In today’s competitive market, many recruitment processes are optimized around the end goal of “hired” as an outcome. This means that most tips, processes, and tools focus on time to hire and candidate experience. While these best practices are critical to winning candidates, they are only a mid-point milestone along the candidate journey.

While the act of hiring is requisite to job performance as a construct, most processes do not accurately predict how successful a candidate will be in a role once hired. While there are many strategies that expose early indicators of success to some degree, one leads the way in terms of accurate prediction: the work sample test. Not only is this something I believe in based on my years of recruiting experience, it’s also science (!) based on 85 years of research. It’s a statistically more valid way to predict outcomes (.54) compared to popular considerations such as years of experience (.18), reference checks (.26), and even slightly better than structured interviews (.51) (note: on a scale of 0.0 to 1.0).

In laymen’s terms, years of experience tell us next to nothing about how good someone can be at a job, but performance on a test that mirrors a slice of the job itself is a strong indicator of future success. While this correlation may seem obvious, many companies fail to adapt their interview processes for the most successful outcomes.

What is the work sample test?

The work sample test (also known by other names such as the “take home challenge”, “project round”, onsite activity etc.), is a specific interview that asks the candidate to complete a small chunk of work that simulates on the job performance. These will vary greatly by role. For example, a food-service delivery person might be asked to drive an interviewer along the best route to deliver food items on time whereas a recruiter might be asked to source 5 candidates for a fictitious job requisition and explain their reasoning.

No matter the particular work sample, this type of interview serves a dual purpose: 1) allows the company observe how the candidate completes their work, and to what level, and 2) it allows the candidate to determine if the type of work expected is a match for their career objectives.

Where does the work sample test fit within an interview process?

While there is some debate on this, our team tends to structure interviews at Rainforest QA with the work sample test as either the qualifier before a final onsite round, or as a component of the onsite (depending on the type of work sample).

Some companies will start with a work sample as the very first step of the interview. Whereas this allows employers to “not waste time” by avoiding interviewer time if the work sample does not meet expectations, it tends to backfire in 2 key ways. First, top talent is highly sought after, and will often opt out of interview processes altogether if they are asked to provide a work sample before they even know if they want the job. Second, it creates a poor candidate experience at the very first impression. If a company does not move forward with a candidate after submission of the work sample test without ever getting to know the human behind the work, the company’s employment brand will suffer.

Some companies make the work sample test the final step after an onsite is completed. This is not logical. Whereas one could argue it is the most cautious of a candidate’s time, it’s really not, as they are potentially rejected after putting in a ton of hours and possibly sneaking away from work for an onsite interview. For example, if someone is hiring a magazine editor, and discovers at the tail end of the process that the editor is lacking requisite grammar skills, both the employer and the candidate wasted a ton of time at an onsite interview getting excited about how they would work together. The biggest time “ask” of any candidate is to visit a prospective employer’s office for a half day (or more). This is also a major ask of the current team who will be facilitating interviews. If this can be avoided by a work sample test, save everyone’s time and insert this small step.

For roles on my team, I generally structure the interview process as follows:

1. Phone interview to assess interest in the company and role, and give the candidate ample time to ask their questions (click here for more on what candidate questions can tell you).
2. “Take home assignment” (aka work sample test). It depends on the role, but I usually provide the candidate with a 60–90 minute segment of a project we recently completed. This means we aren’t using their work for our gain, but at the same time we can see how they align with us, or maybe challenge us to think differently about the same project.
3. Onsite interview. At this interview, I try to integrate the take home assignment into the day. With the role I am hiring for right now, I ask them to talk through how they completed the assignment (what they enjoyed, what was a challenge, what questions they have). This gives me a chance to further assess their process-orientation, their clarity of thought, their passion for the reality of the role. I offer direct feedback on the project which provides a realistic understanding of how they take feedback from their manager. I could spend 30 minutes asking about how they like to receive feedback, but those types of answers are usually terrible indicators of reality. I’d rather see it for myself, and for the candidate, they can decide if they want to work with the type of manager I am.
4. Reference checks. While the predictive validity of reference checks is lower than the work sample test, these should still be completed. I have an educated assumption confirmation bias is the reason to blame for inaccurate references, but I’ll make that the topic of another post.

How should the work sample test be designed to maximize accuracy of job performance prediction?

