Trust Leads to Autonomy Which Leads to Engagement
Trust is a vital ingredient in high performance organizations. High levels of trust enable improved communication flow and productive problem solving. Research shows that improved flow of information improves performance, reduces unproductive conflict, increases adaptability, and innovation. Having trust in someone (or in a team) allows us to give autonomy to that person. Autonomy leads to engagement. The more autonomous one is in their work the more creative they are and the more engagement they feel.
Right now engagement is a critical factor for an organization’s success. The higher the engagement the higher will be the productivity and profitability. Yet the latest engagement research shows only about 29% of employees are fully engaged in their work. This tells me leaders are not trusting employees. Trust must come before engagement.
Successful leaders recognize they must trust employees first. They purposely put people in situations where they will be challenged and allow the employees to demonstrate their skills. A leader will make themselves available but they don’t look over the employee’s shoulder and they don’t micro-manage. They trust first in order to be trusted. Ernest Hemingway once said, “The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.”
One of the most important responsibilities of a leader is to manage the variation in trust in their organization or within their team. This requires a keen understanding of the right definition of trust. The definition I appreciate the most is from the International Association of Business Communicators. Their definition is: a willingness to be vulnerable because of the presence of integrity, concern, competence and shared objectives. By managing each of these four elements a leader can then make a decision to be vulnerable. By making themselves vulnerable they bring out the best in the employee. They allow that employee autonomy and with autonomy come growth and engagement.
In the movie The Horse Whisperer Robert Redford plays a middle aged expert horse trainer/cowboy in Montana. He is met by a young girl and her mom who ask him to help rehabilitate their horse. The horse suffered a nearly fatal injury in an accident with an 18 wheeler. The girl and mom wanted to avoid putting the horse down even though the injury was so severe. The horse was not the only casualty. The girl lost her leg. She was only 14.
Redford realized he needed to help the girl before he could help the horse. In one scene he and the girl find themselves out on the range alone with an old pickup truck. Redford asks the girl to drive him back to the ranch while feigning fatigue. He challenges her to use her skills. He trusted she would be able to drive him even though she had never driven a truck let alone a standard shift. He trusted her first, provided support, and allowed her autonomy to give it a try.
It worked. She did it. She became engaged in the process of helping to rehabilitate the horse. By trusting her, giving her training and allowing her to use her skills (providing autonomy) she became engaged. This works for employees. It also can work for students.
Our schools are in trouble. The new documentary Waiting for Superman demonstrates the challenge well. Some say the film blames unions and teachers for the problem. Certainly they play a role. But those who say that are missing a huge piece. The problem starts with how we think about students and how we have set up the system. We have a system set up to send the message, WE DON’T TRUST YOU. We have very strict curriculums. We use standardized testing to drive improvement and reward or punish students and schools. We use grades to attempt to motivate students to do better. What are we left with? Is it engagement? Is it results?
I would recommend we send a message of WE TRUST YOU. Students naturally want to learn and teachers naturally want to do a good job. Don’t they? We can then provide an environment of autonomy. We can then expect them to be engaged.
Successful leaders trust people will do the right things. If they don’t do what they are supposed to do then there needs to be consequences. But why create a system that sends a message of distrust for everyone just because you have a few bad apples? Trust people, give them the tools so they can be autonomous and then watch the engagement happen.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Friday, October 22, 2010
As a Leader What Message Do You Send?
I was walking our two dogs, as I do almost every morning. We go to the nearby park and walk the 2 miles rather quickly so we all get good exercise. Of course I had my Blackberry so when I think of a quick call I can make it during the walk. While striding up a gradual hill I started breathing a little heavy when I suddenly remembered a call I needed to make to one of my strategic partners. I needed to confirm a seminar date that was scheduled for the end of the following week.
I called my client and one of the owners, Diane, answered the call. I asked to speak to the scheduler Evelyn. As I was asking I was breathing even heavier. Apparently talking and walking up hill creates even heavier breathing. I am sure I sounded like a nasty pervert as I asked Diane to pass on a message to Evelyn to return my call. After I hung up I realized I should have explained my context. What impression did I make? If she didn't know me she may have thought I was an excited pervert while I requested, “Please tell Evelyn to call me. I have a few questions for her.” Thank goodness we have a good trusting relationship so I doubt Diane will think poorly of me. But, can I be sure?
Very often leaders exhibit negative behaviors that unintentionally and unknowingly create the wrong impression. These behaviors can damage the motivation and productivity of employees in ways that are immeasurable. Most organizations have the following dysfunctional cultural characteristics:
• The leader misbehaves
• The poor behavior of the leader negatively impacts the employee’s motivation and attitude toward the leader and the organization
• Most of the employees are too afraid to give feedback to the leader and so the poor behavior continues
• The employees begin to exhibit poor behaviors
• The leader conducts a performance appraisal to correct the employee behaviors
This typical series of interactions does little to address the real root cause of the dysfunction, i.e. the leader’s behaviors. Instead, these cultural procedures serve to sustain the dysfunction.
Leaders are not, nor will they ever be, omnipotent. When they misbehave they need to know it and they need help to change their behaviors to prevent the unintended negative consequences.
When I first begin my work with clients I always explain to the Senior Leaders that one of my roles is to give feedback to them about poor behaviors. I ask their permission to provide that feedback and I insist they agree. I always get that agreement because the leaders (and all people) already think they are behaving correctly. Leaders who misbehave rarely do so purposefully. Almost always they are unaware of the impact on others. They need to be respectfully told.
Ask yourself, how many companies proactively welcome respectful feedback to leaders by employees? I often see leaders who insist on strict discipline yet consistently show up late to meetings. I also have seen leaders deliver criticism to one direct report for a particular issue and then fail to deliver the same level of outrage to a different employee for a similar issue.
