You know that old saying, ‘do not run mouth unless brain is engaged’?

These days there should be a rule about not posting to social media unless brain is engaged.

Better yet, some kind of hardware similar to the gadget that prevents a car from starting if the driver can’t pass a breathalyzer test.

Media is full of stories about people who were fired for what they tweeted.

The rationalization I hear from various people is that it won’t happen to them because “I’m different.” They say that “they (those fired) were nobodies, i.e., low-level workers or unemployed, while they are “professionals,” i.e., they have clout.

Once I stop laughing I remind them of all those with clout who sent stupid tweet that cost them their jobs.

Now I just send them a link listing 13 Twitter-savvy somebodys fired for their tweets.

Whether you’re a somebody or a nobody, read the list.

Then be sure your brain is engaged before you post a tweet — every time.

Flickr image credit: Bernard Goldbach

“Troy,” a CEO I work with off and on, sent me a link to an article referencing Netflix Chief Talent Officer Patty McCord’s explanation of why you should immediately fire underperformers to explain (justify) his own actions.

McCord’s core advice is to think six months in advance, about what the company can and should do better, which will highlight the people who don’t have the skill set or drive to get there. (…) “I tell an employee I’m going to put you on a performance improvement plan, but the truth is they don’t actually know how to do what I need someone in their job to do. I did my six months out thing and realized she wasn’t qualified, and I put her on a plan even though it’s not an issue of performance, it’s an issue of skill set.”

This was the latest salvo in our ongoing disagreement on managerial responsibility when it comes to people—a subject we vehemently disagree on.

Troy says that young, fast-growth companies have no time to develop their people and when you have a lot of capital and very stringent targets to achieve [Wall Street quarterly reports, ed], you have to think differently.

I say that it’s mostly management’s fault, especially in larger companies like Netflix because they should be growing their people all the time so their skill-set is ready for the challenge; obviously, I’m not referring to those employees who need to be dragged kicking and screaming into their future.

Startups, fast growing and established companies all need to add the right talent to get where they are going.

Good managers assess the situation, current and future, and inform employees regarding their promotional opportunities.

Further, good managers keep them informed of what new skills they will need in the future, as well as the best way to acquire them.

I read about and know personally thousands of good managers who work hard to grow their people, so they are ready for the new challenges coming down the road.

There are also plenty of companies with good programs in place that bad managers won’t use.

Yes, people deserve to know the truth regarding their opportunities and McCord’s approach when termination is the right course is extremely humane—but few companies would spend the resources.

“Instead, I could have told the employee, ‘here’s what I’m going to need six months from now, and here’s the talent and skills I’ll need. Then you tell her, ‘It’s not you. I don’t want you to fail. I don’t want to publicly humiliate you.’”

However, if that person’s actual manager had been doing his/her job the situation McCord describes might never have happened.

That’s the part that Troy doesn’t get.

Upgrading employee skills and adding new ones is an ongoing process that requires better and stronger management skills and more work than McCord’s approach—hers is the easy way out.

During my 40+ years around the workforce there have always been managers who build their people and those who don’t.

• Those who do build understand that people are holistic and it takes more effort to instill cultural understanding and rebuild group morale after someone is terminated than it does to keep upgrading skills.
• Those who don’t build believe that it’s easier to replace than train/build employees.

But demographics are against them. Replacing people will only become harder as the economy improves and the number of working people and their experience continues to go down.

stock.xchng image credit: arte_ram

Interesting comments from Ben Horowitz on why firing a member of the founding team as the company grows may be both a necessary decision and an ethical one.

If your current executive team helped you 10X your company, how can you dismiss them when they fall behind in running the behemoth they created? The answer is that your loyalty must go to your employees—the people who report to your executives. Your engineers, marketing people, sales people, finance and HR people who are doing the work. You owe them a world-class management team. That’s the priority.

Can’t argue that and it can happen long before the 10X level is reached.

Horowitz says during each year’s review he would spell out the changes that come with growth.

“Therefore, you will have a new and very different job and I will have to re-evaluate you on that job. If it makes you feel better, that rule goes for everyone on the team including me.”

He goes on to say,

“In giving this kind of direction, it’s important to point out to the executive that when the company doubles in size, she has a new job. This means that doing things that made her successful in her old job will not necessarily translate to success in the new job. In fact, the No. 1 way that executives fail is by continuing to do their old job rather than moving on to their new job.”

What he doesn’t say is that it’s part of the boss’ job to help any employee prepare for those expanded responsibilities;

• First, by providing insight on what improved/new skills and additional knowledge are needed to perform well in the new position, whether or not the title changes.
• Second, by suggesting resources, such as classes, training (if available) and mentoring.

This is as true for executives as it is for any other level.

It’s difficult for people to evaluate their own strengths and weaknesses in a position they know well, let alone in one they haven’t done yet.

This holds true for founders and CEOs, too, assuming they want to hold on to their positions.

However, there is one other question that should be added to the discussion that is some variation of the following, “Now that you understand what will be involved in your new responsibilities is that what you want to do? Do you feel it’s a good fit for who you are and who you want to be; in other words, will it make you happy?”

People are usually happiest in a company of a certain size and at a certain time in its life.

Joining before that or staying after is never a good idea.

Flickr image credit: WalkingGeek

CEOs are an interesting species of executives.

CEOs are often lauded one quarter for their vision and leadership and derided the next quarter for the same thing.

Some suffer from severe arrogance syndrome, while others have either temporary or chronic foot-in-mouth disease.

But whether world-class geniuses or world-class asses CEOs  are rarely boring.

For those who set their career sights on the corner office, success used to be measured by the size of the company and bigger always equaled better—but in technology that’s changing.

CEOs, especially those of large, public corporations, have one especially cat-like trait—they always land on their feet even when they are fired—as happens more and more frequently these days.

As with everything there is a right way and a wrong way to fire a CEO, with Carol Bartz and Mark Hurd the poster children of the wrong way. So, here’s some good advice on how to do it the right way.

Finally, with the use of social media accelerating, the pros and cons of  CEO blogging have changed markedly from the original debates.

Have a terrific weekend!

Flickr image credit: pedroelcarvalho

See all mY generation posts here.