Design and Innovation Go Hand in Hand

In modern times, as good design becomes more easily available to so many people, we are seeing a proliferation of design as a key element of products, not a "nice to have" idea but instead a "must have." As production costs drop with more and more production being accomplished in low income places it's possible for more producers to enter the marketplace, and so they need to somehow differentiate themselves from the competition. They can do this through product quality, or price, but in many cases they choose to do it through good design.

Design has always been there, of course, but in many cases it has been an afterthought, and even though we think of Creatives as a subset of innovation, those Creatives involved in design have often played a role only at the end of the process. Innovators come up with a new product, designers create eye-catching packaging. Innovators create a dependable product, designers add the bells and whistles. This might have been OK when consumers were wowed by "the newest thing," but when "the newest thing" comes out every couple of weeks, the design element is critical for keeping products front and center in people's minds. They've come to expect it, and if you fail to deliver, they'll fail to buy your stuff.

The trick, then, is to bring design and innovation together throughout the entire creation process. While engineers are coming up with new ideas, designers should be part of that team. A product needs to be practical in order to be profitable, and designers can help with that. Don't worry that this will narrow the possibilities for your innovators and restrict your work; instead, it's likely to make things better because they'll have people working with them who can help them see options early in the innovation process and give them ideas of how things could work, rather than getting to the end of the process and realizing something is impractical. And having the innovators there when the design is being created will prevent your designers from coming up with an idea that degrades the performance of the product. Creating good products quickly (the operative words being "good" and "quickly") demands cooperation between innovators and designers at all stages.

If you're a production firm with both designers and innovators, and you lead one or the other, then your goal should be to integrate them when it comes to the actual innovation and design processes. Don't try to merge two divisions into one big one; your innovators and designers have different requirements, career paths, and maybe even personalities. Manage them separately but try leading them together.

If your firm does only innovation and you contract out for design help, then you need to bring that outside firm into the process early on. Over time you need to build a trusting relationship with a design firm, someone who can be there when ideas are being batted around without you worrying that your intellectual property will escape and you'll be beaten by someone else.

If you're a design firm, then arrange your contracts with your innovating clients so that you're part of the process throughout its entirety. You may have to adjust your internal hiring practices, perhaps bringing in an engineer who can translate "geek speak" into something designers can understand.

Sequential product development is a thing of the past, at least, for successful firms it is. Organizational stovepipes might have some usefulness, such as in setting your hiring goals and requirements and such, but when it comes to the actual work you need to break down walls and bring necessary skills together. Innovation and design complement each other and there's no point in keeping them separate. Unless, of course, you want to fail.

Digital Nomads

Last Sunday's Washington Post offered up a front page article on "digital nomads."

We've talked before about telework and the benefits, as well as the challenges, it offers. The concept of digital nomads refines that a bit, suggesting that your teleworkers are spending more time out of their homes and in coffee houses, parks, ornate hotel lobbies, and other spots that strike their fancy.

The proliferation of WiFi in public places during the last few years has made it possible to stay in touch while working, which was always one of the challenges to telework. If you needed to communicate, or work online rather than just on your own laptop, you needed that connection, which often meant staying home. As WiFi has expanded in commercial spaces as well as open spaces, your teleworkers have more places to go, and now are even starting to find like-minded people with whom to associate during the day. There's an interesting advantage here: you can't normally pick your co-workers, so if you don;t like them you're still stuck with them, but you CAN pick whom you choose to meet up with at the local Panera Bread shop.

So, there's a big benefit: your Creatives can choose their surroundings, not just the physical structure but the people surrounding them, too. This can help overcome the boredom of sitting in the same little cubicle day in and day out. They can also pick a place appropriate for their mood of the day, someplace that shakes them out of a bad emo sense so they can get some good work done, or some place that complements their feeling of excitement about a project. Whatever they're looking for, they have more choice, and that's a big factor in the quality of life in a job.

The nomad life also overcomes one of the big problems associated with telework: the lack of clarity between work-life and home-life. Working at home means you're always surrounded by your work, and it's tough to stop thinking about it; that was tough for me as a PhD student. But by moving around to different places they can have a definite starting point and ending point for their workday.

