unions, will continue their constant roller-coaster rides into and out of bankruptcy. Creditors, vendors, lenders, all get pennies on the dollar in these settlements while the poor, mistreated union pilots of the major scheduled carriers earn from $130-250K, working well less than 100 hours per month.

Rant over. Back to your regularly scheduled programming...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Stupidity in the Skies

2008-04-15T08:09:00.004-05:00

Have I mentioned that I travel a lot, and don't particularly care for it??

If not, let me do so now. "I travel a lot, and don't particularly care for it."

The good news, however, is that traveling -- the whole airport/airline/car rental and hotel experience provides unbelievable fodder for this lifelong student of leadership. Take the most recent example...

Who in heaven's name runs these airline pilot unions?? The guy (assuming, since it's the classic 'good ol'-boys' club') must be a Darwin escapee. American Airlines -- not my favorite, but they are the biggest -- had their little "scheduling snafu" last week. These moronic pilots took out full-page ads in major publications (think WSJ, USA Today), lambasting the airline management as being inept, incompetent, and not thinking about passenger safety first.

What??? Do these idiots know that the union doesn't pay their salaries??? That their livelihood depends on those very people they are trying to undermine, and that the customers they are reaching are the very revenue they need to survive??

But wait -- it gets better. Now, Delta and Northwest are going to merge. These airlines, in and out of bankruptcy so frequently they probably have trustees on speed-dial, simply will not survive without combining resources. So, one group of pilots agree, the others -- the ones who don't make as much (can you say "Northwest?") -- has stated they will do "everything in their power to prevent the merger."

Stupidity in the skies, I tell you. These guys must be near brain-dead; they've been drinking their own kool-aid so long that they really do believe the world revolves around them. And don't kid yourselves -- there are other pilots to be had. The judgment they exhibit here (or lack thereof) certainly doesn't give me much confidence while sitting in the cabin behind them.

Classic examples of errant leadership, and power used for evil instead of good. Note to self -- "don't do this."

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

The Missing Leader

2008-04-03T06:48:00.003-05:00

Someone recently asked me, "What's missing in leaders today?"

As I've said 1,000 times, "leadership ain't rocket surgery." Here's what seems to be commonly lacking in unsuccessful leaders today. Any or all of these can impact a leader's performance:

Courage -- to make hard decisions; to stand behind them afterward, and to support the values and ethics of an organization even when grossly uncomfortable. To take measured risks.

True, even leaders need to feel "safe" to do these things, to some degree, but many cite some irrational, unproven fear of reprisal for their reason for cowardice in decision-making. The truth is, few -- if any -- can cite evidence that something really bad will happen to them.

It's simply a fear of failure, and that can kill any leader.

Credibility -- a track record of doing what you say you'll do. Making realistic expectations of others, and using accountability as a common thread for all involved. And the goal here is to make more "promises" or commitments, not less. In other words, really put yourself out there, and allow others to expect you to deliver.

Then deliver. Expect to be held rigidly accountable, and foster that same expectation of accountability on those you lead.

Empathy -- the ability to listen, understand, and relate. Accepting input, and having the personal mettle to explain why some one's advice won't be used his time. Realizing that most people -- generally -- want the same things from their work experience.

I'm a long way from a "bleeding heart," but empathy as a leader is a necessity. You've got to be able to understand why other people do what they do, so you can lead situationally. Their motivation becomes your key to performance improvement. Find it.

I'll say it again, Leadership isn't difficult. It can be complex, but we usually cause that somehow. It's a simple combination of management competency, credibility, and the ability to motivate others.

Cheers.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Entitlement tips

2008-03-31T07:26:00.002-05:00

This kills me.

A while back, I posted about the ridiculous notion of those absurd tip jars you see popping up at every service establishment. The saga continues.

Seems now, with the rise of debit card use (swipe and go), these purveyors of the $5 cup o' java feel they are really being slighted now. Apparently, if you believe the article's author and sources, people tip less when using a debit card.

My response? No, they don't. They simply tip more accurately.

Many (self-included) use debit cards for all manner of transactions -- dinner, airfare, gadgets, etc. I still tip handsomely for good service -- when warranted.

Me getting out of my car, standing in line to order, paying, then standing in line to receive my order, hardly justifies a tip in any language. Some say, "well, they take extra care in making my coffee." Are you kidding me??! You're already paying nearly a minimum wage hour for that ONE cup of coffee -- how much "extra care" can possibly be warranted??

