One of the biggest ways I see companies and leaders struggle is due to operating reactively. Why do companies tend to operate reactively? In my experience as an Executive Coach, the reason most organizations operate reactively is because they lack a strong, cohesive, highly-effective senior leadership team. Often, focus seems to be on putting out fires versus taking a thoughtful, intentional, proactive approach to prevent fires in the first place.
Would you rather prevent fires or exhaust resources by reacting to fires and trying to put them out? Would you rather use your resources for creativity and innovation or use your resources for wild goose chases?
If you focus on operating proactively, your organization will be more productive, more efficient, less burned out, more profitable, and employees will be happier.
Organizations that are reactive with hiring and turnover tend to do things like: they don’t track or analyze hiring/turnover costs, they don’t identify core competencies they are hiring for, they don’t think through (or know-how) to interview for these core competencies, they don’t have a clear picture of the job duties, they don’t have a clear picture of the development opportunities, and they don’t have a formalized interview process. Operating reactively with hiring and turnover costs more than taking a proactive approach.
Too often, organizations don’t realize the effort it takes to train and onboard. Additionally, most employees receive no long-term formal onboarding or training plan. As a leader, have you mapped out the first 6 months of what onboarding a new employee will look like? Most of the time, employees receive reactive onboarding and training — having the employee sit and watch someone else when they are available.
I recently visited a restaurant and the employee who came over to the table said it was her first day. She started taking the order and the manager/owner stopped her and told her that she only wanted the new employee to bus tables and to get drinks for customers. I was cringing! How did this employee start her first shift without knowing what was expected of her or what her job was? And why did she receive no training?
One time, I was hired for a position. The hiring manager and I had in-depth conversations around my skills. He knew that I had not done the main task directly, but said that he was willing to train me. Unfortunately, 6 months in, even though I repeatedly asked for training, I received little-to-none and the hiring manager terminated me. His reason? “I don’t have the capacity to train you.” There were other issues at play here. He had an inability to delegate and hold others accountable, which meant he took all work on himself and became an unnecessary bottleneck. Regardless, this is a great example of a completely reactive approach and how the lack of thoughtfulness and the lack of a highly-effective leader cost the organization.
LinkedIn Learning reported the statistic that over 60% of organizations provide no leadership training. Gallup and other sources have reported statistics that show 50–70% of leaders have never received leadership training. This is what it looks like for your organization to be reactive with leadership development.
Generally, people are promoted based on technical skills, their ability to produce, their ability to do their job, and/or favoritism/nepotism and other inadequate reasons to promote someone. Organizations also act reactively in this area when they make it so that promotions include a people management component; this makes employees feel as if they need to be a leader if they want to have a higher title and more pay.
Science tells us that ~70% of leadership skills are learned (the other 30% come from genes). While some people possess more of a natural inclination toward leadership skills, the tricky part about leadership skills is that just like human behavior, they aren’t so cut and dry. As humans, we bring our own limiting beliefs, insecurities, projections, social conditioning, and other various nuances into our leadership.
I have yet to hear a “yes” when I ask organizations if they track and analyze their turnover costs or have done a cost/benefit analysis between the cost of remaining status quo (not developing leaders) and the benefit of developing leaders. It seems like a no-brainer, especially in this time of increasingly rapid change and the need for creativity, resiliency, innovation, and agility.
Recently, I had a client who wanted to join one of my Leadership Development Groups. He’s receiving his first direct report this summer. He asked his organization (insurance industry, which employs over 1,000 people) if they would cover the professional development investment. They said they would not cover it or subsidize it; when he inquired, they said they offered no development for leaders. More and more, I’m receiving clients who are paying for leadership development coaching themselves because either their organization won’t cover the investment, or they feel a stigma in asking (as if asking for coaching implies that you’re weak in your leadership skills).
Whether it’s intentional or not, choosing not to develop leaders (at all levels) is no longer a viable option if organizations want to address turnover, burnout, productivity, limiting profitability, and ability to effectively cope with change. Let’s not assume that people can effectively “wing it” when expected to lead, motivate, and inspire others.
Enter your email below to receive the monthly newsletter, Insights, where I share expert insights, learning, and advice!