Getting out of the home and finding other people also helps those Creatives who feed off the energy of a crowd rather than doing their best work solo. While some people prefer quiet, others prefer background noise or talking with others throughout the day, and as the article pointed out, informal groups are forming at some nomad spots that may be recreating the office environment but in a way that's more supportive for certain employees.

There are still challenges associated with telework, of course. In addition to the increased security issues that come with working in public places you also need to make sure your Creatives have the tools they need to be mobile if you agree that's a good option for them. But as the advantages of telework become more obvious, in many fields it gets harder and harder to say it's a bad idea.

So take a look, and see if it's right for you.

Holistic HR

If you lead a small firm with half a dozen employees you're probably doing your own human resources work and recognize that you don't have people to waste, so you better get the most out of hem. If you're a leader in a large firm you probably have an HR department to worry about things for you but you still really don't have people to waste, so you should consider doing as much HR on your own as you can if you feel they aren't helping you and aren't responsive to your needs.

Of course, if all your human resource issues are working out fine, you probably don't need any of the advice in here, so carry on.

But for those who are still doing hiring and firing as it was done 10 years ago, take note. The name of the game for Creatives is not "resource management" or even "personnel management," but instead, "talent management." Your focus needs to be on gaining, retaining, and developing your talent to meet your firm's particular needs and reduce the costs associated with high turnover and wasted talent.

A discussion online last week in Business Week explored the concept of "holistic HR," getting away from the stovepiped components of managing people and instead integrating those to maximize the use of your talent. Says the author,

Human Resources is no longer about hiring, firing, and managing benefits. Top companies are realizing that a holistic approach to what has come to be called "talent management" -- one that aligns a company's goals with succession planning and employee career objectives -- can produce big cost savings.

So what are some things on which you should focus?

Well, whoever's doing HR for you, whether it's you or a division in another part of the building, needs to be very familiar with the company's goals and with your particular needs when it comes to meeting those goals. They need to get you the specific information you need about applicants so you can see if they have the specific creative talents you need Keyword-based resume review programs are going to have trouble doing that.

Then you need to consider how to develop the talent once you have it. Rather than always looking outside for leaders you need to consider growing your own from the inside, and that means identifying career paths for those who want to remain on the purely creative side of hings and for those who want to be leaders.

Once you've got talent and you're developing people you need to keep them. Why spend the time and money on them if they're going to your competitors? Look at what it takes to keep them engaged and satisfied in their work, or you'll lose them to someone with a more exciting offer.

Above all, make sure you have people who are adding value to your firm. Hire carefully, and if someone isn't developing or if your needs change, look at what you can do to help them adapt. If they can't, or don't want to, then it may be time to part company.

The bottom line to take away from the Business Week piece is that just as leading Creatives has its own unique challenges, so does managing them The HR side of your business adds value just as much as the direct work you do for clients IF you do it right.

So, do it right.

Presume Integrity

A friend of mine was recently looking to move to a new position in his organization. He'd submitted his resume and been interviewed, and got an offer. There were a few things to arrange, including his departure from one department and their contract while moving to the new one, and all of this required some paperwork. After submitting the info, however, he got an e-mail from his new boss telling him they'd noticed some inconsistencies between his interview and his paperwork, and so they were withdrawing the job offer.

Upon getting this my friend collected the sources of his information -- firm policies, pay records, and so forth -- and sent all of this to that new bosses, along with some reminders about what they'd discussed in the interview. Almost immediately they acknowledged that the misunderstanding was on their end, that they had not read everything completely, and that they had screwed up (though the words "sorry" or "apology" were never used). The damage, though, was done: my friend had no desire to go work for people who had assumed he'd been lying.

In creative fields you'll have plenty of opportunities to face lying. Plagiarism from old sources, taking ideas from colleagues without giving them credit, missing deadlines for no good reason...yes, your Creatives might lie to you. But you should never assume they're lying from the start, and had better be pretty sure before accusing them.

A person's reputation is important to them, and to suddenly be told others don't trust them is a real slap in the face. It's tough to take it back once you accuse someone, so you need to be very sure before accusing someone of lying, especially if you're going to take action against the. Ideas like "innocent unless proven guilty" aren't just theoretical concepts when you're talking about real people.