To optimize trust and create a high performance culture, leaders must be willing to accept the responsibility for the impressions they create. Because they cannot be omnipotent, they must accept frequent respectful feedback about poor behaviors. They also need to send a grateful message to the messenger. Any defensive reaction will inhibit the feedback in the future and help continue the dysfunction.
Therefore, leaders need to either be very insightful and emotionally intelligent in order to observe their own dysfunctional and misunderstood behaviors. In other words, they need to be aware of their “heavy breathing”. In addition, the leader must be truly courageous and purposely set up a small team of trusted advisors who will provide respectful feedback when he/she unconsciously creates the wrong impression. Without these two approaches surely the negative impact on productivity will continue unchecked.
I called my client and one of the owners, Diane, answered the call. I asked to speak to the scheduler Evelyn. As I was asking I was breathing even heavier. Apparently talking and walking up hill creates even heavier breathing. I am sure I sounded like a nasty pervert as I asked Diane to pass on a message to Evelyn to return my call. After I hung up I realized I should have explained my context. What impression did I make? If she didn't know me she may have thought I was an excited pervert while I requested, “Please tell Evelyn to call me. I have a few questions for her.” Thank goodness we have a good trusting relationship so I doubt Diane will think poorly of me. But, can I be sure?
Very often leaders exhibit negative behaviors that unintentionally and unknowingly create the wrong impression. These behaviors can damage the motivation and productivity of employees in ways that are immeasurable. Most organizations have the following dysfunctional cultural characteristics:
• The leader misbehaves
• The poor behavior of the leader negatively impacts the employee’s motivation and attitude toward the leader and the organization
• Most of the employees are too afraid to give feedback to the leader and so the poor behavior continues
• The employees begin to exhibit poor behaviors
• The leader conducts a performance appraisal to correct the employee behaviors
This typical series of interactions does little to address the real root cause of the dysfunction, i.e. the leader’s behaviors. Instead, these cultural procedures serve to sustain the dysfunction.
Leaders are not, nor will they ever be, omnipotent. When they misbehave they need to know it and they need help to change their behaviors to prevent the unintended negative consequences.
When I first begin my work with clients I always explain to the Senior Leaders that one of my roles is to give feedback to them about poor behaviors. I ask their permission to provide that feedback and I insist they agree. I always get that agreement because the leaders (and all people) already think they are behaving correctly. Leaders who misbehave rarely do so purposefully. Almost always they are unaware of the impact on others. They need to be respectfully told.
Ask yourself, how many companies proactively welcome respectful feedback to leaders by employees? I often see leaders who insist on strict discipline yet consistently show up late to meetings. I also have seen leaders deliver criticism to one direct report for a particular issue and then fail to deliver the same level of outrage to a different employee for a similar issue.
To optimize trust and create a high performance culture, leaders must be willing to accept the responsibility for the impressions they create. Because they cannot be omnipotent, they must accept frequent respectful feedback about poor behaviors. They also need to send a grateful message to the messenger. Any defensive reaction will inhibit the feedback in the future and help continue the dysfunction.
Therefore, leaders need to either be very insightful and emotionally intelligent in order to observe their own dysfunctional and misunderstood behaviors. In other words, they need to be aware of their “heavy breathing”. In addition, the leader must be truly courageous and purposely set up a small team of trusted advisors who will provide respectful feedback when he/she unconsciously creates the wrong impression. Without these two approaches surely the negative impact on productivity will continue unchecked.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
2 Lessons Leaders Can Learn From Nature
This summer was especially dry. My front lawn looks like a flash fire went through. My ability to keep up with the watering fell way short.
I waited until September to take action because I know from experience that is the best month to re-grow grass. I asked my lawn guy to prepare the soil with an aeration treatment, growth fertilizer, and power seeding. I carefully watered his good works and the grass is coming back nicely.
All I did was create the proper conditions and allowed nature to take over. This is an important lesson for leaders. Don’t focus on improving individuals. Use your energy resources to create the right conditions for performance.
I didn’t attempt to accelerate my lawn repair by conducting motivational speeches or placing posters of motivation on the surrounding trees and bushes. Nor did I offer additional “rewards” in the form of additional fertilizer or water to encourage faster growth from those high performing seeds. I also didn’t threaten to withdraw those goodies form those seeds that were slower to grow.
That approach would have been ridiculous. Just as ridiculous is leaders who use performance appraisals and pay for performance and expect long term sustainable improvement without creating the proper performance context. Performance, like grass will naturally grow when “good seeds” are planted in the proper conditions. Nature takes over.
A leader’s first job is to create that context. The proper context in an organization includes the following five key items:
1. Values
2. Vision
3. Mission
4. Management Theory
5. Strategy
This is lesson number one for leaders. What have you done lately to reinforce the clarity of the Values: How we want to behave regardless of the situation; Vision: how w want to look as an organization in the future; Mission: Why the organization exists; The Management Theory: Do you believe people want to do a good job or do you believe people need to be pushed to work?; Strategy: What differentiates you from other organizations in your industry?
The second lesson from nature is autonomy. Nature allows choices to be made. Make the right choices and you succeed. Make the wrong choice and you lose (or you experience pain). Nature does not control. Nature encourages autonomy.
When organizational leaders rely on methods of control to manage, they impair the organization’s ability to respond or adapt to change. To be successful in this fast-paced business climate, leaders must learn to cultivate a context that empowers and encourages informed and rapid decision-making.
A good metaphor for this type of responsive decision-making is a flock of birds in flight. It is a most mystifying phenomenon. As a group, they have no leader to tell them when to turn left or right, or when to slow down or to speed up; yet as a group, they change direction as effortlessly as a single organism. How is this possible? It is possible because, flocking birds naturally follow three basic principles: first, they fly in the same general direction as their closest neighbors; second, they fly at the same average speed as their closest neighbors; third, they fly at the same average distance from their closest neighbor and avoid colliding with them at all costs. Following these three basic principles, they are able, as a group, to respond to their fast-changing environment with rapid, precise adjustments.
Flocking birds are what’s called a “self-organizing system”. Organizations can achieve the same agile capabilities if the leader clarifies the vision and the organizational objectives, and teaches clear effective principles. In doing so, the leader establishes trust and increases his/her influence, while empowering each individual to make the right decisions at the right time. In the presence of a clear vision, clear objectives and sound principles, individuals participating in a self-organizing system learn how to adjust to a fast-paced environment. Like the birds, people will respond quickly, appropriately and in the best interests of the “flock”, without needing a controlling authority to tell them what to do.
The creation of this performance context allows autonomy. The birds are free to make choices within the context of the principles. A leader can create the conditions and then trust employees to operate autonomously within that context. So doing will create the best response to change and the greatest possibility of high performance.
Stop trying to control the seeds or the birds. Create the proper conditions instead and let them perform. It is the natural thing to do.
I waited until September to take action because I know from experience that is the best month to re-grow grass. I asked my lawn guy to prepare the soil with an aeration treatment, growth fertilizer, and power seeding. I carefully watered his good works and the grass is coming back nicely.
All I did was create the proper conditions and allowed nature to take over. This is an important lesson for leaders. Don’t focus on improving individuals. Use your energy resources to create the right conditions for performance.
I didn’t attempt to accelerate my lawn repair by conducting motivational speeches or placing posters of motivation on the surrounding trees and bushes. Nor did I offer additional “rewards” in the form of additional fertilizer or water to encourage faster growth from those high performing seeds. I also didn’t threaten to withdraw those goodies form those seeds that were slower to grow.
That approach would have been ridiculous. Just as ridiculous is leaders who use performance appraisals and pay for performance and expect long term sustainable improvement without creating the proper performance context. Performance, like grass will naturally grow when “good seeds” are planted in the proper conditions. Nature takes over.
A leader’s first job is to create that context. The proper context in an organization includes the following five key items:
1. Values
2. Vision
3. Mission
4. Management Theory
5. Strategy
This is lesson number one for leaders. What have you done lately to reinforce the clarity of the Values: How we want to behave regardless of the situation; Vision: how w want to look as an organization in the future; Mission: Why the organization exists; The Management Theory: Do you believe people want to do a good job or do you believe people need to be pushed to work?; Strategy: What differentiates you from other organizations in your industry?
The second lesson from nature is autonomy. Nature allows choices to be made. Make the right choices and you succeed. Make the wrong choice and you lose (or you experience pain). Nature does not control. Nature encourages autonomy.
When organizational leaders rely on methods of control to manage, they impair the organization’s ability to respond or adapt to change. To be successful in this fast-paced business climate, leaders must learn to cultivate a context that empowers and encourages informed and rapid decision-making.
A good metaphor for this type of responsive decision-making is a flock of birds in flight. It is a most mystifying phenomenon. As a group, they have no leader to tell them when to turn left or right, or when to slow down or to speed up; yet as a group, they change direction as effortlessly as a single organism. How is this possible? It is possible because, flocking birds naturally follow three basic principles: first, they fly in the same general direction as their closest neighbors; second, they fly at the same average speed as their closest neighbors; third, they fly at the same average distance from their closest neighbor and avoid colliding with them at all costs. Following these three basic principles, they are able, as a group, to respond to their fast-changing environment with rapid, precise adjustments.
Flocking birds are what’s called a “self-organizing system”. Organizations can achieve the same agile capabilities if the leader clarifies the vision and the organizational objectives, and teaches clear effective principles. In doing so, the leader establishes trust and increases his/her influence, while empowering each individual to make the right decisions at the right time. In the presence of a clear vision, clear objectives and sound principles, individuals participating in a self-organizing system learn how to adjust to a fast-paced environment. Like the birds, people will respond quickly, appropriately and in the best interests of the “flock”, without needing a controlling authority to tell them what to do.
The creation of this performance context allows autonomy. The birds are free to make choices within the context of the principles. A leader can create the conditions and then trust employees to operate autonomously within that context. So doing will create the best response to change and the greatest possibility of high performance.
Stop trying to control the seeds or the birds. Create the proper conditions instead and let them perform. It is the natural thing to do.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Are you a Leader of Leaders or Victims? - 5 Strategies to Enhance Accountability and Responsibility
A man found a cocoon of a butterfly. After a few hours a small opening appeared. The butterfly wanted to emerge and the man watched for several hours as it struggled to force its body through that little hole. Then it seemed to stop. It appeared as if its task had become daunting. To the man it looked as if it had gotten as far as it could and it could go no further.
The man decided he must help the butterfly. With a pair of scissors he snipped off the remaining bit of cocoon. The butterfly emerged easily. But, it had a swollen body and small shriveled wings.
The man continued to watch the butterfly because he expected that, at any moment, the wings would enlarge and expand to be able to support the body, which would contract in time.
Neither happened! In fact, the butterfly spent the rest of its life crawling around with a swollen body and shriveled wings. It never was able to fly.
What the man, with good intentions, did not understand was that the restricting cocoon and the struggle required for the butterfly to get through the tiny opening were Nature’s way of forcing fluid from the body of the butterfly into its wings so that it would be ready for flight once it achieved its freedom from the cocoon.
Are you, with the best of intentions, creating dependent victims in your organization or are you creating and encouraging independent thinkers who solve their own problems?
Our culture tends to reward those who provide instant answers to difficult problems. We tend to be impatient with those who take time to think through solutions. We often promote fast paced and narcissistic behaviors because it creates instant results. Instant results can often carry with them delayed unintended consequences.
