Articles, whitepapers, reviews and more.
Remember those first-day of school jitters? You were nervous with anticipation and, as a result, probably slept very little wondering where your classes were and what your new teachers were like (stickler for rules or laid-back and fun)? That’s not even considering all the social issues that arise such as who would be in your class and where you would sit for lunch at the cafeteria.
We all hoped that those first-day jitters ended as soon as we received our high school and college diplomas, but as I’m sure you’re aware, that is not the case. Whenever one starts a new job, they are faced with those exact same apprehensive feelings.
Ahhh, I recall with sincere fondness the memory of playing certain childhood games. Sorry, Monopoly, LIFE, and one of my personal favorites – Chutes and Ladders. Now, each of these has messaging, or themes, that could be related in some fashion or another to Corporate America – risk/reward; entrepreneurial spirit; getting ahead with good deeds and jobs well done; dropping down a few rungs on the ladder for our mistakes, etc., etc. However, I’ll spare you my trite connections (Connect Four!) on these beloved games, and instead turn my attention towards the focus of this article – the world of the hungry, hungry High-Potentials.
People in the business community love their clichés. “There’s no ‘I’ in team,” “work smarter, not harder,” and my personal favorite, “think outside the box”. Ugh.
When it comes to describing a workplace culture, clichés are abundant here as well. With our open-door policies and expectations of giving 150% (how is this even possible?). These general statements don’t provide the employee with a lot of useful insights into what it really means to work, and fit in, at the company in question.
Now, I don’t mean to offend those in charge of setting the company culture. For some reason, workplace culture, despite the fact that we all work in it every day, is actually pretty hard to define. But just as water is critical to a fish’s survival, a well-oiled company culture helps keep your business afloat. And many companies sink or swim (sorry, couldn’t resist) based on their workplace culture and how clearly it’s defined.
Ah, the star employee. The one that goes above and beyond for every project, is a team player, and just seems to do everything right.
Just as that employee can give your company some of its best days, it all comes crashing down the minute he or she gives you their two weeks’ notice.
While it’s easy to assume the employee left your business because they wanted more money, several workplace studies show that actually isn’t the driving force.
One highly cited study comes from the Gallup Organization that surveyed more than 1 million employed U.S. workers from a broad range of companies, industries and countries. They asked what talented employees needed from their workplace. You would think the answer would be more financial compensation, but actually their findings revealed this: how long an employee stays and how productive they will be all depends on their relationship with their manager.
Leaders are celebrated, while managers are often criticized, but a combination of the two could be just what the economy needs.
There’s been an ongoing debate for the past five decades and I’m not talking about Medicare or why the Chicago Cubs haven’t won a title since 1908. This debate has to do with leaders and managers.
In fact, a quick Google search of the phrase, “Leaders vs. Managers” produces more than 15 million results. Clearly, this is an issue people care about and are searching for the answers.
After all, should a manager also be a leader? Must a leader utilize management skills?
Before I attempt to answer those two questions, let’s look closer at the differences between leaders and managers.
Organizational consultant Warren Bennis is widely known as the pioneer in what is considered the contemporary field of leadership. In his book, “On Becoming a Leader: The Leadership Classic” he delved into the qualities that define leadership, which included describing the differences between managers and leaders.
So let’s say there is a skills gap in your company. If budgets allow, your first inclination might be to hire someone from outside the company to close that gap. After all, there are some people who know how to look great on “paper”, and a stunning resume can make any company leader salivate over the potential of hiring a “rock star” employee.
While that philosophy works in certain situations, new research suggests promoting an in-house employee may actually perform better than hiring an external candidate.
The research, conducted by University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Management Professor Matthew Bidwell, claims external hires actually get lower performance evaluations during their first years on the job than internal workers who are promoted into similar jobs, according to Knowledge@Wharton, the online journal of the Wharton School. In addition, external hires have higher exit rates, and can be paid up to 20% more than internal candidates.