Fistful of Talent

HP and Mark Hurd - Why You Look at the Myers-Briggs and DISC Profiles of Your Team...

You know why people spend so much time and money on tests like the Myers-Briggs and the DISC profile?  Because what makes you successful today won't necessarily make you successful tomorrow, and one way to hedge against that risk is to have a balanced team that complements each other..

Case in point - the freakish execution skills of Carli's successor at HP, Mark Hurrd.  In a crazy case of what have you done for me lately "what will you do for me once you're done executing this plan like a freaking master", people are already starting to wonder aloud if Hurd's got the right innovation DNA to drive HP into new products and services once he's done ringing the cash register across the current slate of printers and services.

More on the brass knuckles of Mark Hurd from the New York Times:

"So it took a true outsider, in Mark V. Hurd, to engineer H.P.’s resurrection and to create the world’s largest technology company. Mr. Hurd, hired four years ago in the wake of Carleton S. Fiorina’s tumultuous departure as chief executive, forced a steady, boring diet of performance benchmarks, heavy-handed cost-cutting and data-mining down H.P.’s corporate throat.

“Silicon Valley is not known for creating lean organizations, and he’s as good as we have ever seen,” said Michael S. Malone, a historian who wrote “Bill and Dave,” a book about the company’s renowned co-founders, William Hewlett and David Packard. “He’s taught a lesson in what big-time corporate management looks like.”

But with the most brutal cuts behind it, H.P. faces a fresh set of challenges as the second stage of Mr. Hurd’s tenure begins. Most pressing is widespread concern that Mr. Hurd has built an inflexible, solipsistic giant so obsessed with schematics and data-driven fiscal machinations that it has lost the ability to deliver that prized and perennial Silicon Valley trick: to surprise and astound.

Although H.P. is trying to expand its presence in businesses like personal computers and printers, some critics argue that those markets have little left to give. The company could also use more imaginative thinking to bolster its developing line of software products and services.

In short, what may be missing in the formidable intellectual and strategic artillery that Mr. Hurd brings to bear at H.P. is creative inspiration. Or, as Mr. Malone puts it, “I am not sure Mark has built an H.P. that can go through the natural changes that accompany the technology industry as the company has in the past.”

Only in the crazy culture that is the American Publicly Traded Company would such execution be seen as a potential weakness.  So let's say Hurd's DISC/Myers Briggs shows he's a ruthless executor and nothing more.  At some point, the board's got to evaluate his direct reports and see if a #2 can emerge to complement the DNA that's missing in Hurd.

Interesting is the fact that Hurd's penchant for execution is usually the DNA that is seen in COO's of publicly traded companies, leaving the vision thing for the CEO.  Assuming HP's COO isn't the visionary type, you have to wonder aloud what type of organizational structure could emerge at HP that would allow Hurd to be himself and address the supposed innovation gap. 

A Chief Innovation Officer, perhaps?  Maybe Hurd could just change his image and start wearing a black mock turtleneck to change the perception.

Editor's Note: By day, Kris Dunn is the VP of People at DAXKO, a cool software firm dedicated to providing solutions to the best membership-driven organizations in America. At night, he morphs into a blogger at The HR Capitalist and the Founder and Executive Editor of Fistful of Talent. That makes him a career VP of HR, a blogger, a dad and a hoops junkie, the order of which changes based on his mood. Tweet him @kris_dunn...

Think Twice About Vasectomies, Please!

In a recent sign of our current economic times, vasectomies are are on the upswing around the country; Visits to Vasectomy.com — a 10-year-old informational site that also markets doctors to patients — were up 17.5 percent in the first quarter, compared with the first three months of last year as written in this recent NY Times article.  To be quite frank, I'm concerned, completely from a Talent perspective!

For all the male Talent Pros, this just isn't a small procedure (although your significant other  will undoubtedly tell you it is) - I should know, because about 5 years ago I saw this trend coming and volunteered for this procedure - Not!   Well, actually I had 3 sons, the thought of adding a forth to the house was a little more than my wife and I could take, so I did some research.  My research included interviewing 3 very close HR friends who had vasectomies, and who to this day still laugh like they pulled off the world's largest practical joke - which they did.