I say, "let them eat cake." Or drink coffee. Or whatever the best way to paraphrase that message...

And in the interest of full disclosure, the Starbucks mentioned in my earlier blog DID, in fact, finally remove the tip jar from the drive-in window. that's something, I suppose.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Did I mention that I HATE traveling?

2008-03-13T17:02:00.002-05:00

Don't get me started on my latest "airport-TSA" story. I'm trying to block that out, and you really don't want to hear it.

Back at the hotel, I ordered light room service, having worked well past lunch with a client. Here's the telephone conversation:
Me: Yes, and I'd also like a glass of water.
Her: Dassani or Perriere?
Me: Just a glass of water, thanks.
Her: Sorry, sir, we have only Dassani and Perriere.
Me: No (a little agitated), just a glass of ice water.
Her: Sir, I'm trying to explain, we have only Dassani and Perriere.
Me: You don't have a GLASS??
Her: Well, I suppose we do... you just want, like, out of a faucet?

To coin Bill Engvall, "Here's your sign..."

And while I'm at it...

Who designs hotel room electrical outlets? Only 9 in the whole place, 7 or 8 of which are occupied by one hotel device or another. We have to make decisions like, "reading light, or telephone charger?" What's up with that?

And finally, a delicate mention: 70% of all air travelers are men. Why, then, have airlines not done anything about the toilet seats that simply cannot stay up, slamming down at the most inopportune times?? Men know what I'm talking about here...

Why do these things things occur? Leaders let them, that's why. The hotel room service clerk was obviously trained on this dialog, to sell more $4 water bottles. The electrical outlets are scarce because someone in charge didn't ask travelers about it -- merely designed for the hotel's convenience. And the airplane toilet seats, well, I don't know exactly, but if I ever find the moron who did that...

Cheers.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Forced Ranking -- Good or Bad?

2008-03-09T11:02:00.004-05:00

Forced ranking, as a methodology for managing and improving performance, is neither good nor bad... it's just another method.

Used as part of an integrated process, it can be very powerful. The problems we see with things like this are contextual; we hear about some successful company -- GE, Yahoo, Sun, EDS come to mind -- using this, and ask, "Can we do that here?"

The answer, of course, is "Yes, provided you bring the entire process that makes it work." It's not just a couple of chapters in an airport business book -- it's the whole enchilada.

To implement forced rankings without the process and structure to support it -- management development, career pathing, internal coaching & mentoring, multiple opportunities for assignments -- is truly a recipe for failure.

It's like organizations that read Welch's book, and immediately think how smart it would be to whack the bottom 10% of performers each year... only to discover the results weren't nearly as successful. It's because Welch did that as part of an extensive employee development process; by the time a bottom-feeder got whacked, s/he'd been given myriad opportunities, development efforts, and still came up wanting.

So, as a component of a total strategy, Forced Rankings can be an excellent tool for performance improvement; the best can see what their "competition" looks like, in a manner of speaking. As a non-contextual program, however, it will likely crash and burn.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Someone Turn out the Lights...

2008-03-08T09:13:00.002-06:00

Regardless of what you hear about compensation largesse, CEO’s lead a precarious existence. In my mind, though there are always exceptions, they generally earn every penny. And are held accountable for everything. Some examples, all from just this past week:

FedEx Corp’s CEO Ken May will resign effective March 31, to “refocus <his> energy on my family, friends and other personal interests." Yeah, right.

Reality? FedEx stupidly bought Kinko’s in 2004, and has struggled to make money with it. Unsuccessfully, obviously, and someone’s got to pay. Thanks, Ken.

The Mobile Division of Motorola gave walking papers to President Stu Reed. After resignations from a half-dozen key mobile executives.

Reality? Moto is in an executive meltdown, and has no rudder for leadership vision. Why not whack another?

Reebok president and CEO Paul Harrington will resign and "relocate to California to pursue new career and business opportunities there," the company said.

Reality? Orchestrated board departure due to slumping Adidas results, mostly from the Reebok division. Successor named at same time. Lesson: don’t buy a bad company and expect good things. Hello, this is rocket science?

National Public Radio’s chief executive Ken Stern is leaving the media organization effective Friday, March 7. By “mutual agreement," apparently. Stern had 10 years w/NPR, the last 2 as CEO, growing viewership to over 26M, and financial reserves and endowment growing by over 2,000 percent.

