Recognizing the Right Candidates to Promote
Since we now have a solid understanding of how a poor promotion can kill profitability, let's dig into what we need to look for when considering existing team members for any leadership role we need to fill in our organizations. I've seen firsthand how valuable an internal promotion process can be for a company. The opportunity to apply for, interview for, and even accept different positions played a significant role in my staying with the same organization for nearly two decades.
According to an article from Censia.com called "The Many Benefits of Internal Promotion," applying this practice can help capture profit in several ways. The author suggests that the candidate will stick with the role longer because they know what to expect, that it saves time and money versus hiring externally, and that it can increase engagement, retention, and overall performance.
Promoting the right team member can pay dividends for years and years to come, both in that individual's performance and with many of the team members who can observe the process taking place. To that end, I always emphasized career growth opportunities in the hiring process-especially when the position paid a little less to start but had a much higher pay range long term. As a quick side, that only works more than a few times when it's true. Still, I've seen far too many recruiters attempt it when they have no intention whatsoever of helping the individual take advantage of the opportunities they're selling...
With that in mind, promoting the wrong internal candidate can have just as much-if not more-of a negative impact on the profitability in each area the article detailed. I've seen this happen, and I'm sure you have too!
A year or two before I accepted responsibility for the internal job posting process at the manufacturing facility I was with, I saw a great example of how much impact this can have. A fellow applied for a lead role in one particular department a few times in a row. In each case, someone with more seniority and more experience troubleshooting each specific machine in that department was awarded the position. The challenge in each of those cases was that the individuals with more experience had far worse relationships with most of the other folks they would soon have some authority over. In contrast, the candidate with slightly less technical experience had developed excellent relationships with his coworkers.
I'll remind you of that Harvard Business Review statistic suggesting that "Increased commitment can lead to a 57% improvement in discretionary effort-that is, employees' willingness to exceed duty's call. That greater effort produces, on average, a 20% individual performance improvement..." I doubt I have to spell out the level of commitment the ones who were promoted got from the coworkers who didn't particularly like them when they were peers. Many of them were constantly frustrated with the individuals selected for the role. They were also very critical of the process that awarded them the position rather than their coworker who had earned their respect.
Don't get the wrong idea here; I absolutely believe that technical skills, experience, and tenure are critical things to consider for any position. But when that position carries leadership responsibility, regardless of how formal or informal the authority that comes with it, those factors cannot be all such a decision is based on.
After bidding on that open position a few times and being offered the backup role each time, which was about once each year, the fellow stopped applying for the lead role altogether. He stopped applying for other positions internally but continued looking for growth opportunities. It didn't take long for him to find one, either! Soon after seeing a good option with a locally owned business, he bought the company and has grown it yearly. And this same guy who didn't have enough experience to be a lead in a small department was recently named "Entrepreneur of the Year" by his local Chamber of Commerce.
When all things are equal, an individual's capacity to lead a team can make a far more significant impact on their success when promoted than their current technical ability. Even when all things aren't equal, how they lead will still make a more significant impact. And while promoting someone with only strong technical skills or the most experience may produce slightly better results immediately, other issues can arise soon after...
Joe Knows...
If you ever had the pleasure of watching Bo Jackson play football or baseball, or you remember any TV ads from the late '80s or early '90s, I'm guessing my "Joe Knows" phrase immediately reminded you of Nike's Bo Jackson campaign. And just in case it's not ringing a bell, let's take a short walk down memory lane...
Bo Jackson was an amazing two-sport athlete at Auburn University and made an immediate impact with both professional teams he played for, The Kansas City Royals and the (then) Los Angeles Raiders. As a kid watching Bo play either sport, it was the closest thing I had ever seen to a real-life superhero. He wasn't just good at both sports; he was one of the best in the NFL and MLB then. I'm convinced he would have gone down as one of the best baseball players in history if a football injury had not cut his career far too short. I've always believed that Nike nailed it with their commercials suggesting that Bo could do anything!
With that in mind, let's think back to the example I just shared about the fellow who was promoted and the one who wasn't... And let's pretend that one of those folks who ended up in that lead role was named Joe-because he was! Joe had worked in that facility since God was a boy. Well, maybe not quite that long, but he would have been okay with us believing that. He knew just about everything there was to know about every piece of equipment in the department and what to do when something went wrong. When it came to technical expertise, there were few who had anything close to his understanding of those machines. Unlike Bo Jackson, though, there were a few things Joe didn't know-one of which was how not to piss off nearly anyone he interacted with on a routine basis, and that was without being in a position that increased the ego accompanying his skill set.