If you think someone is lying to you, you need to investigate it quietly first. Check out the information they've given you. Ask them some follow-up questions without signaling distrust. You need to be pretty sure before confronting them, and VERY sure before taking action against them. There's another concept in the Western legal tradition that says "better a hundred guilty men go free than one innocent be punished," so before you confront someone based on a hunch you need to consider the consequences if you're wrong.

In my friend's case, he's no longer pursuing that new department, and he's reconsidering whether he wants to stay in the organization at all. "I don't want to work for people who don't trust me," he says, and it makes sense. The respect between leader and employee has been severely damaged. From a leader's perspective, you need to consider whether you trust the people working for you, and if you don't, well, why do you have them working for you?

Now, if you examine something questionable and it turns out someone is being dishonest, well then, do what you need to do. My solution is generally to get rid of someone whom I can't trust, but that's me...you might not take such a drastic action, everyone needs to decide for themselves what works best. But don't lose a good employee just because you're the one who made a mistake.

Dealing With the Know-It-All

If one of your Creatives is disrupting your organization by trying to introduce change based on their own special brand of ignorance about what you do and why, then you have a problem which needs to be stopped sooner rather than later. The trick here is to stop disruptive behavior without destroying the enthusiasm that underlies it. You should consider addressing it in stages, in the hope that you can resolve the problem with a minimum of intervention. Of course, if one stage doesn't work, don't wait too long before trying the next one!!

First, consider discussing the issue in a bigger meeting rather than in a one-on-one setting with your employee. This is less threatening to that individual, and in addition to being a useful reminder to other employees about their own conduct, it also lets them know you're aware of this problem. Don't single anyone out -- this isn't meant to be a public embarrassment, quite the opposite -- but discuss with everyone the importance of understanding the firm in order to improve it. Consider talking about the history of the firm and how you got to where you are. The idea here is for your disruptive employee to get the hint while avoiding a direct confrontation and any embarrassment for them.

If they're not good at taking hints -- and many people like this aren't -- you'll need to hit the problem one-on-one. Bring them in and ask questions about how they're doing. Move the conversation to the areas where they're having problems, listen to what they say, and ask questions about the source of their ideas. It's always possible they're a quick study and have some really solid proposals, but for the other 99.9% of the people this should help reinforce the notion that they need to first understand the company and the operating environment.

If none of this works you'll just need to let them know directly that they're causing problems and explain very clearly why that's the case. Try to do this in a nonconfrontational way, and if possible, don't drag any of their co-workers directly into it. They still need to work with these people, so try not to make things more awkward than they have been or are about to be. But at this point you need to clearly let them know what the problem is and find a way together for fixing it. If they refuse to accept that there IS a problem, then you have some hard decisions to make. Remember, it's a mistake if you do it once, it's a behavior pattern if you keep doing it after it's been pointed out, and if they have behavior patterns that negatively affect your firm, you may just have to let them go.

Creatives require a good working environment and, in many cases, collaboration. When you hire a new employee it should be because you think they'll add to your firm. If they detract from it, and he problem is fixable, then take a shot at repairing it before the damage becomes too great. If yuo can't fix it, then you should consider cutting your losses. There's no sense in having an employee who hurts your firm.

Does the Know-It-All Really Know It All?

I have a co-worker who started in our office about a month ago as a strategic planner. The number of people who don't want to work with him grows with each passing day. he's turning people off through both his know-it-all attitude and a lack of knowledge and understanding about what we do -- frankly, that's a deadly combination. Our boss knew he had a reputation like that before he arrived, but didn't do anything to address it. Unfortunately, he put him on a project that requires pretty detailed knowledge about how how programs work in order to develop a brand new program. Now we're all paying for it with frustration and lowered morale.

How might you, as a leader, deal with something like this? It's going to be a problem for you -- surveys among business leaders are finding the perception that young workers are arriving with over-inflated senses of their own importance. Though often attributed to millenials' upbringing, let's be honest: we were all like that, weren't we? I mean, this is really nothing new.

