Retaining Talent – Talent Revolution

Contrarian thoughts on PIPs

Lauren Webber and Chip Cutter of the Wall Street Journal wrote about performance improvement plans (PIPs) the other day — click here for the article. What they found is striking: today, nearly 44 out of every 1,000 workers face formal performance procedures. That’s up significantly from just a few years ago. In their article, they trace how PIPs got their start, how managers respond, and how employees respond. No surprises, nobody likes them — except lawyers protecting their clients.

I don’t believe PIPs effectively manage performance. If a manager must resort to a formal measure of performance management, then what has that manager been doing during the lifetime of the employee? The data backs this up – at Cisco, they found that 90% of employees who received a PIP left within a year, whether they survived the process or not. That’s not performance improvement – that’s a slow-motion exit.

Great leaders actively share feedback that helps employees grow and perform better — in real time if possible. Take Michael Pizzorno’s approach at Salient Medical Solutions: address issues through daily conversations that escalate in intensity when needed. No formal documentation, no bureaucratic process – just direct, honest communication.

I don’t believe PIPs are effective for employee experience. Even as a child, I knew of incident reports, academic success reports, JUG (justice under God – a Jesuit thing), I’ve heard of pink slips, and more. These images are symbols that represent danger. A PIP is no different – it’s a symbol that something is wrong; and your employees know it. The numbers tell the story – only 10-25% of employees survive PIPs. That’s not a development tool; that’s a exit ramp.

The alternative is simple — mutually agree on an end date and give a generous severance. This agreement gives employees the dignity to walk out with their head held high and an opportunity to close work relationships. All around, a much more pleasant and supportive experience. As HR veteran Steve Cadigan puts it, when given the choice between a PIP and a generous severance package, 75% of employees choose to leave – proof that even they know PIPs are usually just window dressing.

Some jobs work out, some don’t. It’s a traumatic experience to lose a job. Why make it worse with a device like a PIP? Remove the bureaucracy, and treat your team with dignity. In today’s world of AI pressures and post-COVID workplace adjustments, we need more humanity in our management approaches, not less.

Another thought on listening

I wrote about listening a few days ago. Then yesterday, I came across this paper by way of HBR. The paper studies psychological safety and its correlation to how teams learn and adapt. Unsurprisingly, the study finds many positive correlations between psychological safety and team performance. I list a few below.

Direct relationship with performance. Team psychological safety was positively associated with team learning behavior (seeking feedback, discussing errors, experimenting, adapting, improving).
Reduced friction caused by power and team dynamics. Teams with higher psychological safety give back greater returns to their employers in the form of learning, adaptation, output, and feedback to upward feedback.
Teams that are high in “team learning behavior” have high psychological safety and perform better… in fact, it reshapes our earlier thoughts on efficiency.
Team efficiency may be less important for helping teams learn than we thought. Psychological safety may be the friction reducing mechanism that enables more learning and productivity.

You saw the concept “team learning behavior” a few times. The concept describes how a team works. Seeking feedback, continuous improvement, and shipping work are all hallmarks of high performing teams and teams high in “team learning behavior.” It just happens to follow that teams that demonstrate high team learning behavior also are more likely to be high in psychological safety.

One Useful Thing

As a savvy leader, the best thing you can do is create space and time to get better at interpersonal communication.

Listen more and better.
Wait a beat before decision.
Ask more “what if” and “how might we” and “ooh, that’s interesting, how did that…” style questions.

These behaviors act as signals that communicate your desire for more openness. When your team perceives openness, they’ll begin feeling confidence to be more generative. Generative teams ship work. You only grow if you ship.

I hope I’ve shown that three simple behaviors above can start you on a path to increasing team learning behavior and improving the psychological safety of your team.

Investing in listening, and executive presence.

Talent: I’d like to speak about how we communicate with each other. I’m hoping we can work out something, I feel we’re not communicating well.

Leader: Is this really a good use of our time?

How confident are you at this conversation is not happening within your org?

At work, humans typically work with other humans to create meaningful and valuable outputs. For that work to happen, communication must happen. And communication is both a beautiful, elegant, and simultaneously messy process.

Humans communicate differently from each other. Some more direct than others; others more indirect. Some people are optimistic, others skeptical. The list goes on, and no one way is better than another way.

Understanding, of any kind, is iterative. We make claims, we test those claims, we are later proven right or wrong. We make Bayesian updates to our worldview and move on.

As systematic and logical as that process sounds, the human element is not always so logical. Enter the paradox of management.

Two people speaking to each other and each with vastly different communication styles and in the process of collaborating with one another towards the same end may experience friction. Friction converts kinetic energy into heat — and heat in this context could be energy, excitement, anger, or abuse.

