For as we have many members in one body,
and all members have not the same office.
—Romans 12:4
and all members have not the same office.
—Romans 12:4
Now that we’ve talked leadership, let’s talk about the people you’re leading. Grab your flowchart and repeat after me: “At least 20% of my employees are playing out of position.”
Regardless of industry or company a good fifth of staffers aren’t working efficiently. From New York to New Deli to New Zealand too many people, based on what they’re good at are in the wrong department, have the wrong title, the wrong responsibilities, are way too busy, or aren’t busy enough. I’ve watched this problem go from bad to worse every year with more and more employees complaining about it. And for the most part, it’s not their fault; a lot of companies just aren’t doing very good jobs of putting people where they can do the most good. In fact, I’m starting to think that some bosses are shifting bodies around to hide the fact that the only thing they’re really good at is shifting bodies around.
Screw The Pay Scales
Many companies work under the theory that non-execs shouldn’t make as much as executives. So once an employee reaches a certain salary, they’re pressured into taking promotions and responsibilities they don’t want or aren’t good at in order to justify a salary they’ve already earned; or they get passed over for someone who’s more “promotion-ready.”
This is asinine.
Employees are common; talented, productive ones aren’t. All-pro talent deserves all-pro salaries. If your “I can’t function without you” assistant wants $75K and she’s performing, pay her the $75K. Don’t be cheap. Likewise, if you have a VP who’s only giving you a $40K effort then cut their salary to $40K. People should get paid by their value, not their title.
Up on the Downstroke
Not long ago I worked with “George,” a hot graphic designer and commercial artist. He always came through with quality work. As a reward, our company gave him a raise—with one condition: George had to take a promotion. They made him a Creative Director which meant supervising people, making client presentations, handling budgets, etc… all the stuff George hated doing, didn’t want to do, and really wasn’t good at. Supposedly, George’s boss couldn’t justify paying a non-supervisor what George wanted, so he had to take the new position. The result? George spent more time “creative directing” and managing and less time designing.
Not only that, but instead of doing one job extremely well, George was now doing lots of jobs not so well. And on top of all of that, he hated it. In the name of policy and protocol we turned George, a long-time asset, into a potential liability.
Regardless of industry or company a good fifth of staffers aren’t working efficiently. From New York to New Deli to New Zealand too many people, based on what they’re good at are in the wrong department, have the wrong title, the wrong responsibilities, are way too busy, or aren’t busy enough. I’ve watched this problem go from bad to worse every year with more and more employees complaining about it. And for the most part, it’s not their fault; a lot of companies just aren’t doing very good jobs of putting people where they can do the most good. In fact, I’m starting to think that some bosses are shifting bodies around to hide the fact that the only thing they’re really good at is shifting bodies around.
Screw The Pay Scales
This is asinine.
Employees are common; talented, productive ones aren’t. All-pro talent deserves all-pro salaries. If your “I can’t function without you” assistant wants $75K and she’s performing, pay her the $75K. Don’t be cheap. Likewise, if you have a VP who’s only giving you a $40K effort then cut their salary to $40K. People should get paid by their value, not their title.
Up on the Downstroke
Not long ago I worked with “George,” a hot graphic designer and commercial artist. He always came through with quality work. As a reward, our company gave him a raise—with one condition: George had to take a promotion. They made him a Creative Director which meant supervising people, making client presentations, handling budgets, etc… all the stuff George hated doing, didn’t want to do, and really wasn’t good at. Supposedly, George’s boss couldn’t justify paying a non-supervisor what George wanted, so he had to take the new position. The result? George spent more time “creative directing” and managing and less time designing.
Not only that, but instead of doing one job extremely well, George was now doing lots of jobs not so well. And on top of all of that, he hated it. In the name of policy and protocol we turned George, a long-time asset, into a potential liability.
