People managers in large corporations must assign performance ratings to individuals in their group. Further, you must conform to an expected distribution of “Superior,” “Meets Expectations,” and “Does Not Meet Expectations” ratings.  You may or may not have some latitude about pay increases related to performance.

Lessons learned the hard way:

Pre-decide that your responsibility is to distinguish performance levels in this reporting period.  Pre-decide you will do this professionally and without grumbling. You want a “tough but fair” reputation.

Ignore the “soft” language you hear about the ratings distribution; take it as a rule not a “if it’s convenient for you” guideline.   These distributions fit some budget decision somewhere, and even when they say it’s not about the money, it’s about the money.

Start everyone in your group at “Meets Expectations” level.  Next, identify anyone who did not perform at the agreed-upon level.  You expected more deliverables, more consistent behavior, and you must be able to articulate exactly what the gap is. Then select the people who performed over and above their goals, if anyone – meaning, you would have been perfectly content with fewer deliverables or lower performance.  Keep that a high bar.  Finally, force yourself to rank the remaining people inside the “meets expectation” category. 

Make notes about your decisions to prepare for any large-group calibration discussions, and meeting with each direct report when you convey the final rating.

Calibration meetings favor the prepared.  In really difficult situations it may feel like a steel cage death match. You are likely a manager among managers, part of the larger management organization.  Resist every temptation to blame HR, upper management, and whoever “them” is this time.  You represent the business leadership to your direct reports. 

Be prepared to tell people in the “Meets Expectations” category about their relative position in that category.  This is particularly important for the people in the bottom quartile. It could sound something like this: “You met expectations this year, but frankly, you should know most of your peers performed better.  Let’s work together on setting some stretch goals for next year, and what I need to do to help you achieve those.”

Expect that word will get out quickly about who got what rating and pay raise.  (I’m old school, and we never talked about these things freely, but it is often different today.)  Operate with this mindset: Respect the privacy of individual performance conversations and avoid fueling the gossip engine.

Also, if you are mentoring a successor or someone with high potential, give them insights about how you thought through this process.  You can share insights without violating confidentiality.   This is crucial information for difficult decisions in their future.  This kind of mentoring is how we strengthen the culture of the organization.

We frequently use the phrase “outside the box.” Perhaps we should clarify what’s inside the box, so we know how to step outside it.  My list:

• Everything that has made us successful in the past
• Our self-determined borders about what is possible, and what’s not
• Our right to point fingers and blame “them”
• Our right to justifiable complaints without having to take responsibility for anything less than perfect
• Our preferred levels of stress
• Our views of what’s important
• Our views of what’s interesting
• Our status quo expertise (or at least what we think we’re expert at doing)
• Our favorite narratives about ourselves, and others. This includes our revisionist histories.
• Our fears about change, loss, displacement, insignificance

This is subtly different than our comfort zone. Our comfort zone is a sub-space inside “the box”; the box contains things we’re not comfortable with, but are willing to accept.

The problem with living in the box is the illusion that it’s safe. 

There’s a growing industry of de-cluttering and neatness. The primary strategy is take everything out of a closet or room, and then only put back the items which are most useful or bring you joy. 

I suggest we take a modified form of that strategy:

1. Take the inventory of the box.
2. Identify everything which is meaningful and useful – even some of the painfully gained stuff.
3. Imagine that all the rest goes into the trashcan, fit only for burning.
4. Don’t put it back in the same box. Instead, use them to build a foundation and a walking path to the future. 

Every water molecule in a river behaves according to the same basic rule: Obey gravity, taking the path of least resistance, towards the sea.

All the water in a river is moving, but not moving identically:

• The fastest flow is in the “middle” or the center of the primary channel.
• The slowest forward flow is along the edges, because of the drag of the bottom and shoreline.
• Hydrology measurements demonstrate that at any point in time about 20% of the water is moving upstream. (Think about eddies and water bouncing backwards against rocks, logs, etc.)

Consider the parallels to organization dynamics. Even where there is an aligned purpose (“We’re all going to the sea!”) there are variations in flow that have nothing to do with the character of the water. The flow rate is a function of friction from the environment.

Some individuals are wired for moving fast. Even the “fast” members of your team will occasionally be pulled into an eddy, or bounce again rocks and trees.  Be mindful of the external situation before you make summary judgments about individual performance.

What’s true for individuals is also true for sub-parts of organizations: You can move faster where these is less friction. There are fewer legacy processes and systems. There much less “what got us here won’t get us there” to overcome. There is more intrinsic trust and experienced teams who have more confidence.

