Management by Objective is like Frankenstein: Good Intentions that Turn Into a Monster

Frankenstein started out with good intentions. The Dr. lost his brother to a tragic accident and vowed to bring him back to life. With all the best of intentions to create life, his work led to the creation of a monster. Management by Objective (MBO) is much like a Frankenstein monster. I am sure Peter Drucker had the best of intentions when he created the idea of MBO but it hasn’t turned out that way.

MBO is a tool to align all actions in an organization around a set of objectives by first identifying the objectives, giving employees objectives consistent with those of the organization, monitor progress, evaluate the employees and the performance (usually through performance appraisals), rewarding the achievers, punishing the slackers, and then revising the organization objectives again.

MBO is an outgrowth of a certain set of assumptions and these include:

• Employees won’t put in extra effort unless they are constantly reminded, rewarded, and threatened to work on what is most important. The pay-for-performance portion of MBO is a critical element for this.

• Improving the performance of individuals will improve the performance of the organization.

• Measuring results and holding people accountable to those results will create improvement

The unintended consequences of MBO (the monster) have just recently been confirmed thanks to the “No Child Left Behind” legislation passed by President Bush in his first term. A recent series of articles by USA TODAY uncovered frequent cheating by teachers and principals. This is not the first time cheating has appeared since No Child Left Behind was implemented. A study by the Wall Street Journal uncovered purposeful tampering of the Regents exams in New York. I think they should re-name the program: No “Cheating” Left Behind: MBO Fails Again!

Holding people accountable to results where they can’t control (or even influence) all the factors necessary for success will cause either manipulated numbers or cheating. The environment created by pay-for-performance and MBO encourages manipulation because of the pressure for results. Various studies show that students (when asked if they cheat) report as many as 80% admitting to some kind of cheating. The reports by USA Today and the Wall Street Journal confirm the pressure to achieve as one of the root causes.

Some of you may be thinking that these are isolated instances. If so, then why did Bausch and Lomb executives forge sales data and hide inventory to meet stretch goals? Why did Auto repair managers in Sears bilk customers with unnecessary repairs to meet monthly bonuses? Why did Jiffy Lube managers sell unnecessary parts to customers to meet weekly goals? Why did Enron executives manipulate projects? I could go on.

Pressure to perform damages employee engagement. It robs employees of pride and encourages breaks in rules to achieve the results. It puts results in front of ethics.

With the best of intentions your senior leaders may be creating a monster with MBO, stretch goals, pay-for-performance, and performance appraisals. This monster will damage employee engagement and stunt performance improvement. These are the exact opposite of the original desired outcomes. It is time to eliminate the growth of MBO and to reverse its course before it consumes more employee engagement and valuable resources. We must especially protect the engagement of employees and must especially protect our children. We must kill this monster now.

How to Drive Results without Forcing “Employee Engagement” into the Ditch

Our current management model is still based on the military model. I say that because most organizations still use an organization chart showing a pyramid structure, pay-for-performance policies, and the performance appraisal policies to control behaviors. These are all symptoms of embracing the management model consistent with the military model where you give a command and you follow it. It is based more on fear than on trust.

Think about the language we use to describe how leaders must lead. We have managers who must “drive” results or drive outcomes. Drive is a control word. Drive is a military term. In the dictionary even the words “to manage” means “to control.” Control is a military term. The General, or manager, gives an order and you need to follow it.

What does it take to move away from the military model? It has served us well for years but it is as outdated as Windows 3.1 operating system.

The first thing we can do as leaders is to change our language. If, as leaders, we want to increase trust, leverage our knowledge (increase delegation with confidence), and create higher accountability we can begin to use the word “agreement.”

An agreement is a specific, measurable, and time sensitive task or action that a person can complete because they already have (or can predictably obtain) all the tools and/or resources necessary to complete the action (task). A goal is different. A goal is also a specific objective or task that can be measurable and time sensitive but all factors, resources, or tools may NOT be available.

My wonderful wife and I decided to lose weight together as a team. She brilliantly suggested that we skip dinners for six weeks and see how well we do. She most often makes dinner for us because I always work late. I told her this was a great idea for her because it would take the pressure off her to always plan and make dinners. She could exercise or do something nice for herself.

Our goal was to lose weight. We agreed to shoot for 20 pounds each. To accomplish the goals we agreed to keep the following agreements:

• Eat breakfast and lunch and skip dinners

• Remove all sweets and snacks from the house

• If we got very hungry at dinner time (or afterwards) we could have a treat like nuts or fruit but no large meals

• We would support each other

The agreements we made will predictably get us to our goal. The agreements are actions or steps that will lead us to our goal. The agreements represent the steps in a process.

Most leaders, because of the military model, still attempt to bribe or threaten to hold employees accountable to the results without thoroughly discussing the agreements that need to be performed along the way.

A Wall Street Journal analysis of high school Regents test scores in New York showed a “bulge” in scores of 65 or just barely passing. Apparently teachers saw scores close to the passing grade and just “pushed” those kids over the line to be sure they passed.

The goal of the teachers was to increase the number of kids passing the Regents exam. There was no apparent clear set of agreements to achieve that goal and avoid the “gaming” of the system. The teachers made up their own method by pushing kids over the edge. Also, how much are the teachers learning about their teaching methods and/or future improvements by “gaming” the system. This approach also damages learning.

Leaders who skip the step of the “creation of a process,” skip the creation of agreement, and then threaten or bribe employees are “driving” results. However, they risk unintended consequences. To protect employee engagement, improve performance, optimize learning, and maintain integrity, leaders must learn the skill of “facilitation of agreements.” They must begin to learn how to study a system, identify those steps necessary to reach a goal and then create the list of agreements from those steps.

It is a lot better (and sometimes easier) to hold people accountable to agreements than it is to hold people accountable for results.

Human Resources is Sadly Unsophisticated

I just read Susan Heathfield’s article in About.com on how to create an environment that encourages employee engagement. Susan claims organizations are bad at employee engagement because it is hard work. This response is true yet sadly incomplete and unsophisticated.


Susan is right about some things. We need to improve employee engagement. It is a critical condition for success as we continue to feel global competitive pressures. We must protect the intellectual property of our organizations by reducing turnover of employees and protecting the knowledge they continue to accumulate in their brains.

Susan and Human Resource professionals continue to avoid a sophisticated discussion about the root causes of the lack of engagement. They claim to know what managers should do to create employee engagement and they always list the same tasks, i.e. adopt an engagement as a strategy, align the values, listen to employees, measure performance, hold employees accountable, yadda yadda yadda. Most of these ideas are fine but they don’t address the real root causes.

Human Resources professionals continue to recommend these basic steps but fail to recommend the abolishment of performance appraisals and the dissolution of pay for performance. In fact, in Susan’s case she continues to support these policies by recommending holding people accountable for results. This recommendation is the same thing as supporting Management by Objectives which almost always includes the current performance appraisal as part of the process. She also recommends an effective reward and recognition program. She still recommends rewarding top talent and using pay for performance as a carrot and club to both threaten and motivate top performers. This dysfunctional policy is what got Enron in trouble and Human Resource professionals continue to ignore the data that supports its demise.

Human Resource professionals continue to be in denial. These two policies represent the root cause of organizations inability to fully accomplish these other steps.

This is disappointing coming from the typical HR professional. It borders on incompetence when it comes from someone who is supposed to be a professional consultant and an author and advisor for Human Resources on About.com. There is no excuse. Research abounds supporting the dissolution of performance appraisals and pay for performance and anyone who is supposed to be an expert with forward thinking recommendations should know it and at least discuss it. I am seriously underwhelmed.

“Work as a Team to Remove the Cookies” – Create Engagement by Discouraging Incivility

We have a problem with incivility in our country. We even hear the President of the United States appealing for it from Congress and from the public while conducting political debates.

A 2011 study by Blessing and White (a management consulting company) reports only 31% of employees are engaged. Employees who are not engaged or especially those who are actively disengaged will have a higher likelihood of exhibiting inappropriate or uncivil behaviors. This means that 69% of the employees in the average organization might exhibit discourteous behaviors.

A University of Michigan researcher (Lilia Cortina and her colleagues from two other universities) found that 71 percent of workers (1,100 surveyed) had experienced workplace incivility in the previous five years. The incivility was from coworkers and superiors.

The problem of incivility in the workplace is compounded by our tolerance of it. We teach what we allow and we are allowing it more and more. We need to change this. What do we do?

Like most of you I wanted to lose a few pounds. My first strategy was to eliminate all sweets. This is a huge challenge for me for a number of reasons including my wonderful wife is a great cook and she is Italian. These two factors combine into a large family with lots of birthdays and anniversaries and she shows her appreciation and love for family members by baking.

