Wow, there are a whole host of services and articles to help managers with difficult employees. When you do a Google search you can find an overabundance of articles.
An engaged employee is one who has a positive emotional connection that naturally causes him/her to exert greater discretionary effort. A difficult employee is one who is actively disengaged. They are a recruiter for inappropriate behaviors and poor performance. They are a “Pied Piper” of dysfunction. The actively disengaged avoid effort and actively enroll others to join them in their poor performance. Difficult employees create tremendous waste in all its forms including managers’ time, lost productivity for other workers, and even damaged customer relationships. I guess this is why there are so many books and articles for how to address them.
But, what is the root cause of these employees and what percentage of responsibility do managers have for the root causes? When my first wife and I were having problems we visited a marriage counselor. He asked me what percentage responsibility I thought I had for the marital dysfunction. I had never thought about that question before until that moment. It took me a while to answer and I think I told him “around 10%.” He then asked, “Don’t you think you own at least 50%?” It took me a while to realize I had contributed to the dysfunction. I believe managers with difficult employees are similarly in denial.
There are only two major sources of difficult employees. They were either hired that way or they evolved into dysfunctional by working at the company. Either way the managers have a significant responsibility for both of these sources. Think about it. Managers control the hiring process and the policies, procedures, and processes of the organization.
Is it fair to say that a manager controls the hiring process? Doesn’t a manger own at least 50% responsibility for hiring someone who is difficult? Of course managers don’t purposely hire the disengaged but that’s not the point. Even if the employee is a great actor and hides their dysfunction, isn’t the manager responsible for having a predictable hiring process that can uncover this secret?
Furthermore, who has more control of the working environment than the management? If the environment contributed to the dysfunction shouldn’t the manager take a higher percentage of the responsibility for this as well? A manager’s number one job is to create the proper context for productive and high quality work, correct?
I have a Blackberry. I sync it often with my Outlook files as many people do. It started giving me an error message during the synch process. I got very angry and called Verizon and started demanding service. “Why should it just suddenly stop working?” I asked. The customer service person was very cordial and walked me through a series of steps to back up my data and then wipe clean the devise so it could synch properly. She told me it was probably a corrupt piece of data. I was upset and impatient.
After walking through all the steps I was able to synch again without incident. That is when it dawned on me. I had accidently disconnected the devise during a synch earlier in the day. I received a call in the middle of the synch process and forgot to keep the devise connected when I answered the call. I had actually caused the corrupted files. I was a cause of the dysfunction.
I believe mangers are a significant cause of difficult employees. They either hire them that way or they create them with unknowing dysfunction of their own. If you are a manager go ahead and read all those books and articles that focus on what you can do to change the employee but I also advise you to start looking at your behaviors and decisions for the real root causes. I advise you to take at least 50% responsibility for these actively disengaged. Make sure you check your hiring processes and your working environment for dysfunction. I bet you will find a huge opportunity to change some things you are doing to cause the problems.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
It Should Be Human Potential Leadership Not Human Resources Management
We have all seen Einstein’s quote about change. He said, “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” This tells me we can’t dissolve a problem until we find a new way of thinking about it. We must change our thinking first otherwise will resurface again later.
What problem should we address that will make the most difference for American businesses today? I want to help organizations dissolve the employee engagement problem. Engaged employees have an emotional connection to work. They voluntarily exert extra effort into their work. They do this without being threatened, bribed or even asked. To make us more competitive on the global stage we must improve our employee engagement. Improvement in technology can help but it is not the full answer. We must tap into every heart and mind of every employee in order to catch up to the Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans etc. Our average engagement in the USA is around 26%. That is a problem.
If we are to follow Einstein’s advice, we must begin to think differently? The fastest way to change your thinking is to change your language. I have a suggestion for my Human Resources Management friends. Change your name from Human Resource Management Department to Human Potential Leadership Department.
When we look up the word resources in the dictionary we find a source of supply or a means of spending. This definition suggests a limit or a finite amount. Human Potential Leadership suggests unlimited supply. The dictionary clarifies this with the words “possibility and development”. The greatest sin a leader can commit is not allowing people to achieve their full potential.
There can be three elements within the Human Potential Leadership paradigm:
• Leadership of the Context
• Management of Processes
• Self-management by all the people
Leadership of the context means an environment that allows everyone to reach their full potential. This environment has freedom and choice and encourages to self-management of employees’ own behavior. This type of environment naturally rewards (not with money but with learning and intrinsic rewards) self-reliance, problem solving, and learning. It demands a clear vision, aim and strategy for optimum action and faster decision making. It avoids dependence on management for everyday decisions that are required to solve everyday type problems.
Management of processes means just that. Notice I did not mention management of people. Instead everyone is already naturally involved with managing their own processes and their own interactions within those processes. This means everyone is clear about their hand offs to internal and external customers. They know how to use quality improvement tools and they apply the tools every day to improve those hand offs.
Self-management refers to the creation of trust through consistent behavior. This behavior is in alignment with natural principles and values. It refers to emotional intelligence. It means treating everyone with respect in every situation. It means social responsibility and full transparency without negative consequences. It means full integrity with everything.
This new language opens up all new possibilities. It naturally sloughs off unnecessary ineffective policies such as the current dysfunctional performance appraisal process. With self-management, leadership of the context, and management of process the current appraisal process is obsolete. This new paradigm demands more sophisticated methods of interaction.
Surely the Human Potential Leadership Department will be in a much better position than the Human Resource Department to improve employee engagement and to solve that lingering problem.
What problem should we address that will make the most difference for American businesses today? I want to help organizations dissolve the employee engagement problem. Engaged employees have an emotional connection to work. They voluntarily exert extra effort into their work. They do this without being threatened, bribed or even asked. To make us more competitive on the global stage we must improve our employee engagement. Improvement in technology can help but it is not the full answer. We must tap into every heart and mind of every employee in order to catch up to the Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans etc. Our average engagement in the USA is around 26%. That is a problem.
If we are to follow Einstein’s advice, we must begin to think differently? The fastest way to change your thinking is to change your language. I have a suggestion for my Human Resources Management friends. Change your name from Human Resource Management Department to Human Potential Leadership Department.
When we look up the word resources in the dictionary we find a source of supply or a means of spending. This definition suggests a limit or a finite amount. Human Potential Leadership suggests unlimited supply. The dictionary clarifies this with the words “possibility and development”. The greatest sin a leader can commit is not allowing people to achieve their full potential.
There can be three elements within the Human Potential Leadership paradigm:
• Leadership of the Context
• Management of Processes
• Self-management by all the people
Leadership of the context means an environment that allows everyone to reach their full potential. This environment has freedom and choice and encourages to self-management of employees’ own behavior. This type of environment naturally rewards (not with money but with learning and intrinsic rewards) self-reliance, problem solving, and learning. It demands a clear vision, aim and strategy for optimum action and faster decision making. It avoids dependence on management for everyday decisions that are required to solve everyday type problems.
Management of processes means just that. Notice I did not mention management of people. Instead everyone is already naturally involved with managing their own processes and their own interactions within those processes. This means everyone is clear about their hand offs to internal and external customers. They know how to use quality improvement tools and they apply the tools every day to improve those hand offs.
Self-management refers to the creation of trust through consistent behavior. This behavior is in alignment with natural principles and values. It refers to emotional intelligence. It means treating everyone with respect in every situation. It means social responsibility and full transparency without negative consequences. It means full integrity with everything.
