Connecticut Huskies Know ‘It’s All About The Team’

As Richard Kovacevich, former Chairman of Wells Fargo, has stated, “You learn very quickly playing sports that it’s all about the team.  It’s the best five players that win the basketball game, not the five best players.”

On Monday the best team, the University of Connecticut, won the national championship.  Their opponent, the University of Kentucky, had ‘the five best players’.  Actually, they may have had more than five—they’re loaded with half-a-gazillion McDonald’s All-Americans.  Their starting five were all uber-talented freshman.

Yes, Connecticut’s point guard Shabazz Napier may well have been the nation’s best player.  Yet Connecticut’s talent quotient was dramatically lower than Kentucky’s. In many ways Kentucky is an NBA farm club. ‘One-and-done’ describes what their current freshman are expected to do—namely turn pro. Whether they will or not remains to be seen.

On Monday the best team won, not the most talented team.  Connecticut didn’t miss a free throw going 10 for 10 (Kentucky was 13 of 24).  Connecticut, who was at a sizeable height disadvantage, out rebounded Kentucky by one. On paper Connecticut should have never been able to out rebound Kentucky—it just doesn’t equate given Kentucky’s superior height advantage and previous dominating performance on the boards all year.

If talent were the ultimate differentiator, Kentucky should have won. They didn’t.  That’s because talent, as important as it is, is overrated.  At the end of the day, it’s the team that matters most.

Congratulations to the Connecticut Huskies.

Lessons In Professionalism (and Success) From Basketball’s San Antonio Spurs

Last night I caught a few minutes of the San Antonio Spurs/Golden State Warriors game.  For those unaware, these are two National Basketball Association (NBA) teams.  I happen to be a fan of the Warriors—being a native of the San Francisco Bay Area.

The Spurs were impressive in winning the game—their 19th in a row!  If you want to see basketball played at the highest level imaginable—watch the Spurs play sometime. It’s the precision and jaw-dropping impact of Cirque du Soleil in gym shorts. Some have argued the Spurs could field two NBA quality teams from their current fifteen-man roster.

The Spurs have three future Hall of Fame players but that’s not why they’re so impressive. They play within a system—one that’s been carefully honed over the years by coach Gregg Popovich.  When it comes to the Spurs, it’s professionalism on steroids.

I believe that, out of all the modern sports, basketball is the best in illustrating the mind sets in action.

Consider:

***the deadly-shooting point guard who acts as a decoy, enabling them to distribute the ball to open teammates (mind-sets 1,2,6,7 ).

***the player who passes up a good shot so that their teammate will get a better one (mind-sets 1,2,6,7).

***the uber-talented individual players who choose to forgo their individual stats and play as a unified team (mind-sets 1,2).

***the shooting guard who takes a charge from the opponent’s 280 pound power-forward (mind-sets 1,2,3).

***the star player who generously renegotiates their contract, releasing monies for the team to sign a desirable free-agent, and enabling the team to stay under the salary-cap (mind-sets 1,2,4).

Watch the Spurs play sometime—you’ll see these attributes and more.  You’ll see professionals in action.

Honoring An Amazing Men’s Room Attendant

I love hearing of stories about people in non-tradition jobs or situations that really put an  exclamation point on what it means to be a professional.  Lorenzo Robinson, a men’s room attendant at the posh 21 restaurant in Manhattan, is one such person.

To most, his work wasn’t glamorous.  In fact, some might consider his work demeaning. Not Lorenzo.  He glorified his work. Those he served loved him.

Lorenzo’s story reinforces that it isn’t what we do but how we do it that determines whether we are a professional or not. There should be no doubt, Lorenzo was a professional.

Lorenzo Robinson passed away prematurely in late October.  Even though we never met, I’m honored to share his inspiring story.  Here’s a nice article from the New York Times about him.

   

The Ultimate Paradox— When A Leader Voluntarily Steps Down

President George Washington started a precedent, Pope Benedict XVI broke one—both stepped down.  Both did so on their own volition—neither was pushed (think: fired).

Relinquishing one’s responsibilities at the height of one’s power goes against the grain of human nature.   In fact, many may believe that stepping down is a sign of weakness in a leader. That’s not always the case.

I chose to believe that Washington and Pope Benedict did so for the greater good of the entities they led—Washington for the United States; Pope Benedict for the Catholic Church.

In Washington’s case he believed that over time the country would be best served by having a number of people serve as the country’s leader—rather than one person serve indefinitely (as a King would in a monarchy).  Washington was revered; he could have served far beyond his initial two terms. Yet he chose not to.