A leader has willing followers and works with them to solve problems. A victim is most often stuck and often attempts to enroll others to join in the mutual misery. A leader has a positive influence on others and uses it often in place of authority and/or power to create action. Victims more often rely only on authority and power to cause others to act. Leaders are able to persuade. Victims rely on demands.
Victims feel tricked or duped by others and frequently blame others for their troubles. Leaders spend time fixing problems and working to prevent them. Victims feel powerless and spend time complaining about problems instead of fixing them.
What can leaders do to encourage leaders to follow and what can they do (and stop doing) to discourage victims from sabotaging productivity and engagement? Here are 5 strategies you can use now to create leaders (butterflies that can easily fly) and avoid inadvertently creating victims (with swollen bodies and shriveled wings):
Believe in people and trust them in order to create trust in you. Give people a chance to make mistakes and, when and if they do, avoid punishment. Instead, use the event as a learning experience for both you and the person who made the mistake. That doesn’t mean you allow them to avoid the consequences of their error. Ask them to make amends. Don’t hide the mistake and don’t take away the consequences.
My daughter wanted to buy a motorcycle. She had taken her motorcycle skills class and achieved her license. As her dad, instead of saying no, I encouraged her to drive a few cycles before buying one so she could assess which one might be best. In the mean time, her brother purchased a rather large bike and she asked if she could try it.
After receiving his permission, she took it for a ride and found it to be a bit more than she could handle. She had to lay it down at a stop sign when she lost her balance. The bike was a bit too large. We had a discussion about the size she needed.
We used the mistake as a learning experience to decide the bike size she needed and the need for safety above all else. In addition, she had to pay her brother money to repair the small amount of scratches she caused when she put down the bike on the street.
Proactively empower others. Look for opportunities for others to be independent and give them the option to act on their own.
Be respectful always in words and tone even in the face of emotional upsets caused by mistakes. Unless people purposely make mistakes, the discovery of the mistake itself is enough motivation for the person to feel remorse. Adding to it by being disrespectful with criticism is unnecessary and damaging to the relationship while stunting the learning opportunity. This doesn’t mean you avoid giving feedback when needed. It means delivering feedback not criticism. Feedback is specific data about behaviors. Criticism is opinions.
Unless asked for your opinion, avoid giving it because you will create dependency. You will be preventing optimum learning if you give your opinion before being asked. You create dependency if you try to solve the problem before they have had a chance to exercise their own problem solving skills. An effective leader offers suggestions and other options to change the observed results but usually only when asked. Even then tend to delay their response to give permission for the person to process their own solution. Wait for the learning to start. Their learning pace may be different than yours. If you jump in with an answer you create dependency. If you jump in it may cause fear to offer solutions in the future.
Truly listen to concerns, use empathy, provide forgiveness, and emphasize continuous learning. Leaders who look for scapegoats for mistakes create victims. Those who focus on learning will make more money. Our knowledge economy requires that we manage the engagement of all employees. Engaging their hearts and minds will be the only way to compete in the global marketplace. W e need every brain focused on improving performance, process, and serving customers. The higher the percentage of engaged brains the more money everyone makes.
Hold people accountable to their word not numerical goals. Ask people to make agreements and then let them know if they break them. Acknowledge and thank them when they keep agreements. Avoid the accountability trap by attempting to hold people accountable to numerical goals where they don’t have full control over all the factors.
The butterfly needed to work hard to emerge from the cocoon. It didn’t have a goal to fill its wings with fluid and reduce its swollen body. It had the task to emerge through the hole. The normal body and functional wings were the outcomes of the task of emerging through the hole. Identify the challenging tasks people need to perform to accomplish their goals and ask them to make agreements to perform those tasks. Then, hold them accountable for completing those tasks. Don’t help them unless they ask for help and even then, question them about what they need to do to accomplish it themselves. Don’t enable poor behaviors for the purpose of achieving the goal. It damages the learning experience and usually creates dependency.
Facilitate problem solving. Don’t tell them what they did wrong (unless asked) instead explore with them (with effective questioning) what they learned and how to resolve the issues. Instead of criticizing for missing numerical goals, explore the root causes of problems and provide tools to solve their own problems.
An effective leader knows how to teach and coach. He/she knows the problem solving method and the tools needed for problems solving. They teach and coach people to solve their own problems. They teach people to fish and they stop feeding them the fish. A leader will encourage the butterfly to emerge on its own.
Ask questions to uncover what YOU could have done differently to help them. There is an interdependent relationship between leader and employee. Employees cannot operate completely independently in a system. Ask questions to uncover what you could learn form the situation and what you can do differently.
Give away credit when things go well and, when things don’t go well, look for the part you played in the dysfunction and take full responsibility. Look for opportunities to express appreciation and gratitude for their hard work.
One of my clients exemplifies humility and yet is extremely ambitious. His leadership has propelled his organization forward to be one of the most admired in its industry. He has expanded the business and continues to praise and give credit to his board of directors and his employees. I reminded him one day that his leadership played a significant role in the success he was enjoying. I told him he didn’t give himself enough credit for the success. He said, “I know, others remind me of that often.” His humility and willingness to acknowledge others is a characteristic of Level 5 Leadership a phase coined by Jim Collins in his book Good to Great. A combination of humility and will creates a Level 5 Leader.
Be a facilitator of performance not a controller. Resist the urge to achieve instant results and be patient by asking questions. Don’t be so quick to take out the scissors. Allow the butterfly to emerge. The beauty of high performance will be the result of your patient leadership.
The man decided he must help the butterfly. With a pair of scissors he snipped off the remaining bit of cocoon. The butterfly emerged easily. But, it had a swollen body and small shriveled wings.
