The “3 CS” of Career Development
The “3 CS” are a concept developed by consultant Gorick Ng to describe three key areas to the land jobs and further one’s professional career.
To summarise, they stand for:
- Competence
- Commitment
- Compatibility
“Competence” is best described as “can you do the job?” Any lob requires a certain amount of experience and skill (even if it’s very little, such as we might find in a fresh graduate).
More important, it requires that hard to define quality: “attitude”. This means a person’s general predisposition towards doing something (or avoiding it). There’s a famous saying, “hire for attitude, train for skills”, meaning that some people are naturally predisposed to certain jobs. Examples may be “customer service” people. They naturally “get” and can empathise with customers and are therefore ideally suited to this role. Others may not have this predisposition; that doesn’t make them “bad people”, it’s simply means they may be better suited to, say, back office operations where they will shine in managing processes and systems. We all have different “attitudes” but it’s important to ensure we have the right “attitude” for the right job as well.
“Commitment” is that blend of energy and enthusiasm for a particular job. How “hungry” are you for it? Will you quote go the extra mile” to make sure something is done and done well (this may also come under “attitude” above)? One of the more interesting ways an employer might test a job applicants’ “commitment” is to ask, “what do you know about our organisation?” If the applicant knows nothing, they clearly weren’t committed enough to do even basic research.
“Compatibility” means “are you someone we can work with?” I’ve seen complaints in our local paper where the writer commented that they couldn’t get a job despite being the “best qualified” candidate out there. Here, the problem may have been that whilst they were indeed the “best qualified”, they weren’t a nice person!
When someone encounters a hold in their career, it may be due to one or more of the Cs above. Experience and anecdotes from others suggest address that it’s mainly around the “commitment” and compatibility” areas. I’ve certainly experienced a case where, once a boss had cause not to believe in somebody’s commitment, that person became incompatible with them.
My view? It ends up being a “two-way street”. Employees and employers use the “3 Cs” as a framework for development of careers and teams.
I deliver change in markets ranging from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Career, Leadership, Strategy
Can "Feedback" be "Bullying"?
I was talking with a diplomat who told me a story about a colleague who had been accused of “bullying” when they provided performance feedback to a junior member of staff.
It made me think: where does the line between constructive feedback and “bullying” actually lie? One of our roles (if not duties) as leaders is to get people to be the best they can to further their careers. If we spot something that may hold them back, we have not only a professional but (some would say) a moral obligation to inform them.
The problem, as I see it, is that certain people don’t like anything that could be construed as “negative” or “hurtful”. Yes, some feedback will, inevitably, fall into one or both categories (the truth sometimes hurts).
The distinction I draw is that bullying can be defined as “offensive, intimidating, malicious or insulting behaviour involving the misuse of power that can make a person feel vulnerable, upset, humiliated, undermined or threatened" (ACAS).
The Australian Human Rights Commission defines bullying as “… when people repeatedly and intentionally use words or actions against someone or a group of people to cause distress and risk to their wellbeing. These actions are usually done by people who have more influence or power over someone else, or who want to make someone else feel less powerful or helpless. They cite the following examples:
- Keeping someone out of a group (online or offline)
- Acting in an unpleasant way near or towards someone
- Giving nasty looks, making rude gestures, calling names, being rude and impolite, and constantly negative teasing.
- Spreading rumours or lies, or misrepresenting someone (i.e. using their Facebook account to post messages as if it were them)
- “Mucking about” that goes too far
- Harassing someone based on their race, sex, religion, gender or a disability
- Intentionally and repeatedly hurting someone physically
- Intentionally stalking someone
- Taking advantage of any power over someone else like a Prefect or a Student Representative.
In general, bullying must contain three elements. It must be:
- Repeated
- Intentional
- Involve a power imbalance
An even simpler definition might be behaviour with “intent to cause harm”, a “single egregious act” or repeated “hostile” behaviour.
We must balance two risks: the risk that a person may get away with “real” bullying of another against the risk that, to avoid an unpleasant conversation, someone may claim they’re being bullied rather than look to improve their performance.
This is likely to mean that businesses and organisations will need to develop internal definitions of “bullying” (and have them reviewed by a legal expert) to ensure that, whilst staff are protected as much as possible, they can be given valid, constructive feedback to improve their performance.
I deliver change in markets ranging from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Career, Leadership, Social, Teamwork
"Funnel" vs "Umbrella" Management
Justin Wright in an article on LinkedIn distinguishes between two very different sets of behaviour that result in either a distracted team or a productive team.
What matters? Whether their manager is a “funnel manager” or an “umbrella manager”.
Let’s start with the distracted team: these are the ones with the “funnel manager”. Imagine being part of a team and overhead of you all is a giant funnel on top of which sits the team manager. Into this funnel, the manager just puts everything:
- Office politics
- (Too many!) meetings
- End of day fire drills
- Unrealistic deadlines
- Changes in project scope (scope creep)
- Refusing to deal with toxic coworkers
- Rumours and gossip
- Office politics.
Small wonder that, bombarded by all this information and activity, a team doesn’t know where to focus its energy.
The “umbrella manager” does the exact opposite instead of placing their funnel above the team and then sitting on top of that, they sit with their team and hold an umbrella over them. This umbrella deflects all the “toxic distractions” that rain down on the team. In other words, the “umbrella manager” shields the team from distractions to allow them to deal with their work.
The results? For the “funnel manager” a distracted, demoralised and frustrated team with no direction or priorities who often failed to deliver results.
Contrast this with the umbrella manager’s team who know that they are shielded as much as possible. The differences in behaviour are easy to understand, but perhaps less easy to put into practice with all the pressures on modern day leaders.
I previously wrote about an example of a “funnel effect” on our business. I’m still waiting for a response and doubt I’ll ever get one.
How many of our team may need help on this, or how many more businesses like that are out there? How can we as leaders, help them?
I deliver change in markets ranging from the most developed to “emerging” economies. With a wealth of international experience in international financial services around the world running different operations and lending businesses, I started my own Consultancy to provide solutions for improving performance, productivity and risk management. I work with individuals, small businesses, charities, quoted companies and academic institutions across the world. An international speaker, trainer, author and fund-raiser, I can be contacted by email.
Labels: Leadership, Productivity, Teamwork
