The Atlantic Monthly has been running excerpts from old issues as part of their 150th anniversary celebration. Reading over an issue this weekend, I came across an article written by a Colonel R. Williams about a decade after the civil war ended – in 1878. His issue? That the military’s practice of promoting those with the longest tenure was “fostering apathy” rather than bravery or a commitment to excellence.”

Amazing that the same battles we fight today for meritocracies were equally well articulated 150 years ago.

Here’s an excerpt:

Our army presents the only known example of a business or profession, either public or private, in which incompetency and want of zeal bring the same substantial rewards as energy, capacity, and active attention to duty. Such a system of promotion is in violation of all the rules of common sense by which men are governed, as well as of those by which they are incited to strive for superior excellence, and the condition of our army at the outbreak of the rebellion affords an excellent example of its inevitable result. At that time the superior grades of the army were filled by old men, who, having outlived all above them, had been regularly promoted, in accordance with this system, to the positions which they occupied, regardless of the well-known fact that in the majority of instances they were unfitted, both by age and infirmity, to perform any military duty whatever. The spectacle was so pitiable, and the lesson it taught so apparent, that it might be supposed the government would have profited by such crushing experience, and been led by it to the adoption of wiser measures. Such, however, was not the case. Our system of army promotion is the same to-day as before the rebellion, and we are slowly, but surely, approaching the same result, from which the same experience, disastrous as it was to the country, must necessarily follow. At the close of the rebellion, and with the sad experience it had taught still before us, some effort at a change was made. The army was reorganized, and many young officers who had acquired experience, both of the regular and volunteer force, and who had especially distinguished themselves, were deservedly placed in high positions; but this spasmodic effort at reform was deemed sufficient, and we have again fallen back into the system of promotion by seniority, which, unless some dire necessity forces a change, must render the condition of our army equally as deplorable as when the rebellion commenced, by filling its superior grades by worn-out and superannuated old men. It seems needless to describe the effect which this system must produce upon the subordinate and junior officers of the army. In most instances it is deadening to all effort at improvement or professional skill, and suggests the natural conclusion: that, as superior rank is obtained only by longevity, each should strive to avoid all exposure, hardships, or dangers by which health may be impaired or life risked.

Not for himself, of course, but rather for America’s corporate executives. In New York City today, Bush spoke on Wall Street about his belief that “the salaries and bonuses of CEOs should be based on their success at improving their companies and bringing value to their shareholders.”

So often, pay for performance is a concept assumed to be applicable only to the rank and file. It’s a worthy cause to elevate it to the c-level as well and it’s great that Bush is pushing the idea.

It just makes you wonder what HIS salary would be if we applied pay for performance thinking to his $400k “guideline.” Given his approval ratings, it would be an interesting exercise indeed.

A guest post by Josh Bersin – CEO, Bersin & Associates

Competencies are one of the most difficult and under-utilized part of performance management.  Bersin & Associates research shows that only 36% of organizations with performance management process rate their use of competencies “excellent” or “good.”

But we also found that effective use of competencies can have a huge impact:  organizations that rate themselves world-class in the use of competencies for performance management are 4-times as likely to have a strong performance-driven culture.

Why?  Because the process of identifying and implementing critical competencies in itself drives a clear understanding of what performance means, how to obtain it, and how to communicate it.

As you can read in our recently published research, thoughtful and strategic use of competencies can have a significant impact on financial performance.  A few of the highlights from our research with SuccessFactors on how the use of competencies affects financial performance:

* Competencies should be customized for your business and should focus on management and leadership-level skills, not just job requirements

* There are two types of job-level competencies:  “hygiene” competencies which establish the basic requirements for a job (ie. customer service), and “performance” driven competencies, which, if executed, will not only help an individual perform their job but will help them grow and excel.

These “performance” or “critical” competencies vary from company to company and industry to industry.  

Read more from our research with SuccessFactors.

DDI and Badbossology.com (that’s actually a real site) did a survey of 900+ employees to determine the worst (and best) qualities of a manager. And, the survey says:

A bad manager:

• Tries too hard to be everyone’s friend
• Micromanages
• Ignores conflict
• Arrogant
• Wishy-washy
• Impulsive
• Unable to delegate
• Impatient
• Stubborn
• Unprofessional

You’ll have to read the article as written up on CNN.com to find out the best qualities and to take the quick “how good a boss are you?” survey.

It’s easy to dismiss this stuff as just for fun – but when you consider that employees often leave jobs due in whole or in part to their relationship with their managers, this kind of thing takes on real meaning. And it’s also fun.

The poll we’ve been running here for the last few weeks has been asking “Would you be in favor of an “open salary” policy at your company in which everyone’s salary was published for all to see?”

As you can see from the responses (nearly 200 of them) 60% of respondents said fuhggedaboudit (AKA no). Originally based on this post from the Chief Happiness Officer, the poll was an attempt to see if people agreed with Alex who argues that there are a number of very compelling reasons to do away with the secret salary system.

While I, too, balk at the idea of publishing my salary, in many ways doing so would represent the natural evolution of something we already do at SuccessFactors: make our goals public. The idea behind pay for performance is that those who perform best get paid the most – thereby incentivizing increased performance. But if people don’t know what others are getting paid, there is a disconnect. I know what Joe did or did not accomplish from his public goal plan, but I don’t know if he got paid more or less (and how much more or less) as a result. There is a perception of pay for performance, but no proof-laden pudding to support it.