In Pope Benedict’s case the Catholic Church currently faces many substantive issues.  To effectively deal with those issues, the church’s leader must be both focused and energetic.  It’s no secret that Pope Benedict’s health has deteriorated—largely due to his elevated age (85) —at the time of his resignation.  Today Emeritus Pope Benedict turns 86 with some reporting that he is suffering repeated falls and is nearly blind in one eye. His energy is reportedly waning.  Is it any wonder he chose to step down?

Did these two leaders shirk their responsibilities in stepping down? Not from my perspective! Rather, they did what they felt was in the best interests of the entity they had been entrusted with.  Both were willing to withstand the inevitable second-guessing and criticism that came with their decision.  Isn’t that what we’d expect from someone who realized that “it wasn’t all about them”—consistent with mind-set two?

Four Ways to Make Performance Reviews More Professional and Encourage Greater Professionalism in Our Employees

Sean Conrad is our guest blogger today. He is a senior product analyst and Certified Human Capital Strategist at Halogen Software in Ottawa, Canada. Sean is great at sharing his unique blend of technology expertise and understanding of HR-specific challenges.

Employee performance reviews are a much maligned, but important management process that, when done well, can provide significant benefits to the employee, the manager and the organization.

The problems come in when we fail to conduct them professionally. Here’s a look at how four of the seven mind-sets can help improve the quality, impact, value and professionalism of your employee performance reviews.

1.     Focus on Results (Mind-Set #1)

Both when setting goals, and when evaluating accomplishments and performance, managers and employees need to focus on results. What is the employee accountable for? What are the standards by which success will be measured? What is expected, and what would be considered going beyond expectation?

Recorded goals should clearly lay out all these expectations and form a kind of “performance agreement” between the manager and the employee. Then, when it’s time to review performance and accomplishments, you have clear guidelines for measuring success.

Any performance ratings should be based on the results accomplished, not on a general impression of the employee’s performance, or the manager’s relationship with them. If we want our employees to have a bias for results, we need to start by making sure they understand what results we’re looking for.

2.     Cultivate Core Values  (Mind-Set #4)

As important as focusing on the results accomplished, employee performance reviews also need to consider “how” these results were accomplished. This is where core and job specific competencies come in.

Competencies describe “how” work is done, and describe the qualities of exemplary performance. Every company should carefully select core, leadership and job-specific competencies that reflect its mission and values. Then, actively cultivate these competencies in their employees.

You should include a description of each competency and the different levels of performance on your performance review forms so managers and employees have a clear and shared understanding of expectations.

If we want our staff to have personal standards that transcend organizational ones, we need to lead the way by actively communicating and cultivating organizational values.

3.     Give a Larger Context (Mind-Set #2)

You can foster a more collaborative and accountable workforce by always giving employees a larger context for their work. With goals, it’s important to directly link the employee’s individual goals to the higher level organizational goals they are designed to support.

Likewise, the competencies they will be evaluated on should be linked to their role and to the organization’s mission, culture and values. And any time you assign an employee a development plan, you should also clearly link it to the competency it’s designed to develop, or to the goal it’s designed to support.

This context setting helps employees know they’re part of something bigger and drives accountability and engagement.

4.     Support Development (Mind-Set #7)

Continuous development is another hallmark of professionalism that you can and should foster through your employee performance review process.

One of the chief goals of giving feedback and coaching, evaluating demonstration of competencies, reviewing performance of goals and assigning goals for the coming period should be to encourage the employee’s development, performance and career progression.

If we’re not trying to help employees get better at what they do, what are we really doing? Development and career progression discussions should be part of every performance review. And feedback, coaching and recognition need to be ongoing, year-round activities that continually help the employee to learn and advance.

Driving High Performance and Professionalism

When done professionally, performance reviews help to drive employee engagement, accountability and high performance. Their goal should be to foster continuous development and career advancement and encourage the 7 mind-sets so necessary to professionalism. When they fail to do that, it’s often because of the way we design and conduct our processes.

Sean Conrad is senior product analyst and Certified Human Capital Strategist at Halogen Software and writes regularly about the importance and impact of performance management best-practices.

The (Sometimes Maddening) Need For Precision

A manager is presenting in an important meeting.  He is in the process of making a critical point, yet goes blank as he has forgotten the date he last met with the Chief Marketing Officer (CMO).  The CMO is someone who had played an integral role in the breakthrough the manager is reporting on.  “Let’s see I think I met with the CMO last Wednesday”.  Backpedaling, he painstakingly recants, “no it was Thursday”.   After confusion ensues amongst the group, he changes course once again.  “Wait, it was probably Tuesday”.

