Wow, there are a whole host of services and articles to help managers with difficult employees. When you do a Google search you can find an overabundance of articles.
An engaged employee is one who has a positive emotional connection that naturally causes him/her to exert greater discretionary effort. A difficult employee is one who is actively disengaged. They are a recruiter for inappropriate behaviors and poor performance. They are a “Pied Piper” of dysfunction. The actively disengaged avoid effort and actively enroll others to join them in their poor performance. Difficult employees create tremendous waste in all its forms including managers’ time, lost productivity for other workers, and even damaged customer relationships. I guess this is why there are so many books and articles for how to address them.
But, what is the root cause of these employees and what percentage of responsibility do managers have for the root causes? When my first wife and I were having problems we visited a marriage counselor. He asked me what percentage responsibility I thought I had for the marital dysfunction. I had never thought about that question before until that moment. It took me a while to answer and I think I told him “around 10%.” He then asked, “Don’t you think you own at least 50%?” It took me a while to realize I had contributed to the dysfunction. I believe managers with difficult employees are similarly in denial.
There are only two major sources of difficult employees. They were either hired that way or they evolved into dysfunctional by working at the company. Either way the managers have a significant responsibility for both of these sources. Think about it. Managers control the hiring process and the policies, procedures, and processes of the organization.
Is it fair to say that a manager controls the hiring process? Doesn’t a manger own at least 50% responsibility for hiring someone who is difficult? Of course managers don’t purposely hire the disengaged but that’s not the point. Even if the employee is a great actor and hides their dysfunction, isn’t the manager responsible for having a predictable hiring process that can uncover this secret?
Furthermore, who has more control of the working environment than the management? If the environment contributed to the dysfunction shouldn’t the manager take a higher percentage of the responsibility for this as well? A manager’s number one job is to create the proper context for productive and high quality work, correct?
I have a Blackberry. I sync it often with my Outlook files as many people do. It started giving me an error message during the synch process. I got very angry and called Verizon and started demanding service. “Why should it just suddenly stop working?” I asked. The customer service person was very cordial and walked me through a series of steps to back up my data and then wipe clean the devise so it could synch properly. She told me it was probably a corrupt piece of data. I was upset and impatient.
After walking through all the steps I was able to synch again without incident. That is when it dawned on me. I had accidently disconnected the devise during a synch earlier in the day. I received a call in the middle of the synch process and forgot to keep the devise connected when I answered the call. I had actually caused the corrupted files. I was a cause of the dysfunction.
I believe mangers are a significant cause of difficult employees. They either hire them that way or they create them with unknowing dysfunction of their own. If you are a manager go ahead and read all those books and articles that focus on what you can do to change the employee but I also advise you to start looking at your behaviors and decisions for the real root causes. I advise you to take at least 50% responsibility for these actively disengaged. Make sure you check your hiring processes and your working environment for dysfunction. I bet you will find a huge opportunity to change some things you are doing to cause the problems.
Thursday, December 30, 2010
Monday, December 27, 2010
It Should Be Human Potential Leadership Not Human Resources Management
We have all seen Einstein’s quote about change. He said, “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” This tells me we can’t dissolve a problem until we find a new way of thinking about it. We must change our thinking first otherwise will resurface again later.
What problem should we address that will make the most difference for American businesses today? I want to help organizations dissolve the employee engagement problem. Engaged employees have an emotional connection to work. They voluntarily exert extra effort into their work. They do this without being threatened, bribed or even asked. To make us more competitive on the global stage we must improve our employee engagement. Improvement in technology can help but it is not the full answer. We must tap into every heart and mind of every employee in order to catch up to the Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans etc. Our average engagement in the USA is around 26%. That is a problem.
If we are to follow Einstein’s advice, we must begin to think differently? The fastest way to change your thinking is to change your language. I have a suggestion for my Human Resources Management friends. Change your name from Human Resource Management Department to Human Potential Leadership Department.
When we look up the word resources in the dictionary we find a source of supply or a means of spending. This definition suggests a limit or a finite amount. Human Potential Leadership suggests unlimited supply. The dictionary clarifies this with the words “possibility and development”. The greatest sin a leader can commit is not allowing people to achieve their full potential.