It poses a potential problem for you, perhaps more so among Creatives. You have people with unique skills who have been told how talented they are, and who may have a strong sense of "pride of authorship" when it comes to their work. It's easy for them to come in and assume they'll quickly be in a position of authority because many of them have been told for years that that's their destiny.

They can just seem annoying at first, but it turns into a serious problem when these folks try to change the way you operate. Change is good, when it leads to improvements, but if someone doesn't understand why you do things the way you do, then how can they know their proposal will be an improvement?

It's better, and easier, to prevent this problem than it is to fix it later. When you get a new employee, an education program is a good idea. They should understand your corporate history, so they know how things got to where they are now. They need to know about responsibilities in the firm...who does what, and why? They need to be clear on where the firm is heading, from the broad vision down to their particular tasks. Only when they understand why you do things the way you do should they be offering ideas for change.

But what if you didn't prevent this, and they start causing problems? Let's look at that Wednesday.

The Two-Objection Policy

Collaboration and consensus are important for Creatives, and as a leader, it's up to you to gather inputs and manage dissent. Both of these are important, but it's easy to either lose them, or let them get out of hand. You need a leadership approach that encourages healthy debate while allowing the creative process to move forward.

Strict, hierarchical structures and authoritative systems tend to stifle dissent and, by reducing the need for consensus, may also discourage people from taking the risk of presenting their ideas. If you have talented Creatives (and hopefully you do) these ideas they keep to themselves may be pretty good. Preventing good ideas from coming forward is what we call "a bad thing."

So you as a leader need to avoid pushing your Creatives toward a particular solution that you've chosen in advance without letting the conversation overwhelm the decision-making. Your job is not to force a specific solution; rather, your function as a leader is to force a decision to be made so progress can be achieved. You need to set timelines and identify the point by which a decision needs to be made so you can move on to the next phase of your project.

But this is tricky. How do you force the creative process to move forward without stifling dissent?

Consider "The Two-Objection Policy."

For a few years after college I worked in a crisis management organization, not as a planner but as an on-scene leader (yes, I know, I wasn't leading Creatives, but bear with me). When I led a team I often had to make critical decisions in a hurry without time for discussion. My hope was that our training had allowed us to work out scenarios in advance and understand requirements and capabilities, to the point that we would know what needed to be done. Of course, we couldn't prepare for every situation, and I certainly didn't know everything, so I needed an opportunity for dissent that could be addressed in a hurry. A boss taught me The Two-Objection Policy and it served me well.

The premise was simple. When a decision needed to be made I'd get inputs as time allowed, and ultimately I would say "we're going to do X." If a team member disagreed they needed to pop up and say, "no, I think we should do Y," and then convince me quickly. If I disagreed I'd say, "no, we're going with X." If they felt strongly enough about it they could take one more shot at convincing me, but if they still couldn't, their objections would stop and we'd go with my decision. Either way, the responsibility for success or failure rested with me.

How does this work for you? Simply put, when you reach the decision-making point on your timeline, you as the leader make the decision based on all the discussion and debate you've had. Any of your Creatives who disagrees has two chances to change your mind, but if they can't, then you press on. This only works if you explain your philosophy to them in advance and let everyone know how you work, so they know what they have to do to convince you, and also know when to accept your decision and move forward.

Your main role as a leader is to help your Creatives be successful. Use their ideas, but don't get so bogged down in debate that you never produce anything. It really doesn't have to be difficult, as long as you have a method for decision-making that everyone understands.

Will Asia be a Creative Center?

McKinsey & Company recently published two perspectives on Asia's innovation potential. There is growing concern among some in the US, fed by some recent reports, that Asia may surpass the US as an incubator of innovation.

This may be true in terms of process innovation. They may be able to produce and distribute products and services more efficiently using new methods. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, many developing countries are branching out into new industries, and may not have a lot of bad habits to unlearn before they can apply new techniques. Second, both developed and developing countries can learn lessons from long-standing economic powers regarding what works and what doesn't. I've heard it suggested that this is why mass transit in some major Asian cities seems much better than that in big Western cities with older systems. Learning from others' mistakes is typically cheaper than learning from your own. It isn't just mistakes, of course, that offer lessons; Iqbal Qadir suggests in the McKinsey debate that technologies originally designed in the West are being used in Asia for new purposes.

