Managers need to be particularly careful when setting up measures that they actually drive the behavior that is desired. It sounds ridiculous to think a measure would actually drive people to do the wrong thing, but it happens in every organization on a daily basis. Be careful it does not happen to you. 

For example, in an effort to boost sales, the CEO instituted “number of sales calls” as a measure. This was based on historical data showing total revenue is highly correlated with the number of sales calls. Unfortunately, with the new measures in place, your sales team spends significantly less time and energy on each individual customer in order to get more sales calls accomplished. This reduces the “hit rate” at closing sales. You are pretty sure the data for this year will show a negative correlation between revenue and number of sales calls, but the measure will show a stellar year, and the sales team will be richly rewarded for making a lot of calls.

In an effort to reduce costs, a measure has been set to decrease the amount of rework in the factory. Rework has accounted for 30% of the product cost, and the goal is to cut that in half. So far the measure is on track, but you have discovered the inspectors are passing slightly defective product that would have been previously rejected. You are fearful that customer satisfaction will take a hit, but at least the level of rework measure will look good so workers will get their bonus.

One significant problem has arisen due to the measure selected for “employee satisfaction.” Based on some HR literature, the senior management has focused on training as the key driver of employee satisfaction. A strong link has been shown between training and motivated employees. Everyone in the organization must have at least 50 hours of training a year for the company to score well on the measure. You are finding that people are being forced to attend training they don’t want or need in order for the corporation to get a maximum score. However, the employees are very unhappy because nobody is there to backfill for the 50 hours they miss, so they have to work extra hard to make up the time. Of course, there is no overtime available because that is too costly. Employees seem really up in arms about this issue and are considering bringing in a union, but the measure is going to show outstanding “employee satisfaction” for the year.

It is critical for managers to verify that the behaviors being driven by the metrics on which people are being compensated are really helping  not hurting corporate performance.

The ruling paradigm on meetings is that they should be scheduled for one hour. If a manager sends a note to her administrative assistant to schedule a meeting sometime this week, he will instinctively assume the duration is one hour.

We come by this paradigm through convention, and it is an opportunity to challenge the status quo. Suppose the administration person scheduled the meeting for 50 minutes. What would be the outcome? In most organizations it would mean that everyone invited to the meeting saved at least 10 minutes. As a side benefit, the 50 minutes spent at the meeting would be far more productive because the standard paradigm has been broken.

There are numerous things that can be done to improve the time utilization at meetings, Here are seven of my favorite techniques;

Seven Antidotes:

1.  Suggest that the person leading the meeting be extremely mindful of the duration. After all, what we have at work is our time.
2.  Shock people into a realization of what is actually happening: Set up the meeting to start at 2:17 pm and end at 2:49 pm. That would be a 33 minute meeting (if my math is correct).
3. Put a premium on how the time is spent in meetings. Make sure the agenda is specific as to how much time will be devoted to each topic and stick to that schedule. Have a PITA assigned to keep things on track (PITA stands for Pain in the rear).
4. Acknowledge the need for important side issues, but do not let them derail the meeting. Handle them efficiently or find another venue to deal with them.
5. Start and end each meeting on time. Become known as a stickler for this. You can be courteous and bring stragglers up to speed on what has already been accomplished, but you are really enabling them to continue the practice. It is not polite to others to arrive late for meetings. It is also not polite to attendees for the leader to extend beyond the advertised finish time.
6. Have a set of expected behaviors for your meetings and post them. Hold each other accountable for abiding by these rules. Here is a favorite rule of mine. It is expected that when someone feels we are spinning our wheels or not making the best use of time, he or she will give the “time out” signal to the person running the meeting (finger tips of one hand touching the palm of the other hand). Nobody will be punished in any way for making this sign. It simply calls the question as to whether we are spending our time wisely right now.
7. Have some time set aside in each meeting to reinforce good behavior and feel good about things that are going well. If we spend 100% of our time dealing with the bad stuff that needs to be fixed, we will never smell the roses.

All these rules are common sense. It is too bad they are not common practice, because they help preserve our most critical resource: our time.

This is a great place to test your leadership capability. Outstanding leaders are expert at working the interface between levels. They clarify disconnects upward and interpret decisions downward. They recognize that there is always some tension between the layers, but find ways to keep things under control. Do this consistently and well and you will be among the elite leaders.

5 Tips to help you improve the interface between levels:

• Thoroughly understand the point of view of layers below you. Listen to input and test for understanding. Be careful to not let the views of the vocal few characterize the beliefs of the silent majority.

• Recognize that many of the desires of levels below you are human nature. What group would not want more pay, more personal freedom, more recognition, more time off, etc. Don’t discount these needs, but realize they are universal. Try to find more specific suggestions, and be alert for ideas that can be done without major investment. Often it’s the little things that can make a big difference to people.

• Interpreting these needs upward is also an art. Don’t be a whiner for your team. Clarify their needs accurately and objectively.

• