When I was a young boy my friends and I would often play “monkey in the Middle”. It was a rather cruel but fun game. The “monkey” was the person in between two others who would throw a ball back and forth. The “monkey” would run back and forth jumping to catch, or at least touch, the ball. Once touched the person who threw it would then take the “monkey’s” place in the middle. We counted the number of throws and kept score. The one who had thrown the ball the most times was the winner. In other words, the one who was able to stay out of the middle the longest won.
As a leader have you ever found yourself in the middle of a conflict between two employees? Have you ever been able to mediate a solution for them? How much time did it take? How much energy did you expend? Furthermore, were you able to resolve the issue between them and feel confident it would not return? I doubt it. Intermediaries usually end up running back and forth trying to understand each side of the argument, reaching for the “ball”, rarely touching it, and often ending up an “exhausted loser”.
How can we avoid this unfortunate, ineffective, and wasteful situation as leaders? We must create an environment of engagement and autonomy. We must avoid creating an environment of dependency, victimhood, and bureaucracy. When employees are autonomous, and therefore responsible for resolving their own conflicts, they first do whatever they can to avoid the negative conflicts. Yet once a conflict emerges, they quickly take action and/or they dismiss it as unimportant. In either case the conflict does not become a “time waster” as it does when a leader attempts to mediate.
There are three basic steps to create an environment of engagement and autonomy allowing, and encouraging employees to resolve their own conflicts. First, clear operational behaviors must be created that clearly spell out how conflict will be seen and interpreted. Here is a good question: As a leader, do you want to eliminate all conflict? NO! Conflict means learning. Conflict is a symptom of two differing points of view or two differing methods of solving a problem. So the first message about conflict is in this list of behaviors is: “we embrace conflict as a learning experience.”
Second, there needs to be a tool employees can use to calm nerves and to get to the real issues during a conflict. This tool can help influence productive discussion and diffuse emotional distress which often accompanies negative conflict. A leader must provide a tool for employees to talk to each other during these stressful and emotional times.
Third, there must be a tool to smooth over hurt feelings if one of the employees is accidently wronged during the conflict. Often times differing communication styles (personalities) can cause offense. A disrespectful offence that goes unacknowledged creates a barrier to resolving the conflict. It damages the relationship and the trust. Providing a tool that helps employees to approach each other when they are wronged (disrespected) creates the autonomy they need to remove this relationship barrier. Every employee must be given permission to use such a tool and every employee must be asked to accept this feedback when offered.
I challenge you to think of a time when you were the mediator of a conflict and you were able to solve the issue between the two people without their help and cooperation. Cooperation is an outcome of having all three of these elements in place and trusting the employees to use the tools to solve their own problems. Any problem they don’t resolve themselves will resurface anyway. When employees get the message that they can “go to the boss” and he/she will solve it” they become victims of their circumstances. Victims cost organizations money and time.
So what should a leader do when an employee complains about another employee and asks the “boss” to intervene? Gently say no. If you have created the environment of autonomy and engagement with these three tools you can turn that employee back to use the tools. Turn the employee back and gently remind them they have two choices, either forget the conflict because it is trivial or use the tools to solve it themselves. It is their choice. This keeps the leader out of the middle and prevents the “monkey in the middle game from exhausting the leader and wasting everyone’s time.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
Trust Leads to Autonomy Which Leads to Engagement
Trust Leads to Autonomy Which Leads to Engagement
Trust is a vital ingredient in high performance organizations. High levels of trust enable improved communication flow and productive problem solving. Research shows that improved flow of information improves performance, reduces unproductive conflict, increases adaptability, and innovation. Having trust in someone (or in a team) allows us to give autonomy to that person. Autonomy leads to engagement. The more autonomous one is in their work the more creative they are and the more engagement they feel.
Right now engagement is a critical factor for an organization’s success. The higher the engagement the higher will be the productivity and profitability. Yet the latest engagement research shows only about 29% of employees are fully engaged in their work. This tells me leaders are not trusting employees. Trust must come before engagement.