This new language opens up all new possibilities. It naturally sloughs off unnecessary ineffective policies such as the current dysfunctional performance appraisal process. With self-management, leadership of the context, and management of process the current appraisal process is obsolete. This new paradigm demands more sophisticated methods of interaction.
Surely the Human Potential Leadership Department will be in a much better position than the Human Resource Department to improve employee engagement and to solve that lingering problem.
Friday, December 24, 2010
The Language of Employee Engagement: Stop Using “Drive” Start Using “Facilitate”
If you have time look up the definition of the word “drive.” You may be surprised with the results. The first definition in the Merriam-Webster online is to “frighten or prod in a desired direction.” Most of the rest of the choices in definition included the words “force” or “cause.”
Very often I see articles about improving employee performance or employee engagement with titles that include the word drive: “How to Drive Performance… or How to Drive Employee Engagement… etc.” Is “drive” the correct word to use? Is this the most useful thinking for an effective leader?
A leader’s language is a reflection of how he/she thinks. How the leader thinks will determine his/her actions. How a leader thinks about people and problems determines the decisions he/she makes and the policies he/she support.
Stop using “Drive”
Some of the language we use doesn’t fit the employee engagement model. Our language often damages engagement without our knowledge. Drive is one of those words to avoid because it suggests thoughts and encourages actions that are contrary to those required to sustain employee engagement. Engagement is a delicate condition that can easily be damaged, often unknowingly. Engagement is a subjective emotional state within the minds of employees. It can be quite fleeting if the conditions in the environment don’t consistently support it.
Recently, while delivering a training program at a client, the manager told me he needed to step out of the training to participate in a staff meeting because an employee had “acted out” the day before and the staff needed to be reminded “that type of behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.” I asked him how long the meeting would take and therefore, how long he would be out of the training. He said, “15 minutes at most.” He was out over 45 minutes. His excuse for being late was his senior management needed to discuss other issues that would help drive performance.
Instead of making it easier for my participant to gain fully from my training program his managers put up a road block by forcing him to stay later than his agreement with me. They needed to "drive" his performance. This type of leadership sends mixed messages to employees. Mixed messages can damage engagement. Think about it for a moment, would you have been more engaged or less engaged by those decisions and mixed messages? Furthermore, sending mixed messages and limiting employee choices can often create “acting out” behavior the very reason for the meeting in the first place.
Start Using “Facilitate”
To facilitate means to make easier. In contrast, driving means to frighten or prod. Which do you think creates greater, more predictable, and more sustainable employee engagement “driving or facilitating” performance? Which will create greater results?
Leaders who think in terms of “driving performance” will have a tendency to take action first and insist their employees take action. In a “drive” environment often the action the employee must take is often the one his/her manager insists upon.
These “drive” leaders will look for heroes (or heroines) who fix problems so they can be rewarded. I have seen how this type of leadership encourages some high performers to actually create problems so they can step in a fix them to get credit or rewards. This is only one unintended consequence of talent management programs. These leaders will reward action over reflection. They will reward results over relationships.
Leaders who drive performance tend to have less trust and create a “management dependent” environment instead of a “self-management” environment. Management dependent means employees rely too heavily on what management wants. This slows response to change and, at worst, can lead to a bureaucracy. In contrast, a “self-management” environment allows employees freedom to act within a context (set of parameters). This accelerates decision making and problem solving.
Leaders who facilitate look for employees who can fix the root causes so problems don’t re-surface. They value reflection as much as action. They understand that learning can only occur with action combined with reflection. Facilitator leaders trust their people. They place a greater value on predictable processes than they do on identifying heroes through talent management.
Leaders who are facilitators listen more and learn more. They are able to identify new ideas that often come from their employees. They recognize and value an emotionally healthy environment. They are willing to allow people to “self-manage”. They spend more time on strategic thinking and less time on people problems.
Start using the word facilitate in place of the word drive. It will make a huge difference in how you think about your role as a leader. It will open up new ways to working with people and will create new opportunities for improvement.
Very often I see articles about improving employee performance or employee engagement with titles that include the word drive: “How to Drive Performance… or How to Drive Employee Engagement… etc.” Is “drive” the correct word to use? Is this the most useful thinking for an effective leader?
A leader’s language is a reflection of how he/she thinks. How the leader thinks will determine his/her actions. How a leader thinks about people and problems determines the decisions he/she makes and the policies he/she support.
Stop using “Drive”
Some of the language we use doesn’t fit the employee engagement model. Our language often damages engagement without our knowledge. Drive is one of those words to avoid because it suggests thoughts and encourages actions that are contrary to those required to sustain employee engagement. Engagement is a delicate condition that can easily be damaged, often unknowingly. Engagement is a subjective emotional state within the minds of employees. It can be quite fleeting if the conditions in the environment don’t consistently support it.
Recently, while delivering a training program at a client, the manager told me he needed to step out of the training to participate in a staff meeting because an employee had “acted out” the day before and the staff needed to be reminded “that type of behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.” I asked him how long the meeting would take and therefore, how long he would be out of the training. He said, “15 minutes at most.” He was out over 45 minutes. His excuse for being late was his senior management needed to discuss other issues that would help drive performance.
Instead of making it easier for my participant to gain fully from my training program his managers put up a road block by forcing him to stay later than his agreement with me. They needed to "drive" his performance. This type of leadership sends mixed messages to employees. Mixed messages can damage engagement. Think about it for a moment, would you have been more engaged or less engaged by those decisions and mixed messages? Furthermore, sending mixed messages and limiting employee choices can often create “acting out” behavior the very reason for the meeting in the first place.
Start Using “Facilitate”
To facilitate means to make easier. In contrast, driving means to frighten or prod. Which do you think creates greater, more predictable, and more sustainable employee engagement “driving or facilitating” performance? Which will create greater results?
Leaders who think in terms of “driving performance” will have a tendency to take action first and insist their employees take action. In a “drive” environment often the action the employee must take is often the one his/her manager insists upon.
These “drive” leaders will look for heroes (or heroines) who fix problems so they can be rewarded. I have seen how this type of leadership encourages some high performers to actually create problems so they can step in a fix them to get credit or rewards. This is only one unintended consequence of talent management programs. These leaders will reward action over reflection. They will reward results over relationships.
Leaders who drive performance tend to have less trust and create a “management dependent” environment instead of a “self-management” environment. Management dependent means employees rely too heavily on what management wants. This slows response to change and, at worst, can lead to a bureaucracy. In contrast, a “self-management” environment allows employees freedom to act within a context (set of parameters). This accelerates decision making and problem solving.
Leaders who facilitate look for employees who can fix the root causes so problems don’t re-surface. They value reflection as much as action. They understand that learning can only occur with action combined with reflection. Facilitator leaders trust their people. They place a greater value on predictable processes than they do on identifying heroes through talent management.
Leaders who are facilitators listen more and learn more. They are able to identify new ideas that often come from their employees. They recognize and value an emotionally healthy environment. They are willing to allow people to “self-manage”. They spend more time on strategic thinking and less time on people problems.