There can be three elements within the Human Potential Leadership paradigm:
• Leadership of the Context
• Management of Processes
• Self-management by all the people
Leadership of the context means an environment that allows everyone to reach their full potential. This environment has freedom and choice and encourages to self-management of employees’ own behavior. This type of environment naturally rewards (not with money but with learning and intrinsic rewards) self-reliance, problem solving, and learning. It demands a clear vision, aim and strategy for optimum action and faster decision making. It avoids dependence on management for everyday decisions that are required to solve everyday type problems.
Management of processes means just that. Notice I did not mention management of people. Instead everyone is already naturally involved with managing their own processes and their own interactions within those processes. This means everyone is clear about their hand offs to internal and external customers. They know how to use quality improvement tools and they apply the tools every day to improve those hand offs.
Self-management refers to the creation of trust through consistent behavior. This behavior is in alignment with natural principles and values. It refers to emotional intelligence. It means treating everyone with respect in every situation. It means social responsibility and full transparency without negative consequences. It means full integrity with everything.
This new language opens up all new possibilities. It naturally sloughs off unnecessary ineffective policies such as the current dysfunctional performance appraisal process. With self-management, leadership of the context, and management of process the current appraisal process is obsolete. This new paradigm demands more sophisticated methods of interaction.
Surely the Human Potential Leadership Department will be in a much better position than the Human Resource Department to improve employee engagement and to solve that lingering problem.
What problem should we address that will make the most difference for American businesses today? I want to help organizations dissolve the employee engagement problem. Engaged employees have an emotional connection to work. They voluntarily exert extra effort into their work. They do this without being threatened, bribed or even asked. To make us more competitive on the global stage we must improve our employee engagement. Improvement in technology can help but it is not the full answer. We must tap into every heart and mind of every employee in order to catch up to the Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans etc. Our average engagement in the USA is around 26%. That is a problem.
If we are to follow Einstein’s advice, we must begin to think differently? The fastest way to change your thinking is to change your language. I have a suggestion for my Human Resources Management friends. Change your name from Human Resource Management Department to Human Potential Leadership Department.
When we look up the word resources in the dictionary we find a source of supply or a means of spending. This definition suggests a limit or a finite amount. Human Potential Leadership suggests unlimited supply. The dictionary clarifies this with the words “possibility and development”. The greatest sin a leader can commit is not allowing people to achieve their full potential.
There can be three elements within the Human Potential Leadership paradigm:
• Leadership of the Context
• Management of Processes
• Self-management by all the people
Leadership of the context means an environment that allows everyone to reach their full potential. This environment has freedom and choice and encourages to self-management of employees’ own behavior. This type of environment naturally rewards (not with money but with learning and intrinsic rewards) self-reliance, problem solving, and learning. It demands a clear vision, aim and strategy for optimum action and faster decision making. It avoids dependence on management for everyday decisions that are required to solve everyday type problems.
Management of processes means just that. Notice I did not mention management of people. Instead everyone is already naturally involved with managing their own processes and their own interactions within those processes. This means everyone is clear about their hand offs to internal and external customers. They know how to use quality improvement tools and they apply the tools every day to improve those hand offs.
Self-management refers to the creation of trust through consistent behavior. This behavior is in alignment with natural principles and values. It refers to emotional intelligence. It means treating everyone with respect in every situation. It means social responsibility and full transparency without negative consequences. It means full integrity with everything.
This new language opens up all new possibilities. It naturally sloughs off unnecessary ineffective policies such as the current dysfunctional performance appraisal process. With self-management, leadership of the context, and management of process the current appraisal process is obsolete. This new paradigm demands more sophisticated methods of interaction.
Surely the Human Potential Leadership Department will be in a much better position than the Human Resource Department to improve employee engagement and to solve that lingering problem.
Friday, December 24, 2010
The Language of Employee Engagement: Stop Using “Drive” Start Using “Facilitate”
If you have time look up the definition of the word “drive.” You may be surprised with the results. The first definition in the Merriam-Webster online is to “frighten or prod in a desired direction.” Most of the rest of the choices in definition included the words “force” or “cause.”
Very often I see articles about improving employee performance or employee engagement with titles that include the word drive: “How to Drive Performance… or How to Drive Employee Engagement… etc.” Is “drive” the correct word to use? Is this the most useful thinking for an effective leader?
