What's Your Bench Strength?

Photo by Amine rock hoovr on Unsplash

Many companies focus on their A players to the exclusion of almost everyone else. There's nothing wrong with A players, but failing to focus on bench strength is a serious mistake. 

Do you have depth on your bench? Will a customer get the assistance they need if an employee is out of the office for lunch, sickness, or vacation? Will the loss of a key employee (whether short or long-term) have a significant negative impact on your organization? What about your succession planning? Do you have more than one person who is being prepared for each position? It may not always be possible on that last one, but we should strive to make that happen. After all, we never know what might happen tomorrow.

If your bench is shallow or has gaps, it's time to address the issue. What are some actions you can take to build your bench strength?

• Have a training plan. On-the-job training in many organizations is haphazard at best. 
• Cross-training is essential. Set up a matrix, identifying the major tasks, and assign names. Who has the primary responsibility for this task? Who is their backup? For critical tasks, it might be a good idea to add someone who is expected to at least be able to muddle through.
• Plan for succession. Who do you have with the potential to move up? Once you identify them, get them on a development plan to prepare them for future responsibilities.
• Build a learning culture. Teaching people how to learn is critical and builds capacity for quick reskilling.
• Set up a support structure that captures knowledge in some fashion. Documenting processes can help train tasks more quickly or as a last resort, make it possible for someone to step in and figure things out much more quickly.

Yes, it's great to have some stars on the team, but personally, I would prefer to have a full bench of solid players.

 

If You Can't Hire Them

 

Photo by Lagos Techie on Unsplash

There is a lot of talk about not being able to hire right now (see this Capelli article for a rebuttal), but periodically, I help employers talk through the "buy versus develop" question about people. I have always been predisposed to grow my own versus buy new, so I suppose it is best to just get that bias on the table to start with. It's part of the reason I keep a car until it falls apart in the street. I know what I have and as long as it is performing satisfactorily, why take a chance on an expensive shiny new vehicle? Regular maintenance and an occasional part overhaul have tended to be less expensive and more satisfactory for me.

Regardless of your current hiring situation, there is a seismic shift in the skills needed in the economy going on. New career fields are opening up, with the numbers of skilled workers needed growing very quickly. If you have watched the news lately, cybersecurity should be an obvious example. You can hire the technical expertise for cybersecurity from an IT company with that expertise, but much of the risk involves people, not hardware and software. So even having the best company on retainer can't always keep you safe. This means pretty much every employee who has access to a computer or other smart device needs to have some level of expertise in cybersecurity. In addition to cybersecurity, changes in laws and regulations in many industries call for a constant update in compliance, tools, and techniques.

I was talking to someone this week who told me the employers she talks to just want someone who will show up dependably and work. I hear that some as well, but I also find employers also want experience and proven expertise so they don't have to spend much time training. I get it. As in most things, there is always a tradeoff between I need it now, I need it good, and I need it cheap. For some reason, employers tend to think they can get it all. Not so.

I would suggest companies need to do a thorough review to determine the types of skills that employees need now and may not have (gap analysis), but also look ahead to prepare for the future, in order to develop some skills before the need is upon you. You may not be able to hire that skill set--so begin developing your good people with updated skills.

Leadership Training Doesn't Work, Does It?

I was reading another article this week arguing that leadership training doesn't work. I agree, but that doesn't mean it can't work.

Here are the reasons I see that the expenditure many companies make in leadership training doesn't yield the results they expect.

First, they invest in leadership training. Training helps people acquire knowledge. It doesn't mean the participant has the ability to apply that knowledge, or that the organization will allow it. I can pass on great information, you can take notes and memorize all of it, but if you cannot apply it in the workplace, it's useless. Training has to be supplemented with developmental activities and coaching. In other words, the participant has to have the opportunity to use what they learned and someone needs to provide some coaching in order for them to become proficient.

The next thing that keeps leadership training is that most of it is applied at the wrong level of the organization. Most leadership training is attended by senior managers. Yes, they need to know how to be better leaders. Yes, they have influence. The assumption is that if we teach the people at the top how to lead better, that knowledge will trickle down to the rest of the organization. Trickle-down leadership works about as well as trickle-down economics. As in, it doesn't.  The people with the most influence in an organization and who touch the most people are the first-line supervisors. They need the training (and accompanying development) most. That is the level at which better leadership skills will have the most impact. But we don't do much leadership training and development at that level. We use the school of hard knocks approach and keep trading out supervisors until one of them "gets it" quickly enough to perform satisfactorily before they get fired. (OK, off that soapbox for today.)

Lastly, almost all leadership training focuses on one person--the leader. Look at the picture at the top of post. What is wrong with that picture? I did a search for pictures of leaders, and this is one that came up. I am happy that at least some photos with women came up, but that's not the issue. The leader in this photo is at the front--large, in focus, and serious. One assumes the fuzzy little people behind her are her "followers." That's the fundamental problem with leadership training. It focuses too much on the leader. Leadership is a group activity. We don't spend enough time talking about how leadership functions in a group. Leadership is the art of influencing people to willingly work toward a common goal. And people are not one-size-fits-all. And people in a group (or team) are different than when they are alone. That's why it is so important that learners actually lead. The information they get in training gives them new tools to try. Practice allows them to become proficient. If they have a skilled coach, they'll become proficient faster, with less frustration.

Back to our original issue. No, leadership training by itself, doesn't show much return on investment. In order for it to pay off, you have to also invest in development and you have to spread the leadership training around the organization, especially those with the greatest touch in the organization--first-line supervisors.