The man continued to watch the butterfly because he expected that, at any moment, the wings would enlarge and expand to be able to support the body, which would contract in time.
Neither happened! In fact, the butterfly spent the rest of its life crawling around with a swollen body and shriveled wings. It never was able to fly.
What the man, with good intentions, did not understand was that the restricting cocoon and the struggle required for the butterfly to get through the tiny opening were Nature’s way of forcing fluid from the body of the butterfly into its wings so that it would be ready for flight once it achieved its freedom from the cocoon.
Are you, with the best of intentions, creating dependent victims in your organization or are you creating and encouraging independent thinkers who solve their own problems?
Our culture tends to reward those who provide instant answers to difficult problems. We tend to be impatient with those who take time to think through solutions. We often promote fast paced and narcissistic behaviors because it creates instant results. Instant results can often carry with them delayed unintended consequences.
A leader has willing followers and works with them to solve problems. A victim is most often stuck and often attempts to enroll others to join in the mutual misery. A leader has a positive influence on others and uses it often in place of authority and/or power to create action. Victims more often rely only on authority and power to cause others to act. Leaders are able to persuade. Victims rely on demands.
Victims feel tricked or duped by others and frequently blame others for their troubles. Leaders spend time fixing problems and working to prevent them. Victims feel powerless and spend time complaining about problems instead of fixing them.
What can leaders do to encourage leaders to follow and what can they do (and stop doing) to discourage victims from sabotaging productivity and engagement? Here are 5 strategies you can use now to create leaders (butterflies that can easily fly) and avoid inadvertently creating victims (with swollen bodies and shriveled wings):
Believe in people and trust them in order to create trust in you. Give people a chance to make mistakes and, when and if they do, avoid punishment. Instead, use the event as a learning experience for both you and the person who made the mistake. That doesn’t mean you allow them to avoid the consequences of their error. Ask them to make amends. Don’t hide the mistake and don’t take away the consequences.
My daughter wanted to buy a motorcycle. She had taken her motorcycle skills class and achieved her license. As her dad, instead of saying no, I encouraged her to drive a few cycles before buying one so she could assess which one might be best. In the mean time, her brother purchased a rather large bike and she asked if she could try it.
After receiving his permission, she took it for a ride and found it to be a bit more than she could handle. She had to lay it down at a stop sign when she lost her balance. The bike was a bit too large. We had a discussion about the size she needed.
We used the mistake as a learning experience to decide the bike size she needed and the need for safety above all else. In addition, she had to pay her brother money to repair the small amount of scratches she caused when she put down the bike on the street.
Proactively empower others. Look for opportunities for others to be independent and give them the option to act on their own.
Be respectful always in words and tone even in the face of emotional upsets caused by mistakes. Unless people purposely make mistakes, the discovery of the mistake itself is enough motivation for the person to feel remorse. Adding to it by being disrespectful with criticism is unnecessary and damaging to the relationship while stunting the learning opportunity. This doesn’t mean you avoid giving feedback when needed. It means delivering feedback not criticism. Feedback is specific data about behaviors. Criticism is opinions.
Unless asked for your opinion, avoid giving it because you will create dependency. You will be preventing optimum learning if you give your opinion before being asked. You create dependency if you try to solve the problem before they have had a chance to exercise their own problem solving skills. An effective leader offers suggestions and other options to change the observed results but usually only when asked. Even then tend to delay their response to give permission for the person to process their own solution. Wait for the learning to start. Their learning pace may be different than yours. If you jump in with an answer you create dependency. If you jump in it may cause fear to offer solutions in the future.
Truly listen to concerns, use empathy, provide forgiveness, and emphasize continuous learning. Leaders who look for scapegoats for mistakes create victims. Those who focus on learning will make more money. Our knowledge economy requires that we manage the engagement of all employees. Engaging their hearts and minds will be the only way to compete in the global marketplace. W e need every brain focused on improving performance, process, and serving customers. The higher the percentage of engaged brains the more money everyone makes.
Hold people accountable to their word not numerical goals. Ask people to make agreements and then let them know if they break them. Acknowledge and thank them when they keep agreements. Avoid the accountability trap by attempting to hold people accountable to numerical goals where they don’t have full control over all the factors.
The butterfly needed to work hard to emerge from the cocoon. It didn’t have a goal to fill its wings with fluid and reduce its swollen body. It had the task to emerge through the hole. The normal body and functional wings were the outcomes of the task of emerging through the hole. Identify the challenging tasks people need to perform to accomplish their goals and ask them to make agreements to perform those tasks. Then, hold them accountable for completing those tasks. Don’t help them unless they ask for help and even then, question them about what they need to do to accomplish it themselves. Don’t enable poor behaviors for the purpose of achieving the goal. It damages the learning experience and usually creates dependency.
Facilitate problem solving. Don’t tell them what they did wrong (unless asked) instead explore with them (with effective questioning) what they learned and how to resolve the issues. Instead of criticizing for missing numerical goals, explore the root causes of problems and provide tools to solve their own problems.
An effective leader knows how to teach and coach. He/she knows the problem solving method and the tools needed for problems solving. They teach and coach people to solve their own problems. They teach people to fish and they stop feeding them the fish. A leader will encourage the butterfly to emerge on its own.
Ask questions to uncover what YOU could have done differently to help them. There is an interdependent relationship between leader and employee. Employees cannot operate completely independently in a system. Ask questions to uncover what you could learn form the situation and what you can do differently.
Give away credit when things go well and, when things don’t go well, look for the part you played in the dysfunction and take full responsibility. Look for opportunities to express appreciation and gratitude for their hard work.