A leader’s language is a reflection of how he/she thinks. How the leader thinks will determine his/her actions. How a leader thinks about people and problems determines the decisions he/she makes and the policies he/she support.
Stop using “Drive”
Some of the language we use doesn’t fit the employee engagement model. Our language often damages engagement without our knowledge. Drive is one of those words to avoid because it suggests thoughts and encourages actions that are contrary to those required to sustain employee engagement. Engagement is a delicate condition that can easily be damaged, often unknowingly. Engagement is a subjective emotional state within the minds of employees. It can be quite fleeting if the conditions in the environment don’t consistently support it.
Recently, while delivering a training program at a client, the manager told me he needed to step out of the training to participate in a staff meeting because an employee had “acted out” the day before and the staff needed to be reminded “that type of behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.” I asked him how long the meeting would take and therefore, how long he would be out of the training. He said, “15 minutes at most.” He was out over 45 minutes. His excuse for being late was his senior management needed to discuss other issues that would help drive performance.
Instead of making it easier for my participant to gain fully from my training program his managers put up a road block by forcing him to stay later than his agreement with me. They needed to "drive" his performance. This type of leadership sends mixed messages to employees. Mixed messages can damage engagement. Think about it for a moment, would you have been more engaged or less engaged by those decisions and mixed messages? Furthermore, sending mixed messages and limiting employee choices can often create “acting out” behavior the very reason for the meeting in the first place.
Start Using “Facilitate”
To facilitate means to make easier. In contrast, driving means to frighten or prod. Which do you think creates greater, more predictable, and more sustainable employee engagement “driving or facilitating” performance? Which will create greater results?
Leaders who think in terms of “driving performance” will have a tendency to take action first and insist their employees take action. In a “drive” environment often the action the employee must take is often the one his/her manager insists upon.
These “drive” leaders will look for heroes (or heroines) who fix problems so they can be rewarded. I have seen how this type of leadership encourages some high performers to actually create problems so they can step in a fix them to get credit or rewards. This is only one unintended consequence of talent management programs. These leaders will reward action over reflection. They will reward results over relationships.
Leaders who drive performance tend to have less trust and create a “management dependent” environment instead of a “self-management” environment. Management dependent means employees rely too heavily on what management wants. This slows response to change and, at worst, can lead to a bureaucracy. In contrast, a “self-management” environment allows employees freedom to act within a context (set of parameters). This accelerates decision making and problem solving.
Leaders who facilitate look for employees who can fix the root causes so problems don’t re-surface. They value reflection as much as action. They understand that learning can only occur with action combined with reflection. Facilitator leaders trust their people. They place a greater value on predictable processes than they do on identifying heroes through talent management.
Leaders who are facilitators listen more and learn more. They are able to identify new ideas that often come from their employees. They recognize and value an emotionally healthy environment. They are willing to allow people to “self-manage”. They spend more time on strategic thinking and less time on people problems.
Start using the word facilitate in place of the word drive. It will make a huge difference in how you think about your role as a leader. It will open up new ways to working with people and will create new opportunities for improvement.
Very often I see articles about improving employee performance or employee engagement with titles that include the word drive: “How to Drive Performance… or How to Drive Employee Engagement… etc.” Is “drive” the correct word to use? Is this the most useful thinking for an effective leader?
A leader’s language is a reflection of how he/she thinks. How the leader thinks will determine his/her actions. How a leader thinks about people and problems determines the decisions he/she makes and the policies he/she support.
Stop using “Drive”
Some of the language we use doesn’t fit the employee engagement model. Our language often damages engagement without our knowledge. Drive is one of those words to avoid because it suggests thoughts and encourages actions that are contrary to those required to sustain employee engagement. Engagement is a delicate condition that can easily be damaged, often unknowingly. Engagement is a subjective emotional state within the minds of employees. It can be quite fleeting if the conditions in the environment don’t consistently support it.
Recently, while delivering a training program at a client, the manager told me he needed to step out of the training to participate in a staff meeting because an employee had “acted out” the day before and the staff needed to be reminded “that type of behavior is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.” I asked him how long the meeting would take and therefore, how long he would be out of the training. He said, “15 minutes at most.” He was out over 45 minutes. His excuse for being late was his senior management needed to discuss other issues that would help drive performance.
