The long death march that has become our presidential election cycle is over.  Congrats to Barack Obama, may the enthusiasm and passion you captured during the campaign carry over to your term as our leader.  I mean that, and it's proof that America still rocks the house.  Regardless of your politics, you have to admit that a country that needed Title VII forty-plus years ago electing a minority candidate as president is cool on many levels. 

Talent trumps race.  Lots of conversations coming at the Dunn boys around the dinner table in the years to come.  About talent, possibilities, and of course, the role of government.  Should be interesting, and I'm sure everyone will learn something.

Everybody wants a strong America with a strong leader, and I OB, I hope you can get it done.   Of course, I'd like you to go to the podium regarding the EFCA, raise your hands and say "psych!!!" or "you've just been punked!'

On the flip side, if the first spending bill he signs is a hoops court for the White House, I'm good...

So, here we are.  Obama's the new employee, the new leader.  He walks into the office on his first day, and he's got some choices to make, just like you did the last time you took a gig that included managing and leading others,  Among the choices:

1. "I'm a leader, and I already know what to do, and a big part of the change is going to happen quickly" - Otherwise known as the "shock and awe" first 90-day style, this involves a leader moving quickly without really taking the time to gather a lot of input or build consensus with segments that might not agree with him.  When the president is from a different party than the majority of congress, this option really isn't on the table.  Since the democrats now hold the White House and Congress, this is an option, although it really doesn't mesh with the image that Obama likes to project.

2. "I'm here to lead, but I'm gong to take the time to listen" - This is the classic middle ground for a new manager.  Even if he/she knows what to do and has strong opinions, they'll likely take their time, get a couple of early wins on their own, but make sure to involve those that might cause conflict in an effort to build consensus. 

3. "I'm a consensus builder, and I'm here to listen and give you a voice in coming up with the solutions" - The conflict avoiding approach, this path commits the new leader to months worth of meetings and burdens them with the requirement of reporting back to all the stakeholders, and showing them how their input was included in the changes that were implemented.

Obama's the new manager, the new VP of the division that's struggling, etc.  He's been brought in to change things.  It's no different than any other manager that's brought in - folks will be looking long and hard at what he does early to get cues on how he will lead in his four years.

Which of the three options does he take?  Option #1 is available, but it comes with risks, just as it does for any manager.  Everyone knows that change is needed in many areas, but be too extreme too quickly and you risk mobilizing forces against you.  In the corporate world, that means you can get early wins but get stonewallled later as people build coalitions against you.  In the political world, that means you stay president, but your party loses seats in Congress (see first term of George W. Bush).

So, what will the managerial style in the first 90 days be for President Obama?  It'll be interesting to find out, but remember - he's not an at-will employee - he's got a four year employment contract.  And a jump shot. 

A couple of weeks ago, over at Fistful of Talent, we did a fun series about an important topic - pay equity and the possible coming wave of legislation designed to allow government to mandate "market" rates in situations they deem important, through legislation like the Paycheck Fairness Act.  Find those posts here, here and here - a good read and an area where you ought to have an opinion as a talent pro. 

In addition to a lot of opinion we shared on the topic of pay equity, readers were also ringing it up in the comments and emails regarding a related topic - the fact that pressure on starting salaries usually means your incumbents in a specific job class will experience pay compression - meaning that over time, as starting salaries increase, incumbents in specific roles can see the premium placed on their experience diminish.

From reader and friend of the capitalist, JK (name withheld upon request), on the struggle of keeping pay competitive for the veterans of your team:

"Of course this is entirely off the record and completely made up.  You see I have this 'friend' who works for a big technology company that has large workforce populations in emerging high tech markets.  In this made-up example, we'll say it's India.

Let's say that wages in India are growing at dot-com bubble rates.  Let's also imagine that managers of development teams have been given some small adjustment budget to attempt to provide equity to those experienced workers who could find jobs in other companies for significant premium over the current salaries. 

With that in mind, let's say that you also have college recruiters who are working off their own salary ranges, attempting to fill their quotas of new hires based on market salaries.  Again, they are not exactly doing anything wrong, but imagine that as a result, you have new college hires coming in that know nothing who are being paid more then 3 year veterans in your group.  Your obvious reaction is probably 'send them back', since the loss of productivity of the more senior people who are going to quit (or worse, not quit) is not worth the cost of training new hires.

I'm just suggesting that there needs to be some talking between the salary ranges that are "real" in the market and those that are used for compensation adjustments.  Without this managers are disincented to hire.  As a manager you will be seen as a serious jerk for allowing significant pay inequality like this, especially if/when you have real star performers."

JK hits on a tough reality of the marketplace - a candidate's negotiating power, regardless of race, gender, national origin, age, etc. - is never higher than when they are available in a tight market with high demand.  With that in mind, companies that face this issue have three choices:

1.  Hire, do nothing and wait for the situation to implode - never a wise choice.

2.  Be aggressive in providing "market adjustments" to incumbents to minimize the impact of salary compression in the circumstances outlined.  Hard to do, hard to find the cash, but necessary.  If you're hiring five newbies, hire four and split up the salary allocated to the fifth for incumbent market increases.