It’s not surprising that startup businesses can be nimble and move fast. There’s relatively little internal friction for them to overcome.

Aside from the smooth speed of the central channel of a river, much of what makes a river fascinating and distinctive is the interaction with the rocks, trees, and shoreline. You have dramatic whitewater, falls, swirling water, calmer pools where moss and insects and fish abound.  We know “still waters run deep” yet almost always prefer dramatic rush and spray.

Organizations are mostly valuable for interactions with suppliers, customers, partners, and employees. There are absolutely places where your leadership is needed to streamline and accelerate processes by removing friction elements. Don’t miss some of the “friction” to perfect speed is your real business model at work. 

Key points:

·      Work on unifying narratives so that everyone in your organization “moves” in a consistent direction.

·      Appreciate that internal history and external factors create friction, so that not all parts of your organization are moving at the same speed.

·      Decide carefully what friction elements need to be streamlined, and which are valuable parts of your business model.

(This article was originally published on asmithblog.com)

The people who hold romantic ideas about domestic sheep – fluffy soft white pacifist creatures, vegetarians, communal, speaking in soft tones of “baaaa…” –have never actually been around sheep. Maybe they saw lambs at a petting zoo for a few minutes.

Real-world shepherds have realistic ideas about sheep.  

Sheep are dirty. Their wool acts like a magnet for dirt, twigs, leaves, and poop. They can’t and don’t clean themselves. 

Sheep are dumb. They rarely can extricate themselves from awkward situations. They will play follow-the-leader to their demise. They wander off and can’t find their way back. They need to be moved from field to field because they usually can’t find their way to a new food source without help. 

Sheep are defenseless. A crow can land on their heads and peck at their eyes. They will bite you if they get mad, but otherwise their teeth and hooves don’t frighten predators. If a predator doesn’t move, the sheep forget it’s there. Sheep can’t swim, so they stay away from moving water.  

The Bible describes people as the sheep of God’s pasture. It sounds nice but it is not meant as a compliment.  

I’m certain that your organization is not filled with people as dirty, dumb, or defenseless as actual sheep. 

Yet shepherding is a good model for leadership:  

·      The shepherd must be with the sheep. He must be alert to their needs, and put their needs above his own.  

·      The shepherd is the first forager, mindful of what the sheep need to eat and drink, and guiding them to safe sources.

·      Shepherds are more aware of the weather, the time of day, and lay of the land than the sheep.

·      The shepherd defends the sheep from predators and enemies – and the sheep from other folds which might be unhealthy competition or spread diseases. 

·      Yelling is not effective with sheep, but they are remarkably responsive to firmly worded guidance. 

·      Shepherds work primarily with the leaders in the flock, and leverage their influence.

·      Shepherds “eat last and sleep the least.”  

·      Shepherds will carry weak sheep to help them on their journey. They’ll make sure no sheep are left behind or wander off. 

·      Shepherds don’t expect affection or praise from the herd.  

·      Shepherds are mindful of the bigger picture of why we raise sheep.  

What can you do today to improve your shepherding? 

(This article was originally published on asmithblog.com)

A personal story from the mid-1990’s…

My boss and I were sitting in a briefing about the program to implement SAP at our company, code name “Quest.”  Massive.  First software project we ever capitalized on the financial books.  External consultants. Big $$$ commitments with no ROI for several years.

The presenter laid out the plan:

•             12 months to document the business requirements

•             12 months to create specs for the necessary customization

•             18-20 months for the implementation work

I turned to my boss and said, “This is doomed to fail.  The business requirements will change before they can implement!”

He responded: “The people in charge of Quest get to define success. Therefore, no matter what happens, it will be a success.”

There are two ways you can put this insight into your leadership toolbox:

1.   Watch for this “they get to define success” paradigm being used against you (or the best outcomes for the organization).  You probably can’t change it, but at least be consciously aware of the reality.

2.  Respect the power of being able to define success for an initiative. Use this super-power for good, not to manipulate or cover your butt.

I’m done with Twitter and will no longer post regularly on Facebook.

For many years now I’ve used Facebook and Twitter to share what I hope are useful and encouraging quotes, verses, links to articles, and birthday congratulations. It’s been nice to learn things about others, too, especially old friends and contacts who I no longer see in person. I’ve been grateful for the tools.

What’s changed in my view?

These are private companies who can set their own rules. I understand that they aren’t charging me directly for the tools, which means “I am the product” they are selling. Both companies have blocked friends for opaque reasons. There’s abundant evidence that their algorithms highly favor and amplify some content. These are not unbiased platforms for communication. The reality is that a subset of what I publish will not reach my followers.