Start using the word facilitate in place of the word drive. It will make a huge difference in how you think about your role as a leader. It will open up new ways to working with people and will create new opportunities for improvement.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Engagement and Synergy: A Marriage Made for Innovation
The driest place on earth is in South America. The Chilean dessert of Atacama is on the western cost of Chile and spans 600 miles. There are many reasons for this strange meteorological anomaly but that is not the real story. The real story is that life thrives in this dessert. Why? It’s because of the interaction and synergy between the cool water and the hot air of the dessert.
Each morning the cool water in the Pacific at the 24th parallel creates a cool breeze that drifts over the warm sun dried land of the Atacama. A thick fog is created and settles on the arid sun baked land. The cacti and other plants serve as hosts for the moisture in the fog and it condenses on the plants. The plants absorb it and the animals drink it up off the outside of these hosts just before it is either consumed or evaporates.
Rain hasn’t fallen on this dessert in any measurable amount since measurements were started yet life thrives. Without rain life still exists. Why? The interaction between the cool water, the hot air, and heated earth create moisture that is shared by all. This is a great metaphor for how an effective leader and a successful organization can operate.
Often leaders and employees have opposite personalities yet they must work together to solve problems. They can choose to be in conflict and avoid each other or they can choose to optimize their communications to create synergy. By creating quality interactions between two people of oppose styles new ideas can emerge that were never expected.
Synergy is cooperative interactions between two or more people (or objects) that result in solutions or ideas that would have been impossible if the individuals tried to create them on their own. Synergy produces innovation.
On its own, the cool water could not create fog. On its own, the hot air or earth could not sustain life. Together they can create an environment that does both.
Too often leaders use talent management alone to create innovation. Improving the quality of individuals alone will not create synergy. Improving the quality of interactions between people is more important and that should be the focus of a great leader.
Stop trying to improve your individual employees. Instead focus on improving the quality of how they interact. Miracles can happen.
Each morning the cool water in the Pacific at the 24th parallel creates a cool breeze that drifts over the warm sun dried land of the Atacama. A thick fog is created and settles on the arid sun baked land. The cacti and other plants serve as hosts for the moisture in the fog and it condenses on the plants. The plants absorb it and the animals drink it up off the outside of these hosts just before it is either consumed or evaporates.
Rain hasn’t fallen on this dessert in any measurable amount since measurements were started yet life thrives. Without rain life still exists. Why? The interaction between the cool water, the hot air, and heated earth create moisture that is shared by all. This is a great metaphor for how an effective leader and a successful organization can operate.
Often leaders and employees have opposite personalities yet they must work together to solve problems. They can choose to be in conflict and avoid each other or they can choose to optimize their communications to create synergy. By creating quality interactions between two people of oppose styles new ideas can emerge that were never expected.
Synergy is cooperative interactions between two or more people (or objects) that result in solutions or ideas that would have been impossible if the individuals tried to create them on their own. Synergy produces innovation.
On its own, the cool water could not create fog. On its own, the hot air or earth could not sustain life. Together they can create an environment that does both.
Too often leaders use talent management alone to create innovation. Improving the quality of individuals alone will not create synergy. Improving the quality of interactions between people is more important and that should be the focus of a great leader.
Stop trying to improve your individual employees. Instead focus on improving the quality of how they interact. Miracles can happen.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Creating Dysfunction Instead of Engagement in Three Easy Steps
Samuel Johnson once said, fraud dreads examination but truth invites it. The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority is dreading the next steps in the investigation on safety inspections. In a recent Wall Street Journal report the MTA admitted that their workers failed to do the required tests and maintenance on its subway signals. Furthermore, managers failed to properly manage the workers and failed to put processes in place to prevent them from filing the false reports.
This is serious. Proper functioning signals will prevent delays and PREVENT ACCIDENTS. Proper functioning signals will stop a train if an operator misses a red light. What would cause a worker to commit fraud on something so important? Workers submitting false reports put passengers, the MTA, and themselves in danger. What would cause workers to be so dysfunctional? Three simple steps can easily do it:
1. Set stretch numerical goals beyond capabilities
2. Hold people accountable to those goals
3. Rely on inspection to catch errors
Many organization set stretch numerical goals that are often beyond some capabilities. This causes employees to take short-cuts. This is exactly what the MTA workers did. Most of the problems occurred on the highest traffic areas because high traffic makes it much more difficult to do maintenance. Workers need to dodge trains more frequently to ensure their own safety during the tasks. Furthermore, the tasks of inspection and maintenance are arduous and complex.
Many organizations attempt to hold people accountable to overly challenging tasks or goals without knowing what the outcome will be. This is exactly what the MTA did. This creates dysfunction because it forces workers to either make short-cuts. They must achieve what management expects or risk being criticized for not doing their job and therefore receive a lower performance evaluation rating. This is not the only place where this dysfunction plays out. Our high school (and college) students admit succumbing pressure to perform by cheating. Depending upon the study, 80-95% of students admit to surrendering to the cheating option.
Inspection is important but not as a way to ensure compliance. Inspection should be used to uncover important knowledge about how to improve the processes. It should not be used as a club to threaten employees with punishment. According to the article, the MTA’s inspector general will now look for those individuals responsible for falsifying the reports. I wonder how much truth he/she will get with that approach.
Why not develop engagement instead? What should the MTA management do to improve safety, reduce costs and improve maintenance quality? The short answer is to engage the workers in creating the solutions and stop trying to catch them doing things wrong. Here are a few basic steps:
• Use the current inspection data to identify where and how the improvements to the maintenance process can be improved.
• Engage the workers to help improve the process while helping them to feel safe and helping improve their productivity. Make it safe for them to tell the truth without fear of reprisal.
• Take their recommendations and fix their processes.
• Stop using inspection as a club and start using it to increase the knowledge of the MTA to improve the processes again.
Are you creating dysfunction and then looking for the offenders so you can hit them with the inspection club? Stop. It is only hurting everyone. It is not leadership. It is dysfunction in three easy steps.
This is serious. Proper functioning signals will prevent delays and PREVENT ACCIDENTS. Proper functioning signals will stop a train if an operator misses a red light. What would cause a worker to commit fraud on something so important? Workers submitting false reports put passengers, the MTA, and themselves in danger. What would cause workers to be so dysfunctional? Three simple steps can easily do it:
1. Set stretch numerical goals beyond capabilities
2. Hold people accountable to those goals
3. Rely on inspection to catch errors
Many organization set stretch numerical goals that are often beyond some capabilities. This causes employees to take short-cuts. This is exactly what the MTA workers did. Most of the problems occurred on the highest traffic areas because high traffic makes it much more difficult to do maintenance. Workers need to dodge trains more frequently to ensure their own safety during the tasks. Furthermore, the tasks of inspection and maintenance are arduous and complex.
Many organizations attempt to hold people accountable to overly challenging tasks or goals without knowing what the outcome will be. This is exactly what the MTA did. This creates dysfunction because it forces workers to either make short-cuts. They must achieve what management expects or risk being criticized for not doing their job and therefore receive a lower performance evaluation rating. This is not the only place where this dysfunction plays out. Our high school (and college) students admit succumbing pressure to perform by cheating. Depending upon the study, 80-95% of students admit to surrendering to the cheating option.
Inspection is important but not as a way to ensure compliance. Inspection should be used to uncover important knowledge about how to improve the processes. It should not be used as a club to threaten employees with punishment. According to the article, the MTA’s inspector general will now look for those individuals responsible for falsifying the reports. I wonder how much truth he/she will get with that approach.