The manager has taken nearly a minute attempting to sort this out. That’s an eternity for someone who has been allocated only 15 minutes on the agenda—with five of those minutes committed to Q&A.  The manager seems oblivious to the side-show he has created.  Yet he’s especially pleased with himself when he finally figures out that it was indeed Wednesday when he met with the CMO.  He’s a man who has a high need for precision–someone who (among other things) prides themselves in getting the facts 100% right every time.  To him it’s a badge of honor.

Here’s the problem with people’s need for precision: too often in group settings (think: meetings, teachers instructing, etc) it detracts more than it helps.  This gentleman, for example, ultimately got his fact right but in the process lost his audience.  Plus, the group ultimately lost its momentum after the manager had trouble regaining his mojo.

The irony is that the meeting date with the CMO was inconsequential to the point the manager was attempting to make.  It simply didn’t matter.  Yet the manager seemingly had more invested energy in identifying that arcane fact than his all-important proposition.  The manager got lost in the weeds.  The culprit?  His own need for precision.

Precision, as important as it is, is essential only when it has direct bearing on a desired outcome you’re trying to achieve.  Otherwise, it’s noise.  There are exceptions, but not many.

The opposite also occurs.  How frequently do you see this happen?

A manager is attempting to share an inspiring story about Judy —the company’s promising new COO.  Early on in the manager’s comments to the assembled group of front-line supervisors the manager says,  “Judy was a supervising engineer for only two years before she was promoted to Director.”   Dan, a seasoned front-line supervisor, interrupts, “…actually, it was three years.”

Turns out, Dan was right—but his point added no value to the manager’s insightful perspective about Judy.

A human resources director is reporting on the results from the annual employee satisfaction survey to the company’s top officers.  She is pointing out the implications from the unmistakable downward trend in employee confidence across the entire enterprise.  Arthur, the company’s newest officer, unexpectedly chimes in.  “Yes, but look at the high level of confidence amongst the officer corps.”

Turns out, Arthur was right—but the high level of confidence amongst the officers was clearly an anomaly when contrasted against each and every other group in the company.  Arthur’s comment unfortunately distracted his fellow officer’s focus away from the all-important need for them to understand the dramatic decline in employee confidence.

Brett, a twenty nine year old chemist, makes a recommendation to his GM about how to remove the unwelcome deposits on the company’s boiler tubes. Betty, a twenty four year veteran of the steam generation department, asks Brett during an important group meeting: “what makes you think, after a short six months with this company, that you are in a position to recommend on such an important  issue?”

Turns out Betty was right—Brett was a short-timer, someone who was seemingly ill-equipped to make  such a recommendation.  But Brett had experience.  Turns out, he had helped solve a very similar problem with his last employer.

Each of these latter three examples are variations on people’s need for precision: the first is always representing the facts correctly, the second is never letting an exception go unnoticed, and the third is being unforgiving to those attempting to lead (i.e. expecting perfection).

All three of these are admirable and (usually) well-intended. Yet, it’s not helpful for the group when someone shares an arcane fact that adds no value.  It’s not helpful for the group when someone’s clever observation (think: exception) sidetracks the group from weightier matters.  And it’s especially not helpful for the group when those that attempt lead it come under constant cross-examination as a means of passing someone’s self-appointed credibility test.

Precision is a good thing—it enabled Man to send astronauts to the Moon and return them safely.  Yet, precision isn’t always our friend…no more so than when it becomes maddening to our colleagues!

 

Professionalism To The Rescue

Customers were frustrated by ‘it’, employees were embarrassed by ‘it’, the owners were uncomfortable by ‘it’. What, you ask, is ‘it’?

‘It’ was an archaic (think: 19th century) tracking system for repairs of customers’ mission-critical equipment.  This value-added service has been provided by a well-respected Walnut Creek, CA based company for years.  Trouble is, few people now were seeing the repair service as ‘value added’.  The company did a great job fixing the equipment; it was the process that was the problem.  It certainly was a good thing that the repair service wasn’t ‘core’ to the business.

Consider these ‘equipment repair’ experiences:

***A customer calls in to ask for an estimate (time and money) of getting their equipment repaired.

***A customer asks their representative for a status report on their equipment repair order.

***Employees (of all stripes) would ask the foreman of the repair facility for workload reports and backlog estimates.

In each and every case (regardless of who was asking) people consistently got untimely and inaccurate information from well-intended, but less-than-confident, employees. “Amateur hour” was how one person described it.   It was no wonder that representatives from the company cringed when having to give their customers updates on their repairs.