The simple implementation of a work sample test as a component of hiring isn’t going to auto-solve predictive issues that arise with traditional hiring processes. It also has to be the right sample test. The following tips are a strong starting place:

1. Connect to a real problem. Identify a problem your company recently had to solve that having this hire in place to contribute would have improved or sped up the solution. For example, if you are hiring a supply chain logistics lead, provide them with a fictitious data set that mirrors the real data used to drive a change-in-process decision. Ask them to find a solution to the problem using the provided data and see how they would have contributed to your team through their own knowledge, skills, and experience.
2. Keep it short. The time spent on this test should not be longer than a standard interview. In most cases, I advise people to keep the test to 90 minutes, especially when it’s a “take home” version. Anything longer, and it has the potential to hurt candidate experience because it may be perceived as “free work”. I tend to include in the instructions of any work test, that “this is as much an opportunity for you to experience the realities of the role as it is for us to assess how you would contribute to the team”.
3. Be assessed in a structured way. The best way to assess a work sample is with a set of criteria defined in a rubric. While there are a variety of ways to structure this scorecard, I recommend assigning a certain number of points to each of the criteria that matter to job performance. Some example criteria might be: communication skills, industry knowledge, problem solving abilities, and perceived effort. It all depends on what skills or competencies are fundamental to the role. While there’s value to the test without a rubric, a rubric provides a better way to compare candidates and make sure that the team stays focused on the competencies the team is hoping to assess through the work sample. Flashy bells and whistles on a Powerpoint deck are impressive, but if the candidate won’t be creating decks as a component of their job, this may not be a big factor. Don’t get distracted.
4. Consistency is key. If you implement a work sample test for one candidate, all candidates should receive that identical test. Giving each candidate a different test will make it more difficult to objectively compare, and giving the test to only some candidates make it nearly impossible. This also extends to time constraints. Ensure you are providing the same amount of time to completion.
5. Don’t call it a “test”. Counterintuitive right? While this is the scientific research name for this type of interview, test anxiety is real (especially related to underrepresented candidates for certain types of roles). The important part is the work sample. Naming conventions matter when it comes to high stakes events, and a simple swap from “test” to any of the following are recommended: take home assignment, sample work project, activity-based interview, “day in the life” interview, and the like.

How do you handle a hiring manager who does not see the value in these tests?

While some hiring managers may object that these types of tests add time to hire, or that some top candidates may lose interest if asked to complete such a test, consider:

• Compared to a 90 minute work sample test, how much time does it take to onboard and train someone who ultimately does not work out in a role?
• Do you want the type of employee at your company who doesn’t have time to put in 90 minutes time thinking about your company?
• Are there ways to incorporate a work sample test with the onsite interview when they are already physically at the office in place of a traditional interview?

Ultimately, hiring world-class talent is mission critical to any company’s success, and so often, the hiring process is riddled with bias-inducing flaws. While there are a number of ways throughout the hiring lifecycle to hire better, this is one quick fix highly recommended to any company.

Massive disclaimer: The work sample test is not to be confused with free labor for a company. Any work produced during the work sample test should not be used in production in any way. Do right by your candidates. There are cases in which companies include trial weeks or contract-to-hire engagements that are paid engagements. These are categorized separately from the work sample test, but are also strong indicators of future performance.

If you’re many years into your career, you may be able to recall being on many sides of this equation, and in some cases, you may recall being the manager who played favorites.

There is a syndrome plaguing organizations called The Set-Up-To-Fail Syndrome. Despite being introduced in this 1998 Harvard Business Review article nearly 20 years ago, few managers are consciously aware of it.

In today’s post I will share with you: why this phenomenon is so powerfully dangerous, a few related concepts, and tips for managers to learn how to manage its effects.

Being Set-Up-To-Fail

This phenomenon is especially dangerous because managers often don’t recognize it when it happens. This does not only impact junior emerging managers; it can also affect the most experienced leaders if not they are not careful to regularly monitor their biases. No industry or line of work is immune from these phenomena. These dynamics can be observed in every setting from the classroom to the boardroom, on the football field, and in manufacturing warehouses.

How set-up-to-fail plays out

Take a look at the image below and imagine a Director has hired two project managers (PMs). Upon first impression, PM A is confident, easy to connect with, and the Director knows she is smart because they went to the same college. PM B is a bit reserved and often seems anxious when faced with small talk in the halls. The company CEO gives the Director a big project; the Director needs to select a PM to lead the project.

