Managing "Busy"Employees

Managing “Busy” Employees

 By Kevin O’Farrell, CHRP

Founder and Managing Partner, Crekof Inc.

May 2019

Bill Gates was recently quoted as saying that busy is the new stupid. A bit harsh, but he surely has a point. Everyone seems to wear busy as a badge of honour and of pride. To be busy is easy. To be smart about it is not.

The prevailing mindset is: “I am busy therefore I am vital. I am busy therefore I am indispensable. I am busy therefore I am important. I am busy therefore I can’t sleep!”  The case Gates and Warren Buffett were actually making is that you need to block out time to think and reflect instead of “packing a schedule for every minute of every day”.

Jackie Mason, the comedian, used to describe a group of geriatrics each bragging about how good or “big” their medical specialist was, with the winning entry being that their doctor was so big and so busy that no one could ever get in to see him!  This has to be the ultimate in busy-ness!

And, even at home, with ubiquitous technology governing our lives 24/7, with social media distractions galore and social pressures to make sure our kids are registered in every sport and activity imaginable, time is at a premium, work-family lines are blurred and busy-ness predominates.

But this got me to thinking about people who really do seem to always be busier than others, notwithstanding their specific jobs, rank or industry, at any point in time. Contrary to what one might believe, they are not inherently inefficient (although some might be). From my observations, they just seem to seek or attract more work, consistently. They profess not to mind. They are the go-to people who personify the saying that if you want to get something done, give it to a busy person. They are the ones who raise their hand, willingly or inadvertently, for a new project, a new assignment or to help someone else who appears overwhelmed, even though they often are themselves. And they abhor a vacuum.

Here are my armchair psychology observations about what seems to make them tick. They may provide insights as to how that these folk could be better managed.

Busy people possess definite strengths…

a. Accomplishment: With that much effort applied, they do get a lot done. In the sports analogy, they give their 110%.

b. Recognition: They love to be loved or at least admired for being reliable, devoted, hard workers who produce results.

c. Organized: They usually have methods and tricks to be better than average at planning and execution.

d. Cooperative: They are mostly always willing to help out and go the extra mile to be valuable to the Team.

… but they can fall prey to some of the following traps:

e. Perfection:  Well-intentioned, they often have trouble with the 80/20 rule.

f. Live to work: They derive an inordinate amount of their identity from their work, thus devote a disproportionate share of time to work.

g. Can’t say no: They have an allergy to refusing anything as it would appear to be un-cooperative.

h. Scoping work: They have difficulty estimating the actual time it will take to get a job done and thus run out of time cumulatively.

i. Everything is urgent and necessary: True prioritization is difficult, everything is important.

j. Some procrastination becomes inevitable: a corollary of the item above, it exacerbates the sense that the pile never gets smaller.

k. Burnout is a possibility: Not everyone is built for a marathon, and those who hit a wall generally hit it hard.

Managing this type of person represents a real dilemma. On the one hand they are mostly productive and reliable, and generally deliver good work. It is easy to pile more on their plate. On the other hand they are their own worst enemies if left to their natural designs. Depending on the job they hold, the degree of creativity and innovation required and their impact on the wider team, they need to work on their self-awareness, understand their limits and apply their skills to the real priorities. Their general respect for authority means they will probably accept help and direction from the boss in prioritizing jobs. Inspired coaching, ongoing guidance and open dialogue will go a long way to appealing to their best qualities and avoiding the traps.

Aristotle urged moderation in all things. Gates and Buffett have urged the same. There is no glory in excessive busy-ness.  As managers we need to strive to find the right balance for our organizations and our people.

If markets can "correct", why can't executive pay?

By Kevin O’Farrell, CHRP, Crekof Inc.

The most recent edition of The Economist presents a valiant and fair attempt to shed light on the complex area of executive pay (“Neither rigged nor fair” –July 1, 2016). As the title suggests, it both condemns and condones current practices as they have evolved to define the current state; one where shareholders, even when they can, rarely reject excessive pay packages; where Boards and Compensation Committees dutifully allow self-selected peer-company benchmarks to justify “market rates” and senior executives and CEO’s in particular come to believe that their infallibility and indispensability command astronomical rewards, even when they and/or their companies have performed unexceptionally, poorly, or even in some cases, illegally. 

Beyond the plausible reasons to explain how we got here, the fundamental inescapable disconnect comes from the construct of the pay packet itself: Annual base pay is stable; short-term incentive pay and long-term incentives (usually the promise of increased value of stock options) provide some semblance of variability that may represent foregone earnings in lean times, but never result in a true correction, recalibration or resetting of a new, lower overall value.

When a company’s stock price or the market in general undergoes a correction the full price is simply reset downwards. There are no safeguards or floors. There is a true downside, not just a diminished upside. If this principle were to be applied to executive compensation, fundamental levels would be re-established periodically (based on factors that could include stock price) such that market and peer company comparisons could become meaningful and relevant again.

Otherwise senior pay will simply continue to spiral upward in a lock-step, self-fulfilling manner, thereby exacerbating the gaps in CEO/average workers pay ratios and fueling the perceptions and reality of increasing and unsolvable societal inequalities. This is no longer just a compensation issue. Institutional investors and Boards need to move this item to the top of their governance and risk-management agenda. 

The heroes of the other talent war

Business headlines regularly sound the panic alarm over the so-called war for talent.  In their view, the sky is falling: boomers are retiring in droves, leadership skills are lacking and the well of employee engagement is drying up.  In this scenario, companies can’t find the people they need to meet the needs of the new economy.

Well, there may be a war all right, but the battlefield is not what you might think.