One of my clients exemplifies humility and yet is extremely ambitious. His leadership has propelled his organization forward to be one of the most admired in its industry. He has expanded the business and continues to praise and give credit to his board of directors and his employees. I reminded him one day that his leadership played a significant role in the success he was enjoying. I told him he didn’t give himself enough credit for the success. He said, “I know, others remind me of that often.” His humility and willingness to acknowledge others is a characteristic of Level 5 Leadership a phase coined by Jim Collins in his book Good to Great. A combination of humility and will creates a Level 5 Leader.
Be a facilitator of performance not a controller. Resist the urge to achieve instant results and be patient by asking questions. Don’t be so quick to take out the scissors. Allow the butterfly to emerge. The beauty of high performance will be the result of your patient leadership.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Don't Light the Fire, Stop Throwing Water
Many leaders believe they must always do something to improve employee engagement. They often have statements such as, "We must drive performance", or "We must light the fire within each employee", or "We must reward individual high performers to increase overall performance."
Very often leaders must STOP doing certain things instead of looking to do more. Leaders create the environment which influences performance. Very often with the best of intentions leaders create an environment that damages performance.
When you throw water on a fire it hisses, smolders, and eventually goes out. So it is with employee engagement and motivation. I believe people are self-motivated. That is why you hired them. They arrive with a "fire in the belly." De-motivating policies cause lethargic and de-motivated employees.
Policies that are consistent with bribes and threats send a message, "You are NOT self-motivated and I don't trust you to work hard and do the right things to improve performance" It is as if you are throwing water on a fire. Using threats and bribes to increase activity, improve sales, or improve customer service causes employee engagement to smolder and eventually go out. At a certain point people get lethargic and lose interest in the activities that are encouraged by the threats and bribes.
Stop trying to turn up the heat in the fire. There is no need to do it. Stop the bribes such as pay-for-performance and stop the threats such as the typical performance appraisal. If you just stop, these things will improve.
Then, if you replace these "fire extinguishing policies" with a laser like focus on improving the system you can reduce waste and increase customer appreciation. Everything will improve. Stop focusing on improving individual performance and start focusing on organizational performance.
Are you inadvertently throwing water on a fire with the best of intentions? Stop it!
First stop throwing water. The fire will reappear.
Very often leaders must STOP doing certain things instead of looking to do more. Leaders create the environment which influences performance. Very often with the best of intentions leaders create an environment that damages performance.
When you throw water on a fire it hisses, smolders, and eventually goes out. So it is with employee engagement and motivation. I believe people are self-motivated. That is why you hired them. They arrive with a "fire in the belly." De-motivating policies cause lethargic and de-motivated employees.
Policies that are consistent with bribes and threats send a message, "You are NOT self-motivated and I don't trust you to work hard and do the right things to improve performance" It is as if you are throwing water on a fire. Using threats and bribes to increase activity, improve sales, or improve customer service causes employee engagement to smolder and eventually go out. At a certain point people get lethargic and lose interest in the activities that are encouraged by the threats and bribes.
Stop trying to turn up the heat in the fire. There is no need to do it. Stop the bribes such as pay-for-performance and stop the threats such as the typical performance appraisal. If you just stop, these things will improve.
Then, if you replace these "fire extinguishing policies" with a laser like focus on improving the system you can reduce waste and increase customer appreciation. Everything will improve. Stop focusing on improving individual performance and start focusing on organizational performance.
Are you inadvertently throwing water on a fire with the best of intentions? Stop it!
First stop throwing water. The fire will reappear.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Who is Really Accountable?
As a young salesman I was assigned one of the largest accounts in our company: Gillette. This was a Fortune 500 company with high visibility and great influence on our business. I was lucky to be in the right place at the right time with this account; the people at Gillette had been working on a new product for two years; one month after my assignment to the account I was awarded a very large contract. Instantly I was seen as a sales genius because I had exceeded my goals.
I was asked to handle the large order; I had not been trained properly, however, and two months after winning the business, I came to find out that we were going to miss three important ship dates. There was nothing we could do but agree to custom-make new packaging on the dates Gillette was suggesting – an incredibly expensive and time-consuming option.
During the meeting where this issue was discussed, my boss kept glaring at me and giving me dirty looks. From his point of view, I had dropped the ball; I had ignored a problem and let matters drift to a point where the company would have to incur a great deal of overtime to accommodate the orders.
I was a hero one week, and then two months later I was a bum. Why? because there were factors outside of my control. I had made an important sales goal but I had failed to schedule the order properly because of a lack of training. No one had ever shown me how to schedule the order.
Yes, I was naive and inexperienced, but that's not the most important lesson of the story.
The fact that anyone could go from being a hero to a bum in just two months tells me I should not have been held accountable for this mistake. Why should I have been “held accountable” for something I didn’t understand and had never been taught how to do? For that matter, why should I have received accolades for an order that fell into my lap?
Why should I have been blamed for a mistake (poor planning) when I was completely unaware of what I should do? Sure, I could have asked the right questions. Perhaps I should have thought about it harder. Would lecturing me about those points really help the organization avoid this type of situation in the future? Would “holding me accountable” for my mistake really help the organization in the future? Would the fear of punishment help future young sales people more than improvements in the training process?
Leaders won’t want to hear this but most of the time the root cause of employee errors can be traced back to a policy, process, or decision controlled by the leaders.
Look at the latest oil spill debacle in the Gulf of Mexico caused by BP. The oil industry is one of the most regulated industries in the world. Our Government approved all of the decisions BP made to manage the oil rig including insisting that drilling occur in very deep water well off shore, providing incorrect estimates of damage a deep water spill might cause, and the inspections of work during the drilling etc. The Government was about to award BP a safety award within days of the accident. How could BP be a hero one day and a bum the next?
Systems are complex. To put all the blame on either me or on BP is at best sophomoric and at worst creates an environment that prevents the resolution of the real root causes. Those caused by the leader(s).
