I Don’t Understand What You Do
This was the phrase a recruitment agent (or “headhunter”) used with me once.
Thanks to my varied international leadership background, I didn’t fit into any one neat little “box” that they could relate to. I’d run retail banking operations, middle office operations, trade finance operations, worked in HR and also as a corporate lending manager. I’d overseen correspondent banking relationships for Asia and worked in an investment bank on the client management team. Before all that, I’d been a ships agent in the South of France!
I’d worked in nine different countries, each with its own separate culture leading teams there. To be honest, I don’t think these poor people had ever encountered anyone with the same experience before!
No wonder they were confused!
At the time I thought it was their job to work out what I was good at and could offer to others.
No.
After having run countless CV writing and interview sessions where I tell my delegates that quite often, they have to “make it easy to understand them”, I realised that I’d failed to understand where the recruiting agent was coming from. Their job was to match up the right candidate with the right job.
What they needed from me was what I felt would be the right job. I had plenty of transferable skills, but people want to know where those skills will help them.
I don’t think any “headhunter” ever refused to meet me (some even called me out of the blue!) but I understand now why they found it difficult to “place” me. I needed to help them understand what I could do better. That was on me and I didn’t realise it at the time.
As people go through either the job hunting or interviewing process (either as an interview or interviewer) we fail to understand the other person’s position. Interviewers want to know, quite simply, whether we will help their organisation succeed in its goals and it’s up to us to understand the organisation, the industry in which it operates and its goals through diligent research. Knowing this, it’s far easier to relate our past experience and our current skills to what the employer may need in our view.
One of the best pieces of advice I was ever given by one of my university tutors was, “Always assume that the person reading your essay is an idiot,” he then added with a grin, “especially if it’s me!”
Those words have stuck with me ever since. He didn’t mean that I should assume I was more intelligent than anyone else but rather that sometimes people think in different ways and need help understanding another person.
I now understand better where I went wrong and can help others overcome this in their job searches or when they’re interviewing others. It’s taken time but I can now pass that hard-learned lesson onto others.
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, Selling, Strategy
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
Are We Forgetting How to Plan?
Modern communications and business practices mean that, generally, we can communicate faster than we did before and respond likewise.
Pressure of competition has led more and more businesses to respond at ever increasing speed to client needs. After all, if you don’t reply in what your client considers a “timely manner”, they can go somewhere else. The only exception to this are government services and monopolies who don’t have to worry about competition.
When I first started studying the art of time management, one of the first lessons was that we have no control over other people or external events (although we may be able to influence them). This meant we had to allow for delays, being on leave, and all other factors. Nowadays it seems that no one understands this concept and expects an answer almost as soon as they’ve sent their text or email message.
An added challenge is that things can change so fast these days, that plans made last month may be rendered irrelevant this month (remember COVID?). How do we plan for an increasingly uncertain world?
It does suggest that the art of planning is disappearing. Our counter parties have other things on their minds apart from us and we need to take that into account and, indeed, respect it. The exception is when we hold the “upper hand” over the other and can demand action. However, demanding turnaround of one’s request within 24 hours is just as likely to result in a botch job due to lack of time to give it full consideration.
Time management is a skill that every individual needs. The ability to plan comes not only with understanding time management but also as one gains in experience.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets 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, Crisis Management, Leadership, Productivity, Strategy, Teamwork
Should We Ditch “Traditional” Performance Reviews?
Performance reviews can turn into the bane of one’s life either as an appraisee or appraiser.
As leaders, part of our job is to encourage our team to be the “best they can”. Equally, anyone with ambition wants to improve their performance and make themselves more valuable. Yes, there are people who are “happy where they are” but others want to see how far they can push their personal boundaries.
The problem with performance reviews was that they’ve been through a cycle of being:
- Annual events to…
- Quarterly events to…
- One-on-one periodic sessions
To make things more complex, there’s a feeling that the more complex the performance review process is, the more “scientific” it must be. From performance metrics to behavioural trait assessments to 360° peer reviews, everything is thrown into the proverbial pot. This makes them an ordeal for both appraisers and appraisees.
What finally seems to matter in most cases is whether the appraisee “gets on” with their peers, their juniors, their bosses and their bosses’ bosses. The risk here is that competence becomes less important as people spend more time “fudging” their results and playing politics.