The management paradox is that human communication is messy and the furthest thing from logical. The talent obsessed manager, like yourself, learns how to convert communication friction into energy, excitement, and joy. Why can’t friction be fun?

Workplaces that are fun are a joy to be in. And if talent is joyfully learning, growing, and iterating upon themselves what incentive might they have to leave?

Underrated

The value of improving your interpersonal communication skills is underrated and therefore undervalued. The returns from becoming a more skilled communicator are great. The Harvard Business Review’s Sylvia Ann Hewlett wrote an article that “listening to learn” is considered the new rule for executive presence replacing “forcefulness” (read the post).

Here’s an excerpt from Sylvia’s post. I removed a paragraph and spaced out the wording to be easier to read. What’s most important to me, and hopefully to you, is how Unilever is cultivating the type of listening I advocate with their leaders. Read on:

“Trait: “Listen to Learn” Orientation.

Although displaying forcefulness was high on the list of most-sought-after communication traits in 2012, it’s less desired today. People now gravitate more toward leaders who listen and learn from others before they make decisions—a trait seen as critical to growing markets and retaining top talent.

Tactic: Go beyond your comfort zone.

Unilever, which makes and markets hundreds of consumer goods in 190 countries, takes listening seriously, asking selected current and future leaders to spend time outside the realm of their normal experiences in a program called GITS (Get Inside the Skin). GITS is designed to teach them how to better empathize with the company’s 3 billion customers, who come from all walks of life…”

One Useful Action

Evolving as a communicator isn’t about metamorphosing into someone else. It’s about having the humility to acknowledge that you can level up your listening skills, get better at seeking clarification, or take that extra beat before jumping to conclusions.

Here’s a simple behavior you can practice now.

Reflect on the question: How might I listen to learn more this week?
Reflect on the question: How might I wait a beat before making a decision?

Final Thought

Job searching is never easy, and there are networks of job seekers discussing their experience with firms and their hiring leaders with other job seekers. Networks give carriage to bad experiences and word travels fast.

Do your firm and your team a favor, and invest the time to not be one of those leaders known for being an awful and exhausting communicator.

Machiavelli’s Quick Take on Credibility

In, “The Prince”, Machiavelli warns leaders not to build on the people. He implies that people hate being managed and ultimately serve their interests first. You can’t build on or trust someone whose interest is themselves.

I like Machiavelli because I believe his work is cautionary — it highlights the costs of tyrannical action. He almost always offers an alternative.

Building on a person, let’s call this “building culture”, is possible when you — the leader — established that you have the ability to lead, behave with good character, advance towards adversity, plan for the unknown, and inspire others. You demonstrate yourself to be a trustworthy and credible person.

I believe there the leadership talent market lacks a supply of leaders who can demonstrate credibility and trustworthiness upfront. And, I believe there’s demand for that type of leader. It’s good that both of these behaviors are learnable.

The Currency of Credibility

Practice these behaviors to create credibility in those you lead and consult.

Willingness to do yourself what you ask others to od.
Make the small things matter.
Help others save face.
Give your attention.
Give credit.
Ask about impediments to action.
Elevate what matters.
Connect your teams with people and resources that will help them improve their outputs.
Always be spotting — talent, good work, and poor execution.

You can find many coaching programs that will help you learn these behaviors well. I enjoy the Admired Leadership program — where I derived inspiration from the list above — and you may know your own. Find what works for you.

One Useful Action

Are you showing up late for one-on-ones? And while you’re in one-on-ones, are you focused on your person?

If you are — great. Pick another behavior from the list above and practice.

If you’re not — start now.

Being a bad hang; never a good thing.

I’ve been on teams where senior leaders ask me: “David, how do we get people to engage more” or “How, we do we get people to complain more?” Leaders want to create open environments for new ideas to make things better. Sadly, these very same leaders engage in behavior that makes them bad hangs.

Professional musicians sometimes categorize other musicians as “good hangs” or “bad hangs.” People who are considered “bad hangs” rarely get called, “good hangs” always get called. To “hang” well is to engage in behavior that makes someone want to spend time with you.

Showing up on time and sober.
Being kind.
Active listener.
Plays well with others.
Shares.
Show up prepared.

That’s it.

And in the corporate world, why should a hang be any different?

Managers that show up on time, demonstrate kindness, listen well, engage well with others, share their time and space, and show up ready are people that anybody would want to collaborate with — they’re a good hang.

In most cases where a senior leader asks for more open conversation, the challenge has been that the leader doesn’t listen well, doesn’t share the space, and talks over people — they appear impatient. And when teams begin to think that they are causing someone to become impatient, they quickly learn to shut up. Generativeness dies on the vine. Good talent starts looking for other managers.