The very first morning of my new “diet” my wife made two dozen chocolate chip cookies. The smell filled the house. They are my favorite. Do you think I broke my diet pledge? You bet I did. I asked, “What harm could one cookie cause?” I ended up eating four.

Which strategy will work best to help me lose some weight? Take a seminar on how to be more disciplined or remove the cookies from the house? Improving discipline is always useful to ensure better behavior but removing the cookies is the most effective strategy.

Which is the best strategy for leaders who wish to remove incivility from the workplace? Should leaders continue to try to change the individuals who demonstrate incivility or should they remove the real root causes of the outbursts and frustrations?

How does incivility play out in the work place? How do it manifest? In my experience rude behaviors most often occurs because someone is upset that they can’t do their job with pride. It is not because the person was born a jerk. Everyone gets frustrated and some of us behave poorly. They act out. They say things they regret. They damage relationships. All they really wanted was to be able to do their job to the best of their ability but something got in the way. Something triggered a negative reaction.

One of my clients has an employee who is demanding and a high driver. He easily confronts people and often offends them because he is so demanding and wants to look good. He wants to do the best for his clients. His co-workers get offended. Certainly, his style is rough and some even say it’s obnoxious. Yet, he is not purposefully mean. He is driven to perform and he has little patience for what he calls “incompetence” of others. He defines incompetence as events when he doesn’t get the information he needs to do his job or when he can’t provide the very best service for his clients. His style stinks. His motivations and intentions are good. His communication method is damaging. His motivation to provide quality service is strong.

What should a manager do with this person? Sure, improvements in his communication will help. Coaching will help. But is the real root cause of his incivility communication style? Or, is the real root-cause poor hand offs of information within the processes that fail to deliver the information he needs?

The poor performing processes and the poor hand offs are the chocolate chip cookies in the kitchen. If the cookies weren’t in the kitchen I would not have broken my diet. If the hand off of information was optimal, there is no reason to misbehave. Which is better? Remove the reason or improve his style? This is the choice leaders must make. If you keep the dysfunctional processes and incomplete hand offs there will always be a high probability of incivility.

The answer of course is both. I just find it useful for everyone in the organization to work as a team to remove the real root causes of the dysfunction. I find it most useful for everyone to get the “cookies out of the kitchen.” Any effort to reduce poor behaviors in the workplace must include a two pronged approach. Help with coaching for improved communication style but remove the root causes. We need both to protect the motivation and engagement of employees.

Employees Feel Like Volunteers or Slaves? 2 Changes to Make First to Create Engaged Volunteers

I bet every one of you has, at some point, been a volunteer (on a board or team). It is usually a huge challenge for a couple reasons. Often only 20-30% of the people do all the work. Most of the others either coast or don’t even bother to show up. If you are a leader of a team now, take a moment and ponder this idea. Imagine everyone in your organization was a volunteer. Would you treat them differently? Leaders who want volunteers must make two important changes. They must change their thinking about people and policy.

Treating employees as volunteers is the foundation for creating a predictably engaged workforce. By definition, volunteers do tasks because they want to. Slaves (disengaged employees) do things because they have to. Slaves (disengaged employees) are compliant. The word slave is emotionally charged. Let’s clarify. A slave, in this context, is a disengaged employee who must be under the control of another to perform their job because without that control they would not perform. Volunteers are committed emotionally and intellectually. Slaves are controlled by domineering forces either spoken or unspoken.

Which type of employee creates greater profitability, quality customer service, and innovative ideas, a volunteer or slave? Ask yourself, would you want all volunteers or all slaves?

It is a much bigger challenge to manage volunteers and it requires very different skills. Managing slaves is a challenge too but in different ways. Managers of slaves must put in controls and policies that create compliance. Managers of volunteers must spend their time helping employees understand the mission, vision, values, and strategy of the organization. They must also explain how the employee’s responsibilities fit into these and how they can contribute to the achievement of all of those items. Volunteers must also have their skills matched to the task they hope to perform. If the task is too difficult they will refuse it because it might embarrass them if they perform poorly. Conversely, if the task is too easy they get bored. The challenge of the task must match the skill of the volunteer or it won’t get done.

Managers of slaves must spend a good deal of time with attorneys to understand how to force accountability. Managers of volunteers must continuously manage trust. They must also continuously communicate with the volunteers to understand how the system is impacting their performance. The managers of volunteers must facilitate the removal of barriers to performance. Managers of slaves must create new rules when mistakes are found or when jobs remain incomplete.

Slaves must conform to policy. Volunteers must be treated as individuals with differences. Volunteers can self-manage. Slaves must be managed. Volunteers gain motivation from the tasks they perform and the progress they are making. Slaves work for wages or rewards and care less about the tasks they perform.

All these outcomes must begin after two very important changes in thinking. Two important changes must occur before leaders can begin to refine the culture of engagement. Leaders must think differently about people and differently about their policies.

Thinking differently about people

To create an environment of volunteers leaders and managers must begin to think about employees as unlimited human potential not as human resources. This potential, when released, can possibly add unlimited value to the organization. Resources can be used up. Potential can be tapped as an unlimited supply. It is for this very reason I have suggested, in previous blogs, the need for the Human Resources department to change its name to the Human Potential Department.

Thinking differently about policies

Two of the most popular employee management tools are the performance appraisal, in conjunction with management by objectives, and the pay-for-performance policies. These two policies are created for slaves not volunteers. Leaders must be willing to let go of these addictive policies. They are inconsistent with a culture of engaged volunteers.

Performance appraisals control behaviors with threats to either future promotional opportunities or future pay (if pay-for-performance is linked to the appraisal).

Here are some action steps for leaders. Decide which type of employee is desired, a volunteer or a slave. Decide to change your thinking and begin to build the new skills needed. This is scary for leaders because the leadership skills are so different and require discipline and effort to develop and to maintain those skills. Leaders have to think differently before they can behave differently.

Employee Engagement and Wisdom Go Together – 3 Levels of Understanding

Some recent events have caused me to question how the general population thinks about intelligence and how our leaders think about talent management and employee engagement. An IBM computer named Watson recently appeared on Jeopardy pitted against two very successful human Jeopardy contestants. Watson very successfully demonstrated “his” superior “knowledge” after two days of competition but, was it really “knowledge?” I don’t think so.

Watson is a question and answer machine. Although Jeopardy requires speedy recall of facts and the ability to untangle a variety of thoughts simultaneously, it essentially is a contest between brains that are like encyclopedias. The more facts you know, the faster you press the button, the more you win. The more information one can retain and regurgitate the more money one can win on Jeopardy. Watson doesn’t understand the information; it only processes it quickly according to a software program.

This is the thought that gave me pause. I keep getting the impression that we have this assumption that the skill of regurgitating facts is an indication of intelligence. This is wrong. Leaders with facts only are passé and useless in our economy. We must be clear about the definition of intelligence. What creates intelligence in our new economy?

There are three levels of understanding.

Level 1: Information

Information is raw data that is verified accurate, timely, has a purpose, and is presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance. A good example is the internet. One can do a search on anything on the internet and receive numerous “hits” explaining or clarifying the search item. Watson is in level one. He is able to understand human verbal input but ultimately he really just processes the request and delivers the “right” answer from his database via a brilliant software package. Watson is Google on steroids.

Level 2: Knowledge

Knowledge requires the processing of information to make a prediction. The prediction, if it comes true, represents knowledge. A chart of ocean tides represents knowledge because it makes a prediction about when high tide will occur. The theory is based on the movement of the Moon in relationship to the Earth.

Leaders/managers must accept responsibility for predicting the outcomes of processes under their supervision. Leaders/managers must be able to predict their outcomes and so their decisions must be based on knowledge. Leaders/managers must appreciate the difference between knowledge and information. Without knowledge, a leader/manager’s world remains as chaotic reaction to solve problems instead of strategic proactive action to prevent them. Continuously accumulating knowledge helps leaders to manage costs and improve customer satisfaction.

Level 3: Wisdom

Wisdom is a deep understanding of people, things, events or situations, allowing someone to take action and consistently produce the optimum results with a minimum of time and energy. Wisdom is the ability to optimally (effectively and efficiently) and consistently apply knowledge to produce desired results. Wisdom allows one to share knowledge with others to make significant contributions to society including solving social ills or optimizing community resources. Wisdom is a high level of accumulated knowledge. It can often manifest as a “gut feeling” based on a combination of complex factors but it is steeped in knowledge.

Our economy is now “brain-based” rather than “labor-based.” While few managers would dispute that we are living in the Information Age, many leaders are still thinking and employing management tools developed during the evolution of the Industrial Revolution, the era when machine-driven economies were the rule.

