What should a company look for when hiring new team members? During nearly every interview, the employer will ask the candidate about their past experience – where they have worked, what they have done, what level of responsibility they have had, and what successes they have had. It stands to reason that these types of questions and understanding what a candidate has done in the past are great predictors for how the candidate may do if employed within the organization. However, having been through the interview process many times on both sides of the table (both being interviewed, and interviewing candidates to hire), I see that many companies seem to interpret this information very differently.
Some companies interview candidates with the hopes of finding someone with experience as close to matching the job being interviewed for as possible. The successful candidate will have done the exact same job in the same industry, using the same tools, and in as close as possible to the same environment. It stands to reason that if someone has completed this role with similar variables in the past and been successful, they have a high chance of being successful again. This is a safe bet. But, a safe bet also often yields the lowest returns.
Over the years, I’ve hired a number of software developers to serve on the development teams that I managed. We were exclusively a ColdFusion development shop – ColdFusion being the web scripting language used to create advanced web based software applications. During an interview, I once asked a candidate if they had done any work with ColdFusion, they broke out laughing. The candidate had never heard of ColdFusion – other than of course the scientific research of nuclear fusion without producing heat - which would be a fairly absurd question for a software developer’s interview. This, however, didn’t prevent me from ultimately extending an offer to the young developer to join the team.
What I look for in team members for any role is not what they have done, but, what they have the capacity to do. This isn’t to say I didn’t go through their experiences heavily, quite the opposite. As I review the work experience of a candidate, I’m looking for how they were able to work within an environment with the given constraints and variables and be successful. Were they able to use what was available to produce results and advance? Did they demonstrate creativity and ingenuity? Was their work rewarded with progressively more responsibility and new challenges?
Of course, there is some degree of requirement based on experience. For example, as intellectual as a brain surgeon might be, I wouldn’t hire a surgeon to be a software developer if he had never looked at code. So, for a software developer, although I wouldn’t care even he had ever heard of ColdFusion, I would look for him to have developed some type of web based applications. For a management position, I would expect them to have led a team and demonstrated strategic and operational successes. Things such as industry, tools, and even scale are things that can easily be learned and quickly grown into for a candidate who has a demonstrated history of successes.
For me personally, I always want to be learning new things and growing professionally. If I were looking at a position where I had already done everything involved, I really wouldn’t want to do the job again – where would the challenge be in that?
There is certainly a purpose for both types of hiring. If you view, and need, a team that are essentially specialized tools to accomplish a certain task or job, then your goal would be to hire individuals who have the specific experience needed. However, if your needs and views are to establish a strong organization that will grow and perform above minimum requirements in varying environments and circumstances, experiences are merely indicators of past successes, not a list of future capacity. Everyone who has managed a team in any kind of an IT environment knows that one rockstar employee can outperform two or three average employees in productivity and results. So, if you are trying to locate a rockstar, your best bet is to look for people who are adaptable, team oriented, able to engage their environment to produce successful results, eagerly accept responsibility and accountability, and respond to challenges with exceptional results. If those are the qualities of the individual you need on your team, things such as tools, methodologies, technologies, industry, and scope are of little significance. This is the approach I’ve taken to hiring and had the fortune of building outstanding teams that produce amazing results.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Servant Leadership
It seems there are as many different leadership styles as there are leaders. That actually makes sense, as a strong leader looks at many different management and leadership styles to develop their own ways to be effective and successful at leading teams. One leadership style that has been influential for me is the concept of Servant Leadership.
Servant Leadership essentially takes the organization chart and flips it upside down. The idea is that each level of management in an organization exists to support those at the next lower organizational level. This goes against what many people think – that teams exist to support the manager. In order for the company to be successful, the work to get finished, and the final product or service to be delivered to the customer, it is obviously critically important that those doing the work are empowered to do their jobs, and they have all the tools and resources necessary to accomplish their tasks. As a manager within an organization, you have the power to acquire and provide these tools and necessary resources to your teams. Therefore, your strength as a manager and a leader relates to your ability to serve those who report directly to you. The role is to make sure that they have everything needed to accomplish their work. This involves making sure you are available to your team and receptive to their needs, clearing their paths to allow success.