Why not develop engagement instead? What should the MTA management do to improve safety, reduce costs and improve maintenance quality? The short answer is to engage the workers in creating the solutions and stop trying to catch them doing things wrong. Here are a few basic steps:
• Use the current inspection data to identify where and how the improvements to the maintenance process can be improved.
• Engage the workers to help improve the process while helping them to feel safe and helping improve their productivity. Make it safe for them to tell the truth without fear of reprisal.
• Take their recommendations and fix their processes.
• Stop using inspection as a club and start using it to increase the knowledge of the MTA to improve the processes again.
Are you creating dysfunction and then looking for the offenders so you can hit them with the inspection club? Stop. It is only hurting everyone. It is not leadership. It is dysfunction in three easy steps.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Leaders Can Learn Principles of Engagement from The Lord of the Rings
I was watching the Lord of the Rings the other night. It was the first of the trilogy, The Fellowship of the Ring. The fellowship is made up of 9 very different characters of various ages and races. They all agree, voluntarily, to risk life and limb to destroy the ring by returning it to Mount Doom in Mordor. How do the members become so engaged in the face of such danger? The answer to this question can help us uncover key principles that any of us can use to create voluntary engagement in our organizations.
The principle is there must be a very “big why” to create cooperation. The Council of Elrond decides that the threat of Sauron is too great. The Council describes, to the characters, the history behind the threat, the consequences of the continued threat, and the benefits that will be realized when the ring is destroyed.
In an organization, once a strategic initiative is chosen by the leaders, the Senior Leader(s) can explain why the initiative is so important. He/she can explain the history, the consequences if we fail and the benefits if we succeed. These explanations can be delivered in the different “languages” of the different people depending upon individual needs or “languages” (not necessarily English vs. Spanish for example but also different departments have different ways of interpreting concepts).
The “big why” is brought to life by providing a clear picture, or vision, to constituents. Frodo is given a clear picture of what the Shire will look like if he doesn’t take the ring to Mordor. He sees his cousins in chains and his wonderful peaceful home in flames.
Too often leaders just assume that everyone understands the strategic initiative in the same way they do. Too often the leaders are too close to the issues because they discuss them and live with them for days before an initiative is chosen. Most employees are far behind in their understanding. They need to be given time and energy to help them catch up. They each may need a different explanation of the vision that they can personally relate to. Too often leaders interpret the resistance to the change as “difficult people”. Most often it is because the explanations provided by the leaders were inadequate.
Frodo stepped forward. He volunteered to take the ring to Modor. He asked for help. “I don’t know the way” he explained. He saw his role clearly because no one else had the proper character to resist the evil of the ring. He saw the in-fighting within the Fellowship continuing if he didn’t step forward. He realized without him, the ring would live on.
Once Frodo stepped forward the others could see how they could help bring their own special tools and talents to accomplish the initiative.
Leaders who understand the strengths of their people and allow them to fulfill roles, that best serve not just their own passions and strengths but also serve the organization, will optimize employee engagement. By clearly explaining the roles and responsibilities, the risks of the specific roles, allowing people to step up and volunteer, trusting people’s judgment, avoiding authoritarian decisions as much as possible, and explaining how you will support them while minimizing criticism a leader begins to build the initial engagement needed to begin positive action on the initiative.
Maybe I was just over tired or maybe just in a weird mood but I saw key principles of truth in the movie. Perhaps you can see those too and more importantly perhaps you can implement them in your organization. Maybe it’s just me but I believe running a business today is very much like a trip through Middle-earth where Orcs and Ringwraiths can attack at any time. We need a fellowship of engagement to help us.
The principle is there must be a very “big why” to create cooperation. The Council of Elrond decides that the threat of Sauron is too great. The Council describes, to the characters, the history behind the threat, the consequences of the continued threat, and the benefits that will be realized when the ring is destroyed.
In an organization, once a strategic initiative is chosen by the leaders, the Senior Leader(s) can explain why the initiative is so important. He/she can explain the history, the consequences if we fail and the benefits if we succeed. These explanations can be delivered in the different “languages” of the different people depending upon individual needs or “languages” (not necessarily English vs. Spanish for example but also different departments have different ways of interpreting concepts).
The “big why” is brought to life by providing a clear picture, or vision, to constituents. Frodo is given a clear picture of what the Shire will look like if he doesn’t take the ring to Mordor. He sees his cousins in chains and his wonderful peaceful home in flames.
Too often leaders just assume that everyone understands the strategic initiative in the same way they do. Too often the leaders are too close to the issues because they discuss them and live with them for days before an initiative is chosen. Most employees are far behind in their understanding. They need to be given time and energy to help them catch up. They each may need a different explanation of the vision that they can personally relate to. Too often leaders interpret the resistance to the change as “difficult people”. Most often it is because the explanations provided by the leaders were inadequate.
Frodo stepped forward. He volunteered to take the ring to Modor. He asked for help. “I don’t know the way” he explained. He saw his role clearly because no one else had the proper character to resist the evil of the ring. He saw the in-fighting within the Fellowship continuing if he didn’t step forward. He realized without him, the ring would live on.
Once Frodo stepped forward the others could see how they could help bring their own special tools and talents to accomplish the initiative.
Leaders who understand the strengths of their people and allow them to fulfill roles, that best serve not just their own passions and strengths but also serve the organization, will optimize employee engagement. By clearly explaining the roles and responsibilities, the risks of the specific roles, allowing people to step up and volunteer, trusting people’s judgment, avoiding authoritarian decisions as much as possible, and explaining how you will support them while minimizing criticism a leader begins to build the initial engagement needed to begin positive action on the initiative.
Maybe I was just over tired or maybe just in a weird mood but I saw key principles of truth in the movie. Perhaps you can see those too and more importantly perhaps you can implement them in your organization. Maybe it’s just me but I believe running a business today is very much like a trip through Middle-earth where Orcs and Ringwraiths can attack at any time. We need a fellowship of engagement to help us.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Be More Competitive with Self-Management: How Talent management Can Create Dependency and Poor Performance Long-term
There is an important distinction between self- management and manger-dependent management. Most organizations have a manager-dependent environment. This is when the manager must provide feedback to employees in order to create improved performance.
A manager-dependent environment encourages employees wait to receive ideas for improvement from their managers before making any significant changes in performance. This type of environment creates more fear and less innovation. Self-Management increases employee engagement. Employees create their own feedback mechanisms and can act autonomously. This accelerates the decisions and therefore accelerates the ability to adapt to changes.
When my daughter Emily was 12, one morning she missed her school bus. She was very upset and came downstairs to my office crying, “Dad, I missed the bus. Can you take me to school?” Of course I agreed but then asked her a question, “what do you need to do to catch the bus on your own from now on?’ She looked at me in a thoroughly confused manner. At that moment I was not sure she could think of an idea.
When she arrived home that afternoon she said, “Dad, I thought about what you asked. If you buy me a timer I will set it 5 minutes before the bus arrives and if it goes off I will know I only have 5 minutes left. I can then easily catch the bus.”
I told her that sounded great. I also asked her what else she could do to be prepared in the morning. She said she would set her books out by the front door right before bed time. For the next 2-1/2 years she used this method and always caught the bus on time. She self-managed her ability to catch the bus by creating and following her own process.