The complexity of the new “brain-based” competitive world (vs. the labor-based) requires continuous knowledge exchange among its employees; the expansion of competition into a global economy has created the need for leaders and employees to be fully engaged and to understand how to adapt more quickly to trends and techniques which may develop half a world away.

Regurgitating facts is not one of those skills that enable us to adapt to change. The key asset of successful firms resides inside the brains of their employees and their freedom to use their brains to increase knowledge and wisdom, not just process information. Successful firms require diverse and continuously evolving skills and the most important of which is the ability to work with people to help them synergize information, diverse opinions to generate knowledge.

One necessary outcome of this trend is reduced interchangeability. Therefore, employee turnover has to be reduced to a minimum to protect the knowledge inside the heads of these highly skilled employees. This means engagement is more important than ever to keep turnover low. Workers that walk out the door take company knowledge that may never be recovered.

The flow of information is not enough. The flow of facts through a fast and sophisticated computer is not enough to make us successful. Watson can’t create new ideas. Watson can’t synergize. Only humans can problem solve and be creative and synergize with each other.

My fear is we still consider quick regurgitation of facts as intelligence. Many firms are adopting a talent management approach for improving results. Let’s hope the criterion is not just the ability to regurgitate facts or I.Q. (intelligence quotient). Let’s hope it also the ability to work with people to synergize diverse views. Let’s hope it includes the ability to build trust and relationships and create cultures of engagement that accumulate knowledge.

Malcolm Gladwell, in his article “The Talent Myth” (New Yorker Magazine, July 22, 2002) points out there is no correlation between I.Q. and job performance. Other factors are more important such as the ability to manage yourself and your emotions, your ability to maneuver through complex social situations, and the ability to bring people together to synergize to accumulate knowledge.

Watson does not have knowledge and “he” certainly does not have wisdom. Let’s stop calling “fact regurgitation” intelligence. It is merely a sophisticated and speedy way to deliver information. Only humans who cooperate and understand the right theories can fully utilize information to create knowledge and accumulate wisdom. An environment that allows for the accumulation of knowledge will be “employee engagement friendly.” Only leaders with wisdom can create these environments. Leaders with facts only are passé and useless in this new economy.

Which comes first, Employee Engagement or Cooperation?

Which comes first, employee engagement or cooperation? Employee engagement is a complex emotional response to a vast number of factors too numerous to mention here in this short blog. Because it is such a complex emotional condition that can vary from employee to employee, an effective strategy for leaders is to create the right environment and manage those factors that best facilitate its natural growth.

Just as a gardener would create the right conditions for a delicate orchid plant to produce its lovely flowers, it is useful to think of engagement as an outcome of just the right conditions and just the right love and tender care.

Following this logic, we might again ask which comes first employee engagement or cooperation? Cooperation must come first. Cooperation is a condition in the environment that allows optimum productivity, achievement, and engagement. This begs the question, “How do we create an environment that encourages cooperation?” Do we just hire cooperative people or are there factors we can control in the environment? Are there system factors we can create?

I walk my dogs twice a day. During the winter I take them to the beach. We have lovely beaches in Southwestern Connecticut. Dogs are not allowed on the beach in summer. It is a local ordinance. It is a shame. One reason for this is because cleanliness of the beach is compromised by those few owners who fail to clean up after their dogs. Anyway, in the winter no one really bothers us and there are very few people who utilize the beach because the weather is very often unpleasant.

The other day while walking with the dogs on the beach I noticed an unusual accumulation of “dog dirt” in various places. Irresponsible owners were walking their dogs and not cleaning up. Having extra plastic bags with me I began picking up the “extra dirt.” Needless to say this was an unpleasant job. I began to get very angry. Yet, I kept working to clean up. I was willingly doing a task that was not my responsibility. Why? Why was I cooperating with people who were so irresponsible? Why was I so engaged in an unpleasant task?

According to the book “The Evolution of Cooperation” Robert Axelrod explains that there are three conditions that can create cooperation. Two parties will cooperate naturally if, there is frequent expected future interactions, clearly understood benefits each party will enjoy if they cooperate, and clearly understand negative consequences if they fail to cooperate.

All three elements were in place for me and the dogs. I wanted to use the beach frequently in the future. The benefits of going to the beach with the dogs are numerous including the lovely scenery, an opportunity for the dogs to run free and get lots of exercise, a place to walk unencumbered by extra snow to name a few. The consequences for not picking up the extra dirt (for not cooperating) is someone will complain, an Animal Enforcement Officer might be called in to inspect, I might get a ticket, and I will have to stop coming to the beach with the dogs.

As angry as I was with those irresponsible owners, I was willing to cooperate and clean up after them. I had a bigger set of reasons to cooperate and my emotional reaction was overridden by other factors, i.e. the factors that create cooperation.

Leaders can do this in their teams. The factors of cooperation are not enough to keep engagement going. These are not the only factors that create “the right conditions for a delicate orchid plant to produce its lovely flowers.” For example, in an organization I would expect to be able to influence the offenders to change their behaviors. I would expect I would have an opportunity to communicate my anger and someone would listen.

Without cooperation engagement is difficult to nurture. If you are a leader keep in mind these factors when you see a lack of cooperation in your team. When anyone of these factors is missing there will be damage to the “delicate balance” that leads to the “delicate flower” of employee engagement.

Do you Build Employee Engagement Immune Systems or Damage them?

Our immune system protects us from harmful outside invaders around the clock. Our immune system is able to quickly recognize and either repel or attack these invaders that mean us harm. Without this immune system our body would quickly breakdown. When an invader does find a way in, it takes tremendous energy to resist or keep it from harming us. We have all had a fever. A fever is a symptom of an invader who has entered our system and it’s our body’s way of fending off the harm this invader can cause. The fever puts us out of commission. It zaps our energy.

Leaders who damage trust zap our energy. They are like invaders to your “employee engagement immune system.” As a leader do you pass the “hello-goodbye” test? Are people happy to see you coming or happy to see you leave? If they are happy to see you coming you pass the “hello-goodbye” test. If they are happy to see you leave, you fail.

The Four Trust Invaders that Damage “Employee Engagement Immune Systems”

Leaders who zap energy do one or more of four things to damage trust. They fail to show concern for you personally or they are disrespectful. Secondly, they fail to keep their agreements and so they damage their own integrity and they often do it unconsciously. Thirdly, they are incompetent in their core responsibilities and are often unaware. Finally, they send mixed messages about priorities or they frequently have different priorities in objectives, or even worse, values. Here are some behaviors to adopt to be sure you are not attacking the “employee engagement immune system.”

Show Concern

One way to pass the “hello-goodbye’ test is to be sure to demonstrate concern for employees with every interaction. Do this by practicing very basic skills such as eye contact, listening without interrupting, repeating back what you hear without prejudice, asking questions for clarity without criticizing. Above all else, avoid disrespectful behaviors.

Another important factor is being aware of communication style and adapting to the others’ styles. Some want to chat and laugh, some want to talk only about results, some want to just be heard and some want specific details. Be aware of style and adapt your language. Using a different style is much like speaking a different language without a translator. It zaps energy and damages trust.

Keep Agreements

Next to dis-respect, this is one of the worst invaders of employee engagement immune systems. Leaders who break their agreements and are unaware make people turn and run. Insisting people come to work on time and then being late for meetings without an apology is an example. Asking people to put in more time on a project but then sneaking out of work early is another.

Unless employees have the ability to tell the “king they have no clothes” this invader can cause serious damage and zap energy and engagement from employees.

Being Competent in Core Responsibilities

Leaders expect employees to be competent. If they fall down on their responsibilities then any performance feedback delivered to employees will fall on deaf ears. Credibility is lost. For example, leaders must facilitate problem solving and not avoid or delegate this important responsibility. If they abdicate this responsibility they damage credibility and trust. Employees will stop coming to them for help and instead end up avoiding interactions because any effort is seen as a waste of time. This zaps employee engagement.

Have the Same Priorities

First clarify the priorities of the organization or the department. Clear articulation of priority can prevent misunderstandings. Any misunderstandings or inconsistency will zap engagement energy.

If improving customer service is a priority for the organization, any direction from leadership that appears inconsistent will damage trust. For example, if leadership insists on reducing time spent with clients in order to save money (either on the phone or in person) they send an inconsistent message to the customer service improvement priority.

Do you pass the “hello-goodbye” test? Do employees show concern or delight when you approach? If you are not sure start observing now. You can be either a supporter of engagement or a drain on energy. Which are you?