Before you start throwing stones at me, I need to add that I did like Joe (most of the time). And I did truly respect how much pride he took in the parts he produced. That said, his skill with the machines didn't necessarily translate to how he worked with the people around him before or after he was promoted to that lead role. I worked side by side with him in my early twenties. I knew he could be a solid resource whenever I encountered an issue. Still, I usually saved that as my last resort so I wouldn't have to deal with his nonsense. And I wasn't alone.
Fast-forward ten to fifteen years, with him now being the boots-on-the-ground authority in the department, and very little had changed. If we were to consider "The Many Benefits of Internal Promotion," the only benefit listed that would have been even close to being captured would have been saving a little time to get an external candidate up to speed. Joe's promotion certainly didn't increase engagement with the rest of the folks in the department; several bid on other jobs to get out of the department, and I'll let you guess how just those two things impacted overall performance. Think back to how increased engagement can yield that extra 57% discretionary effort, and remember, it works both ways!
Again, I'll stress that Joe wasn't a bad guy; he just hadn't been given the tools to lead a team effectively. I only use that example because it's one I lived through. You've probably seen similar scenarios unfold before you. The point is that the team members weren't the only miserable ones in this equation; Joe was usually every bit as frustrated being in that role. I've rarely met anyone who doesn't want to do the very best they can, and he was no different. He had excelled in other areas, but this position required a different skill he hadn't been trained for. Joe didn't stay in that role long term, causing the position to be filled yet again. While it wasn't the case for him, many folks leave an organization altogether when this happens-and they take all their technical experience with them!
Transitioning from being one of the best doers to leading an entire team of doers is always challenging. The skills necessary are very different, and I've rarely seen companies effectively prepare someone for this kind of change. But even if the tools are in place, we often face an internal battle when moving from one of the guys to being the boss-that's worth taking a look at before laying out some specific steps we can take to build a strong succession plan that utilizes the best team members, wherever they're best suited...
But I Thought We Were Friends?
While Joe was outstanding at pretty much every technical aspect of the department, there was one thing he didn't have to worry about when he accepted the lead role: he never seemed all that bothered about alienating long-term friendships. That was primarily a result of him being able to frustrate nearly anyone on any given day, regardless of his job title! However, I saw more than a few other folks who made similar transitions run into significant roadblocks as they attempted to lead a team they had previously been part of-and that killed just as much profitability as the organization ever saved through the internal promotion process.
Consider these two wildly different scenarios, as I'm sure you'll be able to relate to both...
One fellow had worked in his department since graduating high school. After about twenty years with the company, he decided to start taking a few classes at the local community college. It took a while since he was doing this in the evenings and working full time. Still, he was awarded a supervisory role shortly after completing an associate degree in business administration. He was an extremely approachable guy and had solid friendships with just about everyone on the shift he had been a part of and with the folks on the off shift, where he became the supervisor. Having spent so much of his adult life with that group, many of his closest personal friends were in that department. Couple those close relationships with his kindness and approachability, then add in a few old-timers on the off shift who were more than willing to manipulate the situation, and you've got a scenario where a new supervisor was having a tough time keeping the few hoodlums in line or maintaining respect from the folks who just wanted to do their jobs.
Before moving on, I must stress that I'm not condemning him. I still consider him a friend to this day. He just struggled to lead a team, primarily because he didn't have all the tools he needed to do so effectively-and that's the final profitability killer we'll work through soon.
Another fellow had worked in his role for several years, eight to ten if memory serves, and effectively led a small, core group of folks on the assembly line he was responsible for. Each member of that small team was strong in their assigned role, and he had earned significant trust and influence with them. That line routinely had some of the best productivity numbers in the department. This fellow also worked through night classes to earn an associate degree and was promoted to a supervisory role just after. Unlike the other example, he wasn't about to let anyone bully him-old, new, friend or foe. He differed so much from the other fellow (and they sometimes shared an office) that their team members would frequently go to the other to complain about them!
The first of the two leaned far more on carrots for luring his team in whatever direction he hoped they might go if he was nice enough. The second took much more of a stick approach (not physically) and often lived by the idea that the beatings would continue until morale improved. In both cases, the internal promotions never captured the profitability that was possible-mainly because each of them struggled in one way or another with drawing a line between working with their friends and supervising their employees. In each of these scenarios-and in so many others where internal promotions don't go nearly as well as planned-it's not a question of whether the carrot or stick approach is better. It's really a matter of making sure the promotion is a match for the individual, that they're moving in that direction for the right reasons, and we provide them with the support they need to be successful. That last piece applies to every role any team member is in, so we'll look at it separately soon. What we need to do first, though, is work through some simple steps to make sure we're not making bad promotions and unnecessarily killing profitability!