To become more highly competitive organizations must ask employees to make more decisions on their own. A new book about the virtues of talent management has just been published. It reinforces the Jack Welch management methods. Welch insisted on providing frequent honest feedback with complete candor. In my experience managers don't have that kind of time to provide frequent feedback. They don’t have time to constantly be observing the employees. My point is managers should instead rely more on employee, trust them more, and facilitate them creating their own answers to their own problems just as my daughter was able to identify a way to catch her bus.
In order for employees to figure out ways to manage and measure their own performance, a leader needs to recognize that the existence of an authoritative structure, an authoritative policy like performance evaluations, and a management orthodoxy like talent management all work together to sustain a dysfunctional environment that prevents self-management from flourishing.
Effective managers should stop employees when they ask questions that perpetuate manager-dependency. Instead managers need to be courageous and trust that employees can create their own solutions. This requires courage because performance may suffer in the short run but the payoff in the long-term is worth it.
A leader’s first responsibility is to create an environment of autonomy. Talent management means a ranking of employees, rewarding the top performers and “yanking out” the poorer performers. This policy and practice creates unnecessary competition minimizing the opportunity for innovation.
Courageous leaders allow people to make decisions within the proper context. A leader can clarify the vision and the purpose of the organization. Then by clarifying the strategic initiatives a leader can allow employees to create their own goals and objective. These goals can be aligned with the strategic initiatives to move the organization closer to that mission and vision. The autonomy is created and with autonomy comes choice. With choice comes engagement. With engagement comes performance. Self-management must replace manager-dependent management.
A manager-dependent environment encourages employees wait to receive ideas for improvement from their managers before making any significant changes in performance. This type of environment creates more fear and less innovation. Self-Management increases employee engagement. Employees create their own feedback mechanisms and can act autonomously. This accelerates the decisions and therefore accelerates the ability to adapt to changes.
When my daughter Emily was 12, one morning she missed her school bus. She was very upset and came downstairs to my office crying, “Dad, I missed the bus. Can you take me to school?” Of course I agreed but then asked her a question, “what do you need to do to catch the bus on your own from now on?’ She looked at me in a thoroughly confused manner. At that moment I was not sure she could think of an idea.
When she arrived home that afternoon she said, “Dad, I thought about what you asked. If you buy me a timer I will set it 5 minutes before the bus arrives and if it goes off I will know I only have 5 minutes left. I can then easily catch the bus.”
I told her that sounded great. I also asked her what else she could do to be prepared in the morning. She said she would set her books out by the front door right before bed time. For the next 2-1/2 years she used this method and always caught the bus on time. She self-managed her ability to catch the bus by creating and following her own process.
To become more highly competitive organizations must ask employees to make more decisions on their own. A new book about the virtues of talent management has just been published. It reinforces the Jack Welch management methods. Welch insisted on providing frequent honest feedback with complete candor. In my experience managers don't have that kind of time to provide frequent feedback. They don’t have time to constantly be observing the employees. My point is managers should instead rely more on employee, trust them more, and facilitate them creating their own answers to their own problems just as my daughter was able to identify a way to catch her bus.
In order for employees to figure out ways to manage and measure their own performance, a leader needs to recognize that the existence of an authoritative structure, an authoritative policy like performance evaluations, and a management orthodoxy like talent management all work together to sustain a dysfunctional environment that prevents self-management from flourishing.
Effective managers should stop employees when they ask questions that perpetuate manager-dependency. Instead managers need to be courageous and trust that employees can create their own solutions. This requires courage because performance may suffer in the short run but the payoff in the long-term is worth it.
A leader’s first responsibility is to create an environment of autonomy. Talent management means a ranking of employees, rewarding the top performers and “yanking out” the poorer performers. This policy and practice creates unnecessary competition minimizing the opportunity for innovation.
Courageous leaders allow people to make decisions within the proper context. A leader can clarify the vision and the purpose of the organization. Then by clarifying the strategic initiatives a leader can allow employees to create their own goals and objective. These goals can be aligned with the strategic initiatives to move the organization closer to that mission and vision. The autonomy is created and with autonomy comes choice. With choice comes engagement. With engagement comes performance. Self-management must replace manager-dependent management.
Effective Leaders Use Respect and Choice to Deal with Unacceptable Behavior
Did you notice I didn’t entitle this blog, dealing with difficult people? That’s because the phrase “difficult people” is not a useful thought. If the person is a problem then why did you (or the organization) hire them? If you really have a problem person please go fix your hiring process and then come back to this article for help with unacceptable behaviors because the problem is not with the people. It is with you!
Gandhi said we “must become the change we seek.” I want to add to that, we must change first before we can expect a change in someone else. This is about what you can do as a leader first.
The techniques I am about to share are not about threats or bribes. They are about choice and respect. There are three major steps.
First, agree that the unacceptable behavior is a problem at your workplace. Christine Pearson, a management professor at the University of North Carolina business school conducted a survey about incivility:
“Christine…surveyed 775 people regarding "rude, insensitive, discourteous behavior" at the office. Survey results indicated that twelve percent of the people that experience rude behavior quit their jobs, while 52 percent reported losing work time, and 22 percent of those surveyed deliberately decreased their work effort. The most troubling statistic is that over 78 percent of those surveyed said that incivility has worsened in the past 10 years (Pearson, Andersson, Porath, 1999).” (http://www.publicvirtues.com/Incivility_Study.html)
Clearly unacceptable behaviors increase costs and reduce productivity in organizations. Make sure everyone (or most everyone) can agree. Give them time to process this truth. Share specific instances so they can relate to the problem.
Second, agree on a list of acceptable behaviors and share them. Clearly describe the following values behaviors in specific observable terms:
• Integrity
• Respect
• Customer Focus
Answer the question, “When someone has integrity, what do you see? When someone has respect for others, what do you see?” Do the same for “Customer Focus”. You must be clear and specific about what you want. Eliminate all opportunity for interpretation if you can. For example, “Listen with the intent to understand: e.g. stop, look, acknowledge what is said, and ask questions when you don’t understand or disagree (avoid criticism or judgment).”
You can then share this list with your team. Ask them to adopt this list and to follow them at work regardless of any situation. Explain that there is never a good reason to break integrity, respect, or customer focus. There are only excuses. Excuses are not acceptable. Tell them that you have committed to the list yourself and that you want them to be free to give you feedback when and if you don't follow the behaviors.
Third, ask the team members to think about committing to the list also and ask them to think about which of the following two options they would prefer.
Option 1: Everyone agree to the behaviors on an informal basis. This means you will not record (or document) any behavior inconsistent with the list. The purpose of option 1 is to learn only and not to punish or threaten. If this option doesn’t work you can always go to option #2.
Option 2: Agree to formally receive feedback about the behaviors. Ask the entire team to agree to the behaviors and ask them to agree give verbal feedback and to document everyone (in writing) when the behaviors don't match the document.
It is probably useful to let Human Resources know that you are doing so they can give complete support. You will be treating everyone the same and everyone fairly and so HR should be able to support you.
You may need training on how to deliver the feedback respectfully. Some people can be disrespectful when they just intend to be helpful.
You can ask the team, "Which option is best for you?" Let them decide. Please remember, this is about respect and choice.
Either option must be presented as being acceptable. However, the purpose is to eliminate the unacceptable behavior as a team and to help each other receive feedback and to learn new approaches to conflict and communication. Research shows that people are almost always unaware when they exhibit unacceptable behavior. The feedback will be the way they become aware. The feedback is a way to learn.