The move now seems to be more towards a more organic, practical process of on-the-spot feedback positive and negative), acknowledging success in team meetings and through company email or private check-in when needed. Some feel that this makes them faster, more honest and connects them more as a team whilst at the same time freeing them up for more actual work.
How the process described above operates, I don’t know. I suspect there still must be a degree of “getting on” with others but, at the very least, one doesn’t have to wait until the end of the year to receive a potentially “nasty surprise” when one thinks one has done well but it turns out that nobody else (for whatever reason) is of the same opinion.
Is the “traditional performance appraisal” a relic of the past? In some ways, perhaps yes. However, appraisal is still very much a live topic. My view? If the team enjoys working together and produces results, they’re effective and that deserves a good appraisal.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets 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, Teamwork
Is "Ageism" Real?
“Ageism” can be defined as “bias or prejudice against people over a certain age who are treated unfairly as a result”.
The problem is that individual views on what constitutes and “older” person differ. Nowadays, people live longer, generally retain their physical and mental health longer and can be productive workers for longer than in the past thanks to advances in technology and medical science.
We’ve seen examples of ageism: “humorous” birthday cards mocking older people which impact others’ views come to mind in particular. The disparaging “OK Boomer!” response to anyone older giving advice is also common. This results in a number of consequences including job prospects for all the people
Examples people have experience include:
- Being patronised.
- Losing or not being hired for a job because of your age.
- Being refused credit, car insurance, travel insurance.
- Low quality of service in shops or restaurants.
- Being refused membership to clubs or associations because of age.
Some employers won’t hire people over a certain age on the grounds that they’re “too old” and may require more time off, more healthcare, more pay, may be slower and a variety of other reasons. In some cases, this may be true, but perhaps no truer than for younger counterparts with the new diagnosed medical conditions that require special consideration or allowances. These seem to have impacted less on their ability to find work.
The proliferating number of “conditions” requiring special care or conditions of work is increasing. The case for discriminating against older people however they’re defined, is at best, weak.
Let’s consider some of the advantages of hiring an “older” worker:
- They have life experience that their younger counterparts lack, enabling them to solve problems younger ones can’t.
- They have “human skills” that again many of their younger counterparts lack.
- They’re likely to be more patient when confronted with adverse situations.
In short, discriminating against older people because of their age is just as unacceptable as discriminating against people based on gender, race, religion, orientation, political views etc.
Wouldn’t it be ironic if “reverse ageism”, where people discriminated against younger people again because of their age, suddenly made an appearance?
As business leaders, it’s our job to ensure we hire only the best, no matter their age. "Inclusivity" starts with us!
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets 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, Productivity, Social, Strategy, Teamwork
The Importance of Deadlines
Our lives are about getting things done – either by ourselves or (as leaders) through others.
One of the aspects of leadership and task management that receives less attention than it deserves is setting deadlines. We’ve probably heard the phrase “they want it done yesterday!” meaning that (senior management - or whoever) want something done as soon as possible.
Not setting deadlines has a significant impact on how people prioritise. If the deadline’s close, they’ll put it at the top of their list. The human mind naturally focuses on tasks with deadlines versus tasks without. As a result, they prioritise what’s “urgent” but not always “important”. This phenomenon has been well documented in what’s known as the Eisenhower Matrix which provides a graphic representation of the differences on how we should handle tasks that are:
- “Urgent and important”
- “Urgent but not important”
- “Important but not urgent”
- “Neither urgent nor important”
We tend to focus on the “urgent” tasks, whether they’re “important” or not at the expense of the “important but not (yet) urgent” tasks.
Setting deadlines is vital to all our activities as leaders. Some leaders are excellent at giving deadlines for every task delegated (and sometimes the deadline is even realistic!). Others, however, just describe the task but not when they need it done. A week later they come back asking “why haven’t you done it?” Or “is it ready yet?” Of course, the person to whom the task was delegated may well answer in the negative as they didn’t realise that that task needed to be completed within (say) a week.
Another practice I came across when delegating tasks was for a leader to say, “unless I say otherwise, I want things done within a week.” Giving this kind of guidance saves time on both sides.
