Teams have members with different levels of talent. Some talents are technical, some are social. Getting other members to speak up, protecting opinions so they can get a full consideration, and praising others are all helpful social behaviors. Organizing data, proposing alternatives, seeing patterns, doing calculations are all technical skills. Both sets of skills help teams achieve their goals.
There are times when a team has a member whose technical skills are remarkably strong. He or she is head and shoulders above the others on the team from an intellectual standpoint. If that person has good social skills, he integrates his contribution smoothly into the team and it all becomes a joint effort. Unfortunately, some people with unusual technical talents provide them in a way that makes others pay a price for getting them. There is a good chance you have met someone like this in your career. He/she is like medicine with a bitter taste. You know you need it, but you don't like taking it.
Coworkers and leaders working with this type of technical Grinch often find it difficult to put their feelings into words or find the courage to confront the individual. If your team has a need to address this problem, the letter that follows may help you do it. It is a letter from the person's "Dutch Uncle" -- that relative who has no problem telling someone the simple truth no matter how difficult. We all need a Dutch Uncle in our lives. Now you can use this one. Use the letter to have a face-to-face discussion with the 'errant nephew' (preferred approach) or slip it anonymously into the interoffice mail (chicken approach).
If you can improve the letter, add your comments to the blog. If you use the letter, come back and comment on how it worked for you.
A Letter from Your Uncle
Dear _________:
Your coworkers have asked me to pen this letter to you. They are concerned about your career and future success.
First, I would like to make it abundantly clear that your technical expertise is of a high caliber. Everyone recognizes that the work you do, from a technical standpoint, is exceptional. Your extensive knowledge of your field and your analytical abilities are remarkable. The fact that you can achieve insights and accomplish things that baffle others is very evident. Your expertise is very valuable to your organization. The fact that you are intelligent and talented is not in question.
Second, your friends tell me that is not enough. Doing the technical part of your job is necessary, but not sufficient. It is not the whole job. You must also work effectively with others at all levels.
It seems you have been using your technical skills as a justification to run roughshod over the feelings of others. Just because you are smarter does not mean you are better than others. Everyone has a right to respect in the workplace and your coworkers feel you are not providing that to them. Actions like putting down their ideas and suggestions, rubbing in their mistakes, telling them that what they say is “dumb” or “stupid” or just giving them ‘that look’ communicate a smug sense of superiority that others find irritating. For someone with your technical talents, your interpersonal skills do not reach the same level. People feel you are using your technical ability to hold them hostage in an unpleasant relationship. You are making them pay a price interpersonally and emotionally to get the technical help you can provide. If they did to you what you do to them, you wouldn’t like it either. Brains are not an entitlement for abusive behavior.
Before you dismiss this observation, they want you to know that it could cost you your job. While it may not be a statistic you are familiar with, they know that more people are pushed out of companies because they cannot work with coworkers than because of technical incompetence. Just being right is not enough. You also need to “play well with others.” Your friends are guardedly optimistic that you can turn your talents to the area of interpersonal relations and become a productive team player instead of a know-it-all jerk. They really don’t want to say this to your face because of the sarcastic retort they expect. You aren’t the only person in history to have this pattern of behavior, but only you can make your own personal choice to be both a technical guru and a nice person. The two are not mutually exclusive. Give it some thought, then make sure the people you work with ‘have a nice day.’ If you are as talented as you think you are, this should be a challenge you can master.
Sincerely,
Your Uncle
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Teams and Skill-based Pay (SBP)
Teams are made up of individuals who provide some degree of mutual support in the achievement of a set of shared goals. In many cases, the work functions performed within the team are broken down and assigned to individual members. This leads to a specialization of work within the team. This can be efficient in some respects, but counterproductive in others.
If the nature of the work done by individual members is not highly specialized, it is possible to have multiple members learn to do the same tasks. In other words, they learn each other's jobs. This is most common in production environments or in administrative departments of office environments. It is less practical in teams of college-trained professionals where an in-depth technical background may be required (e.g., a team of various engineers will not train electrical engineers to be mechanical engineers).
To the extent that team members can learn each other's jobs and rotate through the different positions within the team, the individual members gain a better appreciation of what is required of fellow team members. It also helps members understand what is going on before and after their part of the operation and the consequences of poor performance on others. Cross-trained team members are also better equipped to cover for absences and vacations within the team.
By paying team members for learning the various tasks performed throughout the team unit, you create a skill-based pay framework. As members learn and apply new skills on a consistent basis, they qualify for pay increases. There are practical limits to how many diverse skills a single member can learn and remain proficient on, so paying for skills beyond a certain point is not cost effective. Generally speaking, the work performed before and after a team member's position would be the primary areas for him to learn.