I first met the owner about six months ago after an address I had given on professional values to business leaders.  My core message that evening:  make professional values your north arrow.  After the address the owner reached out to thank me, indicating that the message had really resonated with him. My address had reinforced something in him that he had always believed….but he had never been taught before that evening.

Little did I know how much the message had resonated with him until I reconnected with him weeks later.  Since our first encounter, he had committed to making every aspect of his business as professional as possible.  He had made a laundry list of things he wanted to change: first and foremost was that antiquated tracking system for equipment repairs.

He smiled as he recounted with me how much fun it had been for him creating the new tracking system.  As a professional, he noted, the new tracking system was something that he always knew he should do. Having made the commitment to himself to center his company around professional values proved to be impetus he needed to get started right away.

Almost from the onset of implementing the new tracking system the company gained 30% additional business in equipment repairs.  And that 30% increase has held steady over these many months.  In other words, it wasn’t a fluke.  Interestingly, the owner says that handling 30% more volume with the new system ‘feels like’ their previous volume with the old system.  In other words, the greater work load hasn’t been a problem at all—even though it’s 30% higher than before. For the benefit of those who desire quantification, that’s a 30% increase in productivity!

His employees love the new system as it really helps their ability to satisfy customers.  And it avoids them looking stupid and feeling embarrassed as they had before with the old system.  It’s proven to be a winner in every way.  The owner can’t wait to make even more changes!  Said another way, he can’t wait to make his operation that much more professional.

Professional upgrades can take a lot of forms—this one happened to involve a system.   All this owner needed was to be reminded that he was a professional and how important that was for his company.  The experience has reignited his commitment to the high standards (e.g. mind-set # 4) he’s always believed in.  His business, his employees and his customers have all benefited.  I can’t wait to see what he’ll undertake next.

 

The Key Mind-Set That Translates To Better Sales Performance

Professionals realize (and act like) they’re part of something bigger than themselves (mind-set two)

Mindset #2 often has the biggest impact on results.

An underdeveloped mindset #2 plays havoc on an organization’s culture—and the results that emanate from that culture.

Consider:

***An executive team that is littered with people who have messiah complexes and regularly back-stab each other.

***A department head whose self-aggrandizing style puts the organizations needs secondary to their own.

***A front-line clerk who believes they have a job—but not responsibilities.

For those familiar with The Power of Professionalism, these examples remind us of the debilitating impacts that the lack of mind-set #2 has on an organizations performance. And sometimes when we think culture, we think inside the organization. Yet culture naturally impacts an organization’s outside world as well.

Take the sales function for instance.  An underdeveloped mind-set #2 clearly hurts sales. Sales leadership expert Lisa Earle McLeod’s research has shown that quota- driven sales people sold substantially less than those sales people who wanted to make a real difference with their customers.  The latter group held mind-set #2 in spades, the former group far less so.

McLeod refers to the ‘difference makers’ as ‘selling with noble purpose’.  Her latest book—Selling With Noble Purpose–outlines the specifics.  McLeod’s research turns on its head the belief that money is the primary motivator for top sales performers.  The irony, of course, is that those whose primary motivation  was on making  a real difference with customers made far more money than those whose primary motivation was money.

For sales people the lesson is clear: put the client’s needs first and the money will follow—you needn’t have to choose between the two.  Isn’t that what you’d expect from a professional?

Trouble is “average reps are usually thinking about themselves and closing the deal”…this according to McLeod.  Whatever attention the average rep pays to the client, it isn’t their full attention.  Many of these reps can’t ‘get beyond themselves’. This doesn’t suggest they’re bad people, but it does suggest they’re subject to the whims of human nature—as we all are. Plus, the fact that most sales managers focus almost exclusively on ‘the numbers’ (at the expense of truly understanding—let alone appreciating– customer needs) no doubt contributes to this problem.

These average reps (and often their managers) simply haven’t yet developed a full appreciation of mind-set #2.  Unfortunately results suffer as a result.  It’s just as true with customers as it is inside the walls of the company.

Don’t Be Mr. Wonderful

This post is not intended to turn people to the dark side; it has no designs of transforming saints into sinners; no nefarious aims of having sensible, good-natured people suddenly worship at the altar of Darth Vader.

That disclosure aside, it bears repeating….don’t be Mr. Wonderful.

