The Metiss Group's Blog

Recruiting does not end when a new employee starts. It is important to cement retention during the first 90 days of employment. Hiring managers must make sure the employee’s desk is prepared for their first day.  Do they have a computer? Are their phones ready? Is their work area ready?  Is there a plan for their first few days, including lunch?  And most important of all: do they understand their accountabilities?

Hiring managers should meet with the new direct report on their first day, and on a regular basis during the first 90 days to provide feedback and review the new hire’s accountabilities. It is best for the hiring manager to formally check in with the new direct report at 30, 60, and 90 days to see if their expectations match reality, whether they have all of the resources they need, and to provide mutual feedback.

Hiring managers need a plan to provide adequate training and resources for the new direct report so that they can be successful. This doesn’t mean just providing them with manuals to read.  Hiring managers should have the new hire shadow people in different areas or have some of the most experienced people share war stories.  If they must read manuals, schedule breaks at various sections of the manual to discuss application of what they read to the work they will be doing.

Considering all of the hiring manager’s resources it took to recruit a new hire, it is important for them to cement the relationship with the new hire and empower them for success right from the beginning.

Microsoft announced a few years ago they are abandoning their controversial “stack ranking” system for evaluating employees.  For years, Microsoft managers had been required to grade employees against one another and rank them on a scale of one to five.  Under this approach, some employees must receive an unfavorable review based on how they compared to their peers, regardless of the quality of their work or their accomplishments.  This created great angst for both managers and employees and was the primary factor for Microsoft’s poor morale.

Jack Welch similarly mandated a 20-70-10 differentiation process at GE.  Each GE department head was required to identify 20% of their superstars, 70% producers, and the 10% low performers needing to be terminated.  Even in an organization as large as GE, both managers and employees rejected this approach.

There is nothing wrong with differentiating a team – superstars should be treated differently than questionable contributors – but forced ranking is not the best approach.  The best differentiation models identify specific rigid criteria required to be identified as a superstar, producer, or questionable. It doesn’t matter what percent of a team are superstars as long as they achieve or surpass the established challenging success factors (both achievement metrics and cultural/behavioral performance). Similarly, those team members failing to meet their success factors and falling into the questionable category should be working on an exit plan, regardless what percent of the team this represents.

Empowered leaders who differentiate based on predetermined success factors instead of a forced ranking have more successful teams.

Job accountabilities are the three to five major job function groupings every job should have.  Within each of the accountabilities, there are the job function details, expected percentage of time spent, and success factors.  For added clarity and to help the direct report when faced with conflicting activities, prioritize the accountabilities.

Typical sales accountabilities are prospecting, closing the sale, post sales service, and administrative activities.  What is the most important function?  Is closing the sale more important than prospecting?  Prioritizing accountabilities ensure the leader and the direct report are on the same page.

Leaders should spend time with their direct reports and help them prioritize their accountabilities.  If everything seems equal, at least come up with a #1 priority (the best way to determine the #1 accountability is to ask if the direct report has an extra 30 minutes before their week ends, in what job function should they spend their time).

Leaders who prioritize their direct report’s job functions empower them to focus on what is most important for success.

Okay, maybe timing is not everything but it means a lot!

Generally speaking, feedback should be delivered immediately following an observed behavior and specific to what was observed to be most impactful.  The exception is when leaders are white-hot where delivering the feedback is likely to result in much credibility loss and the recipient will focus more on how angry or frustrated the leader is and less on what they should do in the future.

In those rare situations when frustrated beyond belief, exercising the 24-hour cool-off rule is very appropriate.  Simply indicate to the direct report something like “Let’s meet tomorrow at 9:00 when we’re both more calm to discuss what can be done to turn this situation around and prevent it from happening in the future.  I’m afraid meeting about it now may not be very productive for either of us.”

It’s okay for leaders to let their direct report know they are disappointed or angry without taking it out on them.

Leaders who empower direct reports by encouraging them to be part of the solution and don’t blame them for the negative situation will be more successful.

We’ve all seen it several times: the emerging superstar or long-time warrior who’s excelled at all the challenges the organization has given them.  Their career path was impressive and the organization has benefited handsomely from the high-performer’s contributions.  The next logical step up the ladder is a managerial role.  This is where the superstar fails and the organization has not only lost one of its most valued contributors, they now have a leadership issue.

Not every superstar makes a great leader and great leaders were not always superstar contributors.  Though leadership skills can and should be developed, a high-performer’s leadership potential must be evaluated before they are promoted.  Delegation tendencies, strategic focus, situational control, humility, and people awareness can all be assessed BEFORE someone is promoted.  Understanding a superstar’s limitations before setting them up for failure can prevent the loss of a great asset and a managerial headache.  In fact, many organizations have two high potential career tracks: one for high performers with leadership potential and one for strong individual contributors.

Empowered leaders assess a superstar’s leadership potential before promoting them to a leadership role and both are more successful.

There are varying degrees of steadiness. Some people are focused, unyielding, and highly frustrated by distractions. Some are flexible, multi-tasked, and enjoy distractions. Some are a little of both.

How does the ubiquity of technological distractions today impact our ability to be productive? How do the super-steady types avoid getting frustrated with all the interruptions? And how do the easily distracted types garner enough focus to finish anything?

The answer is: we adapt to the situation for short periods of time. Our ability to adapt is largely a function of our cognitive abilities. We must continuously adjust our natural style and what feels comfortable; we must either block out the interruption or respond to it. Those with strong cognitive abilities are likely to be most successful in adapting to today’s work environment.

Leaders should encourage their direct reports to develop their cognitive abilities and screen new-hire candidates for their thinking abilities.

Empowered direct reports focus on their critical thinking skills and are more successful.