A rigorous program of training and evaluating members is required for a skill-based pay program to work. It is important to note that this is not pay for education -- learning alone is not sufficient -- the skills must be used proficiently on an on-going basis. This is supported by a job rotation program within the team. Another caveat is that skills cannot be learned and paid for on a 'progress at will' basis. Minimum time limits for learning and practicing a skill are required to prevent team members from simply chasing after pay raises without regard to proficiency. Time limits also make administration more manageable and ensure fairness in access to learning instead of having it be contingent on opportunity. Don't rush the system because unanticipated outside forces will intervene to slow progress from what would be assumed as normal.
For teams where cross-training and job rotation are not practical, skill-based pay may be used to give team members an incentive to gain more in-depth knowledge. This is particularly true in production operations for maintenance technicians. The journey from apprentice to journeyperson represents this type of progression. By linking pay to successful apprenticeship completion (in stages), you can create a skill-based pay program. A similiar approach might be applied to some professional jobs (e.g., progression from Enginer I, to Engr. II, to Sr. Engr.). In fact, "career ladders" represent a form of professional level SBP.
The two best environments for the use of skill-based pay are in new organization startups and in organizations undergoing significant change in job responsibilities. In both cases, intensive learning by broadening and deepening skills is part of the change. By tying learning to pay through SBP, employees have an incentive to participate actively in the change. New plants that overlook skill-based pay miss a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a strongly skilled workforce that not only gains from excellent training, but also buys into a very effective pay system. Properly designed, SBP systems will generally gather fewer complaints about fairness and administration than other "time in grade" or "supervisor rating" approaches.
For more information on skill based pay, visit www.bizcenter.com and click on the books link and then select "Skill-Based Pay: Design and Implementation."
If the nature of the work done by individual members is not highly specialized, it is possible to have multiple members learn to do the same tasks. In other words, they learn each other's jobs. This is most common in production environments or in administrative departments of office environments. It is less practical in teams of college-trained professionals where an in-depth technical background may be required (e.g., a team of various engineers will not train electrical engineers to be mechanical engineers).
To the extent that team members can learn each other's jobs and rotate through the different positions within the team, the individual members gain a better appreciation of what is required of fellow team members. It also helps members understand what is going on before and after their part of the operation and the consequences of poor performance on others. Cross-trained team members are also better equipped to cover for absences and vacations within the team.
By paying team members for learning the various tasks performed throughout the team unit, you create a skill-based pay framework. As members learn and apply new skills on a consistent basis, they qualify for pay increases. There are practical limits to how many diverse skills a single member can learn and remain proficient on, so paying for skills beyond a certain point is not cost effective. Generally speaking, the work performed before and after a team member's position would be the primary areas for him to learn.
A rigorous program of training and evaluating members is required for a skill-based pay program to work. It is important to note that this is not pay for education -- learning alone is not sufficient -- the skills must be used proficiently on an on-going basis. This is supported by a job rotation program within the team. Another caveat is that skills cannot be learned and paid for on a 'progress at will' basis. Minimum time limits for learning and practicing a skill are required to prevent team members from simply chasing after pay raises without regard to proficiency. Time limits also make administration more manageable and ensure fairness in access to learning instead of having it be contingent on opportunity. Don't rush the system because unanticipated outside forces will intervene to slow progress from what would be assumed as normal.
For teams where cross-training and job rotation are not practical, skill-based pay may be used to give team members an incentive to gain more in-depth knowledge. This is particularly true in production operations for maintenance technicians. The journey from apprentice to journeyperson represents this type of progression. By linking pay to successful apprenticeship completion (in stages), you can create a skill-based pay program. A similiar approach might be applied to some professional jobs (e.g., progression from Enginer I, to Engr. II, to Sr. Engr.). In fact, "career ladders" represent a form of professional level SBP.
The two best environments for the use of skill-based pay are in new organization startups and in organizations undergoing significant change in job responsibilities. In both cases, intensive learning by broadening and deepening skills is part of the change. By tying learning to pay through SBP, employees have an incentive to participate actively in the change. New plants that overlook skill-based pay miss a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to create a strongly skilled workforce that not only gains from excellent training, but also buys into a very effective pay system. Properly designed, SBP systems will generally gather fewer complaints about fairness and administration than other "time in grade" or "supervisor rating" approaches.
For more information on skill based pay, visit www.bizcenter.com and click on the books link and then select "Skill-Based Pay: Design and Implementation."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