With a global economy that continues to experience extreme volatility; where once geographically isolated events cause weekly turbulence across world markets; where technological connectivity triggers instantaneous knee-jerk reactions, organizations are hardly in a position to offer any semblance of the stability that lends itself to predictable medium-term human capital planning and employment. The obvious outcome is that even growing companies are modulating their workforces on an on-going basis.  And sectorial downturns continue to provoke all kinds of headcount reductions. So people are being hired, but they are also being fired.  And it looks like no single cohort is particularly victimized. Youth continue to be chronically under-employed and subjected to the same LIFO conditions as they have always been.  Middle management layers (and middle-agers) are still being cut out while technology and offshoring arrangements continue to replace them at a pervasive pace. And older workers, both at early and full retirement age, are being pushed out beyond the normal attrition rate and their need to work.

And many of these casualties, rich with digital and social media skills and/or invaluable life and business experience are fighting the talent war from the other side of the trench. They are looking for work: to find meaningful ways to make a living and a contribution to society.  Some would love nothing more than to stay in their own field and area of expertise. Others are interested in pursuing latent passions that motivate them. The interest in entrepreneurialism is growing exponentially, but despite the increasing financial assistance and advice available, not everyone can have, or is wired to run, her or his own business. Yet, enthusiasm and passion are in large supply across this population, in spite of the challenges they face.

Admittedly, it may be a bit dramatic to speak of wars and battlefields in this context, but there should be no doubt as to the courage and determination of those who live with the collateral consequences of economic adjustments. They are the true heroes. And we should express admiration for the fortitude and patience they display in getting back into the job searching trenches every day. Is there really a shortage of talent out there?

Leadership Development: a K-M-A-A?

Leadership Development:  a K-M-A-A?

(Our Grandfathers say the darndest things...)

By Kevin O’Farrell, CHRP, Founder and Managing Partner, Crekof Inc.

 My grandfather was a 3rd generation Irish-Canadian who continued to channel some of the most colourful expressions from the old country. One of my personal favourites was hearing him bluster about a ‘‘kiss-me-arse-affair’’ (K-M-A-A).  This was a term he used judiciously, yet always with a scathing tone to describe a botched, mismanaged and overall unsatisfactory outcome,  as in, ‘‘I drove all that distance to that damn funeral and they didn’t even serve a lunch after the service-It was just a kiss-me-arse affair.’’ In other words, significant effort was expended with little recognition derived and even basic needs not having been met.

As an observer of (and participant in) organizational management for over 30 years I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that much of what passes for leadership development could be described as a ‘‘K-M-A-A’’:  Often mismanaged, misdirected and unsatisfactory, for both the individual and the organization. Coming from someone like me, who has toiled as an HR and business consultant and executive, this may just sound like a rant, pining for the good old days. But in this case, the old days may have been no better than the current.  Maybe worse.

I know there are notable exceptions; particularly brilliant examples of eras or ‘‘moment-in time’’ initiatives in particular companies where leadership development achieved stellar results. I also know that, by hook or by crook, some organizations have produced a disproportionate share of certain types of successful leaders.

But in the overall scheme of things, consider the gallons of ink and the megabytes of memory consumed by the gazillion writings devoted to the subject of leadership and leadership development. (Yes, just add this one to the pile!)

Every day on LinkedIn alone there are hundreds of exchanges and numerically-anchored recipes for leadership (The one thing you need to know about.., The top 2 ways…, the 10 commandments of… etc.). Beyond the age-old question of nature vs. nurture, we are inundated with well-thought-out academic treatises and crack-pot theories about how to identify, develop and capitalize on different types of leadership.

So, in spite of all this wisdom, why have so many well-intentioned efforts turned into K-M-A-A’s? Several observations come to mind.

It is really hard to predict the leadership that will be required in the future. 

Leadership is often defined relative to what is already known. New leadership is easier defined as requiring more of or less of what we already have now in the current person or team in place. With ubiquitous change being an exponentially volatile variable in business today, how can we realistically and adequately identify and prepare future leadership?  It can be done, but only if we replace certainty with contingency, firmness with flexibility and envision various scenarios and strategies to match with the needs of emerging times. This may mean preparing very distinct profiles of leadership in a perspective of a balanced portfolio that controls explicitly for certain types of identified risk, to be played out as realities take shape.  

And they shall form them in their own image and likeness…

 Coupled with the first challenge is the reality that current leaders typically want clones. It takes a big man or woman to go beyond the ‘‘ I’m OK-you’re not OK’’ syndrome and recognize the flaws or weaknesses in their own leadership.  Companies that build their own leadership models, develop their own capability and competency maps, engage in their own programs run the risk of creating a mirror effect that will perpetuate a form of leadership that frankly, may be wrong for the sustainability and growth of the organization. Companies that take a cafeteria approach, picking and choosing piecemeal options delivered without a coherent overall plan can end up with leadership development indigestion.

One way to contain this tendency is for organizations to purposely go out of their way to seek the clash of ideas, the proverbial out-of-the box challenges that stimulate innovation and question the status quo. And then to blend these with the most desirable elements of the culture and the corporate DNA that needs to be preserved. Successful leadership development is a meaningful exercise of institutional and individual self-awareness applied to the objective requirements of the organization, not the need for ego-driven self-perpetuation.

In the long run, we are all dead.

 A very wise man, a former VP of Executive Compensation, ironically now deceased, was once asked how he designed long-term incentives.  ‘‘ As short as possible,’’ he replied. ‘‘How do I know that we’ll still want these people around in 5 years?’’

By definition, leadership development is all about the long haul. It is about the accumulation of experiences, skills and competencies that enable clear-headed decision-making and foster organizational growth. However, this confirms the need for a temporal dimension that should be made more explicit in the development of leadership and more broadly of talent.

Every year, millions of dollars are spent (invested?) in leadership development. It deserves to be much more than a K-M-A-A.