Instead of making it easier for my participant to gain fully from my training program his managers put up a road block by forcing him to stay later than his agreement with me. They needed to "drive" his performance. This type of leadership sends mixed messages to employees. Mixed messages can damage engagement. Think about it for a moment, would you have been more engaged or less engaged by those decisions and mixed messages? Furthermore, sending mixed messages and limiting employee choices can often create “acting out” behavior the very reason for the meeting in the first place.
Start Using “Facilitate”
To facilitate means to make easier. In contrast, driving means to frighten or prod. Which do you think creates greater, more predictable, and more sustainable employee engagement “driving or facilitating” performance? Which will create greater results?
Leaders who think in terms of “driving performance” will have a tendency to take action first and insist their employees take action. In a “drive” environment often the action the employee must take is often the one his/her manager insists upon.
These “drive” leaders will look for heroes (or heroines) who fix problems so they can be rewarded. I have seen how this type of leadership encourages some high performers to actually create problems so they can step in a fix them to get credit or rewards. This is only one unintended consequence of talent management programs. These leaders will reward action over reflection. They will reward results over relationships.
Leaders who drive performance tend to have less trust and create a “management dependent” environment instead of a “self-management” environment. Management dependent means employees rely too heavily on what management wants. This slows response to change and, at worst, can lead to a bureaucracy. In contrast, a “self-management” environment allows employees freedom to act within a context (set of parameters). This accelerates decision making and problem solving.
Leaders who facilitate look for employees who can fix the root causes so problems don’t re-surface. They value reflection as much as action. They understand that learning can only occur with action combined with reflection. Facilitator leaders trust their people. They place a greater value on predictable processes than they do on identifying heroes through talent management.
Leaders who are facilitators listen more and learn more. They are able to identify new ideas that often come from their employees. They recognize and value an emotionally healthy environment. They are willing to allow people to “self-manage”. They spend more time on strategic thinking and less time on people problems.
Start using the word facilitate in place of the word drive. It will make a huge difference in how you think about your role as a leader. It will open up new ways to working with people and will create new opportunities for improvement.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Engagement and Synergy: A Marriage Made for Innovation
The driest place on earth is in South America. The Chilean dessert of Atacama is on the western cost of Chile and spans 600 miles. There are many reasons for this strange meteorological anomaly but that is not the real story. The real story is that life thrives in this dessert. Why? It’s because of the interaction and synergy between the cool water and the hot air of the dessert.
Each morning the cool water in the Pacific at the 24th parallel creates a cool breeze that drifts over the warm sun dried land of the Atacama. A thick fog is created and settles on the arid sun baked land. The cacti and other plants serve as hosts for the moisture in the fog and it condenses on the plants. The plants absorb it and the animals drink it up off the outside of these hosts just before it is either consumed or evaporates.
Rain hasn’t fallen on this dessert in any measurable amount since measurements were started yet life thrives. Without rain life still exists. Why? The interaction between the cool water, the hot air, and heated earth create moisture that is shared by all. This is a great metaphor for how an effective leader and a successful organization can operate.
Often leaders and employees have opposite personalities yet they must work together to solve problems. They can choose to be in conflict and avoid each other or they can choose to optimize their communications to create synergy. By creating quality interactions between two people of oppose styles new ideas can emerge that were never expected.
Synergy is cooperative interactions between two or more people (or objects) that result in solutions or ideas that would have been impossible if the individuals tried to create them on their own. Synergy produces innovation.
On its own, the cool water could not create fog. On its own, the hot air or earth could not sustain life. Together they can create an environment that does both.
Too often leaders use talent management alone to create innovation. Improving the quality of individuals alone will not create synergy. Improving the quality of interactions between people is more important and that should be the focus of a great leader.
Stop trying to improve your individual employees. Instead focus on improving the quality of how they interact. Miracles can happen.
Each morning the cool water in the Pacific at the 24th parallel creates a cool breeze that drifts over the warm sun dried land of the Atacama. A thick fog is created and settles on the arid sun baked land. The cacti and other plants serve as hosts for the moisture in the fog and it condenses on the plants. The plants absorb it and the animals drink it up off the outside of these hosts just before it is either consumed or evaporates.
