1. What are the keys to success? How do we explain the fact that over time, two equally
talented people often get dramatically different results? Why is that?
Some people believe success is a matter of luck. Others believe it is the result of talent
or education, or "being in the right place at the right time." Some of us think it has to do
with "who you know," or (let's be honest) that luck maybe does play a part.
Well. I don't think "luck" has much to do with it, except in the sense that some people
have a knack for doing the right things, in the right way, at the right time, and attracting
the things they want in life. And the profound, life-changing truth is that that kind of luck
has nothing to do with magic or random chance!
In fact, the best metaphor for success I've found doesn’t mention luck or talent at
all. I think it's more accurate to describe success as a habit, as a set of behaviors and
attitudes that are repeated every day until they become automatic.
A few years ago, I read that the top sales people in a large insurance company earned
54 times more than the "average" salesperson made in commissions. Think of that--
some people earned 54 times more than their colleagues who were selling the same
products for the same company, with the same training. How could that be?
Were the top people 54 times smarter or 54 times more talented? Would you argue they
were 54 times luckier? Of course not! It turns out, the differences in income were almost
entirely the result of "small differences that made all the difference."
It's true that the top sales people DID make more calls per day--but not 54 times more
calls, just a few extra calls. The top people did return calls more promptly and had
slightly better phone skills. The top people read more, and had a better understanding
of their products, and were perhaps slightly better at communicating with prospects.
The essential piece, however, is that the top people were only a little bit better, and the
things that mattered were the ordinary, routine skills that everyone has to master. It was
the "little things" that made all the difference!
In a couple of months, the whole world will seem to focus on the "March Madness"
national basketball tournament, and you’ll see this principle at work in every single
game. The winners are not necessarily more talented, younger, stronger or richer. Often
the difference between winning and losing is a moment's concentration, or a small extra
effort. I can safely predict that even in the national championships, the difference
between winning and losing will be small, ordinary things that will ultimately make all the
difference!
http://ziaullahkhan.blogspot.com/2012/01/its-little-things.html

2. Effective leaders set their teams up for success. This requires that they avoid any
management practices that could potentially kill employee productivity. Inept leadership
styles come in all flavors, from the disorganized or forgetful boss to the extreme
micromanager. Here are five practices that are guaranteed to sink your workers’
efficiency — and the alternatives to supercharge it.
1. Fearmongering
Fear is a powerful motivator, but managers who regularly threaten job security and
employees’ livelihood run the risk of paralyzing their team. Employees who are afraid to
lose their job may bow under pressure, waste company time looking for jobs “just in
case” or gossip with coworkers — all activities that kill morale and decrease
productivity.
Instead, cultivate a culture centered on trust, respect and engagement. Such a work
environment encourages growth, learning from one’s mistakes and effective
communication. Engaged workers who aren’t afraid of being fired can relax and focus
on doing their best work. Similarly, disengaged workers can destroy team morale from
within.
2. Calling employees out in public
Managers should praise publicly and counsel privately. Criticizing a team member in
front of his peers is embarrassing for him; it also has an awkward, demotivating effect
on his coworkers, who may now be fearful to make a mistake.
If you need to counsel an employee, do so in a way that won’t attract attention or
distract others. This is especially important in offices with glass-walled meeting rooms or
open floor plans, where it’s easy for others to see and hear sensitive meetings.
When I worked in an open-plan office, I’d initiate all one-on-one “development” meetings
with an instant message or a short email that explained why I wanted to speak with the
team member. Then I’d approach the employee and say something like, “Hey, let’s go
take a walk. Will you be free in 10 minutes?” We’d then head to a nearby park, where
we could speak freely. Because the company had cultivated a culture of trust, feedback
and engagement (see No. 1), employees learned to look forward to these “walks” as
opportunities to improve.
3. Avoiding project ownership
Managers who hold the strings in every regard aren’t leaders — they’re tyrants.
Employees who are mere pawns can quickly become disengaged; they have little
incentive to go above and beyond in any particular task.
Employees who have ownership over a project are emotionally vested in its success.
That small measure of recognition builds accountability. An employee who is the point

3. person for a project may go above and beyond to coordinate his teammates, meet
project deadlines and communicate their progress with you.
4. Ignoring top performers
What practices separate your peak performers from your average performers?
Ineffective leaders micromanage top performers or ignore their prowess altogether,
essentially getting in their way or demotivating them.
Good managers recognize and acknowledge high-performance workers. Give these
team members responsibilities that best leverage their skills. Meet with these individuals
and ask what tools they need to do their very best work. Try to understand their work
processes and how they may differ from the rest of your team.
http://ziaullahkhan.blogspot.com/2012/01/5-management-
practices-that-kill.html
Thanks to Marissa Brassfield / Life Hack / Stepcase Limited
Thanks to Philip E. Humbert, PhD, President of Resources for Success!â„¢ and The
Philip E. Humbert Group, Inc.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Should We Define Superior Performance?
I think most of us agree on the importance of setting performance goals and clearly
communicating performance expectations to employees. Without this, you're left with
something like management by mental telepathy.
But here's a question that has dogged me for some time: Should managers, as part of
the setting of performance expectations, give employees information on what they must
do in order for their performance to be considered "superior"? What it would look like to
"far exceed expectations"? Or is it better, even necessary, that we fall back to
the Justice Potter Stewart position - that excellence is hard to define but we'll know it
when we see it?
I hear more arguments against than in favor of pre-defining superior performance. That
it would give too much - even too specific - direction to workers. That it boxes
employees in and limits the possibilities of what they might accomplish. In a world as
fast-moving and uncertain as ours, these are compelling points. Yet I'm left with the
nagging sense that we're letting ourselves off the hook too easily here.
And here's another angle to consider. In my admittedly unscientific observations, I am
left with the impression that compensation professionals favor predefining superior

4. performance and that leadership/OD/learning professionals typically fall on the side of
leaving superior performance undefined.
Are these sweeping generalizations on target? If they are - why would it be so? Is it
that we who practice in the rewards field feel tend to be too black and white, too linear in
our perspectives and preferences? Or, like me, have too many of us had conversations
with motivated employees who want very much to do what it takes to excel (and to earn
the rewards associated with excellence), but who are frustrated by a boss who refuses
to provide concrete suggestions - or even hints - of what they can do to better their
contribution to the organization's success. For an employees in these shoes, the
response of "I can't tell you but I'll know it when I see it" can feel like a big fat cop-out.
Is it?
Where do you come down on this question? I'd love to hear the thoughts of those both
in and outside of the compensation field.
Ann Bares is the Founder and Editor of the Compensation Café, Author of
Compensation Force and Managing Partner of Altura Consulting Group LLC, where she
provides compensation consulting services to a wide range of client organizations. She
earned her M.B.A. at Northwestern University's Kellogg School and is a bookhound and
aspiring cook in her spare time.
Thanks to Ann Bares / Compensation Café