I also find I’m overly attracted to checking these sites. I have been guilty of fixating too much attention on what gets liked, and what doesn’t. Stepping back will help me.

I will continue to produce content designed to encourage and edify. But I’m going to do this on platforms I control, for people who opt-in to say “I want to read what Glenn shares,” without algorithmic bias in the middle. I’m going to add much more content into my free weekly newsletter. (Sign up in the right side-bar.)

I will continue to use LinkedIn for professional reasons. I’ll still participate in some of the Facebook groups where I’m an active member.

I will miss seeing all the personal news and good commentary, but accept the tradeoff for the larger personal benefit.

Companies have made enormous gains with Lean, just-in-time inventory management, Six Sigma, and several quality approaches.  We are producing better quality at a lower cost with less waste. 

People remain important, and people remain messy.

It’s a mistake for leaders to apply “Lean” and quality methods to people.  Organizations work best when human relationships are “thick” – shared experiences, deep levels of trust, abundant communication, shared purpose, deep listening.  It’s a both-and reality for high-performing organizations: Manage things, Lead people.

The word Transformation has practically become a buzzword.  It’s sexy, seductive. 

The open lie is that transformations are elegant.  That caterpillar transforming into a butterfly?  No one talks much about the intermediate step, and it’s a good thing it’s hidden inside an opaque cocoon.

Transformation is usually an ugly process… and the biggest obstacle is our ego.  

Your ego talks to you.  It will tell you where the bottlenecks and give you the name of the roadblocks to transformation.  

Critically important: Ensure your future state is superior to the current state. There’s danger in status quo. There’s also danger in a crummy future.   

Some years ago I was talking with a friend who is an avid golfer.  “I score a 10 yesterday! It was great,” he said.  I asked him to explain this puzzling comment.

“I used to obsess about my golf score.  Most of the time I was furious with my bad shots, and frankly, golf just wasn’t as much fun.  So I decided to change the way I keep score for myself.

“If I have even one good shot on a hole, I give myself a plus one.  A good shot is one that felt good, the swing was good, the ball went close to my intended target, it stayed in the fairway, or landed nicely on the green – could be any number of things but it was clearly a good shot.  I’m happy with it.

“Getting a 10 means that on 10 holes out of 18 I had a shot that made me happy.  And focusing on that score – my joy score – has made all the difference in enjoying golf again.  I don’t focus on the things that make me mad.”

I greatly admire how my friend re-framed his scoring system.  He’s optimizing for a healthy objective.

Leaders can be hard on themselves.  Some of this is simply good self-discipline and striving for excellence.  We’re always working to improve our craft.  But there’s a dark, unhealthy aspect where we flagellate ourselves and make ourselves miserable.  This is leadership self-sabotage. 

What kind of “joy score” could you track in your leadership work?  What healthy objectives should you be optimizing for?  Give this some thought.   

Nothing quite like a pet to teach you things!

I take our dog Watson for walks every day, usually both morning and evening.  From his point of view, I exist to take him out on walks, feed him treats, and rub his belly for a few minutes between 5:30 and 7:00 pm.

I usually enjoy our walks.  I let Watson make many of the decisions about which way we go at intersections, and can figure out how to loop back to our house.

Sometimes I’m in a rush.  I have stuff to do.  I need to be back at a specific time, usually a short time.  This urgency is pressing on my mind.  I can feel my blood pressure rising.  I want to walk faster. 

Of course Watson doesn’t understand that urgency.  “Hey, that smells good over there,” he thinks as he pulls in a direction I don’t want to go today.  “Just give me a few more seconds to confirm which of my dog pals has peed on this fire hydrant.”  “I’m feeling great, let’s go longer today!”  

This contrast is a reminder that many of the people I’m working with don’t understand my frame of mind, either.  I want this meeting to be short and dense, let’s get to the facts and make a decision.  The guy who starts with the long chronological accounting can’t read my mind.  The lady giving the presentation doesn’t understand that this is my fifth meeting of the morning and I’m thinking more about the new incoming artillery barrage in my inbox than her same-old-same-old project update.  The new colleague launches into a conversation incorrectly assuming that you have all the same context she does. She’s been coached to get to the decision quickly (which is a useful and helpful practice) but in this case your mind is tired and you need her to slow down and lay out the groundwork. 

The opportunity is for me to gently communicate something helpful, and to practice self-control.  It doesn’t help anyone to simmer in frustration or allow your energized mental frameworks to tune people out.