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.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
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.
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.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
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?
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?
Saturday, February 12, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
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.”
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.”
Saturday, February 5, 2011
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?
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?
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
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."[
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."[
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