I apologize about the digression - back to Talent and why vasectomies are a bad idea.  HR folks have long been telling our respective organizations about our impending labor shortages (see Here and Here) and drawing up contingency plans to prepare for it.  But this recent trend could put all of those plans to waste.  The fore-mentioned reports say that by 2030 the U.S. could be 35 Million workers short in the labor force.  So, stop worrying about the Baby Boomers - the economy took care of that for us, and now Baby Boomers will have to work additional time to make up for retirement losses.  We all need to start worrying about Gen X (and not because I'm in it), for the simple fact that a large number of Vasectomies in 2008 - 2010 will give us our lost generation of workers that we need for when I retire 20 to 30 years from now.  We need these babies now!  Talk about workforce planning.

So, one more good reason not to have a vasectomy - we need the Talent. 

Editor's Note - Tim Sackett is an HR Pro in Lansing, MI and is currently searching for his next gig (open to relo).  15 years of of Human Resource experience with his most recent position as a Director of Recruitment for a large healthcare system.  He also has worked in retail, dining and automotive industries and has his Master's degree in HR and SPHR certification. He's a decent Little League coach and one day dreams of being the head coach for the Los Angeles Lakers.

Succession Planning - Let's Set Up a Boxing Ring and Make Them Compete for the "Ready Now" Tag....

I like to think about succession planning - it's fun.  Who's up next?  Who's going to replace Bob when he gets the cushy gig in strategic planning?  Can we set up a boxing ring in the lobby and have Dorfman and Squire (not Billy, you 80's rocker you) slug it out for the treasured "ready now" tag?

I jest because it's true.  Nothing causes more gossip than a formal succession planning initiative running loose in a Division.  See them carrying the binder out of the big conference room?  That's the list!  I heard my name was on it.  What about you?

We'll talk about whether you tell people they're included in a succession plan in a week or two.  What's on my mind today is whether you can actually measure the ROI of succession planning.  Erik Berggren, senior director of customer results & global research at SuccessFactors, thinks you can and gives some examples here:

"The first step is to make sure there is a sound assessment process loaded with integrity to provide this data. To be able to accomplish this in any scale, organisations are integrating this workforce planning or supply-based succession management process, if you will, with their performance review process. An integrated and fully automated talent management process makes life easy for managers and employees and is the starting point.

A FTSE 500 financial services customer (that we have been recently working with) has been able to improve their internal fill rate from 60 per cent to 75 per cent with an estimated direct financial benefit of $11.5 million on an annual basis, which is a direct cost saving (and is also a conservative estimate). This example aims to highlight that for companies, the stakes are high.

A major retailer was able to find 15 new regional managers when tapping into the talent pool after assessing individual staff members from the store manager level and below, including assistant store managers using the right tools and technologies. The external cost of hiring to fulfill the need for regional managers was well above a million dollars per year. The 'ready bench', as it is sometimes called, also put to use, grew by 20% during the first year. For this company, this was key for overall growth, and furthermore provided significant cost avoidance benefits from not having to hire so many managers externally.

Again, there is a direct cost saving attached to this initiative but the real strategic value for this company was that they improved their employee engagement score by 7%. So the ripple effects of these investments are instrumental."

If you read the article by Berggren, you'll see it's nicely done, and I kind of expect SuccessFactors to make a compelling case for Succession Planning.  I wish the article gave a little more depth regarding how performance management ties into clearly identifying the best candidates across the enterprise.  Common competencies that can be "dragged, dropped and rated" into the rating schemes across multiple jobs? 

It would be interesting to understand more, and I'd love to hear more regarding how smaller companies can leverage automated performance management in this way as well.

Until I get that clarity, I'm still thinking about Dorfman and Squire in the ring for the "ready now" tag.  I'll even put the succession planning binder on the ropes of the ring for dramatic effect...  Imagine if Jack Welch would have used the boxing ring.  Is there any doubt Nardelli pummels Immelt for the crown?

Editor's Note: By day, Kris Dunn is the VP of People at DAXKO, a cool software firm dedicated to providing solutions to the best membership-driven organizations in America.  At night, he morphs into a blogger at The HR Capitalist and the Founder and Executive Editor of Fistful of Talent.  He dreams of a FOT headquarters with Glengarry Glen Ross style desks for all the writers, and an old-style Mr. Coffee to make everyone on edge.  Maybe Alec Baldwin or Matt Foley for the motivational speech to the FOT team. Weekends? They're meant for Michelob teaching his kids the crossover dribble and trying not to bean kids with wild pitches at the neighborhood batting cage.  Tweet him @kris_dunn...

But...We Have a Great Internal Candidate!

We have batted this subject around a few times here at FOT already, and I suspect we will talk about it many more times in the future. It's the debate of using the internal candidate. I ranted about this last summer with our fearless leader, Kris Dunn. I accept his points of view, and many of those that posted comments, as valid reasons why organizations feel that a safe bet is to look internally. Of course, I gave my (many) reasons for my own point of view as we debated the subject back and forth. No winners here - just two different points of view from a couple of guys on the opposite sides of the table.

While Kris drove many of his points home in the post - I would like to draw attention to another scenario where the introduction of an internal candidate can (really) drag things out - and undermine the entire search process. This is presenting an internal candidate and allowing them to lobby internally for the job. A young female Director level employee was presented to me by a key member of the search committee very late in the search process. She was supposed to be an internal candidate for a "C-Level" search we were working on. Her biggest problem was she thought she had a real advantage of winning everyone over by using an internal lobbying strategy with key executives and the search committee. 

Maybe this was a good plan? Nope - not really. Not so much...  

She thought she was incredibly smart, when she decided to use some of her political capital on this search, by convincing four senior executives of her IT software company and two customers to send letters of recommendation to me, members of the search committee and the CEO. Each letter attempted to drive home various points as to why she was THE Ideal Candidate for the executive position we were retained to fill. Six LOR's? Are you kidding me?  What the.... was she thinking?

I really felt that she (and the executive team that allowed this behavior) took this way over the top! 

In the candidate vetting process, it was clear that the one (and only) advantage she had (or not) was her internal network. What she tried to accomplish was a an "end around" on the search committee and the search process. She tried her best to impact a positive outcome for herself single-handedly. Now that's teamwork! This turned out to be a huge mistake on her part. What actually happened was she drew a huge spotlight on her lack of qualifications in many facets of this assignment. It wasn't even close. In the end she probably "tainted" herself in the organization and will always be labeled for what she attempted to do - and did -  unsuccessfully. By her immediate disqualification as a viable candidate - she also painted many of those in her political net (that wrote the LOR's) with the same brush. It will clearly raise questions about their judgment with other executives in the company from now on. Not good...   

So...in the end, as the search consultant, I had to be the bad guy (go figure) and tell her she was no longer under consideration as a candidate. Not pretty - but completely avoidable. She should have never been positioned as an internal candidate. I can sometimes see the reasons why an internal candidate should be considered for a critical position opening...

That was not the case in this search.  

Editor's Note - Tim Tolan is a partner at Sanford Rose Associates and specializes in Executive Search in Healthcare IT.  He's a closer, and you really don't want to call him unless you're ready to bring out the bazooka to bag some big game...                               

Our Talent Hero, Gordon Gekko...

I know I am tired of reading about all the bad news in the world, and I am sure you are as well.  The news has been all about the meltdown in the financial sector, frozen credit markets, rising foreclosure rates, and greedy bankers on Wall Street.  So what does that news have to do with organizational development and Talent?  We have seen banks literally disintegrate in the last 6 months and the last two Bulge Bracket investment banks (Goldman and Morgan Stanley) converted to bank holding companies a couple weeks ago.  There are fundamental changes underway in banking and is it clear that financial institutions cannot operate like they did before.  Whether those changes are reflected in who they loan their money to, or the investment decisions they make, it is undeniable that things have changed. 

Despite these changes, I find myself wondering if the banks are thinking through the critical talent issues that are inherent with any mass reorganization. Are the banks actually looking at the skills and competencies required to operate in this new model and putting the best people in those positions – or more importantly keeping the best people around – amid record layoffs?  The star trader who made the bank a ton of money in commodity derivative trades may not have a future if the bank shuts down that operation, but perhaps he or she can be trained in a new area or is looking for a career change.  This may be naïve since many people would argue that bankers are all greedy and will just chase the money to a hedge fund or a different bank (remember the wise quote from the great financial genius Gordon Gekko – ‘Greed is Good’ – the scary thing is that this clip is 20+ years old).  But let’s face it, banks are moving into a conservative period and a new mode of operation.

It is getting even more complicated with the recently passed bailout package, the government takeovers of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the government actually taking equity stakes in banks.  The tsunami that is building around increased regulation is about to crash down on Wall Street and that will place significant demands on their training, organizational structures, compensation, and compliance.  Will these banks take the time to think about organizational development, the people they have in place, their competencies, and how they align with this new world order in financial services?