Employee Engagement is Fragile: 3 Things You Can Do to Protect It

In the past 12 months we have seen dramatic examples about how leadership and engagement of people are fragile living things. As I write this article Egypt is celebrating the end of the Mubarak authoritative dictatorship after only a few weeks. The mostly peaceful protests were conducted consistently over a three week period by a leaderless group of protestors that represented a relatively small percentage of the total population (approximately 5%).

Just a month or so earlier we saw the authoritarian and corrupt government of Tunisia fall to demonstrations, a bit more explosive, as well. Again, a group of protesters were leaderless yet persistent in their call for ouster of the current regime.

Our own November elections demonstrated a clear message to Barack Obama such that he called the results a “shellacking.” The results were led mostly by a leaderless movement called the Tea Party.

Again and again we see the power of engaged people who can either support a leader or protest against a leader. The people eventually have the power especially when they reach the tipping point and act as a team. It seems the more a leader attempts to control people the more he/she erodes his/her own. Leadership is indeed fragile and engagement, of either employees or citizens, is a critical element for that leadership. Employee engagement in organizations (or communities) is a measure of the quality of leadership.

Employees can be disengaged and damage a business by just barely doing the minimum work expected. Countries can be damaged by citizens revolting against a leader when a tipping point is reached. Employees can either quit then leave or they can quit and stay by working and stay. Citizens have more difficulty leaving a country and so they stay until a tipping point of frustration is reached. Then they protest.

There are three things a leader can do to ensure they manage employee engagement and ensure leadership quality.

Make trust and engagement an ongoing strategic initiative

I often ask the leaders in new clients about their written strategic initiatives. Not once have they ever articulated an initiative for employee engagement. The initiatives always seem to revolve around increasing revenue, profit, customer service, quality etc. All of these are fine but none of them can be optimally achieved without a high level of employee engagement. In fact, ask yourself, which comes first, high revenue growth or employee engagement? Does soaring profits come before employee engagement? What about customer loyalty? I doubt it. Make employee engagement a strategy and make it known.

Measure engagement frequently and include emotionally intelligent observations

Leaders who are disengaged form people create disengagement. Those who are either not at all interested or who are unable to sense trouble will eventually find themselves in trouble.

Make an effort to connect with people frequently and sincerely even if you have to do it virtually. Make an effort. Let them know you are thinking about them. Let them know you understand them.

If you have a large organization (or even a large country) obviously you can’t connect personally with everyone on a frequent basis. What you can do is find those who are the natural leaders and well-connected and make an effort to speak to them. Identify connectors in your organization. Connectors are those people who are well connected with their networks and who are credible with those networks. Communicate with them frequently.

Continuously improve trust with people

There are four key elements of trust. Leaders can, and must, make an effort to continuously improve these if they are to protect the quality of their leadership. Employees (or citizens) need to know the leader has integrity. Demonstrating integrity takes consistent effort. This means make agreements and keep them. Work hard. Admit when you make a mistake. Apologize for any missteps or mistakes. Don’t blame others for mistakes. Take responsibility for solving problems and give away credit once they are solved. People respect and remain loyal to leaders who have integrity.

Look for ways to show concern for people around you. If others hear how you have personally showed concern for some they will assume you also care about them personally as well.

Get things done. Work hard to accomplish goals. Lay out steps to accomplish tasks and projects, make those projects public and then work hard to accomplish them. Show people you are accomplished and competent.

Finally, Set objectives that people can relate to. Set objectives, communicate them, and persuade others about their importance. Let them know the benefits they can achieve when the objectives are reached. Let them know how their hard work toward the objectives will benefit not just themselves but also others. Make the objectives big, bold, and aligned with the best interests of everyone involved. Let people know that your work with benefit everyone and their accomplishment will be a win-win for all.

Leaders must protect and nurture the quality of their leadership. Engagement and leadership are fragile living things. They must be nurtured and protected consistently. People can either support or remove leaders from office.

Employee Engagement – What NOT to Do

Engaging employees is a complex process and it never ends. Going back to basics is always good advice when things are not working well. When engagement is not going well it is useful to think about the following basic elements: clarifying the vision, the mission, the strategy and the values. Any lack of clarity or any mistakes by management in these areas will show up as a lack of engagement “down the road” in employee attitude, behaviors, and/or performance.

My daughter attends a State University. I encouraged her to apply to be a Community Counselor or Resident Assistant. This position is the student leadership contact within each dormitory. I felt it would give her great leadership experience plus it would help us with tuition (Counselors receive free room and board). My daughter reluctantly agreed to apply.

This semester she found out more information. In order to get an interview she needed to accept a job working the front desk in a dormitory. On the surface that sounded fine except the dormitory was across campus (not her dorm) and it was third shift. Yikes. Although it was only 12 hours per week she was being asked to “survive by fire” to earn her right to get an interview and to eventually be accepted as a Counselor. She needed to walk (or drive) across campus in the middle of the night.

She received a call for her interview after a few weeks of work. I asked her if she was excited. She said no. She told me the work at the desk was bad enough but the worst part was the way she was treated when new problems arose and she needed to ask questions of management. They either ignored her requests for information or they were unavailable when she needed them. She decided to drop out of the program. She said she could handle the rough work but she couldn’t handle the lack of responsibility by management. It wasn’t just one manager; it was all of them who behaved this way.

I am doing my best to remain objective in this situation but I know I can’t because she is my daughter. Therefore it’s easy in this case to be upset with the quality of leadership and management of the Counselor process. That is certainly an issue but my guess is the dysfunction goes much deeper. I am guessing it goes all the way to the strategy of the State University Counselor program. I believe they have consciously decided to set up a “Survivor Show” type of process to weed out those students who want to, and think they can, operate in chaos. It might be an “unconscious” choice of strategy but, to the employee, the result and affects are the same, i.e. poor attitude, turnover, or poor performance.

A University dormitory is a chaotic place to be. I remember my college dorm experiences and they certainly were chaotic at times. Between the drinking, loud music, and worse, the Counselor has to be prepared for anything. It is highly likely the University has chosen to create a chaotic environment in the Counselor training process to simulate the chaos that will occur during the job. Ignoring questions or not knowing answers to questions is not a very good training process. It is more like a trial by fire and my daughter decided she didn’t need that abuse.

Are you seeing turnover, poor attitude and poor behavior by your employees? Perhaps your hiring and training process strategy needs to be clarified and improved. A poor, or non-existent, strategy is certainly one way to dis-engage employees. The effects are subtle. They show up down-stream with wasteful and costly behaviors. It’s too easy to blame the managers and the employees for their poor behavior but that won’t help you address your root causes. That won’t help you change your strategy. Blaming is “What NOT to do”. Going back to basics first when you encounter these symptoms is “What to DO.”

Is Bad Behavior In The System or in the Person?

We have two dogs and a cat in our family. The dogs are always hungry and if we leave anything on the floor or drop anything by accident they will devour it. They are normal.


When we first got them we already had our cat and we were used to leaving the cat food on the floor. Once the dogs arrived that proved a big mistake. Any leftover cat food was devoured when we weren’t watching.

When I fed the cat I had to watch carefully and scold the dogs if they attempted to eat her food once the cat was finished. It was a waste of my time and I was often annoyed because the dogs just didn’t seem to learn the command, “NO CAT FOOD FOR YOU!”

It finally dawned on me that I could feed the cat on top of the washer in the laundry room. She could easily jump up and I could leave it out in case she wanted to finish later. It was out of reach of the dogs. I realized the cat food on the floor created an environment that encouraged poor behavior. It’s the very nature of a dog to eat food available. By changing the system of feeding the cat the bad behavior stopped. I could trust the dogs again. I stopped yelling at them. My relationship with them improved. They trusted me more. They didn’t shirk away whenever I came into the room.

As leaders we can often set people up for failure and unknowingly create opportunities for bad behavior. Our decisions and policies can create an environment that increases the probability of poor behavior and then act surprised and even punish the employee when they behave poorly. Performance appraisals and Pay for Performance are two examples of policies and practices that often unwittingly create an environment of dysfunction.

Performance Appraisals

Performance appraisals damage employee engagement. They can often create fear and anxiety in both managers and employees and therefore naturally encourage bad behaviors. Employees feel anxiety because of the probability of being criticized. The typical appraisal requires the manager assign a rating or grade to the employee. The thought that the grade may be lower than expected, or less than deserved, creates anxiety. Managers also feel the anxiety When they need to grade the employee either an “average performer”, or a “below average performer” they often avoid that to prevent conflict. They shirk their responsibility by either delaying the meeting or avoiding it al together.

An environment of anxiety can encourage this bad behavior. Managers stop doing their jobs and employees hide mistakes or manipulate the achievement of goals to assure a higher rating.

Pay for Performance

Pay-for-performance is coercion and coercion damages employee engagement. Pay-for-performance attempts control behavior and sends subtle message, “We don’t trust you to do the right thing and we don’t think you will work hard unless you have a reward.”

Studies by Deci and Ryan have shown how typical pay-for-performance schemes can backfire. The purpose of offering a reward for certain behaviors or outcomes is to create motivation. According to numerous studies over the past 50 years the opposite occurs. Those coerced with incentives end up less interested in the activity once the reward is removed. They stop performing when no one is looking and when no reward is offered.

Rewards can also encourage cheating. Employees who know their pay is determined by goal achievement can be tempted to manipulate the results. A recent study by the New York Regents exam board is a good example. Teachers who are evaluated based on the number of students who pass the Regents exams manipulated the scores to allow those students missing the passing grade by a point or two to pass anyway. The statistics showed an enormous bulge of scores right on the passing line which could not be explained by normal statistical variation.

Just as I continued to yell at the dogs for their poor behaviors, leaders cling to policies that create dysfunction and they blame the employees for the poor behaviors. Isn’t it time we “put the food up on the washer” and stop these dysfunctions? Wouldn’t it save us time as leaders? Wouldn’t it improve our relationships and the performance of the organization? Wouldn’t new processes that avoid these dysfunctions improve employee engagement?

What Type of Leader/Manager Are You? – Train-Wreck or Systems?

I recently read a story about large multi-location national organization and an improvement project facilitated by a well know consulting firm. A recent safety accident had taken the life of a production worker. This triggered the intensive and comprehensive initiative.

The consultant did due diligence and found that the standards of work were not being followed. In addition there was no pay-for-performance reward system in place nor was the performance appraisal process being followed consistently. They immediately recommended that managers be trained to develop specific safety goals and hold their people accountable to those goals by conducting frequent review of their work. They reduced the number of people each manager had reporting to them in order to make them easier to manage.

The supervisors under each manager were also trained to hold their people accountable to the specific goals. To reinforce this structure and motivate the workers, the consulting firm designed a “pay-for-performance” policy that rewarded workers (including managers) only if they achieved their assigned goals, and took additional action with those who didn’t. Furthermore, the performance appraisal process was simplified and mandated. The meetings were to be held every 6 months instead of every 12months. This policy was added to the performance goals for each manager and supervisor.

What struck me was the date on this report was October 1841. Months earlier two Western Railroad passenger trains had collided between Worchester, Massachusetts and Albany, New York, killing a conductor and a passenger and injuring seventeen passengers. This story was recanted in Peter Scholtes’ book, The Leader’s Handbook. The consultant was the Prussian Army. This means our management model has not changed for at least 170 years.

Train-Wreck Managers

Train-wreck managers look for someone to blame. They assume the root causes of problems are to be found in the actions and decisions made by people. This manager assumes improvement in the individual behaviors alone will reduce the errors. Train-wreck management is a very narrow and unsophisticated view of the world. These managers ignore two very important ideas. First, they ignore the idea that there are performance factors (possibly unseen or unknowable) outside an individual’s control. Secondly, they ignore the concept of variation. They view the world in black and white terms. Either a mistake is made by the individual or it isn’t. Unfortunately, the world tends to be “gray” (because of variation) not “black and white.” There is variation in everything. Let’s take a baseball example. Everyone knows baseball.

Why is second base the position that has the most errors in baseball? Do baseball coaches always put the worst player in the second base position? If we just improve the skills of the second baseman will the performance of the team improve? Would the team win more games? I doubt it. That field position is in the middle of the most action. Naturally, the more the ball is handled during a play the higher the probability for mistakes and variation.

Train-wreck managers look for those who caused the errors and bring the mistakes to their attention with “feedback?” Train-wreck baseball coaches would spend the most time with second basemen. Train-wreck managers also wreck employee engagement.

Systems Managers

Systems managers appreciate the concept of systems. They recognize and appreciate the interrelationships between the parts in a system. System managers acknowledge that performance of an individual will be influenced by the interaction between the system and the individual. A system is a series of interdependent processes working to achieve an aim. A baseball team is a system. Each individual is interdependent upon the other. The pitcher who tires toward the end of a game might throw with less power. The hitter then hits the ball more accurately and past the 2nd baseman who dives for the ball, touches it and makes an error.

Systems managers look for opportunities to synergize and brainstorm the real root causes of problems. Perhaps sending a relief pitcher in sooner would solve this problem. This acknowledges that the interaction between the pitcher, hitter, and second baseman all combine into a complex process. Systems are complex and require special thinking and special tools for study. Systems managers improve employee engagement. Train-wreck thinking requires a great deal of work but very little thinking at all.

Evaluating individuals alone and attempting to control individual behaviors is an incomplete and ineffective strategy for performance improvement. Train-wreck managers cause more damage than the train-wreck they attempt to fix. Their approach creates more variation and less effective solutions. What type of manager are you?

“On October 5, 1841, two Western Railroad passenger trains collided somewhere between Worchester, Massachusetts and Albany, New York, killing a conductor and a passenger and injuring seventeen passengers. That disaster marked the beginning of a new management era."[

Note the thinking here: problems are caused by people who don't do their job well, so finding someone to blame is the first step to correcting problems. Scholtes notes: "The era of management that began in the mid-1800s can be characterized as "management by results"....Since managers could no longer do the work themselves or direct others in the doing of the work, managers exercised their authority by holding people accountable for results....In the 1950s, management by results reached its epitome in MBO (Management By Objectives) and performance appraisal, the Harvardization of train-wreck management."[

Employee Engagement is Not About Nice, It’s About Performance

In a recent presentation to a potential client who is interested in my new performance appraisal process, a senior manager expressed his concerns, “Programs like yours that eliminate the grading of employees and replace it with a search for root causes of poor performance (in the process) give employees excuses not to perform. They are too ‘airy-fairy’ or ‘touchy feely’ for me. We need something that will increase performance.”

This statement proves there is often a clear dis-connect in the minds of many executives about employee engagement and performance. There is a strongly held belief that employees really can’t be trusted to perform (or to be engaged) without some kind of extrinsic incentives and or threats of punishments. In the past fifty years research has shown to support the belief that employees can be trusted. Furthermore, when they are, performance increases significantly. Furthermore, removal of the typical threats and bribes (in the form of pay-for-performance and performance appraisals) also increases engagement and performance. Many leaders still ignore this research remaining in denial.

Let me put the research aside for now and just focus on three principles and ask you to think about these and their impact.

This is the Knowledge Economy:

First, we are moving into a knowledge economy which rewards organizations that can learn the fastest.

Respect Creates Innovation:

Second, having an environment of complete respect for employees creates innovation. Respect is not about being “touchy feely.”

Systems Thinking Accelerates Learning:

Third, creating a culture of systems thinking is about accelerating learning. It’s not about providing excuses for poor behavior or poor performance. It’s sophisticated and not at all touchy feely.

The Knowledge Economy

Our new knowledge economy is in full acceleration yet our policies are stuck in the “middle ages.” Talk to anyone with a 2 or 3 year old and ask what it is like to be around the toddler for any length of time. It’s exhausting. Why? Because 2 year olds can’t stop moving and exploring. One doesn’t need to incentivize a 2 year old to explore the world. Instead, you have to watch out he doesn’t hurt himself exploring how it works and how he/she can dismantle it while he/she plays. Yet speak to that same toddler twelve years later when a freshman in high school. When their teacher presents a ne concept in class their first question is, “Will that be on the midterm?” We are creating environments that destroy the natural tendency for knowledge accumulation while at the same time we need that natural curiosity more than ever before to remain globally competitive as a society.

According to research by the major HR consulting firms, the number one reason given by employees in exit interviews for leaving a company is the poor relationship with the supervisor. This tells me there is a lack of respect which is most often demonstrated by a lack of listening. Estimates of turnover costs range from 1-1/2 to 2 times annual salary. This cost is impossible to calculate because there are so many factors that contribute to this cost including recruitment, training, and knowledge. Knowledge walks out the door when people leave. There is no line item on the P&L statement for “Loss of Knowledge.”

Respect = Innovation

In every major religion there is a statement similar to the “Golden Rule” i.e. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Just teaching and supporting this statement at the manager level can save many thousands or more. Respect is about performance not about being “airy-fairy and touchy feely.”

Systems Thinking

Finally, systems-thinking is about prevention of problems and root cause analysis to prevent waste. It’s not about providing excuses. Providing employees with opportunities to collect their own performance data, analyze it, and make small experimental changes using a learning model of Plan-Do-Study-Act is admitting the system within which employees work is complex and requires problem solving skills to avoid waste. Trying to hold people accountable for specific mistakes only encourages the hiding of the truth and a perpetual continuation of the problems.