Equally, we as team members need to get into the habit of asking “what’s the deadline?” if none is specified (and if our leader tends not to set deadlines).
My (unspoken) guideline for responses to emails that I send is latest seven days of the date of that email (unless I specify otherwise). I diarise to chase after a week, so that the recipient knows I’ll be keeping an eye on them. Is this fair? Perhaps not, but it does work for me and means that I stay “on top” of things.
A common email fault is people prefacing emails with “urgent” (often in capitals followed by two exclamation marks!!) The problem is that if this is their habit, recipients will realise very quickly that most messages from that person aren’t “urgent’ and won’t prioritise them in as such.
Setting expectations in terms of deadlines as a leader is critical to the smooth functioning of our team. New team members should be told that we expect them to respond to a delegated task within (say) one week unless specified otherwise. We should also be explaining to them that, if they run into problems, they should let us know so that we can arrange support.
Another issuing encountered was a team member’s perception that everyone else’s deadlines weren’t important (let alone urgent). It wasn’t until I explained that often, when I set them a deadline, it was so that information could be gathered to pass onto another senior manager who had to consolidate that information with other information before submitting it to a more senior manager within that senior manager’s deadlines. This resulted in a “lightbulb moment” for that colleague who’d clearly never considered this. Once they knew how to distinguish things that might be urgent and what their potential remedy was, they were able to plan their day as well.
I explained that if this person felt that the deadline was unrealistic, they should say so and explain why to allow us to ask for an extension if possible (or at the very least explain why meeting the deadline might result in substandard information being supplied).
Like “urgent” emails, this only works if it’s applied sparingly. If it becomes a habit, you’ll only gain a reputation of being disorganised, incapable, a poor planner, bad at prioritising or whatever people care to describe you as.
(Interestingly, I’ve observed that human beings also tend to meet deadlines which are important to them, aside from those that are perceived as urgent and imposed by others.)
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets 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, Productivity, Teamwork
Working With Entrepreneurs
I’ve been lucky enough to work for two global finance organisations as well as with numerous entrepreneurs in my consultancy roles.
Large organisations are, very different to a small business (usually headed by the founder). I continue to learn from entrepreneurs but can say now that there are several commonalities amongst all of them.
The first is a burning desire to bring something to market. It could be a product, a service, a solution to a problem, a way of doing something better cheaper faster or whatever. Whatever it is, they’ve found a way to do it and to do it well enough that people are prepared to pay for it. The thing is, only they really understand what it is they’re trying to achieve.
Following on from the above, once an entrepreneur has defined what it is that they want to do, they go “all out” to see their vision come true. They’ll work 24/7 to make it happen.
Another is what many of us may call “absent mindedness” or “inability to concentrate for long periods of time”. Entrepreneurs’ minds work very differently from those of their workers. They’re thinking about different things continuously and re-prioritising as they go. They may be accused of “forgetting what you said five minutes ago” but usually what’s happened is that something more urgent has appeared on their “radar” (unbeknown to you) and they need to deal with that. The key: keep your interactions short and to the point. Don’t waffle.
Not only are they thinking about the immediate present and what needs doing, they’re thinking about the future. They’re chairman of the board, director, CEO, chief finance officer, head of sales, head of product development, head of manufacturing and even head of logistics!
Many (but not necessarily all) entrepreneurs are also extremely flexible and patient (when they need to be). They have to be if their business is to flourish. Whilst their workers may have the “luxury” of getting impatient with others, entrepreneurs appreciate that often they have to “suck it up” if they’re to get the business. They’re great at finding solutions and ways around a problem.
Another trait that many have is they’re consummate salespeople. Again, this may not apply to all but it does to those with whom I’ve worked so far. Even if they have to take on someone as a “professional” sales person, they still have to “sell” their idea, product or service to that person.
Entrepreneurs aren’t always good when it comes to the details. That doesn’t mean they “don’t do detail”, it’s just that they tend to have the idea first and worry about details as they go along. I’ve been amazed at the level of detail into which some of the entrepreneurs with whom I’ve worked have gone, but equally there are others who need others to “make it work”. It’s a case of “have your people call my people”.
Are you an entrepreneur and do you see yourself in any of these? Would you add more?
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets 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. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services.