The short answer is they better.   These changes are moving at a frenetic pace, and now is the time for HR and OD professionals to take the lead and (re)establish the value they can offer in a situation like this.  The banks need to figure out where they are going (okay, that is not easy), what skills are needed to support that operating model, what skills and talent they have today, and develop a plan to close the gap.  That sounds like common sense, but let’s face it common sense is not always common knowledge (as we have all witnessed firsthand over past several weeks). 

Editor's Note: Jeff Kristick is the SVP of Marketing at Plateau Systems, a global provider of Talent Management solutions. He is living large in Vienna (Virginia that is, not Austria), and just getting used to the DC/East Coast after spending the last 8 years in San Francisco. Technology marketing is his thing, but he spends most of his time at work convincing his boss that Talent Management does include managing your Fantasy Football team.

Leadership - Do You Like It Steady or Flashy?

Here's a personal question.  When you think about the right personality fit to run a company in the CEO spot, do you like your leader steady or flashy?  I'd define the steady CEO as focused on execution, not PR.  The steady CEO doesn't necessarily look for the limelight or media spotlight, preferring to keep their head down and focused on operational details.

The flashy CEO, on the other hand, seems to live for the media spotlight, and part of the strategy is often to use the CEO's personality as part of the company brand, especially if they're in growth mode.  While they seem to crave the attention or do well in front of reporters or cameras, just because they're in the media doesn't mean they aren't focused on execution.  Many have accomplished both.

Ed Frauenheim of Workforce recently focused on the alpha CEO personality of Lars Dalgaard of SuccessFactors:

"Although his organization espouses an egalitarian philosophy, Dalgaard clearly comes across as the face of the firm. His central role was captured in the tagline of the conference last year that featured Jack Welch: "Jack pioneered it, Lars advanced it, SuccessFactors delivers it.

Gartner’s Holincheck sees similarities between Dalgaard and Salesforce.com's Benioff, who founded customer relationship management software firm Salesforce.com in 1999 and has made a splash by delivering applications over the Web. Benioff’s "No software" motto helped popularize the break from the traditional approach of installing applications on customer computers, which typically involves higher upfront costs and significant maintenance and upgrade burdens

Both "Benioff and Dalgaard have big egos and strong convictions, Holincheck says. "They use big, outrageous goals to galvanize the troops," he says.

Dalgaard rejects the idea that he’s full of hubris.

"I don’t think I have a big ego at all. I just have strong opinions," he says.

That’s a hard line to swallow completely, coming from a man who has dreamed of becoming the first non-U.S.-born president of the United States. Still, it’s clear Dalgaard tempers his ambition with respect for others. He worries that American business forgets to treat people well and says Danes have learned to lead by persuasion rather than raw power. If he’s got some Viking in him, he’s also got a soft side.

"I can execute harder than anybody—trust me, you cannot keep up with me," Dalgaard says. "But I’m just not trying to be an asshole about it."

As a HR pro who makes purchasing decisions in the field, there's no question that the profile of Lars has shaped my view of SuccessFactors in a positive fashion.  The passion for performance management at SF was evident WAAAAAY back, long before anyone was really talking about Talent Management, and the profile and passion of Lars had a lot to do with that.  So it works for them...

But, of course, CEOs, like any employee, need to play to their strengths.  If someone rises through the ranks based on assassin-like execution capabilities and doesn't want the spotlight, that's OK - it's been proven that a hunger for the spotlight doesn't have to be in place for someone to be successful in the top spot.

You just have to be you.

For my money, the perfect leadership skill set is obviously the individual who has the knowledge, skills and abilities to help their company execute, but also has the communication skills to generate interest and passion from the base - whether they use those communications skills externally, or keep to themselves internally, the key is their ability to do it.  The best leaders I've seen are the ones who have an engaging, yet casual style that generates high levels of trust from the employee base.

What say you?  Is there a perfect style, or does it depend on the company?  How would Lars do at IBM Global or P&G?

Cost of Talent - World Series 2008 Edition....

The World Series is here, and it reminds me of the talent/economics lesson that occurs each season in Major League Baseball. This year's compensation lesson? The Tampa Bay Rays, now featured on Fox in their quest to win a championship, have a total payroll this season of $43 million. The Red Sox? $133 million. The Yankees? $209 million. The Phillies (the team facing the Rays in the series?  13th overall in payroll at $98 million.

