Posts Tagged ‘Puppy Theory’

Bench the Player/Coach

October 27, 2009 Charlie Judy 4 comments

Pete RoseHas anyone else out there given up on the idea that Managers have to be good developers of people?  I’m close…real close.  I’m not saying they can’t be or they shouldn’t be.  I am just saying that if they aren’t, they should get the hell out-of-the-way.  I know there are some companies out there that do a really good job of holding their managers accountable to this aspect of their role – providing them with the appropriate training, measures, incentives and accountability tools.  If you work for one of those companies, you’re lucky.  The majority of us, however, are more familiar with those organizations that will always let the manager’s contribution to the bottom line (as measured by traditional financial results) shadow any ineffectiveness in promoting and developing their people.  Ya know what, I’m OK with that.  But admit it and stop trying to pay lip service – and throw resources out the window – to the idea that the management team is good at and responsible for the advancement of staff.  Being a good developer, a good coach, isn’t something you just flip a switch on like “ok you’re a manager now, get at it…your employees are waiting.”   You may ask any ole’ father to coach the third grade soccer team, but you wouldn’t let him get close to the coaching staff of a World Cup team.  And Pete Rose was marginal as a player/coach…remember that?  Isn’t this the workplace equivalent?  Let’s face it, most of the time managers learn how to develop people directly from their managers and most of the time those managers suck at development too.  Here’s the cold hard reality: even if managers are good at development, even if they want to be more active in and deliberate with their employees’ advancement, there will always be something else which will occupy the number one spot on a long list of priorities…always!  And who suffers?  The employee…always!

So why not hire a couple of full-time coaches who can keep it as the number one spot on a short list of priorities?  People who are educated, trained, experienced, and proven to be effective in getting people to identify key areas for development, helping them focus on those areas, and then holding them accountable to them.  Have them work closely with the manager in gaining perspective and insight to the employee’s needs, but then let them get back to what they are good at (or to whatever the squeaky wheel is).  Two full-time coaches could provide up to 4 hours of dedicated coaching time annually for each employee in a 1,000 person organization.  Imagine what you could do with that.  And we’re not talking about a huge investment; plus any investment will be offset by the heightened productivity of your managers who no longer need to worry about filling out evaluation forms, etc.  And these coaches won’t just be “going through the motions.”  They’ll be making measurable and meaningful impact to the employees’ preparedness, productivity, potential, and advancement.  They can help cull the low performers and keep the HiPos.  They can help manage risk, plan for succession, and on and on and on…

Does anyone out there do something like this with success?  If so, how?  If not, why?

Categories: Performance Management Tags: Advancement, Career, Coach, Employee, Employee Satisfaction, Evaluations, Human Capital, Managers, Performance, Pete Rose, Puppy Theory, Retention, Soccer, World Cup

Annual Reviews…Who Needs Them?

October 18, 2009 Charlie Judy 2 comments

yahoo ceoThe New York Times had a good “Corner Office” piece with Carol Bartz, CEO of Yahoo, on Sunday.  Any time some one as accomplished as she uses the word “antiquated” when referring to an HR program, it gets my attention.  Ms. Bartz is apparently a fan of the “puppy theory” when providing feedback – both praise and criticism need to be immediate.  Nothing worse than looking back on what could have been done more effectively…eight months ago.  Not only is the impact diminished, but the chances of even getting the feedback are drastically reduced.  Do we over-engineer the performance review process?  Should we focus less on the forms, the process, the accountability and focus more on behavior modification – conditioning our managers to give feedback ALL THE TIME.  Ms. Bartz goes as far to say that if “[she] had [her] way, [she] wouldn’t even do annual reviews.”  Well all righty, then.  And why the hell not not?  The only reason we really do the year-end reviews is so we can check a box and show everyone we care about performance management.  When we give managers a chance to formally practice providing meaningful feedback only once a year, those managers are more likely to put it on the shelf for the next twelve months.  Let’s find a way to make sure our managers are giving feedback all year long and – maybe more importantly – that our employees are asking for it, expecting it, even demanding it!  And one more thing: take a look at your current review form.  If it’s more than 1 page, it’s probably too long. (Sorry - pet peeve)

Categories: Performance Management Tags: Carol Bartz, CEO, Feedback, HR, Human Capital, Human Resources, New York Times, Performance, Pet Peeve, Puppy Theory, Yahoo