Rain hasn’t fallen on this dessert in any measurable amount since measurements were started yet life thrives. Without rain life still exists. Why? The interaction between the cool water, the hot air, and heated earth create moisture that is shared by all. This is a great metaphor for how an effective leader and a successful organization can operate.
Often leaders and employees have opposite personalities yet they must work together to solve problems. They can choose to be in conflict and avoid each other or they can choose to optimize their communications to create synergy. By creating quality interactions between two people of oppose styles new ideas can emerge that were never expected.
Synergy is cooperative interactions between two or more people (or objects) that result in solutions or ideas that would have been impossible if the individuals tried to create them on their own. Synergy produces innovation.
On its own, the cool water could not create fog. On its own, the hot air or earth could not sustain life. Together they can create an environment that does both.
Too often leaders use talent management alone to create innovation. Improving the quality of individuals alone will not create synergy. Improving the quality of interactions between people is more important and that should be the focus of a great leader.
Stop trying to improve your individual employees. Instead focus on improving the quality of how they interact. Miracles can happen.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Creating Dysfunction Instead of Engagement in Three Easy Steps
Samuel Johnson once said, fraud dreads examination but truth invites it. The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority is dreading the next steps in the investigation on safety inspections. In a recent Wall Street Journal report the MTA admitted that their workers failed to do the required tests and maintenance on its subway signals. Furthermore, managers failed to properly manage the workers and failed to put processes in place to prevent them from filing the false reports.
This is serious. Proper functioning signals will prevent delays and PREVENT ACCIDENTS. Proper functioning signals will stop a train if an operator misses a red light. What would cause a worker to commit fraud on something so important? Workers submitting false reports put passengers, the MTA, and themselves in danger. What would cause workers to be so dysfunctional? Three simple steps can easily do it:
1. Set stretch numerical goals beyond capabilities
2. Hold people accountable to those goals
3. Rely on inspection to catch errors
Many organization set stretch numerical goals that are often beyond some capabilities. This causes employees to take short-cuts. This is exactly what the MTA workers did. Most of the problems occurred on the highest traffic areas because high traffic makes it much more difficult to do maintenance. Workers need to dodge trains more frequently to ensure their own safety during the tasks. Furthermore, the tasks of inspection and maintenance are arduous and complex.
Many organizations attempt to hold people accountable to overly challenging tasks or goals without knowing what the outcome will be. This is exactly what the MTA did. This creates dysfunction because it forces workers to either make short-cuts. They must achieve what management expects or risk being criticized for not doing their job and therefore receive a lower performance evaluation rating. This is not the only place where this dysfunction plays out. Our high school (and college) students admit succumbing pressure to perform by cheating. Depending upon the study, 80-95% of students admit to surrendering to the cheating option.
Inspection is important but not as a way to ensure compliance. Inspection should be used to uncover important knowledge about how to improve the processes. It should not be used as a club to threaten employees with punishment. According to the article, the MTA’s inspector general will now look for those individuals responsible for falsifying the reports. I wonder how much truth he/she will get with that approach.
Why not develop engagement instead? What should the MTA management do to improve safety, reduce costs and improve maintenance quality? The short answer is to engage the workers in creating the solutions and stop trying to catch them doing things wrong. Here are a few basic steps:
• Use the current inspection data to identify where and how the improvements to the maintenance process can be improved.
• Engage the workers to help improve the process while helping them to feel safe and helping improve their productivity. Make it safe for them to tell the truth without fear of reprisal.
• Take their recommendations and fix their processes.
• Stop using inspection as a club and start using it to increase the knowledge of the MTA to improve the processes again.
Are you creating dysfunction and then looking for the offenders so you can hit them with the inspection club? Stop. It is only hurting everyone. It is not leadership. It is dysfunction in three easy steps.
This is serious. Proper functioning signals will prevent delays and PREVENT ACCIDENTS. Proper functioning signals will stop a train if an operator misses a red light. What would cause a worker to commit fraud on something so important? Workers submitting false reports put passengers, the MTA, and themselves in danger. What would cause workers to be so dysfunctional? Three simple steps can easily do it:
1. Set stretch numerical goals beyond capabilities
2. Hold people accountable to those goals
3. Rely on inspection to catch errors
Many organization set stretch numerical goals that are often beyond some capabilities. This causes employees to take short-cuts. This is exactly what the MTA workers did. Most of the problems occurred on the highest traffic areas because high traffic makes it much more difficult to do maintenance. Workers need to dodge trains more frequently to ensure their own safety during the tasks. Furthermore, the tasks of inspection and maintenance are arduous and complex.