While a large portion of the role of a manager or leader is to empower their staff, this isn’t to say this is their only role. As described in previous posts, of critical importance is focusing on continuous improvement in processes, organization, motivation, and morale. The manager is responsible for setting policies, initiatives, and direction for teams. The concept of servant leadership can be applied to all these areas and also provides a degree of humility when embraced by managers of all levels.
Servant Leadership essentially takes the organization chart and flips it upside down. The idea is that each level of management in an organization exists to support those at the next lower organizational level. This goes against what many people think – that teams exist to support the manager. In order for the company to be successful, the work to get finished, and the final product or service to be delivered to the customer, it is obviously critically important that those doing the work are empowered to do their jobs, and they have all the tools and resources necessary to accomplish their tasks. As a manager within an organization, you have the power to acquire and provide these tools and necessary resources to your teams. Therefore, your strength as a manager and a leader relates to your ability to serve those who report directly to you. The role is to make sure that they have everything needed to accomplish their work. This involves making sure you are available to your team and receptive to their needs, clearing their paths to allow success.
While a large portion of the role of a manager or leader is to empower their staff, this isn’t to say this is their only role. As described in previous posts, of critical importance is focusing on continuous improvement in processes, organization, motivation, and morale. The manager is responsible for setting policies, initiatives, and direction for teams. The concept of servant leadership can be applied to all these areas and also provides a degree of humility when embraced by managers of all levels.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
How to Overcome Being Good
There are a lot of good companies. Companies that provide good service, a good product, and a good experience. Good… but not great.
I read a book several years ago called “Good to Great” by Jim Collins. This was a great book that talked about the differences between companies that did “ok”, and those that really excelled. The book made a bold statement that has really impacted me over the years – that the biggest hurdle to overcome in becoming a great company, is being a good company. Essentially, once a company becomes “good”, they don’t strive to change things to become great – they settle for just being good.
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this idea and contemplating what makes a company great. It’s easy to think that hard work towards your goal is what yields the great results, but, I don’t think this is true. I think hard work will make you good, but, focusing on “working hard” makes you miss the aspects that can make you great.
In my career, I’ve had the opportunity to learn from different types of managers. Some who I consider true leaders whom I respect greatly, and others who are merely managers organizing activities. In order to stay on topic, I’ll save my definition of what makes someone a leader versus a manager until a later post. For the sake of argument I’ll compare two fictitious managers. These aren’t based on actual people I’ve worked with, more just a composite of different management styles and various individuals.
The first manager, who we’ll call Alpha, worked hard every day. He managed his teams of employees by ordering them to work more and more and setting high expectations for the amount of work to be completed. He, and his teams, would work late into the evenings, struggling to ensure all work was completed, all customer concerns were addressed, and nothing was left undone. Alpha knew that, because of his experience and skills that had made him the manager, he could get more work done than anyone else on his team, so, he worked side by side with his team to get the work done. Through hard work, dedication, and commitment to the company, they got the work finished to serve the customers.
The second manager, who we’ll call Beta, also worked hard was completely dedicated to the company and its success. This second manager, however, took a very different approach. While he knew that he could do the work, and do it well, he chose to let his team do all the work instead of working alongside them. Instead, he spent his time analyzing what was being done, why it was being done, and how it could be done better. Additionally, he spent his time thinking about the actual team members – were people doing what they wanted to be doing, did they enjoy their work, were they properly motivated, did they feel appreciated? He was able to identify ways to make things more efficient, better motivate the teams, and provide better service. His teams delivered the results needed to serve the customers as well.