This is about a higher purpose for the organization. It is about creating an environment of trust through respect and choice. It is also about living the higher purpose of being respectful with all human beings (or all beings on the planet) at all times. This is a basic principle for success and can become a reason everyone must make an effort.
Gandhi said we “must become the change we seek.” I want to add to that, we must change first before we can expect a change in someone else. This is about what you can do as a leader first.
The techniques I am about to share are not about threats or bribes. They are about choice and respect. There are three major steps.
First, agree that the unacceptable behavior is a problem at your workplace. Christine Pearson, a management professor at the University of North Carolina business school conducted a survey about incivility:
“Christine…surveyed 775 people regarding "rude, insensitive, discourteous behavior" at the office. Survey results indicated that twelve percent of the people that experience rude behavior quit their jobs, while 52 percent reported losing work time, and 22 percent of those surveyed deliberately decreased their work effort. The most troubling statistic is that over 78 percent of those surveyed said that incivility has worsened in the past 10 years (Pearson, Andersson, Porath, 1999).” (http://www.publicvirtues.com/Incivility_Study.html)
Clearly unacceptable behaviors increase costs and reduce productivity in organizations. Make sure everyone (or most everyone) can agree. Give them time to process this truth. Share specific instances so they can relate to the problem.
Second, agree on a list of acceptable behaviors and share them. Clearly describe the following values behaviors in specific observable terms:
• Integrity
• Respect
• Customer Focus
Answer the question, “When someone has integrity, what do you see? When someone has respect for others, what do you see?” Do the same for “Customer Focus”. You must be clear and specific about what you want. Eliminate all opportunity for interpretation if you can. For example, “Listen with the intent to understand: e.g. stop, look, acknowledge what is said, and ask questions when you don’t understand or disagree (avoid criticism or judgment).”
You can then share this list with your team. Ask them to adopt this list and to follow them at work regardless of any situation. Explain that there is never a good reason to break integrity, respect, or customer focus. There are only excuses. Excuses are not acceptable. Tell them that you have committed to the list yourself and that you want them to be free to give you feedback when and if you don't follow the behaviors.
Third, ask the team members to think about committing to the list also and ask them to think about which of the following two options they would prefer.
Option 1: Everyone agree to the behaviors on an informal basis. This means you will not record (or document) any behavior inconsistent with the list. The purpose of option 1 is to learn only and not to punish or threaten. If this option doesn’t work you can always go to option #2.
Option 2: Agree to formally receive feedback about the behaviors. Ask the entire team to agree to the behaviors and ask them to agree give verbal feedback and to document everyone (in writing) when the behaviors don't match the document.
It is probably useful to let Human Resources know that you are doing so they can give complete support. You will be treating everyone the same and everyone fairly and so HR should be able to support you.
You may need training on how to deliver the feedback respectfully. Some people can be disrespectful when they just intend to be helpful.
You can ask the team, "Which option is best for you?" Let them decide. Please remember, this is about respect and choice.
Either option must be presented as being acceptable. However, the purpose is to eliminate the unacceptable behavior as a team and to help each other receive feedback and to learn new approaches to conflict and communication. Research shows that people are almost always unaware when they exhibit unacceptable behavior. The feedback will be the way they become aware. The feedback is a way to learn.
This is about a higher purpose for the organization. It is about creating an environment of trust through respect and choice. It is also about living the higher purpose of being respectful with all human beings (or all beings on the planet) at all times. This is a basic principle for success and can become a reason everyone must make an effort.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Talent Management Alone Leads to Failure
Talent management is the American management theory that concludes that the very best performing organizations are the one who have leaders obsessed with hiring, developing, ranking, and ruthlessly evaluating with candor their talent. Enron was the ultimate “talent management” organization. The demise of Enron cost shareholders more than $11 billion. The stock went from a high of $90/share to a $1/share in just one year.
You might think we could learn from this epic business debacle of Enron but some of us didn’t. I am referring to the authors of a new book confirming the value of talent management. I won’t give the title because I don’t want to promote something I believe is so clearly incomplete and nearly criminally wrong. Smart people can be VERY wrong and I believe this book confirms it.
McKinsey & Company promoted talent management in the late 1990’s and Enron became the poster child for its practices. GE was also a big proponent. Of course Enron and GE were both very successful for a while. We know the story of Enron. GE was also very successful and propelled Jack Welch to celebrity status for management gurus. However, GE has lost its luster too going from a high of around $50/share in 2001 when Jack Welch retired to around $15/share today.
OK, I know there are a million factors for these failures and one could argue that the McKinsey theory of talent management is not the major factor. However, managing talent is not the most effective management theory for today’s complex global economy and any book that tries to persuade me is a wasted read for two reasons:
• This thinking is inconsistent with systems thinking and systems thinking must be at the heart of any management orthodoxy.
• Managing talent creates a dependency on managers by employees and that damages the organizations ability to adapt to change and prevents long-term optimization and predictability.
Talent management demands the manager rank the talent and disproportionately reward the “top” performers while “yanking” the poor performers out. They often call it “rank and yank.” This policy and practice creates a high degree of competition, back-biting, cheating, hiding negative information, and all around dysfunctional behaviors. In systems thinking everyone must cooperate to optimize the system over the long-term. System thinking requires total transparency, complete integrity, and optimum cooperation. “Ranking and yanking” is consistent with short-term thinking and that often destroys the cooperation.
In a system the quality of the interactions between the parts is more important than the quality of the parts. For example, try building the very best car by taking the best parts from numerous different auto manufacturers and building a hybrid car from those best parts. It won’t work. Why, the parts don’t interact optimally.
When managers need to provide constant evaluations with candor, they have little time for anything else. There is never enough time to observe the talented employees to provide an accurate picture. Secondly, if the employees rely on the manager for their feedback then they can become dependent upon the manager for an important part of what gets them engaged. The evaluation process becomes manager-dependent.
Our schools are “manager” dependent and few of them are working well. Instead of allowing students more opportunity to self-manage (track and evaluate their own progress) teachers and administrators use standardized tests, standardized curriculums, and teacher dependent systems that take away autonomy. Schools are failing to deliver results. This is one reason why.
Talent management broke down at Enron and it broke down at GE. When Jack Welch left the GE stock started a continual slide. If talent management was the right American Management theory wouldn’t have enabled GE to continue it success? When Welch left the results left with him.
A better way is to create system-dependent processes instead of manager-dependent processes. We can do better by helping all managers and employees self-manage. We can do better by helping all students to self-manage. Self-management allows an organization to better respond to the accelerated pace of change. We need a different model. We need a self-managing model.
We see self-management in nature. Instead continuous evaluation by a higher power animals and plants operate and thrive in self-organizing systems. Birds flock by self-management to hard wired principles. Fish swim in schools following key principles of survival. Each fish or bird manages itself according to those principles. We can learn much from nature. Talent management is not one of those things.
You might think we could learn from this epic business debacle of Enron but some of us didn’t. I am referring to the authors of a new book confirming the value of talent management. I won’t give the title because I don’t want to promote something I believe is so clearly incomplete and nearly criminally wrong. Smart people can be VERY wrong and I believe this book confirms it.
