Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Motivating The "A" Player
I've been consulting on the side with a small company. They want strong growth for a couple more years and plan to sell the company. Like many organizations founded by technologists, they're having trouble in the sales side of their business. About a year ago, they hired a woman in sales who produced three times the revenue of their next best producer. They are ecstatic, but, in her first annual review they were surprised at her demand for a 54% increase in base salary. (Sidebar: its easy to build the case that she's worth it; she could have asked for a 300% increase, matching the return they get on base pay for others in the position).
The woman is highly motivated, and works with great intensity. She has the highest volume of phone calls, is the most efficient at converting them to appointments, and closes the most deals. Thats pretty much the trifecta in sales. When she joined the firm they agreed they didn't care how many hours she worked, or if she worked from home, etc., as long as she produced. And she produced. She came in with enough experience to realize that sustained effort at high levels is about motivation. She understands how to get herself there, and how to avoid burnout. Her process includes mental health days and quarterly vacations. In short, her intense process requires more down time but creates incredible results.
In well-run organizations this causes paradigm shifts, and an inquiry as to why the existing standard is so low. Any self respecting entrepreneur would recalculate the value of their company if staffed by comparable talent. Then, an exploration into the difference between "A" players and the "B" squad on the sales team. In this case, however, the company failed to make this distinction. Incredibly, they demoted the sales manager (presumably for failing to motivate the "B" squad effectively) and promoted the research manager to manage the sales staff. He's the guy with all the numbers, has metrics for everything, and is expected to create "accountability" for the sales staff. Implicit in this move is the assumption that these people are largely the same, and the right manager can turn the "B" talent into "A" producers.
Among his first acts was to institute weekly meetings where he would point to the individual's numbers and point out that 'more phone calls would make you more money'. Then came an array of quotas for calls, for appointments, etc.. Although these things were meaningless to the "A" player, who blew through these thresholds all year, she had a weekly one-on-one like everyone else. Ultimately, they clashed on when she logged in (working from home) and logged out. His concern was that she wasn't putting in the same hours as everyone else. Her response was dismissive, and she pointed out that her agreement with them was that she would work her schedule as long as she produced. He didn't care for her attitude and this clash was repeated at each meeting, until the review.
The review itself could serve as a study in what to avoid in the review process. Expecting praise, the achiever was shown several pages of metrics, half a page of areas for improvement, and short, albeit glowing paragraph at the end. The ensuing conversation followed a predictable course about how many hours she worked, and that if she'd work 8 hours a day instead of 7, she could make more money. She reasoned that her process created $380K and their process created $130K per head. He felt she was being disrespectful. She implied she wasn't being disrespectful, but it was arrogant to impose his $130K process on her when her process was clearly superior. She ended with the notion that she brought her process to them, not vice versa. And if he insisted on micro-managing her that she would leave. Both left exasperated.
It is clear now, that an imbalance had existed for a year. Management felt they were making allowances, and apparently it bothered them. The salesperson was outpacing all of them and felt underappreciated. The company had stumbled on a highly motivated professional, an "A" player. The veteran sales staff exposed as "B" players became jealous and contributed to the problem in petty ways. While it seems obvious that they had two different personality types in the sales role (and that revenue would increase dramatically with more "A" players), the company instead is trying to turn the "B" squad into an "A" unit by imposing a series of quotas. While there have been some gains, they are limited.
Maturing as a Manager
If you're a manager lucky enough to witness output that is orders of magnitude higher than normal, your first task is to do no harm. Just try not to screw it up. Watch and learn. One doesn't impose control just to show who is boss. Being in charge doesn't mean you know everything, and you're not entitled to fiddle with things you don't understand. That is arrogant.
Motivating "A" Players
When you're dealing with mules, motivate with a stick. When dealing with a thoroughbred use a carrot. A thoroughbred running fast runs the risk of burnout, so rest is critical. You also need to understand that a high-strung breeds may bolt if you start waving a stick. And last, if you want to treat everyone the same because its easier to manage, then hire the same kind of people.
The woman is highly motivated, and works with great intensity. She has the highest volume of phone calls, is the most efficient at converting them to appointments, and closes the most deals. Thats pretty much the trifecta in sales. When she joined the firm they agreed they didn't care how many hours she worked, or if she worked from home, etc., as long as she produced. And she produced. She came in with enough experience to realize that sustained effort at high levels is about motivation. She understands how to get herself there, and how to avoid burnout. Her process includes mental health days and quarterly vacations. In short, her intense process requires more down time but creates incredible results.
In well-run organizations this causes paradigm shifts, and an inquiry as to why the existing standard is so low. Any self respecting entrepreneur would recalculate the value of their company if staffed by comparable talent. Then, an exploration into the difference between "A" players and the "B" squad on the sales team. In this case, however, the company failed to make this distinction. Incredibly, they demoted the sales manager (presumably for failing to motivate the "B" squad effectively) and promoted the research manager to manage the sales staff. He's the guy with all the numbers, has metrics for everything, and is expected to create "accountability" for the sales staff. Implicit in this move is the assumption that these people are largely the same, and the right manager can turn the "B" talent into "A" producers.