So, who is the better manager? Both are delivering the end result to the customer. The difference - Alpha helped foster a good organization, Beta built a great organization. I think this is a common trap that managers fall into, and I’ll admit that this is a trap I’ve fallen into in the past as well. There is just so much work to be done that the goal is simply to get “done”. When you look at it this way, it becomes clear why an organization would be relegated to being “good” if the managers simply view their goals as getting to “done”. Beta, however, empowered and trusted his staff to get the work finished and made sure his goals were beyond simply finishing the work at hand. Beta looked for ways to continuously improve the organization, better serve the customers, and improve the lives of those who worked for him. By never settling for being “good” – just delivering the expectations – Beta will build a strong, great organization.
In practical application, however, it may not always be possible for a manager to be either like Alpha or Beta, and may need to be a combination. A good manager (and leader) needs to know when it is necessary to get his hands dirty and actually work with his staff to get the work done. This actually is necessary at times just to understand what is actually being done and maintain the perspective of the worker, not to mention great for the morale of the team members. Depending on the size of the organization, it may be necessary for managers to actually produce the work alongside their staff just to ensure everything gets finished. The challenge that every manager must overcome is ensuring that no matter how much effort is required in working alongside the staff, they don’t forget to be continuously strategic in thinking of ways to improve the organization, processes, and better serve both their teams and their customers.
I read a book several years ago called “Good to Great” by Jim Collins. This was a great book that talked about the differences between companies that did “ok”, and those that really excelled. The book made a bold statement that has really impacted me over the years – that the biggest hurdle to overcome in becoming a great company, is being a good company. Essentially, once a company becomes “good”, they don’t strive to change things to become great – they settle for just being good.
I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this idea and contemplating what makes a company great. It’s easy to think that hard work towards your goal is what yields the great results, but, I don’t think this is true. I think hard work will make you good, but, focusing on “working hard” makes you miss the aspects that can make you great.
In my career, I’ve had the opportunity to learn from different types of managers. Some who I consider true leaders whom I respect greatly, and others who are merely managers organizing activities. In order to stay on topic, I’ll save my definition of what makes someone a leader versus a manager until a later post. For the sake of argument I’ll compare two fictitious managers. These aren’t based on actual people I’ve worked with, more just a composite of different management styles and various individuals.
The first manager, who we’ll call Alpha, worked hard every day. He managed his teams of employees by ordering them to work more and more and setting high expectations for the amount of work to be completed. He, and his teams, would work late into the evenings, struggling to ensure all work was completed, all customer concerns were addressed, and nothing was left undone. Alpha knew that, because of his experience and skills that had made him the manager, he could get more work done than anyone else on his team, so, he worked side by side with his team to get the work done. Through hard work, dedication, and commitment to the company, they got the work finished to serve the customers.
The second manager, who we’ll call Beta, also worked hard was completely dedicated to the company and its success. This second manager, however, took a very different approach. While he knew that he could do the work, and do it well, he chose to let his team do all the work instead of working alongside them. Instead, he spent his time analyzing what was being done, why it was being done, and how it could be done better. Additionally, he spent his time thinking about the actual team members – were people doing what they wanted to be doing, did they enjoy their work, were they properly motivated, did they feel appreciated? He was able to identify ways to make things more efficient, better motivate the teams, and provide better service. His teams delivered the results needed to serve the customers as well.
So, who is the better manager? Both are delivering the end result to the customer. The difference - Alpha helped foster a good organization, Beta built a great organization. I think this is a common trap that managers fall into, and I’ll admit that this is a trap I’ve fallen into in the past as well. There is just so much work to be done that the goal is simply to get “done”. When you look at it this way, it becomes clear why an organization would be relegated to being “good” if the managers simply view their goals as getting to “done”. Beta, however, empowered and trusted his staff to get the work finished and made sure his goals were beyond simply finishing the work at hand. Beta looked for ways to continuously improve the organization, better serve the customers, and improve the lives of those who worked for him. By never settling for being “good” – just delivering the expectations – Beta will build a strong, great organization.