You might think that this admonition is a little out of character coming from a guy who has written extensively in The Power of Professionalism about people being their ‘best self’.  Allow me to clarify.

Who, you ask, is Mr. Wonderful?  He is Kevin O’Leary –a self-made Canadian gazillionaire who is one of the five well-heeled judges who star on the mega-hit television show Shark Tank.  For those unfamiliar with Shark Tank, up-and-coming entrepreneurs pitch deals to the judges—hoping to raise desperately-needed capital for their fledgling companies.

Calling them ‘judges’ is really a misnomer—because their primary role is that of ‘potential investor’. They’re really looking to do a deal—that’s why they refer to each other as sharks.  They hold the term  as a badge of honor.  If a shark likes what they hear and the parties come to terms, the shark’s equity stake is secured by writing a big check. They play for keeps; they’re investing their own money.

Naturally, both the sharks and entrepreneurs alike try to get the best deal they can.  Each is trying to get the most out of their investment.  Occasionally the sharks will compete strenuously amongst themselves when the entrepreneur has developed something ‘special’—an extraordinary product or service that the sharks’ sense will have extraordinary potential in the marketplace.          

You can learn a tremendous amount about the sharks as they ‘wheel-and-deal’ and interact with each other.  It’s interesting to see what the sharks ‘bite on’ and what causes them to ‘walk’.  Most sharks are discerning about the deals they enter into, others less so.

With O’Leary, money borders on being an obsession.  O’Leary, who has no shortage opinions when it comes to politics, said he’d run for office but there wasn’t any money in it. From his point-of-view, money is ‘the only thing that matters’.  ‘Pursuing wealth and being an entrepreneur are the most noble endeavors on Earth’ according to O’Leary.

Certainly the other sharks enjoy making money too, but, when compared with O’Leary, they have limits.  They exhibit self-imposed boundaries.  Not so much with O’Leary.  If he thinks the deal will make him money, he’s all over it.

“You’re dead to me” is a common retort O’Leary gives to entrepreneurs who rebuff his advances.  His interrogations are relentless. The cold hard truth not only aptly describes how O’Leary deals with others but is the title of his 2011 book.

His aggressive, unrelenting nature, along with his brutal honesty, earned O’Leary the title ‘Mr. Wonderful’.   The title originated from an off-handed, sarcastic comment born out of disgust from a fellow-shark who despised O’Leary’s approach.   The title, one of derision, was one O’Leary liked—it stuck.

Consider:

1) it is common for an entrepreneur to reveal that, going in, they aspired to do a deal with a certain shark.  Rarely, if ever, is Kevin’s name mentioned.

2) when Kevin is going head-to-head with a fellow shark for a deal, he loses far more than he wins.  Simply put, entrepreneurs don’t pick him much.

3) of the deals where the sharks partner together, Kevin is treated regularly by his colleagues as the ‘shark of last resort’.  In other words, his colleagues aren’t clamoring to partner with him.

These last three points are based solely on my observations as a regular viewer. In spite of the lack of statistically-based evidence, I believe these observations are fair representations.

I repeat….don’t be Mr. Wonderful.

In business, at the end of the day, it’s all about people. In the ‘Tank’, people have shown a reluctance to want to work with Kevin. Why?

***it appears that people are a means to an end with Kevin.  Money is the end and people are the means.  This dynamic typically ends badly.

***most people will have a serious values mismatch with someone like Kevin. For most, money is not ‘the only thing that matters’.   NOTE:  it is guys like O’Leary that give entrepreneurs a bad name.

***most people view nobility (and wealth creation) in a very different light than O’Leary. For most, nobility has far more to do with what one does with their money than merely accumulating it.  Again, the potential for a serious values mismatch exists.

***most people can’t help but take O’Leary’s approach personally. It’s no fun going to work dreading how your business partner will ‘get to you’ today.

People have and will continue to work with Kevin—-but it appears they do so out of need, rather than desire.  While business isn’t about winning popularity contests, it’s also important to point out the obvious—business is a lot more enjoyable, and frequently more profitable, when we’re working with someone we like and whose values we share.  Everything else being equal, who would you rather work with—someone you enjoy working with or someone who ‘gets to you’?

For all I know O’Leary has a different (better?) persona and approach outside of the Shark Tank. If so, good for him. For now, what I do know is that when the key players on the show see Kevin coming they’re all-too-frequently  putting on their shark repellant–hoping he will keep his distance.

My take:  be someone whom people want to work with.  Be disciplined, be tough, be demanding—just don’t be Mr. Wonderful.