While the Director feels more confident in PM A, she decides to ask both to come up with a proposal in an effort to be fair. The best proposal will be implemented, with the proposer as lead on that project. She explains the project scope in a meeting to both parties and they get to work. The next day, she passes PM A in the hall and asks how the project is going. PM A shares that it’s going well but one piece is still unclear. The Director offers to sit down and go over the proposal and give feedback. They meet for a productive 15 minute chat and PM A learns which factors and proposal formatting is most preferred by the Director through this feedback. The next day, the Director sees PM B by the water cooler and asks how the project is going. The PM shares that it’s going well, but there are still a few questions. The Director replies that she’s excited to see the final proposal.

In the next team meeting, both proposals are shared, and, as the director predicted, PM A had a better proposal than PM B. As a result, the Director realized she could count on PM A to do quality work and, therefore, delegated future projects based on visibility and importance accordingly. PM A rose as a star in the company and was promoted 4 months later to a Senior PM.

While this is only one example of how this syndrome plays out, it’s important to point out a few factors in why these two paths diverged so greatly. First, the Director had a implicit bias toward people she perceived as confident and who went to her same college. This led her to spend an extra 15 minutes in oversight of PM A. As a manager, the Director likely did not perceive this as any advantage to the PM, but rather as something the PM requested. However, the Director experienced confirmation biaswhen the results confirmed her initial expectations. Over time, this results in a cyclical pattern that grows exponentially until there is a clear difference in actual performance, due to confidence, early access to information, and relationships.

In the next sections, I’ll share a few of these dynamics that play a contributing role in these cycles.

Image borrowed from this article.

In-Groups and Out-Groups

One of the main dynamics that evolves as a symptom of Set-Up-To-Fail is the emergence of an in-group and an out-group. An in-group is characterized as the manager’s inner circle. This is the person or group of people s/he shares information with. This information may seem casual and harmless at first, like sharing a few laughs about a tv show they share in common. That connect, however, can evolve into early access to information that can impact job outcomes, such as the details of an upcoming change in leadership, a reorganization of the company, or something similar. Reflect back on the example above: imagine in those 15 minutes where the Director gave “feedback” on the proposal, the Director disclosed that one of the details of PM A’s project proposal would likely be defunct in a quarter due to an upcoming acquisition. Now, not only does the PM have the insight needed to make their proposal stronger, but she can start to strategize other ways the potential acquisition will impact them. She might be able to offer support to help the director with change management efforts, further confirming the director’s belief in her abilities relative to her peers (e.g., PM B). While the director is not purposefully leaving PM B out, these types of outcomes relegate PM B to the out-group.

An out-group is characterized by anyone who does not belong to the in-group. This group has superficial level hallway conversations with their manager and does not have early access to important information. They gather their information in official settings like team meetings when the details of that same merger are formally announced.

It may sound like an evil scheme to keep some team members better informed than others, but most times the manager doesn’t realize they is creating this divide at all. The reason these relationships often form has to do with a variety of factors, one of which is homophily.

Birds of a feather

Homophily is an important sociological concept that states similarity breeds connection. In short, people find it easier to understand people similar to themselves, and this cognitive ease causes quicker, deeper, more seamless connections. Ties between non-similar people also dissolve at a higher rate.

When a person perceives oneself as similar to someone else, trust is naturally increased. We generally trust our own decision making, despite what science says. So when we observe a decision or behavior of someone similar to ourselves, we are inherently more likely to trust the intentions involved.

This phenomenon applies to all social relationships, including workplace relationships. A few examples of this range from the infamous “Boys Club” to the emergence of Employee Resource Groups. These networks can be structured or informal, company-sponsored or not, and can work to perpetuate inequity or can drive the inclusion conversation forward.

My challenge to managers

Reflect on your biases.

If you are a manager, I ask you to reflect on your current team. Are there people you are more easily drawn to, who you instinctively trust to get the job done? Are there people for whom you need to see achievement to recognize their value, people with whom you are a bit hesitant?

Most managers will find objective reasons why some direct reports are “objectively” better than others: better education, closed more sales deals, made more tips from customers, etc. However, it’s important to recognize any biases in place that contribute. For the employee with a “better education”, do you have a bias toward Ivy League schools? For the employee who “closed more sales deals”, did you train him/her differently or join more meetings with the clients alongside them? For the employee who “made more tips”, did you assign them on the schedule for a time that is known for higher tipping or higher volume of sales? One small decision can lead to exponentially different results over time.