But innovation is not the same as creativity. When we talk about Creatives we mean people who create something new. Innovation includes this, of course, but it also includes improvements on existing things. Asia may be better improvers, now or in the future, but they are missing a few things that would allow them to take the lead in creativity.

First, a stable and free government is important. Stability helps ensure basic needs are met so people can devote time and energy to creativity rather than to basic survival. Freedom is important so Creatives can work without constantly looking over their shoulder to see who they're upsetting. In Southeast Asia, Singapore does the best in this regard; Thailand, which was on its way to becoming a model for the region, stumbled in the past couple years, while Malaysia and Indonesia are making progress but not quite there yet.In Northeast Asia, japan and Korea stand out, while in Southwest Asia, India has policies designed to encourage creativity in certain fields.

Another important element is an educational system that provides a foundation for creative pursuits. Having taught at a university in Asia, I found that my students had experienced an educational upbringing that emphasized memorization, discouraged challenges to the instructor, and did not encourage independent thinking. Though different educational opportunities are being introduced that encourage creativity, they will take time to have an effect across society.

Finally, creativity benefits from social capital, which comes from relationships and trust among members of a society, and this is a trait many Asian societies lack for a variety of reasons. Francis Fukuyama's book Trust examined cultures in Asia and the west and found Asian cultures often lacked social capital in favor of emphasis on the family or the state. A strong civil society and the subsequent social capital is essential for encouraging collaboration and developing Creatives. Creativity is sharply improved by collaboration, which is common in the US but not so much in Asia.

So, concerns about Asia taking over creative dominance might not be valid, despite their growth in the broader realm of innovation. One thing to watch in the future is the trend of foreign students and workers in the US returning to their home countries. Taking back the education, the experiences, and the lessons they learned in the US can enhance the creative power of their countries. For now, though, the US seems to retain its place as the most desirable environment for Creatives.

The Leadership Impact of Outsourcing

Outsourcing to free agents is common for creative firms, and more and more authors are encouraging it. Similar methods, which tend to be less expensive but carry more risk of intellectual property loss, include peering, sharing, and using ideagoras. Companies that can effectively collaborate outside their firm gain a huge advantage: they increase the creative talent available to them at little cost. It's tempting to reach out and take advantage of the huge talent pool that exists in the world.

But while creative talent can be gained this way, there's a cost in terms of leadership talent. The cost is felt in the long run, but your short-term actions can put you on a path toward that cost, a path from which you might not have an escape.

The problem here is that somewhere along the line, you need to be developing the future leaders for your firm. While you may feel comfortable in a leadership position today, someday you're going to want to advance, retire, or go work at Starbucks, and someone should be ready to step in. If you outsource the majority of your work then no one is left within your firm to build up experience and observe how your firm functions, key ingredients to a successful future leader.

Now, you might say "I'm not going to worry about developing leaders internally -- when I need future leaders I'll hire them, rather than selecting from my own pool of in-house Creatives." Fine. But if, as some authors are cheerleading and advocating, the wave the of future is external collaboration, then where exactly will those leaders be coming from? If no one is developing internally, if the emphasis is on free agent work and peer-to-peer collaboration, then who's going to be grooming future leaders? Obviously, not all business will be done this way, but as more and more of it is, the pool of effective leaders will shrink in the future and to find someone you'll have to pay through the nose to get them.

You're also hurting yourself in the near-term if you shift to an external collaboration business model. You benefit from having people who understand your corporate history, who know where you came from, how you've evolved, and what's worked in the past as well as what hasn't. You're not going to get that by reaching too much outside. External collaborators simply don't have the necessary knowledge of your unique history. Hiring people by the job is useful for that job but can hurt you when it comes to integrating different aspects of your work into a moneymaking whole.

How do you get the benefits of external collaboration without hurting your leadership? Consider keeping a core group of employees. Think of them as your regular team while outsiders serve as "reservists," called up only as needed. Develop that core group, not only with training in their creative field but also in terms of leadership. Give them incentives to stay with you if their performance is strong, and replace them if it isn't.

Also consider developing regular relationships with particularly strong outsiders, whether free agents or unpaid collaborators. Help them develop a better understanding of your firm. Not only can they provide some of that necessary foundation from the outside, they might also be a good pool of potential leaders, who have the benefit of already knowing a lot about your company.