Many organizations attempt to hold people accountable to overly challenging tasks or goals without knowing what the outcome will be. This is exactly what the MTA did. This creates dysfunction because it forces workers to either make short-cuts. They must achieve what management expects or risk being criticized for not doing their job and therefore receive a lower performance evaluation rating. This is not the only place where this dysfunction plays out. Our high school (and college) students admit succumbing pressure to perform by cheating. Depending upon the study, 80-95% of students admit to surrendering to the cheating option.
Inspection is important but not as a way to ensure compliance. Inspection should be used to uncover important knowledge about how to improve the processes. It should not be used as a club to threaten employees with punishment. According to the article, the MTA’s inspector general will now look for those individuals responsible for falsifying the reports. I wonder how much truth he/she will get with that approach.
Why not develop engagement instead? What should the MTA management do to improve safety, reduce costs and improve maintenance quality? The short answer is to engage the workers in creating the solutions and stop trying to catch them doing things wrong. Here are a few basic steps:
• Use the current inspection data to identify where and how the improvements to the maintenance process can be improved.
• Engage the workers to help improve the process while helping them to feel safe and helping improve their productivity. Make it safe for them to tell the truth without fear of reprisal.
• Take their recommendations and fix their processes.
• Stop using inspection as a club and start using it to increase the knowledge of the MTA to improve the processes again.
Are you creating dysfunction and then looking for the offenders so you can hit them with the inspection club? Stop. It is only hurting everyone. It is not leadership. It is dysfunction in three easy steps.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Leaders Can Learn Principles of Engagement from The Lord of the Rings
I was watching the Lord of the Rings the other night. It was the first of the trilogy, The Fellowship of the Ring. The fellowship is made up of 9 very different characters of various ages and races. They all agree, voluntarily, to risk life and limb to destroy the ring by returning it to Mount Doom in Mordor. How do the members become so engaged in the face of such danger? The answer to this question can help us uncover key principles that any of us can use to create voluntary engagement in our organizations.
The principle is there must be a very “big why” to create cooperation. The Council of Elrond decides that the threat of Sauron is too great. The Council describes, to the characters, the history behind the threat, the consequences of the continued threat, and the benefits that will be realized when the ring is destroyed.
In an organization, once a strategic initiative is chosen by the leaders, the Senior Leader(s) can explain why the initiative is so important. He/she can explain the history, the consequences if we fail and the benefits if we succeed. These explanations can be delivered in the different “languages” of the different people depending upon individual needs or “languages” (not necessarily English vs. Spanish for example but also different departments have different ways of interpreting concepts).
The “big why” is brought to life by providing a clear picture, or vision, to constituents. Frodo is given a clear picture of what the Shire will look like if he doesn’t take the ring to Mordor. He sees his cousins in chains and his wonderful peaceful home in flames.
Too often leaders just assume that everyone understands the strategic initiative in the same way they do. Too often the leaders are too close to the issues because they discuss them and live with them for days before an initiative is chosen. Most employees are far behind in their understanding. They need to be given time and energy to help them catch up. They each may need a different explanation of the vision that they can personally relate to. Too often leaders interpret the resistance to the change as “difficult people”. Most often it is because the explanations provided by the leaders were inadequate.
Frodo stepped forward. He volunteered to take the ring to Modor. He asked for help. “I don’t know the way” he explained. He saw his role clearly because no one else had the proper character to resist the evil of the ring. He saw the in-fighting within the Fellowship continuing if he didn’t step forward. He realized without him, the ring would live on.
Once Frodo stepped forward the others could see how they could help bring their own special tools and talents to accomplish the initiative.
Leaders who understand the strengths of their people and allow them to fulfill roles, that best serve not just their own passions and strengths but also serve the organization, will optimize employee engagement. By clearly explaining the roles and responsibilities, the risks of the specific roles, allowing people to step up and volunteer, trusting people’s judgment, avoiding authoritarian decisions as much as possible, and explaining how you will support them while minimizing criticism a leader begins to build the initial engagement needed to begin positive action on the initiative.