Acknowledging the complexity of the workplace is not providing excuses for employees who make mistakes. Instead it enrolls those employees to be managers of their own destiny and explore, like they did when they were 2 years old, how to solve their own problems.

It’s time we started trusting employees. It’s time now to start treating them with the utmost respect and allowing them autonomy to explore solutions to their complex performance issues. Threats and bribes have not worked and they never will over the long-term. If we continue to use them we will fall further behind in the race to accumulate knowledge and to therefore perform in the global competitive marketplace.

Stop The Madness – Stop The Typical Performance Appraisal – It’s Obsolete

Ah … the annual employee performance appraisal. It’s a popular tool of many business owners (85-90% of all organizations use them) although it’s also one of the most frustrating and ineffective tools. As a matter of fact (in its current form), I am working hard to make sure it becomes obsolete.


Why the current Performance Appraisal doesn’t work:


Other than a firing, the performance appraisal meeting is the most disliked task of managers today. They do more to damage employee engagement than any other policy or procedure. Why is the current performance appraisal tool so frustrating and ineffective?

Here are just four reasons to think about.

They are biased and most often arbitrary

They are based primarily on the opinion of the manager or supervisor and this means the manager must be omnipotent and we all know they are not. This can damage the relationships and interactions between the supervisor and the employee and improving the quality of interactions between employees is more important to improve performance than using performance appraisals to improve the quality of the employees.

Appraisals focus on the person not the system

They blame the person and ignore the influence by the process (or system or environment) on that person. While the traditional appraisal tries to improve the quality of the individual parts (employees), the systems approach tries to improve the quality of interaction between all parts therefore making the team better as a whole. This damages employee engagement.

They damage innovation

The very commodity every organization needs to remain competitive is damaged by the typical appraisal. Employees are blamed for problems because they are rated based on events or their behavior in the system. The more dysfunctional the system the more employees behave dysfunctional. This blame creates anxiety. Anxiety stops creative problem solving and innovation. The work by Daniel Goleman on Emotional Intelligence has helped us to understand that an environment of anxiety is a barrier to innovation. The chemical necessary for problem solving are not available to the anxious. This damages employee engagement. Didn’t you Mom always tell you, “Don’t make decisions when you are upset?”

They create unintended negative consequences

Employees looking for a good rating in their performance appraisal may hide mistakes to prevent a lower rating. They might also withhold information from coworkers to compete for bonus money. This damages employee engagement.

Our economy is now is more “brain based” rather than “labor based”. While few managers would dispute that we are living in “the Information Age,” many companies are still employing management tools developed during the evolution of the Industrial Revolution; the era when machine driven economies were the rule.

The very complexity of the new competitive world requires continuous information exchange among its units; the expansion of competition into a global economy has created the need to understand and adapt more quickly to trends and techniques which may take place half a world away.

Successful managers have adopted many different kinds of technology to stay on top of the enormous volume of information they must assimilate, and increasingly seek more efficient ways to access timely, complete and accurate data. Without the latest technology, your competitive advantage will suffer, and this applies to the management of people as it does to every other aspect of business.

Creating a highly effective organization that can adapt and compete requires that we capture and utilize the motivation and engagement of all employees. To do this, we must be on the cutting edge of “management and leadership of people” technology – and to be at least as conversant with those tools as we are with our customer databases. We must capture every mind and heart just to stay competitive. We must “up-grade” our leadership tools just we would up-grade our software for a new computer. The old software does not work well (or even at all) on a new computer. The same is true with our “leadership software”.

Our typical performance appraisal software is obsolete. Replace it. If you want to know how you can access more information HERE or HERE. Otherwise, just stop the madness and you will be better off.

Two Reasons Why It’s Time to Change the “Manager” Title

Take a moment and look up “manager” in the dictionary and you might be surprised. It is someone who is responsible for controlling or administering activities. There is no mention of people. Strange, isn’t it? When we use the word manager don’t we think of the management of people? And, even if the definition included “people” as something controlled or administered, is that really what we mean?


If you want to change a person’s behavior it’s useful to change their thinking first. How can you change a person’s thinking? Change their language. We need to stop using the word “manager” for two reasons: First, a manager really doesn’t control ANYTHING. That’s a myth. Control is an outcome of a predictable process and even that is a myth because there is always variation. Nothing is ever perfectly controlled. Events occur within a manageable predictable range.

Control is not a strategy, it is an outcome. The dictionary makes it sound like a task or a strategy. This thought leads to poor decisions and poor policy. Two policies that most managers (80-90% by some studies) embrace are pay-for-performance and performance appraisals. Both of these are designed to control behaviors. How well are those policies working for you in your organization? If you are like most managers these policies are a constant source of frustrations and dysfunctional behaviors.

Secondly, people really can’t be controlled and anyone with a teenager knows that to be true. This idea of control perpetuates “manager dependent” behavior in our organizations. Employees who are dependent upon their manager to make decisions are not fully engaged. I believe the continued use of the word manager is a barrier to full employee engagement.

Think about it, can you really control anyone’s behavior? If they don’t want to do something they won’t. We can make laws and policies and still see poor behavior. In my State of Connecticut it’s illegal to drive and talk on a cell phone. Every day I see someone breaking this law. Clearly the law is not going to control this behavior. Something else needs to happen.

If the title of manager is inappropriate than what should we use instead? Here are two suggestions: “Process Facilitator” and/or “Human Potential Leader”. Allow me to channel Dr. W. Edwards (the father of Quality Improvement) for a moment. Control is an outcome and has a very specific definition for quality circles. Technically it means a process is predictable within a given range of variation.

For example, most people generally work around 40 hours a week. If we plotted the actual data of the number of hours you work each week we would see variation. It would “probably” not be exactly 40 hours. It might be 41 or 39 and the average would “probably” come in around 40 hours. I am using the word “probably” because managing variation within a process has to do with probability not control.

A manager must identify and influence factors that impact the variation. Deming would say a manager’s job is to be able to predict what a process(s) will do. A manager therefore improves predictability and reduces drama. A manager is therefore a proactive “Process

3 Strategies to Stop “Engagement Terrorists”

The purpose of terror is to harass, weaken, or embarrass others in order to achieve specific goals. We have all encountered an “engagement terrorist” in our workplaces at some point in our careers. This is a person who wants to achieve their goals and cares little for the collateral damage they may cause to others feelings or objectives. They may be either aggressive or passive aggressive. Either way they can be characterized as a terrorist who damages engagement of others.


Employee engagement is damaged by these terrorists because they damage the motivation of productive employees (their engagement). They do this with two basic dysfunctional behaviors: They either break agreements or they behave disrespectfully. The terrorist has good intentions. They see their goals as most important and will put their accomplishment ahead of other competing tasks. They do this for a variety of reasons and I believe their reasons are not really important. Their belief is that their time is extremely valuable and their goals come first.

The “agreement (or integrity) terrorist”

The “agreement (or integrity) terrorist” damages the performance of other employees who are depending upon them to deliver information or completed tasks. The co-workers of these terrorists are “performance victims” because the quantity, quality, or timing of their work suffers. This damages the pride and future effort of the co-workers.

The “integrity terrorist” will promise to take care of a problem and then do nothing. They will make convincing statements that create the impression they will act instantly, “I’m on it!” They are very careful to not mention any details of when or how the problem will be corrected. They do this because later they can pretend they either had a failure of memory, make some other lame excuse, or lay blame on someone else who was originally never involved in the discussion. They wait to see if the problem goes away or ideally the co-worker forgets.

If the co-worker is bold enough to confront them on their original “promise” their two most frequent responses are “aggressive-defensive”, “I’ll get to it, stop bugging me.” or “a convenient loss of memory”, “Oh, I got so busy and it must have slipped my mind. I will get it done now.”

The “disrespect terrorist”

The co-workers who are victims of the terrorist’s disrespect often experience severe demotivation, reduced confidence, and/or self-esteem. Their self-worth is attacked which puts them off balance and can cause them to even react with poor behaviors. The terrorist will give a threatening look or raise their tone of voice. They send a clear message of superiority and arrogance. Their message is, “I am more important than you, I don’t need you or your request(s) and you need to just leave me alone.”

The Problem

The main reason the terrorist creates such engagement damage is because they are able to get away with their inappropriate behaviors. The lack of consequences enables and emboldens the terrorist. In addition, they are often very intelligent and have honed their techniques for years. Their lack of integrity and disrespect has served them well for years. A consistent predictable set of strategies that create consequences, without stooping to their level, is the only way to stop them.

The 3 Strategies

Step one is to agree on a set of specific definitions. An agreement is a specific, measureable and time sensitive task where all factors should be under the control of the person. Organizations perform based upon agreements. Trust is created by making and keeping agreements. Organizations cannot operate without trust.

Create a definition of agreement and then clearly define the behaviors needed to manage those agreements (integrity). For example, when we make an agreement we do so with full knowledge that others are depending upon us. Therefore, we must make an effort to complete it on-time and if we can’t to let the other person know immediately. In addition we must create a new agreement with a new time frame. We must also be proactive and not reactive.

We must then do the same for the word “respect”. We must clarify those behaviors we need to see in order to treat others with respect.

Step two is to get the employees (not just the terrorists) to agree to the clearly defined behaviors. This is relatively easy because, if written clearly, there will be no reason for the employees to disagree.

Step three is the most challenging. Everyone must have permission to confirm all agreements in writing. You also need permission to tell anyone when they are being disrespectful. Terrorists need to be stopped during their acts of terror. They need to be shown how their behavior does not match the behaviors they agreed to hold up.

Furthermore, any disrespect should be documented as well. Employees can document disrespect respectfully. If the clear statements from Step One are clearly written, any disrespect will be obvious. Obvious disrespect must be documented.

Only when all three steps are implemented can one be sure to diffuse the bombs these “engagement terrorists” want to detonate. Only a disciplined approach to all three steps can begin to avoid the collateral damage.

Are You a Leader Confronting Dysfunction Or a Victim Ignoring It?

For four years before slaying six people and wounding 13 including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Jared Loughner was an unremarkable college student at the Community College in Tuscon, AZ. In 2010 his behavior changed. He stunned a teacher by talking about blowing up babies. After his first event, campus police decided not to intervene but instead suggested to the teacher let’s “….keep an eye on him."


Unfortunately his behavior grew increasingly erratic, menacing, and even delusional. This was documented in fifty-one pages of police reports that were released only days after the shootings of January 9, 2011.

Although Loughner was warned that the behavior had to stop or disciplinary action would begin, he chose to continue attending class while remaining silent. Should have all been empowered to speak up and remove before he harmed someone or should we wait for the management or the Government to do it. I say yes. Let’s be leaders and speak up when we see obvious dysfunction and disrespect. I believe we should be empowered. I believe we shouldn’t wait for management or Government.

I acknowledge that it is debatable whether the teachers, police, the other students, and even his parents could have done more to prevent this atrocious act of a mad man. In my experience we often tend to think “someone else will do it” and that person often doesn’t act.

Too often we rely on our Government to save us and protect or in an organization we wait and rely on our managers in our organizations to solve it or correct it. The teachable moment is “we teach what we allow” and when we have an opportunity to speak up and we don’t then we either consciously or unconsciously allow the dysfunction to continue. We act as a victim and not as a leader.

In summary, if we don’t address disrespect and dysfunction immediately in our organizations we can almost always predict it will eventually escalate into something even more egregious that we cannot ignore. When something really horrific happens we are forced to act. Instead, if we had just taken action earlier we might have averted the horror.

Ten years ago I created a process to help employees in organizations to respectfully confront disrespectful behaviors. It is called The White Flag® Process. The White Flag® Process enables everyone to provide feedback about inappropriate behaviors. Employees can give feedback to each other and even to management using The White Flag® process.

The White Flag® is a metaphor for “Truce! Don’t attack me, I have valuable information and I am just here to help.” The American Red Cross uses a similar symbol. When the ARC representative goes into a dangerous area of conflict, they are always displaying their “red cross on a white background”. This prevents them from being attacked and allows them to help the wounded.

The White Flag® enables feedback in a safe and caring environment for the purpose of learning. Although it requires courage to speak up in the face of dysfunction we need more of this to avoid further dysfunction and even horrific events.

Let’s all be leaders of appropriate behaviors. Let’s not wait for either the Government or management to take action. Let’s take action ourselves and prevent the spread of disrespect or dysfunction. It is really up to us anyway. We are the ones who end up suffering.

Does Your Team Have Gangrene?

When the blood supply is significantly reduced or even completely cut off for a period of time the body tissue can die. This is a potentially life threatening condition. Often the affected tissue needs to be removed to prevent death. The condition requires immediate attention.


The Problem

Lack of communication in certain functions in organizations is similar to lack of circulation in a body part. This lack of communication is also a life threatening condition for performance, employee loyalty, employee engagement, and productivity. The presence of this “communication gangrene” can “kill” these results. This is true for not only the select employees (body part) but for the entire system (the entire individual). Just like the entire body can die if the gangrene goes untreated, the entire organization can die unless an organization has a way to treat any gangrene and has a process to prevent it in the first place.

Very often certain individuals are affected more than others when communication breakdowns occur. What is your current process for managing communication breakdowns and for preventing them? Do you ignore them until the body part begins to die and needs to be cut out? This is the equivalent of waiting until an employee has an emotional outburst and then holding a performance review meeting or even a corrective action meeting to either punish or threaten that employee. It is treating the symptom not the root cause. Just as amputation is treating the symptom, performance management is treating the symptom by blaming the individual for the poor communication. The problem is more complex in both the body and in the organization. They are both complex systems and need to be cared for and treated as such.

In the organization, if these are your major options now, it is the equivalent of ignoring pain in your foot and waiting until it turns black before you take action. At that point usually the only option available is removal of the infected tissue or amputation of a portion of the limb. The equivalent would be the removal of the “infected person” and the reprimand, or removal, of the management in the function.

The Symptoms

Gangrene in the body manifests with discoloration, a foul-smelling discharge, severe pain and then a loss of feeling in the area. Other symptoms include confusion, fever, general ill feeling, low blood pressure and persistent or severe pain

Communication breakdowns in organizations manifest with lower employee engagement. The employee stops participating and sharing information. He/she will have confusion, general ill feelings, anxiety, emotional outbursts, poor attitude, lack of cooperation, others making an effort to avoid the infected employee and working around him/her.

Prevention

Organizations that suffer from gangrene can, and must, take preventative action and it is not performance management. Removing the infected areas will not work long-term to improve the health of the organization just as removing limbs will eventually results in a paralysis. There are three steps leaders can take:

1. Take a systems approach. Let employees know that the problem is not them but in the system they work within. Let them know you will help facilitate an improvement in circulation. Ask them to look for opportunities to improve circulation and to speak up immediately when they begin to feel the symptoms.

2. When they speak up take immediate action and listen to their concerns. Work with them to identify the key communication hand offs that are not working. Just as a patient with gangrene feels the pain and may not understand how it happened, employees feel the pain of poor communication but they don’t know the root cause without help from the physician. You are the facilitator physician. They need your help. Create and implement an improvement process to identify the poor hand offs and improve them. Make sure you encourage them to solve their own problems with their internal customers and internal suppliers by using the tools you provide. Don’t solve their problems for them but instead facilitate them to take action. Make them self-reliant. Don’t allow them to become reliant on you.

3. Insist they create checklists for improving communication hand offs. Let the checklists begin to improve the circulation. Encourage them to refine the checklists until all circulation of communication is working.

Information is the blood the organization needs to feed its functions. If the information slows or stops, the function can suffer and even die. If a function dies the life of the entire organization is threatened. Don’t let the function get gangrene. Have a process and facilitate action to prevent the infection.

Want a System to Manage People or A System Where They Manage Themselves?

What is your vision? Do you want a better process to manage people to drive performance and accountability or do you want a process to create an environment of self-management? There is a major difference between the two. The current tools offered by most Human Resources Consulting companies give us choice #1. I want to offer you the choice #2.

I have two dogs. They are dependent upon me for nearly all their needs. They need me for food, to go out, for shelter, and for exercise. They wake me up at 5:30 every morning when they have to go out. Immediately afterward they need to eat. They are dependent on me. They can’t let themselves out nor can they feed themselves. I need to manage them and their needs. The more I need to manage them the more time and effort it takes.

I constantly look for processes to help them to self-manage. If they can be independent it takes me less time and effort. For example, we invested in the “Invisible Fence.” For those of you without dogs you can imagine what I mean. It is a system that allows us to let them out in the early morning and know they will not run off. They will stay within the electric fence area because they are wearing a collar that sends a signal and/or electric shock if they try to wander beyond the electrified wire barrier. It allows them to self-manage within the context of the barrier.

We invested our time and effort to train them to stay within the boundaries. Now we don’t worry about their safety because they self-manage. If dogs can self-manage can’t people? It seems to me we often treat our employees much the way I must treat my dogs i.e. as dependent beings. Maybe that’s a bit of an exaggeration but please think about it for a minute. For example listen to the language we use when we talk about improving performance.