New business models, such as those emphasizing collaboration with outsiders, can be very effective if you use them right, but can drive you out of business if you go overboard with them. You need to look at your industry, your competitors, your customers, and your own company's goals to understand how far to go when looking for outside talent. Moderation, as in many aspects of life, may be the best idea. Make sure that in your quest for Creatives you don't ignore your very real leadership needs.

Letting Them Go

No matter how many other changes and cost-cutting measures you implement in bad economic times, you still may reach the point where you have to reduce your workforce in order to remain a viable company. This can be a useful option if it gives you a chance to get rid of some deadwood, but unfortunately you may have to let good employees go, too. How you handle layoffs now can have an effect on your company’s future performance.

First of all, once you make the decision to do it, then do it. Don’t let rumors fly, because if someone knows layoffs are coming, soon everyone will know it, though they may be a little fuzzy on the actual facts. You can reduce stress levels dramatically, both for those getting laid off and those staying on, if your employees trust you’ll be honest and transparent about what’s happening.

When the time comes to have “the talk,“ do it in a dignified manner. Don’t do it by e-mail, don’t do it by phone, do it in person (unless you’re laying off remote employees across the globe, of course). Nobody likes getting dumped via SMS, whether by a significant other or a boss. Don’t do it front of other people, and try to avoid putting them in an awkward position with their peers...this news can take a while to process, so maybe do it at the end of the day so they can head home without having to explain anything to their co-workers.

When you have the talk, be honest with them, but if they’re poor employees, don’t try to kick them while they’re down. If the layoff is coming purely because of economic reasons, and not because of their work, let them know that. If, on the other hand, they were a poor employee to begin with, you don’t really need to tell them that. Don’t lie and say you’re sorry to see them go, but at the same time don’t tell them you’ll be happy to see them walk out the door.

Let them know what you’re willing to do to help them. This is something they need to hear at this low point. You may have contractual obligations, like severance pay or continuing health benefits, and have some information prepared about that which they can take with them (they might not be thinking too clearly at this point, and may not remember everything you say). If you will provide any benefits beyond contractual requirements, such as some sort of transition assistance, let them know that too. If you’re willing to write them a strong recommendation, or you’d like to bring them back on board when things improve, you should definitely tell them that now.

At the same time,don't lie to them. If this is a poor employee you're letting go, don't offer to be a reference, and don't suggest you might take them back. If you're looking for a clean break, then make a clean break. If you promise something you aren't willing to deliver, you're just encouraging them to come back and bother you.

Speaking of references, you should be prepared to offer good references for your good employees, but as for the bad ones, it's best to just remain silent. In recent years bad references have sometimes led to legal problems. An attorney can offer you advice on the legal aspects of this, but a good rule of thumb is that if you can't say anything nice about someone, don't say anything at all...it works as well here as it did in grade school. Don't worry, if you decline to provide information beyond confirming employment, a potential employer will probably take a closer look.

Why worry about any of this? Well, first of all, because people deserve to be treated with respect. From your perspective, though, there are also good reasons. First, you may want to hire these employees back when things get better...after all, talented Creatives who meet your unique requirements may be tough to find. Even if you don't bring them back right away, Creatives tend to move often between firms, so they may be a possible hire sometime later in the future. In both cases, it's best if you remain on good terms with them, and the way you handle the layoff is something that will stick with them. Finally, your firm's reputation is as important among potential employees as it is among potential customers, since, as a creative firm, you're often selecting among a relatively small pool of Creatives. Word gets around, and if you treat people with respect, that makes you look good. Treating people badly, of course, has the opposite effect, and you don't need that.

So, do the right thing. If you must let people go, do it wisely.

Smart Promotions

As you consider promoting employees, forget the question “what have you done for me lately?” and instead ask “what will you do for me in the future? If you avoid thinking of promotions as rewards, and instead think of them as ways to get your top Creatives into positions where they can do more, you’ll improve your firm’s effectiveness dramatically.