Among his first acts was to institute weekly meetings where he would point to the individual's numbers and point out that 'more phone calls would make you more money'. Then came an array of quotas for calls, for appointments, etc.. Although these things were meaningless to the "A" player, who blew through these thresholds all year, she had a weekly one-on-one like everyone else. Ultimately, they clashed on when she logged in (working from home) and logged out. His concern was that she wasn't putting in the same hours as everyone else. Her response was dismissive, and she pointed out that her agreement with them was that she would work her schedule as long as she produced. He didn't care for her attitude and this clash was repeated at each meeting, until the review.
The review itself could serve as a study in what to avoid in the review process. Expecting praise, the achiever was shown several pages of metrics, half a page of areas for improvement, and short, albeit glowing paragraph at the end. The ensuing conversation followed a predictable course about how many hours she worked, and that if she'd work 8 hours a day instead of 7, she could make more money. She reasoned that her process created $380K and their process created $130K per head. He felt she was being disrespectful. She implied she wasn't being disrespectful, but it was arrogant to impose his $130K process on her when her process was clearly superior. She ended with the notion that she brought her process to them, not vice versa. And if he insisted on micro-managing her that she would leave. Both left exasperated.
It is clear now, that an imbalance had existed for a year. Management felt they were making allowances, and apparently it bothered them. The salesperson was outpacing all of them and felt underappreciated. The company had stumbled on a highly motivated professional, an "A" player. The veteran sales staff exposed as "B" players became jealous and contributed to the problem in petty ways. While it seems obvious that they had two different personality types in the sales role (and that revenue would increase dramatically with more "A" players), the company instead is trying to turn the "B" squad into an "A" unit by imposing a series of quotas. While there have been some gains, they are limited.
Maturing as a Manager
If you're a manager lucky enough to witness output that is orders of magnitude higher than normal, your first task is to do no harm. Just try not to screw it up. Watch and learn. One doesn't impose control just to show who is boss. Being in charge doesn't mean you know everything, and you're not entitled to fiddle with things you don't understand. That is arrogant.
Motivating "A" Players
When you're dealing with mules, motivate with a stick. When dealing with a thoroughbred use a carrot. A thoroughbred running fast runs the risk of burnout, so rest is critical. You also need to understand that a high-strung breeds may bolt if you start waving a stick. And last, if you want to treat everyone the same because its easier to manage, then hire the same kind of people.
Why Sourcing?
We've seen an interesting phenomenon in our field this year. While many companies are experiencing growth, they've held back on growing their recruiting organization. This seems the norm rather than the exception. They're willing to add revenue generating employees, but not administrative headcount. Apparently companies are none too confident in the economy. As a result, many recruiters have too many openings to be effective. And so, even with access to sourcing tools, they haven't the time to use them.
Sourcing is the first step to filling a position. Active sourcing - looking for a candidate (as opposed to running an ad), is time consuming. When recruiters don't have time to do the initial effort required to fill a position, things back up further. So they outsource searches to contract recruiters and search firms.
An alternative to this very expensive tradition is to outsource just the sourcing component of the hiring process. Why not hire a research team to dig up leads? And a telemarketing staff to screen them? Its cheaper than hiring an executive search firm, or even a contract recruiter. If corporate recruiters were fed pre-screened candidates and their sole responsibility was to complete the remainder of the hiring process, how productive could they become? At least they'd be focused on the higher value-adds in the process, focusing on qualified candidates and hiring managers instead of sifting through resume dbases.
Now, what if those researchers and telemarketers were based in India? What would that do to the economics of recruiting? Why don't search firms outsource research this way? Think what their margins would be. They're already high.
Its the kind of thing companies come up with all the time in their core business. Why not in HR?
Sourcing is the first step to filling a position. Active sourcing - looking for a candidate (as opposed to running an ad), is time consuming. When recruiters don't have time to do the initial effort required to fill a position, things back up further. So they outsource searches to contract recruiters and search firms.
An alternative to this very expensive tradition is to outsource just the sourcing component of the hiring process. Why not hire a research team to dig up leads? And a telemarketing staff to screen them? Its cheaper than hiring an executive search firm, or even a contract recruiter. If corporate recruiters were fed pre-screened candidates and their sole responsibility was to complete the remainder of the hiring process, how productive could they become? At least they'd be focused on the higher value-adds in the process, focusing on qualified candidates and hiring managers instead of sifting through resume dbases.
Now, what if those researchers and telemarketers were based in India? What would that do to the economics of recruiting? Why don't search firms outsource research this way? Think what their margins would be. They're already high.
Its the kind of thing companies come up with all the time in their core business. Why not in HR?