You might want to think twice before thinking you can buy talent to the top of your industry.

From the New York Times:

"From 1996 through 2003, the Yankees appeared in the World Series six times. But as Matthew Silverman, the president of the Rays, pointed out the other day, much to Selig’s delight, Selig’s vision of revenue sharing and distribution of national network income has helped the Rays, whose current payroll of $43.8 million is the second lowest in the majors.

For all the dire predictions, baseball has somehow produced 15 different pennant winners in the last decade. Think about that. Since expansion in 1998, half the major league teams have appeared in the World Series — and seven teams have won it, and an eighth is guaranteed to win this one.

“Competitive balance,” Selig said, several times."

Always interesting to see the battle of haves and have nots in MLB.  For me, the corporate lesson is pretty simple. We all think it would be nice to have all the resources in the world, and go acquire the best talent at every position.  But the law of diminishing returns is alive and well in the company, as well as on the field.  Talent doesn't always add up as the sum of the parts you put into place.  Chemistry, progressive management skills (see this story on Joe Maddon to believe you can be a nice guy and win) and the development of young talent through career pathing is not only the most affordable way to go, but likely promises the best returns as well.,

As long as you've got a culture that the young talent can identify with and be motivated by.  Now, when are my Royals going to get some of the low payroll, small market MLB love?

Hey Talent Diva - The World Needs Ditchdiggers, Too...

To quote Austin Powers, I'm a man, baby... As a guy, quoting movies is part of who I am... And I can even work it into a HR/Talent blog entry... From Caddyshack:

Judge Smails: The man is a menace! Cut that off! Music is a violation of our personal privacy! He's breaking the law!

Danny: I've always been fascinated with the law, sir.

Judge Smails: Really? What areas?

Danny: All areas. Personal privacy, noise statutes....I'd planned to go to law school after I graduated, but my folks won't have enough money to put me through college.

Judge Smails: The world needs ditchdiggers, too.

Lacey: Nice try.

Here's the transition - Does your company look for stars only when recruiting, or have you come to the realization that your world needs ditchdiggers too?  Chief Executive magazine cites the growing trend of companies, even elite ones, to go deeper into the talent pool to find what they need.  From Chief Learning Officer:

"The essence of understanding the difference between A people and those connected with any other letter is that everybody matters and everybody counts. One of the most important lessons I’ve learned in two decades of consulting is competitiveness is not determined by the learning speed of the “fastest few,” but by the learning and execution speed of the “slowest many.” Let me point out that “slow” doesn’t have anything to do with intellect. It means “slow” in being invited to the table to learn what others have already had the chance to assimilate to.

This statement may seem obvious, but if you don’t appreciate its meaning, it can stop your organization in its tracks. Picture it like this: The senior leaders — the A team — of a company are climbing a mountain range. The rest of the people in the organization — the B team — are two peaks behind at the base camp.

Where is the overall position of the organization? It’s not with the leaders. It’s back at base camp. It’s not, “How far ahead of everybody else can the leaders advance?” but, “How fast can the leaders engage others to move the entire company forward?” The success of the organization is defined by the last group, not the first, when it comes to measuring total performance."

My take is that most of us in the Talent sector understand the value of the "steady, yet unspectacular" performer.  It's never more apparent to me than when I have a big block of vacancies for the same role.  In the last year, my company has worked to fill 12-13 Account Managers and 12-15 Training Specialists at the same time.  Filling a big order like that seems to get me in the "compare and contrast" mode, and appreciate the steady candidate who may not be a star.  Invariably, I find the hiring manager, for the block of vacancies, thinking the same way.  The rationalization usually revolves around 1) whether the candidate has the skills to do the job and can be projected as a "Meets" performer, and 2) the fact that if you have all stars, you ultimately will have dissatisfaction because not everyone can move up in the organization.

Of course, that rationalization assumes you could get all stars for all of your positions, which is unrealistic.

What about you?  Would you take all stars if you could get them, or would you want some steady (hopefully) low maintenance performers on your team who are content with where they are?

Is One on One Mentoring Obsolete? Enter the PBOD...

Have you ever noticed how much HR people talk about taking a seat at "the table"?  I know we have a lot of non-HR folks who read FOT, so hit me in the comments and tell me how sick you are of hearing that phrase.  A little sick?  Or "I just drank that garbage bag full of green Kool-Aid with a fifth of Everclear in it" kind of sick?