McKinsey & Company promoted talent management in the late 1990’s and Enron became the poster child for its practices. GE was also a big proponent. Of course Enron and GE were both very successful for a while. We know the story of Enron. GE was also very successful and propelled Jack Welch to celebrity status for management gurus. However, GE has lost its luster too going from a high of around $50/share in 2001 when Jack Welch retired to around $15/share today.
OK, I know there are a million factors for these failures and one could argue that the McKinsey theory of talent management is not the major factor. However, managing talent is not the most effective management theory for today’s complex global economy and any book that tries to persuade me is a wasted read for two reasons:
• This thinking is inconsistent with systems thinking and systems thinking must be at the heart of any management orthodoxy.
• Managing talent creates a dependency on managers by employees and that damages the organizations ability to adapt to change and prevents long-term optimization and predictability.
Talent management demands the manager rank the talent and disproportionately reward the “top” performers while “yanking” the poor performers out. They often call it “rank and yank.” This policy and practice creates a high degree of competition, back-biting, cheating, hiding negative information, and all around dysfunctional behaviors. In systems thinking everyone must cooperate to optimize the system over the long-term. System thinking requires total transparency, complete integrity, and optimum cooperation. “Ranking and yanking” is consistent with short-term thinking and that often destroys the cooperation.
In a system the quality of the interactions between the parts is more important than the quality of the parts. For example, try building the very best car by taking the best parts from numerous different auto manufacturers and building a hybrid car from those best parts. It won’t work. Why, the parts don’t interact optimally.
When managers need to provide constant evaluations with candor, they have little time for anything else. There is never enough time to observe the talented employees to provide an accurate picture. Secondly, if the employees rely on the manager for their feedback then they can become dependent upon the manager for an important part of what gets them engaged. The evaluation process becomes manager-dependent.
Our schools are “manager” dependent and few of them are working well. Instead of allowing students more opportunity to self-manage (track and evaluate their own progress) teachers and administrators use standardized tests, standardized curriculums, and teacher dependent systems that take away autonomy. Schools are failing to deliver results. This is one reason why.
Talent management broke down at Enron and it broke down at GE. When Jack Welch left the GE stock started a continual slide. If talent management was the right American Management theory wouldn’t have enabled GE to continue it success? When Welch left the results left with him.
A better way is to create system-dependent processes instead of manager-dependent processes. We can do better by helping all managers and employees self-manage. We can do better by helping all students to self-manage. Self-management allows an organization to better respond to the accelerated pace of change. We need a different model. We need a self-managing model.
We see self-management in nature. Instead continuous evaluation by a higher power animals and plants operate and thrive in self-organizing systems. Birds flock by self-management to hard wired principles. Fish swim in schools following key principles of survival. Each fish or bird manages itself according to those principles. We can learn much from nature. Talent management is not one of those things.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Doing the Wrong Things faster Still Makes Them Wrong
I don’t believe in the value of the typical performance appraisals. They often damage trust and they ignore real root causes of problems by looking to the individual to fix problems that are actually in the system. People often ask me if I subscribe to performance appraisal software that enables managers to more quickly process performance appraisals and track individual performance. The purpose of this software is to accelerate the tracking of individual performance to make higher quality promotional and compensation decisions. Unfortunately accelerating decisions using the wrong tool is still wrong.
I help organize and coordinate a fund raising program for local Rotary Club called the Program Book. I t is for the largest annual fund raising event. Members place ads in the ad book and it is distributed to all members for the purpose of raising money and promoting businesses who support Rotary.
A Doctor provided me a hand written ad for the book. The participants in the ad book are supposed to give original artwork in order to insure quality and accuracy. Instead the Dr. gave me a hand written note! Have you ever seen a Dr.’s handwriting? I couldn’t read it. Furthermore, I did not have the ability to request a correction because I had to go out of town. I ran out of time to contact her. The ad was, unfortunately, printed incorrectly.
When the Doctor saw the ad she complained to her Rotary friends. She and others in Rotary blamed me for the quality of the ad. Her hand-off to me was very poor yet I was reprimanded. Perhaps I should have taken extra steps to avoid the mistake yet the suggested process for providing the original artwork was not followed.
The real root cause of the problem was the inability or unwillingness of the Doctor to follow instructions. Yet, I was the one reprimanded for the error. Is the typical performance appraisal any different? More often than not, employees do their best to avoid errors. The errors are almost never intentional and almost always involve factors outside the control of the employee. Is evaluating the individual really the best way to optimize learning or improvement? Let’s look at my situation.
Was I supposed to do something special for the Doctor? Why does the Doctor require special attention when others are able to follow instructions? Should I have instead stood firm and insisted the Doctor provide original artwork or should I have refused the ad?
A more useful approach would be to agree on a process for accepting or rejecting the artwork submissions. Continuously improving that process is more important than attempting to evaluate individual behavior in the face of a dysfunctional system.
Performance appraisals don’t effectively address system issues that directly impact individual performance. Why not focus on the improvement of the process instead of focusing on improving the individual? Evaluating the individual faster using software is still the wrong thing to do.
I help organize and coordinate a fund raising program for local Rotary Club called the Program Book. I t is for the largest annual fund raising event. Members place ads in the ad book and it is distributed to all members for the purpose of raising money and promoting businesses who support Rotary.
A Doctor provided me a hand written ad for the book. The participants in the ad book are supposed to give original artwork in order to insure quality and accuracy. Instead the Dr. gave me a hand written note! Have you ever seen a Dr.’s handwriting? I couldn’t read it. Furthermore, I did not have the ability to request a correction because I had to go out of town. I ran out of time to contact her. The ad was, unfortunately, printed incorrectly.
When the Doctor saw the ad she complained to her Rotary friends. She and others in Rotary blamed me for the quality of the ad. Her hand-off to me was very poor yet I was reprimanded. Perhaps I should have taken extra steps to avoid the mistake yet the suggested process for providing the original artwork was not followed.
The real root cause of the problem was the inability or unwillingness of the Doctor to follow instructions. Yet, I was the one reprimanded for the error. Is the typical performance appraisal any different? More often than not, employees do their best to avoid errors. The errors are almost never intentional and almost always involve factors outside the control of the employee. Is evaluating the individual really the best way to optimize learning or improvement? Let’s look at my situation.
Was I supposed to do something special for the Doctor? Why does the Doctor require special attention when others are able to follow instructions? Should I have instead stood firm and insisted the Doctor provide original artwork or should I have refused the ad?
A more useful approach would be to agree on a process for accepting or rejecting the artwork submissions. Continuously improving that process is more important than attempting to evaluate individual behavior in the face of a dysfunctional system.
Performance appraisals don’t effectively address system issues that directly impact individual performance. Why not focus on the improvement of the process instead of focusing on improving the individual? Evaluating the individual faster using software is still the wrong thing to do.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Things Are Not As Simple As You Think– Do Leaders Know How to Solve Problems?
The other day I went to the refrigerator in our garage to get a beer. I opened the door and noticed the light was out. I thought, “It must be the bulb.” Wrong!
I called to my wife that the bulb was out in the outside refrigerator and not to be alarmed. I would pick up a new bulb at the store later that day.
I bought a new bulb and went straight to the refrigerator when I got home. After screwing in the blub it didn’t work. “Now what?”, I asked. I noticed the air from the inside of the refrigerator was not as cold as usual. “Oh my gosh” I thought. “I bet the plug was accidently pulled.” I checked it. Wrong! The plug was in. “What is going on?”, I asked.