One Useful Action

Focus on listening. Here’s how to practice the behavior:

(In your off time) learn to play an instrument. I’m not joking. Learning an instrument requires slow and painful repetition and critical listening skills. In addition, you’ll get a fun hobby out of it too!
When a direct report comes to you with an idea, ask a few questions before outputting a decision. Questions could be: What are the ramifications of this idea? What are the implications? What roadblocks do you expect and how might I help clear them? How might I help?
Don’t give the answer. Leave the question/idea with your team member and encourage them to work on it.

Parting Thought

If the returns from the talent you lead matter, the upfront cost of learning to be a good hang — in this case, listening — is worth every effort.

10 Questions You Can Ask Talent Before They Decide to Job Hunt

Since 2015, there’s an increase in poaching vacancies — vacancies intended for employed workers. By implication, firms are becoming more competitive by poaching top talent from their competitors. That insight comes from a working paper by Anton Cheremukhin and Paulina Restrepo-Echavarria. I write about the topic here.

Good firms conduct exit interviews when talent leaves. Admired Leadership via their blog, Field Notes, posted 10 Exit Interview Questions admired leaders ask. “Exit interviews are a best practice for an important reason. The best leaders want to know why people really left and what they can possibly do about it.” I think differently.

Customer success managers (CSMs) obsess over why and how customers make decisions. Decisions to adopt an innovation grow, or churn out. They seek to understand when customers make buying decisions and they seek to understand the factors that go into that decision-making process. The goal is to feed insights back via cross-functional channels and help the organization become more intelligent about their customers. Ideally, customer-centric organizations adapt to meet the needs of their customers and growth occurs. Worst case, customers churn. Just like employees.

Skilled managers, like you, are wise to think like a CSM when it comes to retaining their top talent. What if we took the 10 Exit Interview Questions offered by Admired Leadership and reframe them the way we might use them in customer success? They are:

How does the job deliver on your expectations? Are the challenges and growth you expected before starting here being realized?
Is it your intent to start thinking about your next opportunity soon?
What do you like most and least about the work now?
I would love your thoughts. Am I investing in you and supporting your success? How might I be more supportive?
How do you rate the quality of the recognition you receive for your work and contributions?
What makes it difficult to be productive? What gets in your way to achieve high performance?
If you could wave a magic wand and change one thing about our team culture, what would you change and why?
How about the organizational culture? What might you change if you could change one thing?
If we hire in the future, would you recommend a job on our team to a friend or former colleague? Why or why not?
What do you think we need to do to retain our best talent?

Conducting an interview of this kind with an employee is courageous — for you and the employee. Your questions may cause someone to start looking for a new job. You may only receive positive “everything is great” type responses. You may hear some hard truths. There could be other reactions. I’ve been there, here’s how you manage that.

Listen, and be open.
Actively listen – ask clarifying questions, rephrase what you heard, and ask for the employee to check how well you understood them.
Do not debate. Listen to learn.
Thank them for their time.
Commit to following up so that your employee believes their feedback mattered.

Ultimately, the quality of your answers may be a function of your ability to create open and trusting relationships with your team. It’s the same thing with your customers.

If you find that neither your customers nor your employees will be honest with you, you may have a deeper problem.

Proportionality

Reasons to deploy intensity:

Create urgency.
Communicate importance.
Communicate gravity.

Reasons to deploy aggression:

….

And now for something completely different.

And remember, if you find yourself reaching for aggression in the zoom room, perhaps it’s time to reach for a glass of water instead. Or a pen. Or better yet, the door. After all, nothing says ‘I’m a visionary’ quite like strategically excusing yourself to stare at the water cooler.

H/T to Adam Frith via Rohan Rajiv from a Learning a Day

Leadership transitions

Charismatic and adored leaders develop a sense about them. The organizational culture reveres that leader. The leader is considered “legend”. High performing talent may have joined your firm simply because of that leader. Some people may believe that the company won’t last without that person.

At the point when that leader must leave, skilled managers recognize they’re at a critical decision point — how they communicate change.

The sub-optimal thing is for the exiting leader to announce their departure on an all hands and for the new leader to join the call and share the new plan forward. That move threatens the established culture and norms of the organization. As much as change may be needed, that is not the moment.

A more optimal strategy would be two steps.

Meeting 1: The exiting leader to share their departure with the team. Share their plans for the future — that gives the team the opportunity to feel hope for their beloved leader. And, use that as an opportunity for the team to share their memories of the leader. Perhaps give an award or a silly gift for the leader to remember the team. This milestone moment gives the team the opportunity to grieve together, separate, and prepare for what’s next.
Meeting 2: The new leader introduces themselves. They acknowledge the legacy the last leader left behind — they pay homage to the past. They share what they observe the team doing now that works. They share their plan to listen, get to know everyone, and in the future share what they learned and how they see things move forward.

What’s happened here?

Meeting 1 is for the team to collectively grieve and progress forward.
Meeting 2 is for the new leader to say they come in peace and promise to listen, thus assuaging concerns that the new leader will threaten the culture.

Why bother?

Because if you hope to seek the gains that result from hiring and cultivate great talent, you need to have an environment for talent to thrive and do its best work.

If you can’t do that, what are you doing then?

Who is your vacancy for?

A recent working paper by Anton Cheremukhin and Paulina Restrepo-Echavarria proposes splitting job vacancies into two categories.

Job vacancies that firms intend to fill with unemployed workers; and,
Vacancies firms intend to fill by poaching employees from other companies.

The dual approach, known in the paper as “dual vacancy”, offers a compelling explanation for the puzzling behavior of the Beveridge curve in recent years.

The puzzling behavior:

Historically, when unemployment went down, job vacancies went up, and vice versa.
Recently, the pattern changed. More job vacancies than expect given the unemployment rate.
That means that even with lots of job openings, unemployment isn’t decreasing as much as it used to in similar situations. Hence, some job openings may be for poaching already employed people.

The findings align with point 3 above. There’s been a significant surge in “poaching” vacancies compared to earlier periods.

In a complex job market, what does this mean for us as leaders?

Consider the vacancies you’re creating — who are they for? The poached or the unemployed.
Are we adapting our recruitment strategies accordingly?

The paper finds implications for monetary policy, but I’m more interested in what this means for our day-to-day talent management strategies. Are we clear on which of our openings are aimed at bringing in fresh talent versus attracting experienced hires from competitors? How does this impact our approach to retention?

My personal philosophy: talent is everywhere and there are opportunity costs of hiring employed vs unemployed talent. Consider that the unemployed person may be more generative and more driven than the person currently employed. For the teams I build, drive and generativeness are attractive qualities.

Optimizing employee recognition for the person, not the system

Many questions are asked about how to best recognize talent for their achievements. Questions like:

What are the best ways to recognize employees?
To incentivize or not to incentivize?
To shout out publicly or not?

Every person perceives the ROI of their work in a unique way. For some, it’s money. For others, it’s public recognition. Others may just want to build something other use. The list goes on.

Every organization develops channels to recognize employees. Perhaps it’s a public kudos board. Maybe it’s a company recognition program to award employees for their excellent performance — you see this with sales teams.

The challenge many managers face is: how do I find that happy medium between what a person needs and how my organization operates? Which channel do I optimize?

Principle: Find the equilibrium of personal and organizational culture, and if you have to choose, optimize for the personal.

Every person tells themselves a story about themselves. In that story, they want to be the hero. In that story, the way they become the hero is unique to them. Here’s how you discover that:

Ask: What’s important to you about work?
Ask: What do you want to say you accomplished here 3 years from now? What bullet points do you hope to write on your resume?
Ask: What would be the most cringe-inducing form of recognition you might receive?

You don’t have to ask those exact question — simply be curious about the employee and what matters to them. Listen carefully, make notes, and act in a way that optimizes for their preferences.

Work “I Understand” Out of Your Leadership Vocab

When I worked at Carnival Cruise Line, I took part in a training called “Care Team.”

Care Team is a group of volunteers dispatched to emergencies to provide support to people who experienced some form of trauma or crisis. Example: a loved one died on a cruise, the ship caught fire, anything.

The lesson I most remember from “Care Team” training is never to use the phrase “I understand” — it’s an emotional assault. While often intended to comfort, it can invalidate the unique experience of the person needing comfort creating barriers to authentic communication.

Principle: You can’t possibly understand. So don’t.

Talented members of your team will experience ups and downs. On occasion, they may want to open and talk. Perhaps a charismatic and well-loved leader changed. Maybe there are difficulties at home. It’s possible they sense a RIF coming and are anxious. Whatever the reason, how you handle the conversation signals to talent how much you care about them as a person.

Instead of listening and saying “I understand”, I recommend leaders say “I heard (say what you heard)” + “I can’t imagine how hard this is for you” or “That sounds tough, how might I help?” A great response can be, “Thanks for sharing. We can talk more if you want. Just know, I’ve got your back.”

I wish I had a number for how many people tell me they wish they had a boss that listened to them. When talent meets managers that care, talent sticks around and gives their best outputs.

If you want to read more, I made this Perplexity page for you. You’ll find more practical tips and links to sources that can help improve your communication game. I hope it helps.