Labels: Career, Leadership, Productivity, Selling
Pointing Out "Substandard Behaviour"
We all dread it: the “Performance Review”, “One on One” or “Feedback Session” in which we as leaders are compelled to point out that an employee may have performed in a less than satisfactory manner.
Humans are “hardwired” not to harm their fellows (except in self-defence). We’re “social animals” and don’t like hurting each other. It’s also a natural self-preservation instinct, perhaps stemming from the days where the individual belonged to a tribe and that was what gave them strength.
Substandard behaviour, however, is one thing we can't allow. It can destroy the productivity, morale and cohesiveness of otherwise good teams (I’ve experienced it). It has to be dealt with - fast.
We all have to point up poor behaviour from time to time. A simple four-step formula is provided by Betsy Allen who suggests:
1. State the problem clearly, e.g.: “I notice you’ve been late to work recently.”
2. Explain why this is a problem and how the behaviour impacts you and all the team. For example, “This affects the start time for the rest of the team,” or “this is causing your fellow team members to grumble.” (although the last may provoke tension amongst the team members involved!)
3. Provide a way of correcting the behaviour, for example “I need you to be here at 9:00 am from here on in.”
4. Finally, state what will happen if the poor behaviour continues, for example “If you’re late again, I’ll need to take further disciplinary action.”
The last part can be the most difficult of all (especially if you have to implement it - and people will test you to see if you "put your money where your mouth is"). It’s natural for people to be defensive, resentful and even aggressive when they’re being criticised. This is why we need to:
- Point out the specific behaviour causing the problem.
- Explain why it’s a problem.
- What can be done to correct the problem.
- The consequences if the problem continues.
If the worker concerned refuses to take accountability for their behaviour or points out that “others do the same”, we explain that we’re looking at their behaviour in this particular instance. One hopes that other workers aren’t also coming in late (and, if they are, is it because their “ring leader” - the staff we’re talking to now - is the cause of it?)
The key here is to ensure that we stop objections such as, “But everyone else is doing it,” or “I’m not the only one doing it.” These are “gaslighting” techniques used to deflect accountability for behaviour. It’s always someone else’s fault!
If, indeed, the whole team are guilty of coming in late, then a simple warning to the team should be sufficient. That way, everybody will know that being late is unacceptable in our team.
If the worker in question persists in the behaviour, then there’s only one final solution for it…
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets 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. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services.
Labels: Career, Leadership, Productivity, Teamwork
Learning Through Mistakes
I’ve come to realise that you can’t develop leaders and good decision-making without also allowing people to make mistakes and (preferably) learn from them!
The best way to learn is to make mistakes. None of us remember learning to walk but if you ever watch an infant learning, you’ll notice that they’ll keep falling over and picking themselves up until they “get it right”.
Whilst it may be dangerous (financially and – or for health and safety reasons) to allow people to fail too often, learning from one’s mistakes provides the best experience for the next generation of leaders. As that famous philosopher “someone “said, “Good decisions are the result of experience. Experience is the result of poor decisions.”
The skill of the leader who’s bringing up the next generation is to know when they can be allowed to fail (without provoking disastrous consequences) and when to give them closer guidance. What many notice is that, in the beginning, a fair degree of “hands on” instruction and guidance is necessary, but as the “apprentice” gains in experience, confidence and commitment to the organisation and shows they are capable of either thinking things through or, at least, knowing when to ask for help or advice then one can slowly “let go the reins”.
Not only will this develop a capable generation of leaders, but it also allows their leaders to spend time on other important tasks, adding value to the organisation. The culture of the “blame game” where aspiring leaders are allowed to fall flat on their proverbial face is neither building nor likely to develop leaders. Indeed, it will only serve to develop a generation of risk avoiders who when faced with a crisis, either “pass the buck” or are likely to lead the organisation to disaster.
I have seen the results described above in a number of cases. All decisions as a result are referred “up the line””.
Scientific studies have shown that humans are mentally conditioned to avoid action that could result in a loss, more so than to take a risk that may result in a substantial gain to them or their organisation. This is probably due to our old “survival instinct” from man’s early days. Whilst it may still be applicable in certain situations, it doesn’t apply to all.
