Yesterday at breakfast, this very same point was raised in a discussion that @xsyn @afekz and I had, and it's a point that @haroonmeer brought up quite some time ago. I whole-heartedly agree with this, of course with the proviso that @xsyn raised - "it depends on what you want to achieve" - but in my context and for my purposes, building and leading a team of rock-star pentesters, I think Reed is spot on.
I believe that this is an element of the larger question of culture however, very much in the same way that my rant on mediocrity is in itself related to culture. Culture is a slippery subject, hotly debated, and once again, some exceptional literature exists to address the many perspectives. For just one great example, I'd strongly recommend Lisa Endlich's Goldman Sachs: The Culture of Success.
It's also an area where the essence is very widely misinterpreted and misunderstood. @haroonmeer's post on Cargo Cult Startups addresses many of these common failings head-on and makes some excellent points that I won't reiterate here. But 20% time and colorful beanbags definitely do not dictate a super culture.
I've been fortunate to see many different environments, both places where I've worked and client environments where I've spent time, and I've seen cultures that work brilliantly, that fail miserably, and that have evolved (or devolved, for a more accurate term) over time. Given the impact that people have, leadership, staffing and hiring play a critical role.
The key to a successful (or conversely, a disastrous) culture is the people within the organization. It should go without saying that leadership is the benchmark, and that people fresh into your environment will take their lead from the prevailing guard. Clearly, if your issue lies here, there is little hope. However beyond the obvious, it extends much deeper - I'd contend that each and every person that you introduce into your environment impacts the culture, and thus the performance of the rest, in various tangible and intangible ways.
It's been said again and again that A-players will aim to hire other A-players. This makes perfect sense, and aligns neatly with a very valid point that @craigbalding raised earlier in response to my mediocrity rant "the ultimate is to surround yourself with people that make you raise your game IMHO". Absolutely spot-on.
Of course, this also plays perfectly into the pro-team/family analogy - you can't pick your family and you should love them unconditionally, but you sure as hell do pick your starting line-up, and shouldn't tolerate less than their best.
In fact, if someone makes your team, they should be there because they want to be pushed, they want to excel, they want the privilege of playing with other super-stars. They want to be led by a coach and play on a team that they know will push them to achieve their best, measure them harshly but fairly, and that they can constantly learn from. In this way, they continuously improve, and they know that each time they run onto the field, they're surrounded by the cream of the crop and they all worked their proverbial asses off to be there.
The problem comes in when you have B or C players making hiring decisions. Often they're afraid to hire people better than them, or that will challenge them. And the flip-side holds true - A-players don't *want* to work for people who won't challenge or push them. This is an easy trap to fall into however, as often external pressures exist to cut back on the time taken for the hiring process in order to plug an immediate gap, and you settle for "ok".
In fact, if you want to take this further, consider this in the context of the military - take a small special forces team. Do you want your life in the hands of people who are just ok at what they do? Or do you want to be scared to the back teeth, in hostile territory with someone who worked just as hard, if not harder than you to be there, and who is much better than you at what you do? Maybe a little extreme, but true..
People much smarter than me have proffered a wonderful analogy for this - consider your company, or your team to be a gene-pool. Once you corrupt that gene-pool, even just once, the damage is irrevocable. This holds true even when, in fact more-so when you have a team of high performers.
There are many reasons for this, but to highlight some of the obvious ones, the hire of someone mediocre introduces a myriad of doubts. Is my performance in line with this guy, is that what they think? I had to work this hard to get into this team, is this what the standard is now? What's happening here, this guy can't cut it, do we need to carry him now? Is this guy going to represent my team/brand/me publicly? What's up with the guys making the decisions, are they losing it? Are we happy to settle for second best? Are we starting to slip into mediocrity?
Call it what you will, and cite whatever reasons you will - game theory's Prisoner's Dilemma, group dynamics, whatever - even your best, most committed, most loyal players will start to question in this manner when standards are lowered and lower standards are tolerated. Even worse is not acting on this decisively and visibly, and cutting the under-performing player or employee. Because that sends the message that mediocrity is not only tolerated, in some cases it is rewarded.
Now, everybody makes mistakes, and we've all likely been guilty of a less than stellar hire - the key is to act decisively and quickly to rectify the problem and thus protect your team and your culture. This might sound harsh, admittedly, but if the comfortable status quo was the norm, where would we be?
And I'm not being purely negative and cynical - a positive hire, a strong A-player who brings the qualities that you value to your team has the opposite, powerfully positive effect. This inspires and motivates the other players to work harder and improve their own performance to keep up with the new blood, and to honor their excellence. People motivate one another strongly, whether positively or negatively.
The truth is that the *people* dictate and maintain the culture. And people are loyal to other people, not to the team, to the company, or to the division. People aspire to play and work with the rock-stars and the big names - regardless of where they are. That's why players follow coaches, why entire divisions of companies up and leave and start new ones together, why staff follow great leaders wherever they may go.
The bottom-line is to understand the finer elements of culture. This is ridiculously difficult work for leaders, however it is crucial that they understand and endeavor to work to keep the rock-stars who attract other rock-stars. To work to not compromise on your standards, ever. To work to keep pushing, innovating, growing no matter how good you are. And to always remember that no organization is bigger than its people..
Posts
1 comment:
wow.. the last line: "no organization is bigger than its people" is really non intuitive, but i suspect is totally correct.. real rockingness!
Post a Comment