Also consider, do your top performers share some demographic attribute with you? One major consequence for this syndrome is that a lack of diversity is perpetuated. If you are a man, do you simply naturally connect more with the men on your team? If diversity was achieved across the C-Suite, homophily would not greatly impact statistical outcomes, but this is not the case. Leadership at most companies is lacking diversity. This means the status quo will be perpetuated by the same people who already have top seats, serving as sponsors for their in-group members. Often, no mal-intent is present, but good intentions without conscious acknowledgment of this phenomenon doesn’t change outcomes.

Infuse confidence

Have you identified someone on your team that you may have set-up-to-fail? It’s not too late to make a change. It could be as simple as sitting down with that person for lunch and learning more about who they are. It could also be a compliment about something they bring to the table that has been undervalued, and which could help them drive business in a certain area.

Spread the love

Make a list of everyone on your team that may have been overlooked for opportunities. Next time you are sitting at a leadership team meeting and an opportunity comes up, be a sponsor for that team member. It may feel scary to put a name out there that you aren’t yourself confident in, but trust that you can help make that person successful. The best managers can drive the success of even underperforming employees with proper expectation setting and support.

Conclusion

Despite the best intentions, many people managers set up people on their teams for failure. If managers take away one point from this article, it is my hope that they consciously consider the biases they hold that make it easier to connect with some team members over others, and then to think about ways to balance the playing field. There is no perfect science, but any steps in the right direction will make all the difference in your team morale and performance, and in turn will result in dividends for your organization.

Defining culture

Culture is the tangible outcome that results when values drive behavior and decisions. It’s the social behaviors, customs, traditions, and artifacts of a group of people. In business today, culture is widely discussed but often misunderstood. A culture results no matter what, but the best cultures happen when the entire group has a shared sense of values.

Culture fit is a term used in the business community uses to describe a person who values the same guiding principles as the company has established. Unfortunately, too often people misunderstand it as the person they ‘want to eat lunch with’ or the job candidate who reminds them of ‘Tom from Marketing’. In reality, culture fit should be a synonym to value add, a person who might look very different from Tom in Marketing both physically and on resume, but who brings something new and different to the table while sharing those same underlying values.

What culture has to do with business economics

If you talk to the finance team at most companies, you’ll learn about one thing they absolutely love: predictable revenue. Finance is driven by models and being able to know exactly what is going to happen 12 months down the line.

A bad hire is expensive regardless. The U.S. Department of Labor estimates that the average cost of a bad hiring decision can equal 30% of the individual’s first year potential earnings (U.S. Department of Labor, 2003). This is highly costly, but predictable. Your losses are the costs of employee compensation, training, and rehiring.

However, the cost of a bad hire due to culture fit is difficult to predict, as its costs primarily stem from other members of the organization.

• Low morale across the team — One major study by Robert Half found that low morale was the biggest cost associated with a bad hire. Low morale results in lost productivity, less customer-focused behavior, and the adoption of counterproductive behavior. In the case of a poor culture fit, the real impact is on the rest of the team. It’s hard to gauge exactly how many lost hours of productivity will result, but the more senior the hire, the bigger the reach they will have, and the greater loss to the company. Disengagement is contagious- beware of poor hires at all levels, but especially at the senior level. Unfortunately, in my experience, this is where many companies are more willing to overlook culture in favor of an impressive resume. The bigger the ship, the harder it is to turn it around in a storm.

Imagine one bad hire earning causes 10 colleagues earning $25/hour increased frustration and disengagement resulting in a 30% loss of productivity. In just one 40-hour workweek, the company loses $3000 in wages paid but unused, but the real loss are in the unknown additional costs of missed customer opportunities (could easily be 5x that). Each of the 10 newly disengaged employees over time impacts 10 of their colleagues (exponential disengagement). The result? The entire company loses.

• Costs to the People/Human Resources team — In this TED Talk, Jay Wilkinson discusses the impact of poor culture hires (he actually recommends prioritizing hiring for culture over skill). The whole talk is important, but scroll to the 15 minute mark and you’ll soon see a chart he provides where he explains that high performers who don’t live values cause 95% of the problems. Your HR department will spend time putting out fires which in turn reduces time spent developing strategic opportunities to help the company thrive.
• More bad hires — Someone who doesn’t get your company’s culture isn’t going to place a priority on hiring people who share the organizational values. The effect of this can spiral, and it’s not something we can pin down to one line item on a balance sheet.

The easiest way to keep costs predictable?

