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.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Saturday, January 22, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
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
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
Sunday, January 16, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, January 14, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
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.
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.
Friday, January 7, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