Reality? Stern clashed with the board, wanting to grow in markets that the board didn’t have an interest. No contract extension for you. Let’s be clear: his performance was simply INCREDIBLE. And yet, he’s still unemployed.

Tough job, CEO…

Kevin Berchelmann

http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Coffe Break

2008-03-06T07:27:00.002-06:00

So, what’s up with Starbucks?

Sales are down, so they schedule a training day and whack the U.S. boss? I don’t get it.

Not that this “economy” stuff really keeps me up at night, but I would think that a $5 cup of joe could be at risk if household finances get snug… not sure that training all the servers and replacing the U.S. President (oops, my bad; she “resigned to spend more time with her family”) will change that.

Now, I’m obviously “into” professional development, so the training part had merit, as a continuing effort, not a stand-alone –things-will-be different event. Problem is, they didn't clarify to their public, so all these bloggers and news folks are saying "I don't see any difference."

And then they ticked me off… I get a half-dozen emails a week from Starbucks; they couldn’t TELL me they were closing stores for a half-day? Geez louise…

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Show me da money!

2008-03-04T09:47:00.001-06:00

Had a previous client ask about negotiating with a potential high-level employee. Said it seemed like it was “just about the money,” and he was becoming disillusioned with this candidate because of that feeling.

Negotiations are just that -- negotiations. They aren't always a single exchange.

The same argument could be made about companies -- if they won't pay more, is it just about money, then?? Shouldn't the company's motivation be something greater than the short-term salary cost?

Candidates and employers have the same objective in a compensation negotiation -- only 180 degrees apart. It's not a value judgment on either side. Both have needs, desires, and preferences. I'm being a bit facetious just to point out that, as long as negotiations are productive, and the person is a good fit, keep going. Many people, especially those more senior, are trying to get the best possible deal in exchange for their efforts. It doesn't make them "all about money," it could simply mean they are trying to maximize their value.

Also, detailed agreements at the start stage can go a long way toward preventing misunderstandings and missed expectations later.

It doesn’t have to be a win-lose situation. Negotiate in good faith; be strong, but do what’s best for your organization, not your ego.

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

Out with the old, In with the new...

2008-03-02T08:44:00.002-06:00

Reinvention is necessary for us all. I have a new blog, and a new look.

I'll continue to post regularly, and may expand my ramblings to include other things that simply interest me. Forewarned is fore-armed...

Would enjoy seeing your comments on any of my posts, at any time. Dialog is better than monologue, though I'll tell you in advance, I probably enjoy my opinion more than yours.

There's a shocker for you, eh?

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
http://www.triangleperformance.com/

COLI is bad for you... and no, I don't mean E-coli

2008-02-28T10:33:00.000-06:00

Most "Cost of Living Increases" are woefully mismanaged.

I get questions frequently on annual payroll increases. This year, 2008, the national average is hovering around 3.9%. You can see my article, same subject, for more detail.

A company, however, simply cannot continue to increase payroll in a vacuum.

All businesses can increase prices. And frankly, all businesses must do so on a regular basis. "Readily" and "successfully?" Depends on how they've been managed to that point.

Prices must rise, or companies go out of business. No organization can -- successfully -- continue to give pay raises each year, and absorb other inflationary costs, without raising prices, or finding a corresponding (or greater) reduction in operating costs.

Those businesses without a larger strategy lay off and "cut back" first; they eventually, however, increase their prices.

Margins must be maintained over time -- no other way about it. Even in commodity and/or intensely competitive environments.

So, given a 3.9% increase in total payroll costs, what should you do with that?

My payout recipe...

** Identify my top 10%. They'll see 7-10% increases in pay.
** Average to "below top 10%" will see around 3-4%.
** Below average will get coal in their stocking. Those improving will be comforted, those declining can pound sand.

Frankly, and this is something of a different way of thinking, I know, but... I can argue that average performers don't really deserve more money, unless market ranges have truly shifted -- and you should know that "market" ranges do not move lock-step with inflation, CPI, or any other such economic driver.

If we had the courage to consistently pay "at," or even better, "slightly above" market, then average performers are already correctly paid, and should only be adjusted when we adjust market-based ranges in total.

Of course, like all performance and reward issues, this can't be done in a vacuum, but needs a process in the organization to support it, including performance management, development, and front-end expectation-setting.

But that's just me...

KB

Kevin Berchelmann
www.triangleperformance.com