Most organizations have complex and dysfunctional systems that cause errors. The errors most often show up in employee work. Most organizations use their performance management system to punish the employee with poor ratings or worse. This does nothing to solve the real issues. This does nothing to demonstrate real leadership. This does nothing to fix the complex system. We need a new theory of management to look at errors from a system perspective.
Leaders need a new way of thinking to avoid unsophisticated responses that create heroes one day and bums the next.
I was asked to handle the large order; I had not been trained properly, however, and two months after winning the business, I came to find out that we were going to miss three important ship dates. There was nothing we could do but agree to custom-make new packaging on the dates Gillette was suggesting – an incredibly expensive and time-consuming option.
During the meeting where this issue was discussed, my boss kept glaring at me and giving me dirty looks. From his point of view, I had dropped the ball; I had ignored a problem and let matters drift to a point where the company would have to incur a great deal of overtime to accommodate the orders.
I was a hero one week, and then two months later I was a bum. Why? because there were factors outside of my control. I had made an important sales goal but I had failed to schedule the order properly because of a lack of training. No one had ever shown me how to schedule the order.
Yes, I was naive and inexperienced, but that's not the most important lesson of the story.
The fact that anyone could go from being a hero to a bum in just two months tells me I should not have been held accountable for this mistake. Why should I have been “held accountable” for something I didn’t understand and had never been taught how to do? For that matter, why should I have received accolades for an order that fell into my lap?
Why should I have been blamed for a mistake (poor planning) when I was completely unaware of what I should do? Sure, I could have asked the right questions. Perhaps I should have thought about it harder. Would lecturing me about those points really help the organization avoid this type of situation in the future? Would “holding me accountable” for my mistake really help the organization in the future? Would the fear of punishment help future young sales people more than improvements in the training process?
Leaders won’t want to hear this but most of the time the root cause of employee errors can be traced back to a policy, process, or decision controlled by the leaders.
Look at the latest oil spill debacle in the Gulf of Mexico caused by BP. The oil industry is one of the most regulated industries in the world. Our Government approved all of the decisions BP made to manage the oil rig including insisting that drilling occur in very deep water well off shore, providing incorrect estimates of damage a deep water spill might cause, and the inspections of work during the drilling etc. The Government was about to award BP a safety award within days of the accident. How could BP be a hero one day and a bum the next?
Systems are complex. To put all the blame on either me or on BP is at best sophomoric and at worst creates an environment that prevents the resolution of the real root causes. Those caused by the leader(s).
Most organizations have complex and dysfunctional systems that cause errors. The errors most often show up in employee work. Most organizations use their performance management system to punish the employee with poor ratings or worse. This does nothing to solve the real issues. This does nothing to demonstrate real leadership. This does nothing to fix the complex system. We need a new theory of management to look at errors from a system perspective.
Leaders need a new way of thinking to avoid unsophisticated responses that create heroes one day and bums the next.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Incentive for Dysfunction
Pay-for-performance incentives don’t work. In fact they make things worse.
About 4 to 5 years ago, I used to go to Jiffy Lube when ever I need a quick oil change. I like taking care of my car so I get the oil changed exactly on time as best as I can.
One day I was there and the manager came to me. He said, ‘Mr. Hauck, you need a new PCV valve.’ I said, ‘What is that?’ He explained that’s an item that helps with emissions and I really need to replace it. I said, ‘Well wait a minute. I just had the car at the dealer and they inspect everything. Are you sure I need that?’ He said, ‘Oh absolutely; look how dirty this one is.’ And he rubbed his thumb across it and showed me his thumb and it was covered with a black smudge. I said, ‘Ok, how much is it?’ ‘$15’. I said, ‘Ok, fine put it in.’
I am at the cash register and my car is ready. I handed him my credit card and I look above the cash register on the wall and it said goals for the week. It read, oil changes – so many; air filters – so many; PCV valves – so many. I said to the manager, ‘Wow, that’s interesting, the goals for the week. Where do you get those?’ He said, ‘We get them from the home office; they fax them down to us every week on Monday and we work to meet them between Monday through Saturday.’ I said, ‘Interesting. Do you get paid a bonus on those?’ He said, ‘Oh, absolutely, I get a bonus and the guys out in the shop get a bonus too.’ I said, ‘Really, interesting. How are you doing?’ He said, ‘You know, not too bad. We are a little behind on PCV valves, but we’re catching up.’
Pay-for-performance can create an environment that generates unintended consequences. The pressure to perform created by the monetary incentive to meet the goals set by the Jiffy Lube home office. In addition, the knowledge that his performance appraisal rating could suffer without meeting the goals added to the pressure. This pressure created an environment that caused the manager and employees to focus on themselves and not on the customer needs. These two policies create expensive dysfunction. We see this dysfunction over and over again in organizations. Another example includes the incentives that caused Fanny Mae, and Freddy Mack to encourage mortgages to be approved for people who could not afford the payments over the long–term. This dysfunction led to the collapse of the trust of the entire financial system in 2008.
The Interior Department’s Mineral Management Service had planned to present two safety awards at a luncheon approximately one month ago and days before the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and sank to the bottom of the Gulf started the largest oil spill in US history. The nominee for the safety awards was non-other than BP -- which operated the oil rig that sank in the Gulf of Mexico.
The awards ceremony was supposed to recognize "outstanding safety and pollution prevention performance by the offshore oil and gas industry." BP was nominated for its work on the outer continental shelf.
The big winner of the 2009 SAFE award was Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig that exploded last month under BP's management. BP was also a finalist at the 2009 conference.