It’s simple: don’t hire someone who will cause the issues above. The decision is often difficult, turning down an exceptional talent, but it must be prioritized. Recruiting a single star player doesn’t result in a winning team. It’s time we rethink hiring people on skill alone. The economical cost of recovering a lost culture and mass disengagement is far greater than any revenue a single top data scientist or salesperson can bring to the table.

I want you think think back to a time when someone else was recognized for something you did at work. It might be that time your CEO publicly recognized a colleague for hitting a goal at a companywide meeting, but you hit that same goal three weeks earlier without recognition. Or it might be the time your manager got the credit for a project for which you did all the heavy lifting. How did it feel?

Now, think back to a time when you were recognized for your work or contributions. It could be that big award, promotion to a senior title, or even a public compliment from someone whose opinion you care deeply about. How did it feel? Did you feel proud or embarrassed? Can you remember feeling concerned about how someone else might have felt during your big moment?

The purpose of this post

…is to challenge you to use empathy when thinking about how you give recognition as a leader. With so many competing demands at work, it’s easy to forget that the things we do and say can impact people beyond our intention for them to do so.

Studies show recognition increases employee happiness and business results. However, it doesn’t come without risk. Leaders have the power of influence, and recognition is one strategic lever of that power. Recognition is powerful, and its intent does not always match its impact. More is not always better, and sometimes it impacts people who are bystanders of recognition act even more than the recipient themselves.

From the recognizer’s perspective, it may seem like it couldn’t hurt to recognize people and may even increase their engagement and motivation, but as we all know from experience, this is not always the case. It’s important to reflect on these questions before delivering recognition:

1. What is the perceived outcome or behavior change desired (if any) a result of the recognition act?
2. What level of effort should go into this recognition act?
3. Should the recognition be delivered publicly or privately?
4. Who else might be impacted by the recognition act?

Despite all the dangers of recognition, it shouldn’t be avoided. It’s a careful balance of authenticity, intentionality, and knowing your unique preferences within your team. Recognition is a real psychological need for most people as a builder of self-esteem. It’s a component of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs applied to the workplace. Recognition can lead to feelings of respect, social status, and achievement, which is critical in empowering some team members to thrive. However, for others, recognition can be embarrassing.

At its best, recognition results in increased motivation and engagement. It reinforces the good work of the recipient and ignites a fire in those who are not working at the same level. At its worst, it can be seen as an issue of perceived fairness, or rather, unfairness and result in mass disengagement. Let’s revisit the example shared at the beginning of this post where a manager publicly recognizes a colleague for hitting a goal at a companywide meeting, but you don’t receive recognition for the same achievement. Imagine this happens repeatedly. The pattern of recognizing one colleague’s achievement and disregarding another’s has a negative impact. If the goal of the recognition act is to light a fire under the rest of the team, and as a leader, you are continually recognizing the same person in order to accomplish this, it might be time to rethink your motivation strategy.

What can managers as recognizers do about this?

Unfortunately there is no easy formula you can plug in where people feel that exact balance of esteem and fairness across the team at all times.

The recommendations that follow, are provided without knowing your specific context, but they might be worth giving a try. Before employing any of these, also consider the unique personality and preference of each member on your team. What works for one team member may not work for another.

• Give the non-recipient a heads up: If you are going to deliver a major public recognition announcement (e.g. promotion) that may negatively impact someone else in the room, consider giving the non-recipient(s) a heads up that this is going to happen. Be caring but don’t sugarcoat your decision. Gauge their reaction, and let it inform how to best deliver the recognition announcement publicly. In some cases, it may be best to delay the announcement itself until the non-recipient can process the information and resolve any internal issues.
• Pass the mic: All recognition doesn’t need to flow top to bottom. Peer to peer recognition can be a powerful thing and may even the culture of recognition and collaboration on teams.
• Show don’t tell: If you want to recognize someone for leveling up, instead of simply telling them they are progressing well, try assigning them a higher level project. Let them know you are asking them to do X project because you’ve seen their progression and you know they can handle it. This allows the recipient to continue to role model their good work further, and potentially encourage them to push even harder to show what they are capable of.
• Rotate off the rotations: Do you recognize a team member of the week or month? Stop. What this devolves into is a rotation across each team member, and when the recipient is called out, it won’t feel as authentic to them as they feel like maybe they are only receiving it because it is their turn. If the same team member rotates as winner more times then anyone else, we revisit the concept of perceived favoritism. To authentic rather than automatic, it’s important we cease the ‘employee of the month’.
• Survey your team: In your next 1-on-1 with each team member let them know you are trying to be more intentional about giving recognition. Ask them how public recognition makes them feel. Ask them the piece of recognition or feedback that made them feel the best, the worst. Keep note of each team member’s preference and use it to help inform your overarching recognition strategy. Your team may have very different preferences from each other, and maybe different from the recommendations in this post, and that’s okay. What works best for your group trumps best practice.

