Hartford Business Journal

www.HartfordBusiness.com May 23, 2016 • Hartford Business Journal 29 BIZ BOOKS Performance reviews that hurt productivity "H ow Performance Management is Killing Performance — And What to Do about It" by M. Tamra Chandler (Berrett-Koehler Publishers, $29.95). Who hasn't walked away downtrodden from a performance review that focused on the "you need to improve" aspects of performance rather than the contributions made? This old- school type of performance review has been called into question: A recent CEB Glob- al (formerly known as Corpo- rate Executive Board) study found that over 65 percent of employees surveyed felt that the traditional process "inter- fered with productivity" and/or "wasn't relevant to their jobs." Why the disconnect? 1. By not remembering "good work," the system "impedes the recep- tion of feedback and limits hon- est dialogue." Employees pre- pare for such reviews by viewing the supervisor as an adversary who judges, and has control over assignments, raises and promotions. So much for empowerment. 2. The system ignores the fact that "no man (or woman) is an island." Individual performance isn't individual. Organizational changes, shifting priorities, team structure, budget cuts, turnover, etc., have a marked influence on an individual's ability to perform. To reconnect, Chandler offers this advice: Don't tell people how to do their jobs. Instead, tell them what must be done and how the outcomes contribute to achieving organizational goals. With this context, let them fig- ure out "how" — which bundles empowerment and engagement. To monitor progress, check in with them periodi- cally — but not as a judge. Ask what they need more of and less of from you and others involved with their assignments. By asking for and listening to feed- back, you show continuing interest in their success. Timely conversations build trust, respect and relationships. Welcome input from those with whom the employee interacts. This provides insight into how they work with others and teams. Key takeaway: "No one really opens up to someone who pokes them in the eye." • • • "Selling Vision: The X ➡ XY ➡ Y Formula for Driving Results by Selling Change" By Lou Schachter and Rick Cheatham (McGraw-Hill Education, $35). In the business-to-business (B2B) world, companies must constantly update their prod- uct offerings, and how they're sold, because of ever-changing customer needs, rapid tech- nological change and disruptive innovators in their space (think Uber versus taxi compa- nies). While it may seem like good business to immediately move from current (X) to new (Y), the authors' consulting experience shows that an immediate X ➡ Y shift can cause chaos in the ranks of the salesforce. From the sales view, the salesforce must learn the ins and outs of Y in order to cre- ate a "how do the features and benefits of Y solve a customer's problem" template. They also have to deal with changes in processes and the effects on support staff. All such issues disrupt routine and take time away from actual selling. If X has been selling well, the change to Y becomes even more difficult. Why? The salespeople know that X has market appeal, while Y's isn't known. Immediately shifting to Y will have an adverse impact on their ability to earn commissions and bonuses. They also aren't sure how current customers will react to the change, and the length of Y's selling cycle to new customers versus that of the proven X. The solution: Let the salesforce sell XY. Instead of characterizing Y as the replace- ment, tout it as "another solution" they can offer to customers. What salesperson doesn't want an additional way to approach existing customers and add new ones? "Additional" pro- vides the incentive to learn about Y and how to sell it. Over time, the company can phase out X as the salesforce sees that Y offers greater opportunity to make sales. Z, the next product offering, will follow the Y ➡ YZ ➡ Z formula. n Jim Pawlak is a nationally syndicated book reviewer. Jim Pawlak EXPERTS CORNER 'Reshoring' — An increasing trend in American manufacturing By John M. Kirschner A merica's long and admirable legacy as the world's manufacturing leader set the tone for much of the progress made in the 20th century. From assembly lines to precision manufacturing, from the flight age to the space age, it was American manufacturing know-how that was at the core. Innovation cre- ated here led to a demand for high-per- formance manufac- turing and produc- tion, and that, in turn, created a strong part of our country's eco- nomic backbone. Towards the latter half of the last centu- ry, though, as the cost of doing business in America got greater and greater — coupled with a rise in global com- munication ability that made the world a much smaller place — companies began to look beyond our shores to expand or even move a good portion of their operations. Work of the same quality could now be done overseas at a much cheaper rate, and with lower costs of materials and labor, it allowed companies to produce goods for less money. This led to the "offshoring" of work becoming a very attrac- tive option for a number of manufacturers. Having so much of their business per- formed offshore presented challenges for American manufacturing companies that were not easy to overcome. These challenges included higher shipping costs and pricing, increased labor cost, travel costs back and forth between countries, the lack of a proper- ly educated and trained workforce, long dis- tance and timing complications and a series of regulatory hurdles. These issues added up enough over time for it to start to make sense to bring the work back to America, but only if the approach changed in a way that made financial sense. And for an increasing number of American manufactur- ers, that is exactly what happened. Today it's known as "reshoring," the return of American jobs to our country. It's happening with increased regularity, and it's happening for one main reason: Manufacturing companies are changing the ways in which they operate and are doing it much leaner and more efficiently. Over the past few years in particular, especially in the recent years following the 2008- 09 recession, companies are changing their minds and bringing these jobs back to America. One of the biggest reasons for the trend in reshoring is that manufacturing compa- nies are making investments in technology and infrastructure that simply weren't being made before, and work that once could be done overseas for a reasonable rate is now capable of being done here for the same or lower price. This was a problem that many businesses met head on by determining what investments they could make to replicate what they are paying for in another country. This was coupled with the industrial abil- ity to operate at a leaner level, with fewer people performing more tasks than had been the norm in recent years. Technologi- cal improvements also played a role, as did adapting to lean principals or other process improvements that maximize every dollar spent and ultimately improve the bottom line. It's an interesting lesson — often times in business, great challenge can lead to great opportunity. American manufacturers rec- ognized this challenge and responded with lean, sensible reshoring efforts, which in turn is bringing jobs back home as well as helping the nation's economy as a whole. n John M. Kirschner is a partner with BlumSha- piro, the largest regional business advisory firm based in New England, with offices in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island. John M. Kirschner ▶ ▶ One of the biggest reasons for the trend in reshoring is that manufacturing companies are making investments in technology and infrastructure that simply weren't being made before. ▶ ▶ Employees prepare for such reviews by viewing the supervisor as an adversary who judges, and has control over assignments, raises and promotions.

• Cover