I guess my question then becomes – can you realize the ultimate promise of pay for performance without open salaries?

A colleague sent me this article from the Studer Group called “The Long Goodbye”. It caught my eye because it formalized something I’d been considering for a long time: When someone decides to leave his or her company, it’s rarely an immediate reaction to a shockingly negative experience. On the contrary - it’s often the delayed result of an experience that “left a bad taste.”

The article tells the story of a nurse who applied for a position for which she was ultimately not selected. What left the bad taste was not that she didn’t get the job, but rather that she found out that she wasn’t selected when the new hire was announced and it wasn’t her.  That’s an understandably difficult blow. If your organization doesn’t have enough respect for you to talk to you personally in such a case, why would it be reasonable to invest your loyalty in it?

Now, such an occurrence doesn’t mean the nurse is headed out tomorrow – but “will she return calls from another organization if called? Yes. Will she look online for openings at other organizations? Most likely. Will she leave? Yes, if something doesn’t happen to retighten her loyalty.”

The negative experience plants a seed of discontent that may one day grow into full blown rejection. So how do you avoid alienating your employees like this? The article first suggests a specific communications program for employees who aren’t selected for promotions -but that seems to me to be a point solution. The second suggestion is more appropriate: talk to your employees.

GigaOm highlights Yahoo’s new attempt at retaining top talent. Called Brickhouse, the project is essentially an in-house incubator meant to give it’s entrepreneurial employees another reason to stick with the company. Not altogether different from the Google 20% – wherein Googlers get to spend 20% of their time on a project of their choosing – it is both a way to satisfy the innate desire to create as well as a method for harnessing that creativity.

The blog discussion is also pretty interesting. Some people think money rules, but others see real value in letting employees explore. I wonder if such tactics are purely in the domain of the high-tech world, or if there’s applicability beyond technology. Could you see something like this at Pfizer or Ford?

I was sent this article written by Joe Torre, the manager of the New York Yankees, that was recently published in BusinessWeek. Now, regardless of what you think of the team, you have to admire Joe. Just being able to remain the manager of the Yankees for this long while working for George Steinbrenner has to give you some insight into the man’s pluck.

The truth is that he’s a very insightful guy with real heart (somehow in my mind, I always envision him crying after winning something), and in the article he shares some of his thoughts on managing talent. In part, he talks about how he uses one of the team’s worst moments (letting the Red Sox take the momentum, and the world series, away in 2004) to motivate his people to always be ready. But he contrasts that motivational technique with a keen understanding of the fine balance between emotionality and competitiveness. A quote:

These days it is so important for a CEO, or any manager, whoever it is, to be aware of his or her personnel. We are in an age of computers, and everything is so damn impersonal. But in the end, it still comes down to people. You have to make people feel necessary. Even if their contributions are minor, it adds to everything else. That’s what makes the machine work. I love players with heart, not necessarily emotion, but those who deep down are driven by something more than mind and body. I don’t play favorites. The 25th member of the squad is just as important as the first guy. And I can’t let my own emotions get in the way of competing. I have had to release guys I loved, and keep players I didn’t necessarily care for.

Depends on who you ask.

Via digg.com, I came across an article from the WSJ entitled “Employers increasingly favor bonuses to raises” – which discusses the whole concept of performance-linked bonuses. According to the article, 80% of companies will offer some from of bonus program this year up from 78% last year and 67% in 1997. The article discusses the pay-for-performance initiatives of Whirlpool, which has made more employees eligible for bonuses and increased the maximum bonus that can be achieved.

According to the article “Whirlpool also awards merit raises based on performance. But it considers bonuses a more powerful motivator. “It starts breaking away at the notion of entitlement,” says David Binkley, Whirlpool’s human-resources chief. With merit pay, “if you just spread it around, it just raises your costs.” Across corporate America, he notes, “those days are coming to an end where everyone just automatically gets this 3.6%, 3.7%” merit raise.”

In case you were wondering, the average raise for 2007 is projected to be 3.7%, up from 3.6% this year  – according to data from Hewitt.

(more…)

Sometimes I read these articles and wonder who benefits from all this fear-mongering. Clearly, someone is out to scare the heck out of us. In any event, Forbes presents “Where have all the leaders gone?,” a rather sanguine look at the looming talent shortage at the C level.

In the article, commentator Kevin Cashman (CEO of a leadership development firm) responds to reader questions. One reader asks “…what practical measures can senior leaders take to deal with potential crises?” Cashman responds:

It may sound simplistic, but the best thing a top leader can do is be a great coach, boss and mentor. After conducting 19,700 exit interviews of key employees leaving companies, the Saratoga Institute found that 85% of bosses thought their top people left for more money and opportunity. But the real reason behind the turnover: 80% said they left due to poor management and leadership or because of a dysfunctional company culture. If you’re a board member, a CEO or a leader on the front lines, paying more attention to the development of your people and teams is the crucial variable for retaining key people.

It’s a point well made. Talent shortages are far more acute for companies that don’t actually work to develop their employees. Keeping the top performers you already have is far easier and more efficient than going back to the well.