In practical application, however, it may not always be possible for a manager to be either like Alpha or Beta, and may need to be a combination. A good manager (and leader) needs to know when it is necessary to get his hands dirty and actually work with his staff to get the work done. This actually is necessary at times just to understand what is actually being done and maintain the perspective of the worker, not to mention great for the morale of the team members. Depending on the size of the organization, it may be necessary for managers to actually produce the work alongside their staff just to ensure everything gets finished. The challenge that every manager must overcome is ensuring that no matter how much effort is required in working alongside the staff, they don’t forget to be continuously strategic in thinking of ways to improve the organization, processes, and better serve both their teams and their customers.
Stimulus Vs. Response
As I discussed in my previous post, I am a big fan of Steven Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. One of the stories he relates is that of a Viktor Frankl – a prisoner of a Nazi concentration camp. Despite the horrible torture and treatment that Frankl was subjected to, he maintained that he was more “free” than his captors. While his captors were bound by both responsibility in their duties in the prison and by their hatred toward those they held captive, he was free choose his own response to whatever happens to him.
I found this story to be extremely powerful. It is hard to imagine someone under these circumstances who wouldn’t consider himself to be a victim and give up all hope. Instead, he remained resilient and strong. Applying this concept to your life gives you such power and control.
How often do you find yourself saying something like, “he made me mad”? I know I certainly do. But, if you think about this statement and relate it back to the lessons from Frankl you realize it makes no sense. Mad is your response to whatever the person did. You have the power to choose your response. So, no one can make you mad, you can simply choose to be mad in response to the actions of someone. To say that they made you mad gives them the power to control your emotions.
This all boils down to a common problem – the victim mentality. People who choose to give away their ability to control their responses. These are people who blame those around them for their mood and all of their problems. All of the misfortunes in their life are the results of those around them, out of their control, leaving them completely free of blame and a victim to their circumstances. Once you realize that you can control your response to everything that happens to you, you gain the ability to be more logical and think with your mind instead of your emotions. This gives you a far more positive attitude and outlook on life.
This is, of course, easier said than done. I think it is just human nature to immediately react with an emotional response when something negative happens. Even as a strong believer in this theory, I still find that it is work to overcome the initial emotional response with a logical, beneficial response. Depending on the stimulus, this can be extremely difficult.
I tend to think about this concept a lot whenever I am stuck in heavy traffic. Obviously, no one likes to be stuck in heavy traffic. I tend to find myself becoming frustrated and upset, and have to remind myself that I am choosing to be frustrated, and that being frustrated won’t benefit me in any way. Instead, I think about the fact that it gives me time to listen to the radio or contemplate the world. Similarly, when someone cuts me off in traffic or nearly hits my vehicle, despite my initial desire to yell at them, I just think that there is no reason to be angry, that would just ruin my day and put me in a bad mood, and with all the great things in my life someone cutting me off in traffic has no effect at all in the grand scheme of things. When I see people who become visibly angry in traffic reacting to those around them, I feel sorry for them. Their days are being ruined by their inability to control their emotions. I often wonder how bad their lives must be if they get so angry over something that is really so minor in the grand scheme of the world.
I found this story to be extremely powerful. It is hard to imagine someone under these circumstances who wouldn’t consider himself to be a victim and give up all hope. Instead, he remained resilient and strong. Applying this concept to your life gives you such power and control.
How often do you find yourself saying something like, “he made me mad”? I know I certainly do. But, if you think about this statement and relate it back to the lessons from Frankl you realize it makes no sense. Mad is your response to whatever the person did. You have the power to choose your response. So, no one can make you mad, you can simply choose to be mad in response to the actions of someone. To say that they made you mad gives them the power to control your emotions.
This all boils down to a common problem – the victim mentality. People who choose to give away their ability to control their responses. These are people who blame those around them for their mood and all of their problems. All of the misfortunes in their life are the results of those around them, out of their control, leaving them completely free of blame and a victim to their circumstances. Once you realize that you can control your response to everything that happens to you, you gain the ability to be more logical and think with your mind instead of your emotions. This gives you a far more positive attitude and outlook on life.