3.  Adjust your hiring criteria, and buy a less skilled new hire and attempt to train up.  Not ideal.

The good news, if there is any for this situation, is that companies rarely get hit with this situation for all jobs.  Usually supply and demand happens on a market by market basis, with technology hires being especially tight over the last 5-10 years, as that part of the economy expands.

So, to JK's point, you have to have a plan.  Just talking about this makes me aware of what a folly it is for the government to figure out the market in this area.

You expected the government to solve this issue for you?  Surely you jest... This one is going to come down to.... You....

Ever want to cuss in the workplace?  Sure you have.  No matter how principled, proper and professional you are, you've received bad news in the workplace and wanted to drop some profane science.  It's OK, you're human.

For those of you who abstain from dropping the F-Bomb in the break room, why the self-control?  Maybe you want to set a more professional example than that, or maybe you're worried that you'll get run out of your company on a rail as a result of picking up the habit.  If you're a HR pro, keeping the cursing to a minimum usually comes with the territory.  Open door policy, being approachable and all that...

Watching the World Series, I can't help but think the workplace that is professional sports has become more progressive through a little thing called the glove shield.  You know the glove shield - it's the technique used by professional baseball players taking a meeting at the pitcher's mound, so someone in the opposing clubhouse can't figure out what they are saying.

Guess what?  Using the glove shield, baseball pros can now cuss at will on camera without folks like me wondering if our kids should be watching.  From Andy Katz 360:

"Pitchers have diversified their use of the glove shield. They love to cover their face when walking to the dugout at the end of the inning so they can drop an F-bomb or two without getting picked up by the camera. (I would love to hear a pitcher miked up when they do the glove shield routine. This could be shown on my new cable sports channel, where the announcers freely curse. You can't tell me that John McEnroe wouldn't sign up immediately for a gig like that. I'm getting off on a tangent here. This topic might deserve its own blog entry."

Like Andy, I'm wondering if you could pull that off in the workplace, by picking up a glove and bringing it to work for your next tough meeting:

"Boss: These spreadsheets you're working on, it's almost as if you've never seen Microsoft Office products before. Perhaps we should send you to an entry-level class to explain the science behind increasing the default width of columns in Excel...

You: (covering face with baseball glove). You *&^* *^@*&*&. Why don't you go ^&%$ &^%$$^.
(remove glove). Let me give it another try. I know I can do a better job.

Or you could request an extra FTE to do spreadsheets for you.  See how that one goes...

Every once in a while, you get a swarm of articles that says the annual performance review should die a horrible death.  The latest in the line of these rants comes from Samuel Culbert of the UCLA School of Management.

The intro to Culberts' manifesto as recorded by the Wall Street Journal:

"You can call me "dense," you can call me "iconoclastic," but I see nothing constructive about an annual pay and performance review. It's a mainstream practice that has baffled me for years.

To my way of thinking, a one-side-accountable, boss-administered review is little more than a dysfunctional pretense. It's a negative to corporate performance, an obstacle to straight-talk relationships, and a prime cause of low morale at work. Even the mere knowledge that such an event will take place damages daily communications and teamwork.

The alleged primary purpose of performance reviews is to enlighten subordinates about what they should be doing better or differently. But I see the primary purpose quite differently. I see it as intimidation aimed at preserving the boss's authority and power advantage. Such intimidation is unnecessary, though: The boss has the power with or without the performance review.

And yes, I have an alternative in mind that will get people and corporations a great deal more of what they actually need.

To make my case, I offer seven reasons why I find performance reviews ill-advised and bogus."

Click here to see the 7 reasons Culbert cites.  It's a good list, but it misses one very important point.  You can keep the annual review, tie it to a merit increase, etc., if your managers can do one very important thing - coach talent on a daily basis. 

No coaching skills?  Then the first time the employee gets feedback on adjustments/improvements to make IS the annual review, which nets all the problems that Culbert outlines.

I think effective performance management that places a premium on coaching skills is key to maximizing engagement. Where are you going to be more engaged as an employee - in a relationship with a manager who positively affirms what you are doing well and brainstorms with you how you can maximize yourself and your career, or with a manager who only engages you on your performance on an annual basis? I've had both in my career, and I think the answer is pretty clear.

The problem that all the folks who make the easy claim that we should kill the performance review don't acknowledge?  It's a bloodbath out there in terms of coaching skills, for new and experienced managers of people alike.  Most managers aren't good coaches - they avoid the conversations (both positive and corrective in nature) that they should have daily.  Too much confrontation, too messy, I've got other stuff to do, blah, blah, blah. 

So, it's great to call for an end to the performance review.  Make sure you put your money and time where your mouth is, and be involved in providing the training and CONTINUOUS feedback to managers on their coaching skills. 

What's that?  You don't have time?  Guess what Tony Robbins - you can't kill the performance review then, because your words are empty and not backed by action.  Call me when you're ready to do something to improve the situation.

While I'm on a rant, I'll throw some props to Jessica Lee at FOT and agree with her - can I get some opinions from people who are actually responsible for the performance review process?  It's OK if you aren't. Opinions are like home improvement shows - everyone's got one.

By the way, when I had the guy/gal who only gave me feedback once a year, they looked about as happy as Culbert does in the video below. (email subscribers click through for the video)