I recently attended a friend’s military promotion ceremony. One line in the promotion orders really stood out: “Lieutenant Colonel Smith, having demonstrated the potential to serve in the higher grade, is promoted to the rank of Colonel.” I like that: having demonstrated the potential. What this suggests is that he isn’t being promoted because he’s done well in the past, he’s instead being promoted because he’ll do more in the future.

At the reception afterwards I talked with another officer who told me how he didn’t expect to get promoted again, because he’d gotten out of the military to be an airline pilot, only to come back in when he got laid off. He said he’d been doing well since coming back, and his commanders had told him he was doing great, but he never seemed to get the assignments that would help him get promoted and he saw little chance of going farther. He was pretty bitter about this, and was sure he was being discriminated against because he’d gotten out for a few years. I thought he was right, but I think he missed that line during the promotion ceremony: rather than demonstrating “the potential to serve in the higher grade,” he’d instead demonstrated the potential to leave the military when he thinks he can make more money on the outside.

When you look to promote someone from within, consider more than just their creative skills. Look at their existing leadership ability...do they exercise leadership among their peers, even without a formal leadership position? Are they able to motivate others? Do they seek out opportunities to improve themselves or to contribute more? (and not because they’re sucking up, but because they truly want to do more) If they don’t quite have the leadership skills you think they’ll need, do they seem willing and able to learn? Ask yourself if that person even wants more responsibility and authority. If they don’t, then why put them in that position? Look at their job history too. If they’re changing companies every couple of years you might not want to use them to fill a position only to have to fill it again in a short time.

Of course, this doesn’t mean you ignore their past performance...obviously, how they’ve done up until now gives you an indication of how they’ll do in the future. But you don’t want to give them a promotion simply as a reward. It might be easy in a creative firm to spot the most talented people, but remember that creative talent and leadership ability are different...being a Creative doesn’t automatically mean they’re ready to lead Creatives. Carefully consider the requirements of the position you’re promoting someone into and ask yourself if they really have the potential to do it well.

Getting Ready for the New Job

This blog starts from the assumption that you're already leading Creatives. If you are, that's great. But it might be the case that some folks who aren't yet in leadership positions are also checking this out, looking toward the day when they will be in charge. This post is mostly for them.

Leading Creatives is different from being a Creative. Even if you're the most talented stylist/designer/graphic artist/game developer/whatever in your firm, that doesn't mean you're automatically prepared to lead people who do what you do. Before making the leap into leadership you may spend years developing technical and artistic skills, all the while thinking "when I'M in charge, things are gonna be different." That's a good attitude to have, looking forward to the future, but you should spend some of that time preparing for that leadership role. If you haven't, and you're about to get promoted, then now is the time to take stock of your abilities and add whatever new skills you need.

There are some practical skills, like planning and budgeting, that you'll have to learn. You may have contributed to this in the past, but now you're responsible for it. There are books on this of course, but you should talk with other leaders in your firm to understand your unique requirements. You also have to deal with regular paperwork, like time sheets, requisitions, invoices, and the like. And of course, if your firm uses formal employee evaluations, then you need to understand those. All of these are things you can learn within the firm.

But those are really management things, and while you need those practical skills, you also need the "softer" skills of leadership. By "softer" I don't mean going easy on people, merely that these aren't technical things that you can study then repeat. You need to learn how to motivate people. You've got to be able to evaluate them, counsel them when they're having trouble and promote them when their doing well, learn how to identify their strengths and figure out where to use them...none of these are natural for most people.

Part of your preparation involves watching leaders during your career, learning from both the good and the bad. There's professional reading you can do, including some online sources, realizing that you need to apply these lessons appropriately for your firm. You should also look into classes, whether at a community college, a local university, or a training firm that offers courses in leadership (some of these are inexpensive, some cost a lot, and while some are very good, others suck...try to make your choice based on reputation and referrals rather than just cost).

Over the years I've worked for a few bosses who had no leadership experience and were promoted simply because they'd been around a long time. Frankly, that's why I started this blog. If you're going to go into a leadership role you need to realize it's different from the creative work you were doing before, and you have to prepare for it. If you don't, it's not fair to your firm, it's really not fair to the Creatives working for you, and it's definitely not fair to you.

Social Recruiting

There's no simple prescription for recruiting Creatives, but there's one general guideline you can use: go social.