This is, of course, easier said than done. I think it is just human nature to immediately react with an emotional response when something negative happens. Even as a strong believer in this theory, I still find that it is work to overcome the initial emotional response with a logical, beneficial response. Depending on the stimulus, this can be extremely difficult.
I tend to think about this concept a lot whenever I am stuck in heavy traffic. Obviously, no one likes to be stuck in heavy traffic. I tend to find myself becoming frustrated and upset, and have to remind myself that I am choosing to be frustrated, and that being frustrated won’t benefit me in any way. Instead, I think about the fact that it gives me time to listen to the radio or contemplate the world. Similarly, when someone cuts me off in traffic or nearly hits my vehicle, despite my initial desire to yell at them, I just think that there is no reason to be angry, that would just ruin my day and put me in a bad mood, and with all the great things in my life someone cutting me off in traffic has no effect at all in the grand scheme of things. When I see people who become visibly angry in traffic reacting to those around them, I feel sorry for them. Their days are being ruined by their inability to control their emotions. I often wonder how bad their lives must be if they get so angry over something that is really so minor in the grand scheme of the world.
Steven Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective People
Over the last few years, I have become a strong follower of Steven Covey's 7 Habits of Highly Effective People book and program. The company I served decided to send its senior leadership team to this training course. I complied, and went to the training, although was not optimistic going into the training that it would have any value. With so many different types of programs out there, I've always thought they were gimmicky and trying to sell you a quick "self help" that will solve all the worlds problems. After the week training, I was sold that this wasn't the case and this is a great program.
Much of the content in the book/program is common sense - things we really already know, but, don't think about. The book helps to frame concepts from a new perspective, making you really think about things you already "know", and in turn, learning more about it. The content focuses on 7 habits that one must master as they progress from dependence (the lowest level) through interdependence (the highest level where you are the most effective). The habits are: Be Proactive, Begin with the End in Mind, Put First Things First, Think Win-Win, Seek First to Understand, Synergize, and Sharpen the Saw. The real lessons to be learned within the content aren't in these steps as a checklist, however. The important take away is how to interact with people, how to approach relationships, and how to achieve your goals by aligning them with the goals of others.
One of the big takeaways early in the content is the concept of a matrix of importance versus urgency - breaking all of your tasks up by those that are urgent but not important, urgent and important, and unimportant but urgent, and unimportant and not urgent. Obviously the goal is to spend your time working on those items that are truly important, and recognize that there is a lot out there that is urgent but not important.
Another concept presented in the first section that is a hangup for many people is the idea of your circle of influence. Essentially, this means that if it isn't something you can control or influence, there is no reason to worry about it. So, you should focus your efforts entirely on areas where you can make an impact and have an influence. Something I find interesting in this is defining your circle of influence. For many people, their circle of influence is defined for them. They are simply told what their responsibilities are and what needs to be done. As one becomes a stronger leader, and gain higher levels of responsibility within an organization, they gain the ability to control their circle more. Further, they gain the ability to control the circles for those around them. A good leader will understand an area where they can have an impact, align themselves properly within that area to ensure it is within their influence, and then assist those around them who have the capability and capacity to play a role to align their circles with the needs.
The content focuses heavily on how to interact with other people. This concept begins with empathetic listening - the ability to really listen to understand what someone is saying. So often, people only partially listen, while they are really just thinking of what they are going to say next. This teaches the importance of understanding what the other person is saying, and fully listening to them to hear what they have to say. Understanding what someone is saying allows you to put yourself into their perspective. This is critical for being able to form a true win-win situation where both people can gain.
This blog topic is something that I could talk about for pages and pages. Instead, though, I might save individual topics for future blog postings. A couple of other concepts that I find particularly important are the ideas of the separation of stimulus and response, and that you can only influence people by changing yourself.