We’ll never eliminate risk entirely unless we refuse to take any action with any degree of risk. We can however coach the next generation of leaders to think for themselves in such a way that they examine a situation critically, consult with others and take the most well-considered and informed choice available to them based on experience.
How is your organisation set up for this?
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets 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. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services.
Labels: Career, Leadership, Risk, Teamwork
7 Signs of Great Leaders
We’ve only experienced them: “good” and “bad” leaders. Sometimes we know what it is that makes them a “good” or “bad”. At others we may take more time to identify exactly what it is.
Eric Partaker has managed to distil seven qualities of “good” leader leaders.
1. He starts with the fact that a good leader always gives you credit. Your hard work is noticed, recognised and they make sure everyone knows that you contributed to the team success.
2. Good leaders also welcome other people’s ideas. They create an environment where it’s safe to for their people to give voice to thoughts and suggestions. There’s no paranoia about being “outshone”.
3. Good leaders also encourage and support their staff in developing. Good ones offer opportunities and really push you to be the best you can be.
4. Something that’s (perhaps comparatively) rare is that a good leader cares for their people’s well-being (not trust their work). They check in regularly and make sure you get support when you’re facing difficult times.
5. Even rarer (in some cultures), but following on from 4 above, is that good leaders respect their workers’ personal time. In fact, they encourage them to take time off and really “disconnect” from work.
6. They lead by example. In other words, good leaders “walk the walk” (and talk). They’ll also hold their workers to high standards and hold them accountable for maintaining them (and show them the consequences of failing to do so). They’ll train them in these standards, but they won’t micromanage them; if they do, it means they aren’t willing to make them accountable.
7. Finally (and the trickiest feature for some) is that good leaders think about how their decision decisions affect others. They’ll explain their decisions and help their people overcome any changes that these bring about. They’ll also do what’s best for everyone’s and the organisation’s long-term future.
In short, as one of my friends said, “leadership is about legwork” - walking the talk, checking in with people, asking for ideas and showing the way.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets 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. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services.
Labels: Career, Leadership, Teamwork
The Recruitment Nightmare (For All)
I provide training to students in CV writing and interviewing. Of the common complaints they have is that they don't hear from recruiters after sending in their application. To be fair, recruiters have also complained that candidates “ghost” them at interviews (don’t show up and don’t provide a reason)…
My answer to candidates is twofold:
- Were you making a “speculative” application or
- Were you responding to a job advert?
In the case of speculative applications, my feeling is that, depending on its size, it’s a 50-50 chance as to whether the organisation replies quickly or not at all. After all, this is an unsolicited application. However, when someone is responding to a specific advertisement for a specific job, it should be common courtesy to reply one way or the other. Here’s where the problem starts. Recruiters are becoming overwhelmed with the number of applications received, even for a specific job after posting a specific job advertisement. We may see phrases such as “only successful applicants will be informed”. My suggestion to anyone who does this is to specify a time by which applicants can expect to be informed (and therefore, by extension, the date after which unsuccessful applicants can consider their application “unsuccessful ”).
Even where one is making a speculative application, the recipient should treat it with a degree of professionalism. After all they’re being complimented by someone thinking that they are worth applying to! You also never know, if you “ghost” that applicant today, tomorrow they may be in a position where they can refer business to you and will remember how unprofessionally they were treated when they applied. Fate can be a fickle mistress!
How does your organisation respond to job applications? If, when posting a job advertisement, it states that “only successful applicants will be notified”, does it say by when this will happen?
The third situation I’ve encountered with my trainees is that they make an application and then some three months later are called for interview! It’s at this point that they should seriously be considering whether they shouldn’t have chased their application any earlier. In some markets recruiters may not react, favourably to this kind of “pushing”. Unfortunately each market has its own peculiar culture and each organisation is different.
My conclusions:
Recruiters: if you aren’t going to respond to every applicant, at least give a date by which everyone can expect to have heard one way or the other.
Jobhunters: if no date is given for when you should have received a response, diarise to chase (say) a week after the deadline and, if you hear nothing, a week after that and a week after that. After three chasers, consider your application “unsuccessful” and move on.
I’ve spent more than half my life delivering change in different world markets 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. My website provides a full picture of my portfolio of services.
Labels: Career, Selling