Maybe I was just over tired or maybe just in a weird mood but I saw key principles of truth in the movie. Perhaps you can see those too and more importantly perhaps you can implement them in your organization. Maybe it’s just me but I believe running a business today is very much like a trip through Middle-earth where Orcs and Ringwraiths can attack at any time. We need a fellowship of engagement to help us.
The principle is there must be a very “big why” to create cooperation. The Council of Elrond decides that the threat of Sauron is too great. The Council describes, to the characters, the history behind the threat, the consequences of the continued threat, and the benefits that will be realized when the ring is destroyed.
In an organization, once a strategic initiative is chosen by the leaders, the Senior Leader(s) can explain why the initiative is so important. He/she can explain the history, the consequences if we fail and the benefits if we succeed. These explanations can be delivered in the different “languages” of the different people depending upon individual needs or “languages” (not necessarily English vs. Spanish for example but also different departments have different ways of interpreting concepts).
The “big why” is brought to life by providing a clear picture, or vision, to constituents. Frodo is given a clear picture of what the Shire will look like if he doesn’t take the ring to Mordor. He sees his cousins in chains and his wonderful peaceful home in flames.
Too often leaders just assume that everyone understands the strategic initiative in the same way they do. Too often the leaders are too close to the issues because they discuss them and live with them for days before an initiative is chosen. Most employees are far behind in their understanding. They need to be given time and energy to help them catch up. They each may need a different explanation of the vision that they can personally relate to. Too often leaders interpret the resistance to the change as “difficult people”. Most often it is because the explanations provided by the leaders were inadequate.
Frodo stepped forward. He volunteered to take the ring to Modor. He asked for help. “I don’t know the way” he explained. He saw his role clearly because no one else had the proper character to resist the evil of the ring. He saw the in-fighting within the Fellowship continuing if he didn’t step forward. He realized without him, the ring would live on.
Once Frodo stepped forward the others could see how they could help bring their own special tools and talents to accomplish the initiative.
Leaders who understand the strengths of their people and allow them to fulfill roles, that best serve not just their own passions and strengths but also serve the organization, will optimize employee engagement. By clearly explaining the roles and responsibilities, the risks of the specific roles, allowing people to step up and volunteer, trusting people’s judgment, avoiding authoritarian decisions as much as possible, and explaining how you will support them while minimizing criticism a leader begins to build the initial engagement needed to begin positive action on the initiative.
Maybe I was just over tired or maybe just in a weird mood but I saw key principles of truth in the movie. Perhaps you can see those too and more importantly perhaps you can implement them in your organization. Maybe it’s just me but I believe running a business today is very much like a trip through Middle-earth where Orcs and Ringwraiths can attack at any time. We need a fellowship of engagement to help us.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Be More Competitive with Self-Management: How Talent management Can Create Dependency and Poor Performance Long-term
There is an important distinction between self- management and manger-dependent management. Most organizations have a manager-dependent environment. This is when the manager must provide feedback to employees in order to create improved performance.
A manager-dependent environment encourages employees wait to receive ideas for improvement from their managers before making any significant changes in performance. This type of environment creates more fear and less innovation. Self-Management increases employee engagement. Employees create their own feedback mechanisms and can act autonomously. This accelerates the decisions and therefore accelerates the ability to adapt to changes.
When my daughter Emily was 12, one morning she missed her school bus. She was very upset and came downstairs to my office crying, “Dad, I missed the bus. Can you take me to school?” Of course I agreed but then asked her a question, “what do you need to do to catch the bus on your own from now on?’ She looked at me in a thoroughly confused manner. At that moment I was not sure she could think of an idea.
When she arrived home that afternoon she said, “Dad, I thought about what you asked. If you buy me a timer I will set it 5 minutes before the bus arrives and if it goes off I will know I only have 5 minutes left. I can then easily catch the bus.”
I told her that sounded great. I also asked her what else she could do to be prepared in the morning. She said she would set her books out by the front door right before bed time. For the next 2-1/2 years she used this method and always caught the bus on time. She self-managed her ability to catch the bus by creating and following her own process.