HR pros are classically under-networked as a general rule.  That point became apparent to me based on the response to a new column I did over at Workforce about what an HR pro's personal board of directors (PBOD for short) wants from HR.   The biggest trend in the responses to me?  That HR pros don't talk shop with the marketing and finance folks.

Sigh....

The concept of a personal board of directors is something a lot of us have developed over time in our careers (note - I first saw the term in Fast Company a few years back).  It underscores the fact that if we are strong professionals, we're going to grow a network of folks that we can learn from, and that same group can provide feedback to you to make you a stronger professional, regardless of what business you are in.

It also underscores the fact that one-on-one mentoring may be dead.  It takes a freaking village these days to give you what you need.  Kathy Kram echos these thoughts over at the Wall Street Journal:

"Consider this: How can one teacher know enough to help you keep up with rapidly changing technology, as well as navigate the challenges of globalization, a multicultural work force and team-based decision making? Even people who have served as mentors often need help staying abreast of all these changes.

A better approach is to create and cultivate a developmental network -- a small group of people to whom you can turn for regular mentoring support and who have a genuine interest in your learning and development. Think of it as your personal board of directors.

The composition of the group depends on where you are in your career and what you're looking for. If you're just getting started, you could certainly turn to your boss or assigned mentor for help. But you should also look further, seeking out peers to get feedback on areas where you need to improve, such as public speaking or working in teams."

Who's on your personal board of directors?  I'm making my list now and have identified holes in my lineup in the following areas - emerging technology, use of video and pilates stretching/flexibility.

Fill out your lineup card today and establish your PBOD...

Sammy or David Lee? - The Answer Determines If You're Tough Enough to Lead...

Had a cool conversation the other day about a young manager at our company.  The main topic was whether this manager, who's technically very sound and liked by all, had the intestinal fortitude (that's guts, people) to make tough decisions, and generally be enough of a jerk to handle the tough stuff.

Nice folks are routinely the target of these types of questions when it comes to succession planning, aren't they?  Love you where you are, but can you summon the inner jerk if I promote you one or two levels?  Are you tough enough?  Are you still listening to New Kids On The Block and Smashmouth?  Do you own a Disturbed or Godsmack CD?  Did you like Van Halen with David Lee Roth or Sammy Hagar?

Sammy?  AH-HA!!!  I told them you weren't tough enough!!!  HaHaHaHaHaHa.....

But, I digress.  My counsel in these situations is pretty simple, when it comes to toughness.  Everyone's got a range in their personality.  If your toughness/confrontation/jerk component isn't as strong as someone else's, you just have to know who you are, and be able to summon what you need, when you need it.  For a tough position, you might have to run at your 95% "tough" level within your range to operate, whereas Sam Zell could summon the same tough/jerk/I'm asking to be sued quotient on demand in the McDonalds drive thru.

Different strokes for different folks, as they say in the business.

After I had that conversation, I found the following article form John Baldoni at Havard Business Blogs, who does a good job of explaining how leaders can be tough without screaming:

They defuse tension. Performing under pressure is a prerequisite for leadership, but too much pressure can be a prescription for disaster. It falls to the leader to maintain the sense of urgency and momentum but also to give people some breathing room. This is not an excuse to slack off; it is an invitation to be careful and deliberate. Also, keep in mind that tension that comes from interpersonal conflicts is seldom positive; leaders need to eradicate it by making some hard decisions about who works with whom and why.

They get up off the floor. There's no shame in getting knocked down; youth sports teaches that lesson very well. What matters is what you do next. Strategies will miss the mark; wrong skills will be applied; and projects will fail. Such is life in the organization. It's a leader's job to get back into the game and keep slogging. That requires resilience, an ability to flex with adversity as well as persevere when the going gets rough.

They let off some steam. If you are a team leader, and someone on your team makes a big mistake, one that he was obviously warned about, it's natural to become annoyed. It is also acceptable to focus some heat on the person who made a mistake. The challenge is to focus your irritation on the action, not the person. He needs to know your displeasure; it may help him pay more attention the next time.

So, don't cheat your talent out of promotions, because you don't think they're tough enough.  Just talk to them openly and honestly about the requirements of the position that involve confrontation.

Then do something most don't once you've had that conversation.  Coach them every week about what you're seeing.  Be a mentor.

Or give them a Disturbed CD and let them listen to it at work to get their mojo rolling.  Your call.