Covey's work has a lot of similarity with Dale Carnegie's work on How to Win Friends and Influence People. Carnegie's work came first, and, no doubt, was an influence to Covey as he wrote his books. I personally think the Covey content is far better than Carnegie. Covey's seems to have so much more depth and importance. My feeling from reading Carnegie's book was that it was very self gratifying, it is structured around an approach of presenting a concept and then giving examples of how people who listened to him succeeded because they listened to him. I felt the book was all about telling you to complete certain actions in order to gain success. Further, success was defined solely on the basis of financial business accomplishments. Covey's work, however, uses stories and examples to present concepts and develop the basis for theories. His work focuses on becoming a better person who is better able to interact with the world around them. Its about self improvement - not just steps to win. Further, while the ultimate goal can be applied to business successes, it emphasizes making those around you successful as well. I highly recommend Covey's work to anyone.
Much of the content in the book/program is common sense - things we really already know, but, don't think about. The book helps to frame concepts from a new perspective, making you really think about things you already "know", and in turn, learning more about it. The content focuses on 7 habits that one must master as they progress from dependence (the lowest level) through interdependence (the highest level where you are the most effective). The habits are: Be Proactive, Begin with the End in Mind, Put First Things First, Think Win-Win, Seek First to Understand, Synergize, and Sharpen the Saw. The real lessons to be learned within the content aren't in these steps as a checklist, however. The important take away is how to interact with people, how to approach relationships, and how to achieve your goals by aligning them with the goals of others.
One of the big takeaways early in the content is the concept of a matrix of importance versus urgency - breaking all of your tasks up by those that are urgent but not important, urgent and important, and unimportant but urgent, and unimportant and not urgent. Obviously the goal is to spend your time working on those items that are truly important, and recognize that there is a lot out there that is urgent but not important.
Another concept presented in the first section that is a hangup for many people is the idea of your circle of influence. Essentially, this means that if it isn't something you can control or influence, there is no reason to worry about it. So, you should focus your efforts entirely on areas where you can make an impact and have an influence. Something I find interesting in this is defining your circle of influence. For many people, their circle of influence is defined for them. They are simply told what their responsibilities are and what needs to be done. As one becomes a stronger leader, and gain higher levels of responsibility within an organization, they gain the ability to control their circle more. Further, they gain the ability to control the circles for those around them. A good leader will understand an area where they can have an impact, align themselves properly within that area to ensure it is within their influence, and then assist those around them who have the capability and capacity to play a role to align their circles with the needs.
The content focuses heavily on how to interact with other people. This concept begins with empathetic listening - the ability to really listen to understand what someone is saying. So often, people only partially listen, while they are really just thinking of what they are going to say next. This teaches the importance of understanding what the other person is saying, and fully listening to them to hear what they have to say. Understanding what someone is saying allows you to put yourself into their perspective. This is critical for being able to form a true win-win situation where both people can gain.
This blog topic is something that I could talk about for pages and pages. Instead, though, I might save individual topics for future blog postings. A couple of other concepts that I find particularly important are the ideas of the separation of stimulus and response, and that you can only influence people by changing yourself.
Covey's work has a lot of similarity with Dale Carnegie's work on How to Win Friends and Influence People. Carnegie's work came first, and, no doubt, was an influence to Covey as he wrote his books. I personally think the Covey content is far better than Carnegie. Covey's seems to have so much more depth and importance. My feeling from reading Carnegie's book was that it was very self gratifying, it is structured around an approach of presenting a concept and then giving examples of how people who listened to him succeeded because they listened to him. I felt the book was all about telling you to complete certain actions in order to gain success. Further, success was defined solely on the basis of financial business accomplishments. Covey's work, however, uses stories and examples to present concepts and develop the basis for theories. His work focuses on becoming a better person who is better able to interact with the world around them. Its about self improvement - not just steps to win. Further, while the ultimate goal can be applied to business successes, it emphasizes making those around you successful as well. I highly recommend Covey's work to anyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)