To become more highly competitive organizations must ask employees to make more decisions on their own. A new book about the virtues of talent management has just been published. It reinforces the Jack Welch management methods. Welch insisted on providing frequent honest feedback with complete candor. In my experience managers don't have that kind of time to provide frequent feedback. They don’t have time to constantly be observing the employees. My point is managers should instead rely more on employee, trust them more, and facilitate them creating their own answers to their own problems just as my daughter was able to identify a way to catch her bus.
In order for employees to figure out ways to manage and measure their own performance, a leader needs to recognize that the existence of an authoritative structure, an authoritative policy like performance evaluations, and a management orthodoxy like talent management all work together to sustain a dysfunctional environment that prevents self-management from flourishing.
Effective managers should stop employees when they ask questions that perpetuate manager-dependency. Instead managers need to be courageous and trust that employees can create their own solutions. This requires courage because performance may suffer in the short run but the payoff in the long-term is worth it.
A leader’s first responsibility is to create an environment of autonomy. Talent management means a ranking of employees, rewarding the top performers and “yanking out” the poorer performers. This policy and practice creates unnecessary competition minimizing the opportunity for innovation.
Courageous leaders allow people to make decisions within the proper context. A leader can clarify the vision and the purpose of the organization. Then by clarifying the strategic initiatives a leader can allow employees to create their own goals and objective. These goals can be aligned with the strategic initiatives to move the organization closer to that mission and vision. The autonomy is created and with autonomy comes choice. With choice comes engagement. With engagement comes performance. Self-management must replace manager-dependent management.
A manager-dependent environment encourages employees wait to receive ideas for improvement from their managers before making any significant changes in performance. This type of environment creates more fear and less innovation. Self-Management increases employee engagement. Employees create their own feedback mechanisms and can act autonomously. This accelerates the decisions and therefore accelerates the ability to adapt to changes.
When my daughter Emily was 12, one morning she missed her school bus. She was very upset and came downstairs to my office crying, “Dad, I missed the bus. Can you take me to school?” Of course I agreed but then asked her a question, “what do you need to do to catch the bus on your own from now on?’ She looked at me in a thoroughly confused manner. At that moment I was not sure she could think of an idea.
When she arrived home that afternoon she said, “Dad, I thought about what you asked. If you buy me a timer I will set it 5 minutes before the bus arrives and if it goes off I will know I only have 5 minutes left. I can then easily catch the bus.”
I told her that sounded great. I also asked her what else she could do to be prepared in the morning. She said she would set her books out by the front door right before bed time. For the next 2-1/2 years she used this method and always caught the bus on time. She self-managed her ability to catch the bus by creating and following her own process.
To become more highly competitive organizations must ask employees to make more decisions on their own. A new book about the virtues of talent management has just been published. It reinforces the Jack Welch management methods. Welch insisted on providing frequent honest feedback with complete candor. In my experience managers don't have that kind of time to provide frequent feedback. They don’t have time to constantly be observing the employees. My point is managers should instead rely more on employee, trust them more, and facilitate them creating their own answers to their own problems just as my daughter was able to identify a way to catch her bus.
In order for employees to figure out ways to manage and measure their own performance, a leader needs to recognize that the existence of an authoritative structure, an authoritative policy like performance evaluations, and a management orthodoxy like talent management all work together to sustain a dysfunctional environment that prevents self-management from flourishing.
Effective managers should stop employees when they ask questions that perpetuate manager-dependency. Instead managers need to be courageous and trust that employees can create their own solutions. This requires courage because performance may suffer in the short run but the payoff in the long-term is worth it.
A leader’s first responsibility is to create an environment of autonomy. Talent management means a ranking of employees, rewarding the top performers and “yanking out” the poorer performers. This policy and practice creates unnecessary competition minimizing the opportunity for innovation.
Courageous leaders allow people to make decisions within the proper context. A leader can clarify the vision and the purpose of the organization. Then by clarifying the strategic initiatives a leader can allow employees to create their own goals and objective. These goals can be aligned with the strategic initiatives to move the organization closer to that mission and vision. The autonomy is created and with autonomy comes choice. With choice comes engagement. With engagement comes performance. Self-management must replace manager-dependent management.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