Successful leaders recognize they must trust employees first. They purposely put people in situations where they will be challenged and allow the employees to demonstrate their skills. A leader will make themselves available but they don’t look over the employee’s shoulder and they don’t micro-manage. They trust first in order to be trusted. Ernest Hemingway once said, “The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.”
One of the most important responsibilities of a leader is to manage the variation in trust in their organization or within their team. This requires a keen understanding of the right definition of trust. The definition I appreciate the most is from the International Association of Business Communicators. Their definition is: a willingness to be vulnerable because of the presence of integrity, concern, competence and shared objectives. By managing each of these four elements a leader can then make a decision to be vulnerable. By making themselves vulnerable they bring out the best in the employee. They allow that employee autonomy and with autonomy come growth and engagement.
In the movie The Horse Whisperer Robert Redford plays a middle aged expert horse trainer/cowboy in Montana. He is met by a young girl and her mom who ask him to help rehabilitate their horse. The horse suffered a nearly fatal injury in an accident with an 18 wheeler. The girl and mom wanted to avoid putting the horse down even though the injury was so severe. The horse was not the only casualty. The girl lost her leg. She was only 14.
Redford realized he needed to help the girl before he could help the horse. In one scene he and the girl find themselves out on the range alone with an old pickup truck. Redford asks the girl to drive him back to the ranch while feigning fatigue. He challenges her to use her skills. He trusted she would be able to drive him even though she had never driven a truck let alone a standard shift. He trusted her first, provided support, and allowed her autonomy to give it a try.
It worked. She did it. She became engaged in the process of helping to rehabilitate the horse. By trusting her, giving her training and allowing her to use her skills (providing autonomy) she became engaged. This works for employees. It also can work for students.
Our schools are in trouble. The new documentary Waiting for Superman demonstrates the challenge well. Some say the film blames unions and teachers for the problem. Certainly they play a role. But those who say that are missing a huge piece. The problem starts with how we think about students and how we have set up the system. We have a system set up to send the message, WE DON’T TRUST YOU. We have very strict curriculums. We use standardized testing to drive improvement and reward or punish students and schools. We use grades to attempt to motivate students to do better. What are we left with? Is it engagement? Is it results?
I would recommend we send a message of WE TRUST YOU. Students naturally want to learn and teachers naturally want to do a good job. Don’t they? We can then provide an environment of autonomy. We can then expect them to be engaged.
Successful leaders trust people will do the right things. If they don’t do what they are supposed to do then there needs to be consequences. But why create a system that sends a message of distrust for everyone just because you have a few bad apples? Trust people, give them the tools so they can be autonomous and then watch the engagement happen.
Trust is a vital ingredient in high performance organizations. High levels of trust enable improved communication flow and productive problem solving. Research shows that improved flow of information improves performance, reduces unproductive conflict, increases adaptability, and innovation. Having trust in someone (or in a team) allows us to give autonomy to that person. Autonomy leads to engagement. The more autonomous one is in their work the more creative they are and the more engagement they feel.
Right now engagement is a critical factor for an organization’s success. The higher the engagement the higher will be the productivity and profitability. Yet the latest engagement research shows only about 29% of employees are fully engaged in their work. This tells me leaders are not trusting employees. Trust must come before engagement.
Successful leaders recognize they must trust employees first. They purposely put people in situations where they will be challenged and allow the employees to demonstrate their skills. A leader will make themselves available but they don’t look over the employee’s shoulder and they don’t micro-manage. They trust first in order to be trusted. Ernest Hemingway once said, “The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.”
One of the most important responsibilities of a leader is to manage the variation in trust in their organization or within their team. This requires a keen understanding of the right definition of trust. The definition I appreciate the most is from the International Association of Business Communicators. Their definition is: a willingness to be vulnerable because of the presence of integrity, concern, competence and shared objectives. By managing each of these four elements a leader can then make a decision to be vulnerable. By making themselves vulnerable they bring out the best in the employee. They allow that employee autonomy and with autonomy come growth and engagement.