In 1975, Congress enacted Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations to reduce gasoline consumption. Current CAFE standards require an average of 27.2 miles per gallon (mpg) for cars and 21.6 mpg for light trucks. Recent legislation signed by President Obama raises these standards. This seems like a good idea if you want reduced oil usage, a reduced dependence on foreign oil, and a reduction in greenhouse gases. These were the three major reasons to adopt the CAFÉ Standards.
Unfortunately, when you consider two unintended negative consequences you can conclude it was not only not worth it but it made things worse in other areas. The reduced cost of operation of a vehicle causes people to drive more miles. This actually does nothing to reduce oil consumption nor does it reduce greenhouse gases since the same miles driven cause the same amount of gases to be emitted (these were the two major intended outcomes of the legislation). Dependence on foreign oil has actually increased since 1975. Furthermore, to meet the CAFÉ standards, the auto industry lightened the vehicle weights causing greater damage during collisions. This caused approximately 2,000 additional deaths every year since the standards were adopted.
Instead of relying on these control techniques of pay-for-performance and the performance appraisal (or awards based on competition) an organization could instead study its processes, uncover innovative ways to improve performance. Those who rely on pay-for-performance and the performance appraisal for improvement embraces the belief that people would do nothing without incentives or threats. Unreasonable goals will create cheating or exaggeration as with Jiffy Lube. Easy goals create de-motivation. Either way we are paying more for more dysfunction. Why not just work as a team to continuously improve? Furthermore, why not embrace the belief that people are willing and able to make improvements and innovate without threats or bribes.
Be careful with pay-for-performance measures performance appraisal policies. They often do nothing to create improvement and often combine to create worse results than if you had done nothing.
About 4 to 5 years ago, I used to go to Jiffy Lube when ever I need a quick oil change. I like taking care of my car so I get the oil changed exactly on time as best as I can.
One day I was there and the manager came to me. He said, ‘Mr. Hauck, you need a new PCV valve.’ I said, ‘What is that?’ He explained that’s an item that helps with emissions and I really need to replace it. I said, ‘Well wait a minute. I just had the car at the dealer and they inspect everything. Are you sure I need that?’ He said, ‘Oh absolutely; look how dirty this one is.’ And he rubbed his thumb across it and showed me his thumb and it was covered with a black smudge. I said, ‘Ok, how much is it?’ ‘$15’. I said, ‘Ok, fine put it in.’
I am at the cash register and my car is ready. I handed him my credit card and I look above the cash register on the wall and it said goals for the week. It read, oil changes – so many; air filters – so many; PCV valves – so many. I said to the manager, ‘Wow, that’s interesting, the goals for the week. Where do you get those?’ He said, ‘We get them from the home office; they fax them down to us every week on Monday and we work to meet them between Monday through Saturday.’ I said, ‘Interesting. Do you get paid a bonus on those?’ He said, ‘Oh, absolutely, I get a bonus and the guys out in the shop get a bonus too.’ I said, ‘Really, interesting. How are you doing?’ He said, ‘You know, not too bad. We are a little behind on PCV valves, but we’re catching up.’
Pay-for-performance can create an environment that generates unintended consequences. The pressure to perform created by the monetary incentive to meet the goals set by the Jiffy Lube home office. In addition, the knowledge that his performance appraisal rating could suffer without meeting the goals added to the pressure. This pressure created an environment that caused the manager and employees to focus on themselves and not on the customer needs. These two policies create expensive dysfunction. We see this dysfunction over and over again in organizations. Another example includes the incentives that caused Fanny Mae, and Freddy Mack to encourage mortgages to be approved for people who could not afford the payments over the long–term. This dysfunction led to the collapse of the trust of the entire financial system in 2008.
The Interior Department’s Mineral Management Service had planned to present two safety awards at a luncheon approximately one month ago and days before the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded and sank to the bottom of the Gulf started the largest oil spill in US history. The nominee for the safety awards was non-other than BP -- which operated the oil rig that sank in the Gulf of Mexico.
The awards ceremony was supposed to recognize "outstanding safety and pollution prevention performance by the offshore oil and gas industry." BP was nominated for its work on the outer continental shelf.
The big winner of the 2009 SAFE award was Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon rig that exploded last month under BP's management. BP was also a finalist at the 2009 conference.
In 1975, Congress enacted Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) regulations to reduce gasoline consumption. Current CAFE standards require an average of 27.2 miles per gallon (mpg) for cars and 21.6 mpg for light trucks. Recent legislation signed by President Obama raises these standards. This seems like a good idea if you want reduced oil usage, a reduced dependence on foreign oil, and a reduction in greenhouse gases. These were the three major reasons to adopt the CAFÉ Standards.
Unfortunately, when you consider two unintended negative consequences you can conclude it was not only not worth it but it made things worse in other areas. The reduced cost of operation of a vehicle causes people to drive more miles. This actually does nothing to reduce oil consumption nor does it reduce greenhouse gases since the same miles driven cause the same amount of gases to be emitted (these were the two major intended outcomes of the legislation). Dependence on foreign oil has actually increased since 1975. Furthermore, to meet the CAFÉ standards, the auto industry lightened the vehicle weights causing greater damage during collisions. This caused approximately 2,000 additional deaths every year since the standards were adopted.
Instead of relying on these control techniques of pay-for-performance and the performance appraisal (or awards based on competition) an organization could instead study its processes, uncover innovative ways to improve performance. Those who rely on pay-for-performance and the performance appraisal for improvement embraces the belief that people would do nothing without incentives or threats. Unreasonable goals will create cheating or exaggeration as with Jiffy Lube. Easy goals create de-motivation. Either way we are paying more for more dysfunction. Why not just work as a team to continuously improve? Furthermore, why not embrace the belief that people are willing and able to make improvements and innovate without threats or bribes.
Be careful with pay-for-performance measures performance appraisal policies. They often do nothing to create improvement and often combine to create worse results than if you had done nothing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