Later than day I was vacuuming the house and when I plugged the vacuum into an upstairs bathroom it didn’t work. The refrigerator light bulb still didn’t work but the one in my head went on. The circuit breaker must have tripped! I went to the basement and flipped the circuit breaker. Sure enough, the vacuum worked and so did the refrigerator (and the bulb). It was the circuit breaker all along. Or so I thought. But, what was the root cause of the circuit breaker tripping?
As leaders we can learn from this story about how to solve problems. Very often Leaders are approached by employees because a problem has surfaced. A leader will jump to a conclusion and an immediate action to solve the problem. It is so easy to just jump in with a solution and not think about “How can we optimize learning.” However, if the leader jumps in too often with an immediate solution he/she is encouraging employees to be dependent and not independent.
Isn’t it better to provide employees with a predictable problem solving model that employees can use themselves? Isn’t it better to “teach people to fish than to provide fish for them when they are hungry?”
A question I always ask managers at a new client is, “Are you proactive or reactive when solving problems?” They always rate themselves poorly admitting they a more reactive and not proactive. This creates tremendous waste and that waste is very often immeasurable. It doesn’t show up as a line item on the Profit and Loss statements.
I had just used the leaf blower in an outside outlet. I thought, “That must be the problem! It was the leaf blower!” I tested my theory by running the leaf blower again from that outlet. I checked the refrigerator and the circuit breaker. Both were working fine. I was confused. I still didn’t know the root cause.
The predictable problem solving model (learning model) is the Shewhart Model (or also known as the Deming Model) i.e. “Plan - Do - Study – Act”. The Plan step includes these questions:
• Is it important that we fix this problem? Is it a priority?
• What do we want? What is the ideal? What is the vision?
• What problem do we specifically want to solve?
• What is the root causes of the failure?
• How will we solve it?
• How will we know it is solved?
Let’s apply this to my refrigerator/circuit breaker problem. It is very important I fix this because if the refrigerator stops working long enough, the food will spoil. I have a good deal of food there that I depend upon.
My vision is, I want to be sure the refrigerator works regardless of what happens and I want to be sure I check the circuit breaker to be sure it has not tripped. Ideally I want to correct the problem so the breaker doesn’t ever trip.
I will solve it with small experiments using the P-D-S-A Learning model.
I will know it works when I occasionally inspect the circuit breaker and it is still on.
Now let’s move to the Do step. This step means you implement your plan. In my example I would test different appliances in each circuit in the house and on the outside of the house. I would check the refrigerator after each test. I would record the data afterwards.
The Study step is the analysis of the data. Here are some questions we can ask:
• What does the data tell us?
• Are we achieving the results we expected?
• What did we learn?
• Can we change the system to achieve the results we want every time?
For the refrigerator I would review which outlets might have tripped the circuit breaker, if any, and then formulate a repair process for those outlets.
The final step is the Act section. This is where we implement our conclusions from the analysis step. In my case, I would repair any of the outlets that showed up needing repair when the data was collected.
As a leader how are you solving problems? Are you jumping in with your ideas first for the sake of expediency (go buy a bulb)? Are you training your employees to depend upon you for the solutions for their problems instead of depending upon themselves? Are you missing an opportunity to train your people to be more autonomous? Are you creating more of a bureaucratic than an entrepreneurial organization?
Take time to learn the problem solving model. Use it. As you can see, even a simple problem like a refrigerator can baffle you or waste your time. If you don’t use a predictable process you will definitely waste your time and money.
I called to my wife that the bulb was out in the outside refrigerator and not to be alarmed. I would pick up a new bulb at the store later that day.
I bought a new bulb and went straight to the refrigerator when I got home. After screwing in the blub it didn’t work. “Now what?”, I asked. I noticed the air from the inside of the refrigerator was not as cold as usual. “Oh my gosh” I thought. “I bet the plug was accidently pulled.” I checked it. Wrong! The plug was in. “What is going on?”, I asked.
Later than day I was vacuuming the house and when I plugged the vacuum into an upstairs bathroom it didn’t work. The refrigerator light bulb still didn’t work but the one in my head went on. The circuit breaker must have tripped! I went to the basement and flipped the circuit breaker. Sure enough, the vacuum worked and so did the refrigerator (and the bulb). It was the circuit breaker all along. Or so I thought. But, what was the root cause of the circuit breaker tripping?
As leaders we can learn from this story about how to solve problems. Very often Leaders are approached by employees because a problem has surfaced. A leader will jump to a conclusion and an immediate action to solve the problem. It is so easy to just jump in with a solution and not think about “How can we optimize learning.” However, if the leader jumps in too often with an immediate solution he/she is encouraging employees to be dependent and not independent.
Isn’t it better to provide employees with a predictable problem solving model that employees can use themselves? Isn’t it better to “teach people to fish than to provide fish for them when they are hungry?”
A question I always ask managers at a new client is, “Are you proactive or reactive when solving problems?” They always rate themselves poorly admitting they a more reactive and not proactive. This creates tremendous waste and that waste is very often immeasurable. It doesn’t show up as a line item on the Profit and Loss statements.
I had just used the leaf blower in an outside outlet. I thought, “That must be the problem! It was the leaf blower!” I tested my theory by running the leaf blower again from that outlet. I checked the refrigerator and the circuit breaker. Both were working fine. I was confused. I still didn’t know the root cause.
The predictable problem solving model (learning model) is the Shewhart Model (or also known as the Deming Model) i.e. “Plan - Do - Study – Act”. The Plan step includes these questions:
• Is it important that we fix this problem? Is it a priority?
• What do we want? What is the ideal? What is the vision?
• What problem do we specifically want to solve?
• What is the root causes of the failure?
• How will we solve it?
• How will we know it is solved?
Let’s apply this to my refrigerator/circuit breaker problem. It is very important I fix this because if the refrigerator stops working long enough, the food will spoil. I have a good deal of food there that I depend upon.
My vision is, I want to be sure the refrigerator works regardless of what happens and I want to be sure I check the circuit breaker to be sure it has not tripped. Ideally I want to correct the problem so the breaker doesn’t ever trip.
I will solve it with small experiments using the P-D-S-A Learning model.
I will know it works when I occasionally inspect the circuit breaker and it is still on.
Now let’s move to the Do step. This step means you implement your plan. In my example I would test different appliances in each circuit in the house and on the outside of the house. I would check the refrigerator after each test. I would record the data afterwards.
The Study step is the analysis of the data. Here are some questions we can ask:
• What does the data tell us?
• Are we achieving the results we expected?
• What did we learn?
• Can we change the system to achieve the results we want every time?
For the refrigerator I would review which outlets might have tripped the circuit breaker, if any, and then formulate a repair process for those outlets.
The final step is the Act section. This is where we implement our conclusions from the analysis step. In my case, I would repair any of the outlets that showed up needing repair when the data was collected.
As a leader how are you solving problems? Are you jumping in with your ideas first for the sake of expediency (go buy a bulb)? Are you training your employees to depend upon you for the solutions for their problems instead of depending upon themselves? Are you missing an opportunity to train your people to be more autonomous? Are you creating more of a bureaucratic than an entrepreneurial organization?
Take time to learn the problem solving model. Use it. As you can see, even a simple problem like a refrigerator can baffle you or waste your time. If you don’t use a predictable process you will definitely waste your time and money.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