Further reading: If you liked this article and want to learn more about this topic, I’ve linked a few articles here I’ve enjoyed on related topics like recognition v. reward, perceived fairness/favoritism, and this TED Talk on What makes us feel good about our work? (hint: it’s not recognition).

The pattern

There’s a prevailing pattern in the tech startup community:

An early stage startup hires a high-achiever to play a generalist role helping launch certain programs, products, or services for their nascent company. Over the next several months, the company secures funding and goes into hypergrowth mode. Suddenly, the company needs a team of people to do the job the one high-achiever was previously doing. Instead of hiring an external manager or director to run the team, the team promotes the high-achiever who built the function in the first place. The high-achiever becomes a first time manager.

This presents both an opportunity and a threat.

The opportunity

For the company, this option is fast and cheap. They don’t need to invest recruiting dollars or engage in a time-consuming interview process, and they trust the person they are promoting. They feel good about themselves for promoting from within.

For the high-achiever, the level of experience and skill-building is immeasurable. A person can attain 5 years worth of experience in 5 months. Plus, it usually comes with a salary increase and shiny new title. Their hard work paid off.

The threat

The motivation that enables most high-achieving individual contributors to thrive is different than the mindset it takes to manage a high-achieving team. Many high-achievers see management as the career path even though few high-achievers have the natural born ability to foster a team’s success over their own recognition. Great managers are rarely born that way. New managers who once contributed tangible work, leave a 12-hour workday unsure of what they accomplished.

Early-stage startups don’t have the infrastructure in place to offer new manager programs. Moreover, the startup is in hypergrowth mode so no one has the time to slow down and support the new manager’s success.

New managers often don’t ask for the support they desperately need for fear they will be perceived as underprepared for the level of role to which they were promoted.

So, how do we solve for this?

There is no magic formula. The best companies employ multiple strategies, some of which are simply impractical at an early stage company. If you are at a company without a Learning + Development department, do not fret, here are a few quick wins you can achieve to set a foundation for managerial success:

Note: Build your foundation early. Ideally, you are reading this before you are promoted.

1. Find a mentor. Whereas sponsors are great when you are looking to move up a role, mentors are great when you are looking to grow within a role. Maybe there’s a manager you admire at your company. Maybe it’s a former manager you reported to at your previous company. Find someone trustworthy, reliable, and experienced that you can meet with regularly to gain advice. If you don’t know anyone, check out Everwise (I recently became a volunteer mentor for them and new managers who use them, and they provide a phenomenal platform to enable productive mentorship relationships).

2. Find a learning community (or at least a learning partner). Are there other new managers at your company? Get a lunch group going once a month where you can share what’s working and what’s not. Create a low pressure / safe space for problem solving. Online communities can be quite powerful, but take advice from online forums like Quora with a critical eye. Checkout meetups in your local area. Curate your community experience to include vetted advice that understands your context.

3. Read, read, read. You don’t need an MBA to be a solid manager. It’s about staying up-to-date on management theories and their applications. There are tons of free blogs and reviews out there with relevant material in a digestible format (check out my personal favorite, First Round Capital’s The Review). There are also fantastic books that are less prescriptive on management and more inspirational (check out some of my favorites: Start with Why, Multipliers, and Drive). Don’t have time to read? These are available on audible for your commute. Reading will help you find tools for difficult conversations and frameworks for decision making that can be the dealmaker/dealbreaker for success.

4. Don’t be afraid to ask for help. A little vulnerability makes us human, but not asking for help can be much more dangerous down the road when your team’s morale is in the toilet and you feel entirely burnt out. Let your manager or HR person know your management roadblocks as there are often simple solutions to problems that appear difficult.

5. Celebrate wins and milestones. Keeping a journal of your direct report’s wins and growth helps shift the focus from your success to your team’s success.

And lastly, remember that management, like any career path, is a developmental process. Because impact sometimes feels less measurable, it is difficult to gauge progress. Even though a startup might be moving at the speed light, a new manager should slow down and move intentionally for long-term success.

I’d love to hear from you in the comments section. What is the single best piece of advice you’ve gotten about managing a team?