In the movie The Horse Whisperer Robert Redford plays a middle aged expert horse trainer/cowboy in Montana. He is met by a young girl and her mom who ask him to help rehabilitate their horse. The horse suffered a nearly fatal injury in an accident with an 18 wheeler. The girl and mom wanted to avoid putting the horse down even though the injury was so severe. The horse was not the only casualty. The girl lost her leg. She was only 14.
Redford realized he needed to help the girl before he could help the horse. In one scene he and the girl find themselves out on the range alone with an old pickup truck. Redford asks the girl to drive him back to the ranch while feigning fatigue. He challenges her to use her skills. He trusted she would be able to drive him even though she had never driven a truck let alone a standard shift. He trusted her first, provided support, and allowed her autonomy to give it a try.
It worked. She did it. She became engaged in the process of helping to rehabilitate the horse. By trusting her, giving her training and allowing her to use her skills (providing autonomy) she became engaged. This works for employees. It also can work for students.
Our schools are in trouble. The new documentary Waiting for Superman demonstrates the challenge well. Some say the film blames unions and teachers for the problem. Certainly they play a role. But those who say that are missing a huge piece. The problem starts with how we think about students and how we have set up the system. We have a system set up to send the message, WE DON’T TRUST YOU. We have very strict curriculums. We use standardized testing to drive improvement and reward or punish students and schools. We use grades to attempt to motivate students to do better. What are we left with? Is it engagement? Is it results?
I would recommend we send a message of WE TRUST YOU. Students naturally want to learn and teachers naturally want to do a good job. Don’t they? We can then provide an environment of autonomy. We can then expect them to be engaged.
Successful leaders trust people will do the right things. If they don’t do what they are supposed to do then there needs to be consequences. But why create a system that sends a message of distrust for everyone just because you have a few bad apples? Trust people, give them the tools so they can be autonomous and then watch the engagement happen.
Friday, October 22, 2010
As a Leader What Message Do You Send?
I was walking our two dogs, as I do almost every morning. We go to the nearby park and walk the 2 miles rather quickly so we all get good exercise. Of course I had my Blackberry so when I think of a quick call I can make it during the walk. While striding up a gradual hill I started breathing a little heavy when I suddenly remembered a call I needed to make to one of my strategic partners. I needed to confirm a seminar date that was scheduled for the end of the following week.
I called my client and one of the owners, Diane, answered the call. I asked to speak to the scheduler Evelyn. As I was asking I was breathing even heavier. Apparently talking and walking up hill creates even heavier breathing. I am sure I sounded like a nasty pervert as I asked Diane to pass on a message to Evelyn to return my call. After I hung up I realized I should have explained my context. What impression did I make? If she didn't know me she may have thought I was an excited pervert while I requested, “Please tell Evelyn to call me. I have a few questions for her.” Thank goodness we have a good trusting relationship so I doubt Diane will think poorly of me. But, can I be sure?
Very often leaders exhibit negative behaviors that unintentionally and unknowingly create the wrong impression. These behaviors can damage the motivation and productivity of employees in ways that are immeasurable. Most organizations have the following dysfunctional cultural characteristics:
• The leader misbehaves
• The poor behavior of the leader negatively impacts the employee’s motivation and attitude toward the leader and the organization
• Most of the employees are too afraid to give feedback to the leader and so the poor behavior continues
• The employees begin to exhibit poor behaviors
• The leader conducts a performance appraisal to correct the employee behaviors
This typical series of interactions does little to address the real root cause of the dysfunction, i.e. the leader’s behaviors. Instead, these cultural procedures serve to sustain the dysfunction.
Leaders are not, nor will they ever be, omnipotent. When they misbehave they need to know it and they need help to change their behaviors to prevent the unintended negative consequences.
When I first begin my work with clients I always explain to the Senior Leaders that one of my roles is to give feedback to them about poor behaviors. I ask their permission to provide that feedback and I insist they agree. I always get that agreement because the leaders (and all people) already think they are behaving correctly. Leaders who misbehave rarely do so purposefully. Almost always they are unaware of the impact on others. They need to be respectfully told.
Ask yourself, how many companies proactively welcome respectful feedback to leaders by employees? I often see leaders who insist on strict discipline yet consistently show up late to meetings. I also have seen leaders deliver criticism to one direct report for a particular issue and then fail to deliver the same level of outrage to a different employee for a similar issue.
To optimize trust and create a high performance culture, leaders must be willing to accept the responsibility for the impressions they create. Because they cannot be omnipotent, they must accept frequent respectful feedback about poor behaviors. They also need to send a grateful message to the messenger. Any defensive reaction will inhibit the feedback in the future and help continue the dysfunction.
Therefore, leaders need to either be very insightful and emotionally intelligent in order to observe their own dysfunctional and misunderstood behaviors. In other words, they need to be aware of their “heavy breathing”. In addition, the leader must be truly courageous and purposely set up a small team of trusted advisors who will provide respectful feedback when he/she unconsciously creates the wrong impression. Without these two approaches surely the negative impact on productivity will continue unchecked.
I called my client and one of the owners, Diane, answered the call. I asked to speak to the scheduler Evelyn. As I was asking I was breathing even heavier. Apparently talking and walking up hill creates even heavier breathing. I am sure I sounded like a nasty pervert as I asked Diane to pass on a message to Evelyn to return my call. After I hung up I realized I should have explained my context. What impression did I make? If she didn't know me she may have thought I was an excited pervert while I requested, “Please tell Evelyn to call me. I have a few questions for her.” Thank goodness we have a good trusting relationship so I doubt Diane will think poorly of me. But, can I be sure?
Very often leaders exhibit negative behaviors that unintentionally and unknowingly create the wrong impression. These behaviors can damage the motivation and productivity of employees in ways that are immeasurable. Most organizations have the following dysfunctional cultural characteristics:
• The leader misbehaves
• The poor behavior of the leader negatively impacts the employee’s motivation and attitude toward the leader and the organization
• Most of the employees are too afraid to give feedback to the leader and so the poor behavior continues
• The employees begin to exhibit poor behaviors
• The leader conducts a performance appraisal to correct the employee behaviors
This typical series of interactions does little to address the real root cause of the dysfunction, i.e. the leader’s behaviors. Instead, these cultural procedures serve to sustain the dysfunction.
Leaders are not, nor will they ever be, omnipotent. When they misbehave they need to know it and they need help to change their behaviors to prevent the unintended negative consequences.
When I first begin my work with clients I always explain to the Senior Leaders that one of my roles is to give feedback to them about poor behaviors. I ask their permission to provide that feedback and I insist they agree. I always get that agreement because the leaders (and all people) already think they are behaving correctly. Leaders who misbehave rarely do so purposefully. Almost always they are unaware of the impact on others. They need to be respectfully told.
Ask yourself, how many companies proactively welcome respectful feedback to leaders by employees? I often see leaders who insist on strict discipline yet consistently show up late to meetings. I also have seen leaders deliver criticism to one direct report for a particular issue and then fail to deliver the same level of outrage to a different employee for a similar issue.
To optimize trust and create a high performance culture, leaders must be willing to accept the responsibility for the impressions they create. Because they cannot be omnipotent, they must accept frequent respectful feedback about poor behaviors. They also need to send a grateful message to the messenger. Any defensive reaction will inhibit the feedback in the future and help continue the dysfunction.
Therefore, leaders need to either be very insightful and emotionally intelligent in order to observe their own dysfunctional and misunderstood behaviors. In other words, they need to be aware of their “heavy breathing”. In addition, the leader must be truly courageous and purposely set up a small team of trusted advisors who will provide respectful feedback when he/she unconsciously creates the wrong impression. Without these two approaches surely the negative impact on productivity will continue unchecked.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