We often use the phrase “managing people.” Shouldn’t we be managing the environment and managing the process and leading the people? Shouldn’t people be allowed to manage themselves? We talk about driving employee performance. When we drive something aren’t we controlling it? Do we control people or lead people?

We talk about holding people accountable. Does that mean punishment or blame? Doesn’t it suggest control when we use words like “hold?” Are people responsible or not? Don’t we want to work with people who are fully responsible instead of those who need to be controlled?

We implement performance appraisals and use them in conjunction with pay-for-performance to drive employee performance and organizational results. These are control strategies. These policies have fundamental assumptions of the need for controlling behaviors. These policies suggest we must either threaten or bribe people to ensure they do what they need to do. They won’t, or can’t, naturally manage themselves to create improvements and performance. Is this what we truly believe? Are all people capable of self-management or not?

We need to set up the system to allow people to self-manage. There are two things we can do. First we must start with values behaviors. Second we must work on improving the system together as a team. The real enemy of self-management is the system.

By working together in a team we can improve performance. Alone, we will become exhausted. Just like the dogs who are totally dependent upon me, I must stop what I am doing (sleeping or whatever) to feed them or let them out. If they are dependent and I don’t respond, they make a mess. The same is true with dependent people. The same is true with management systems that create dependent employees.

First, we must create a context of trust by defining those behaviors we can all agree will create trust. In other words, we must treat each other with respect and integrity first. There can be no compromise on these specific behaviors. We must be respectful and keep our agreements with each other. This creates the trust necessary to allow us to do step #2.

Second, we must work on the system. We must look for ways to create greater self-reliance and self-management. We must look at our, language, our processes, and our policies and change them to facilitate (and not create barriers) for self-management. Just like the invisible fence, we must change how we interact and we must base these changes on high levels of trust. Only then can we move closer to self-management for everyone.

Is your Team “Manager Dependent” or “System Dependent”?

The east coast was buried in a large snow storm this past week. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was lucky enough to be on vacation with his wife and children in Florida. Of course Florida was cold that week as well but I digress. Christie came under sharp criticism for being away from the state during this 5th largest storm in the state’s history. Why would someone criticize the Governor for this? It takes a certain mindset. It takes a “Manager Dependent” mindset. We need more people with a “System Dependent” mindset.


A “Manager Dependent” mindset assumes problems can only be solved by certain people and if those people are not around problems will not be solved. This mindset is the genesis of the Talent Management movement in HR circles today. Talent Management claims “that teams with the best people perform at a higher level.” This mindset is not only incomplete and unsophisticated it is inconsistent with systems thinking. Let me be so bold to correct this thought by describing what the Talent Management experts in HR really mean. These HR professionals really mean “that teams with predictable processes and people trained to play their specific roles and responsibilities within those processes such that they can manage the variation in those processes perform better.” It is the leader’s job to create the environment to accomplish this. It is NOT the leader’s responsibility to “drive the plow” in a large snow storm. If the predictable processes are clear and if people are trained to manage their roles and responsibilities doesn’t the leader need to step back and let people do their jobs? Won’t the people just do their work and be self-managed vs. manager dependent? This begins to describe a “system dependent” environment.

We love heroes and heroines. It is exciting to see a person step up and solve a problem in an emergency. It is dramatic. It is fun to celebrate the success with rewards and parades afterward. Let’s just be clear, when emergencies occur it is often an indication of poor leadership, poor management, and/or poor planning. Dr. W. Edwards Deming defined management as “prediction.” This means to me that if a manager can’t predict his/her results within a relatively narrow range then they are not using tools available to them. They are not doing their job.

The following evidence suggests you have a Manager Dependent environment:

• Decisions are delayed waiting for the boss and/or the boss is a micro manager

• Training is seen as a waste of money and time (or secondary to the work that needs to be done now)

• People look for others to blame for mistakes or problems

• People are more concerned about looking good and taking credit for quick solutions (they run from problems or hide them). This is where the heroes and heroines either emerge or disappear

• The “favorites” are almost always those who look good or who are the heroes and heroines

• Meetings are wasteful and seem to last forever

• People hoard information and/or knowledge to protect their jobs or to look good

• Customer service suffers

The following evidence suggests you have a System Dependent environment:

• Decisions are made quickly at the lowest level possible

• Employees take action to solve problems before the boss even asks

• People admit problems or mistakes to ensure the damage done is limited

• People know what to do and don’t need to ask permission

• Customer Service is not only excellent but is often ground breaking and innovative

• Managers talk about systems improvement and avoid criticizing people

The environment is different and it the creator of the improved behavior. It is not the talent that matters it is the system that matters.

Those who think Chris Christie should have been in town (or come back from vacation) to solve the snow clean-up problem are stuck in the “Manager Dependent” mindset. This mindset limits performance, engagement, and creativity. It is not a way toward performance improvement or innovation. Only system dependent management can deliver the results we all seek.

5 Strategies for Engagement Leaders to Create Trust

The Bible tells us that we must first trust each other with the little things before we can trust with the big things. So it is with leaders. It is the little behaviors every day that either build trust or damage it.

Employees entrust their leaders with their incomes (salaries) and their careers. These are BIG THINGS. To feel confident in these employees must also be confident in the little things leaders do. Without a high level of trust or confidence engagement will plateau or even drop.

Anyone who thinks they can achieve employee engagement without high levels of trust is sorely mistaken. Trust is a cornerstone in the foundation for employee engagement and leaders must be aware of its level and how their actions and decisions can impact it. There are five strategies leaders can use to be sure they are optimizing trust and therefore building a foundation for engagement.

Make yourself vulnerable first

Trust is a willingness to be vulnerable with another. When my daughter first learned to drive I took her to a parking lot. She drove around the lot and practiced steering and parking. In order to demonstrate my trust in her I made myself vulnerable by allowing her to drive my car. I didn’t take her onto the highway because that was too much for her and too much for me. If she did happen to make a mistake it would be limited in damage and risk. She was still nervous. She was challenged. I was nervous too but I knew I had to take some risk.

Leaders need to take risk with employees. This includes empowering them to make their own decisions and take their own risks while being challenged but not overly so.

Leaders can also make themselves vulnerable by admitting mistakes and not trying to hide them. Recent studies by hospitals showed how admitting mistakes with patients significantly reduced law suits. I advise leaders to look for opportunities to admit their mistakes. This creates an atmosphere of safety that allows employees to also admit their mistakes. Only when we admit mistakes can we begin to solve them. Leaders are human and they make mistakes. Admit it.

Behave with integrity

Leaders must keep their agreements. The fastest way to either build trust or damage it is how you manage your agreements. Some agreements are communicated (either spoken or written) and some are assumed. Leaders who insist on one set of behaviors for employees and then contradict it with their own behaviors are very often damaging trust and engagement.

There should be no double standards on agreements. A typical example is when a leader calls a meeting but shows up late. The unspoken (or spoken) agreement was to start the meeting at the designated time. If the leader doesn’t honor that time they send a mixed message to everyone about any agreement.

Show concern

Leaders who are respectful in all endeavors are building trust. Respectful behaviors include listening, showing empathy and acknowledgement of new ideas or good work. Listening is a basic skill all leaders must continuously improve. Different communication styles require different types of listening and different levels of frequency. Some employees need a low level of listening and other need more. Effective leaders must be willing to adjust their listening methods to adapt to the needs of certain employees.

Create and communicate shared objectives

Republicans and Democrats often talk of the need for bi-partisanship to solve the problems of the voters. This approach rarely happens because the objectives for each party are very different. This prevents them from trusting each other enough to agree without needing significant compromise.

Effective organizations must align on their strategic initiatives and their performance objectives in order to achieve its desired results. Effective leaders must create and continuously communicate clear objectives. They must be aware of the possible different interpretations (or misinterpretations) of these objectives and manage the variation. It is the leader’s job to be sure all employees can agree on non-competing and complimentary objectives. Very often, misaligned (or misinterpreted) objectives are the root cause of serious employee conflicts.

Be competent

Effective leaders must be aware of their strengths and their limitations. They must be a role model for asking for help when they hit a problem or issue for which others might be better able to manage. Then they must delegate to ensure quality is assured and delivered.

Being competent requires leaders to have a high level of awareness and a deep appreciate for systems thinking. Too often leaders want to appear as heroes who swoop into solve problems and who have all the answers at the very finger tips. This is a dangerous element in a culture. It breeds incompetence and learning stagnation.

As leaders who want employee engagement we must be aware of our responsibilities. These 5 strategies are just part of the picture but they represent the cornerstone upon which we can begin to build a culture of trust and employee engagement.