The big job boards like Monster and CareerBuilder are still in business and still provide a lot of opportunities for you to get your job requirements out there and search resumes for active job seekers who might be right for you. But, as a recent article in Business Week points out that one reason those sites are getting better is that they are having to improve to face the competition posed by social networking. Some social media let you get the word out faster, and to a more targeted population, than the big boards offer.

LinkedIn is a prime example. Already focused on professionals, the Business Week article points out that most users are currently employed, making them "passive job seekers." You can use your own networking on there to seek out potential hires, but LinkedIn offers recruiters some interesting package deals for searching through resumes and profiles and contacting likely prospects. For younger, less established workers, look to Facebook to provide you a presence. Companies can set up groups for their employees, which allows potential hires to talk with current job holders, and they can also set up company profiles that are specifically designed for recruiting. Even Twitter is coming into play...as people hear about job opportunities they have been known to tweet about it, putting the word out to their followers who can then resend it to all those following their feeds. If you're looking for millenials, who seem addicted to the "always on" perspective, social networking offers some particularly great opportunities for finding them and allowing them to find you.

For less experienced employees or freelance Creatives, don't forget Craigslist. Ideally, your ad should have a link back to your company website so you don't leave a potential recruit without any information other than the text in the ad. Also look at freelancer sites like eLance and SoloGig.com. Once again, these allow you to target the kinds of employees you're seeking better than the big boards do.

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had a similar article that also discussed the use of the career pages on company websites. (subscription required). Successful recruiters are making their career pages more interactive, providing more information in a visually interesting way to grab a recruit's attention and keep it long enough to get some information out to them, enough info to make them want more. This can be used in conjunction with social ads...contact them through LinkedIn and pull them back to your page with video testimonials from other employees about how great it is to work with you, that sort of thing.

That last point is key: use multiple methods. Don't rely on just one. For too long recruiters had only the big job boards, which are still good, but which aren't enough when you're competing against other firms for that relatively small number of Creatives who have the specific talents you need. remember, too, that Creatives want to work for someone, well, creative, and they won't be impressed if you're still recruiting the way you did back in the '90s.

We Can All Use a Little Help Sometimes

For many years tennis star Roger Federer didn't have a coach. Then, every now and then, he does. My question was, if he's the number one player in the world, what's a coach going to do for hm? I mean, how can a coach help him if he's not better than him?

OK, I admit, I was being a little dumb. While Roger may be the best player in the world, that's not to say there aren't people who are better at one particular thing or another. If there are things he needs to work on, especially when transitioning between surfaces or after having a not-so-great tournament, then having another person to provide guidance can be a good thing.

You should consider this too: there may be times when it's right for you to consult with a business coach. A coach can be useful for helping you develop specific leadership or management skills, maybe teaching you how to counsel people or helping you get better at marketing. Leaders in small and medium-sized companies tend to be the bulk of the clientele for coaches, but that may simply be because many large companies have in-house coaching teams.

When should you consider getting a coach? A great time is during a period of transition. If you're changing the direction of your firm drastically a coach can help you make that adjustment. Similarly, if you are the one in transition -- say, going from being a worker bee to being a leader -- a coach can help get you established in your new position. This is especially useful for Creatives, who may be thrust from a technical position to a leadership job with little advance development of leadership skills. You might also consider a coach when things are going well, because you have time to work on lesser issues that others might go unaddressed during busier, more stressful times.

The coach can work with you as regularly as you want...some people prefer weekly sessions, others every two weeks. The session may be in person or might be by phone. When you start out you need to work with the coach to set clear objectives and lay out a roadmap, with metrics for measuring progress and some kind of timeline so this doesn't just drag on and on and on.

You should consider looking for a coach who has some experience in your field so they can understand your unique needs and opportunities. Ask around among your friends and peers for any info they have on coaches with whom they've worked. Hire someone by reputation, not by price. The cheapest coach may not be the best...then again, the most expensive one might not be, either.

There's nothing wrong with turning to someone for some outside help. Star athletes do it, actors and singers do it, CEOs of major corporations do it, and you might do it too. Sometimes, an outsider's view provides the insight you really need.