Engagement Practice _ 22: Hold Managers Accountable for Coaching and Giving Feedback

К оглавлению
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 
136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 
153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 
170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 
187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 
204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 

If 60 percent of a manager’s time is spent fixing people problems, you

might think more companies would make special efforts to hold managers

accountable for coaching and giving feedback to employees.

Some companies, such as The Security Benefit Group of Companies in

Topeka, Kansas, have introduced ‘‘upward evaluation’’ systems that allow

employees to give feedback on their managers’ people management and

coaching skills. When surveys are completed, results are reported both to

the manager and the manager’s manager for use in performance and development

discussions. Security Benefit has noticed that evaluation results

have become more positive since the practice was begun in 1995.

Many other companies have begun incorporating coaching and feedback

competencies into the lists of key competencies they require of all

leaders. For example, instead of listing ‘‘people management’’ as a single

competency for managers, it is more meaningful to select, train and evaluate

managers against competencies that are more specifically defined. This

means that people management skills might be further broken down into

more specific competencies, such as human resource planning, employee

selection, performance coaching/feedback, training/development, and

employee recognition/motivation—with clear definitions provided for

each of these.

Management books such as Daniel Goleman’s Emotional Intelligence at

Work and Primal Leadership have also made many organizations more aware

of the importance of emotional intelligence factors in selecting and promoting

managers. Goleman describes the Coaching style of leadership as one

of the most highly positive of six predominant leadership styles—the others

being Visionary (most strongly positive), Affiliative (positive), Democratic

(positive), Pacesetting (often negative), and Commanding (usually negative

because it is so often misused). Yet, he concludes, ‘‘Despite the commonly

held belief that every leader needs to be a good coach, leaders tend to

exhibit this style least often.’’28

Regardless of how carefully we spell out competencies and study leadership

styles, the only way to ensure that any new practices are working is

to hold managers accountable and create new rewards and consequences.

When corporate officers were asked if line managers should be accountable

for the strength of the talent pool they are building, 93 percent said they

should be, yet only 3 percent said that they actually held line managers

accountable for this outcome.29

One company that is holding managers accountable for people outcomes

is Applebee’s International, which has installed balanced scorecard

measures for its restaurant managers based on results in three areas—

financial, people, and customer. In 2001, the company started holding its

area managers accountable for people results in four key areas with significant

impact to the bottom-line—hourly staffing levels, percentage of employees

retained among the top 80 percent of all staff, hourly new-hire

retention rates, and progress on succession management. Performance on

these four measures account for 30 percent of the formula used to determine

pay raises. Applebee’s also sponsored an annual contest among area

managers called ‘‘Turn Yourself Over to the Tropics,’’ which awarded top

performers on low management turnover measures with vacations in Cancun

and cruises to the Bahamas.

How have these new practices worked? The annual turnover rate

among hourly employees had dropped from 146 percent in 2000 to 92

percent in 2003, and turnover of restaurant general managers had fallen

from 20 percent to 8 percent over the same period. The drops in turnover

have to be attributed to more than a recessionary economy, as Applebee’s

turnover rates have dropped further and faster than most of their competitors

in the casual dining restaurant category. Based on avoided hard replacement

costs for restaurant managers alone, the company conservatively

estimated a one-year savings of $1.6 million. Having achieved a cascading

positive impact by measuring area managers, the company hopes to realize

even greater dividends as it rolls out the same four people measures to

managers of individual restaurants.

Another effective way to create accountability among managers for

people results is to promote and select candidates for managerial and executive

positions based on higher standards of management behavior. One of

the best-known examples of this came to the attention of the public in

early 2001, when JackWelch, in his annual letter to stockholder, customers,

and employees, announced GE’s new policy and practice regarding the

way managers treat employees.30The memo described four types of managers

that existed at GE and at all companies (see Figure 6-1): The Type 1

manager treats employees with respect and makes the numbers (keep), the

Type 2 manager treats people with respect and doesn’t make the numbers

(keep and coach), and the Type 3 manager doesn’t treat people with respect

and doesn’t make the numbers (terminate). The problematic type of manager

had always been the Type 4 manager, the kind of manager who always

made the numbers but did not treat people with respect. In the letter,Welch

admitted that in the past GE had been guilty of keeping far too many of

Figure 6-1.

Four types of managers.

Makes Numbers Doesn’t Make Numbers

Treats People

with Respect

Doesn’t Treat

People with

Respect

Type 1 Type 2

Type 4 Type 3

the Type 4 managers. In the future, he promised, these types of managers

would no longer be tolerated at GE—they would be dismissed.

As new jobs are created faster than the supply of workers can keep

pace, more and more companies will create ‘‘bad manager identification’’

initiatives. Finding themselves once again in a full-blown ‘‘war for talent’’

like they experienced in the late 1990s, many aspiring employers-of-choice

will realize, as GE has, that they can no longer afford the luxury of keeping

any manager who drives talent out the door.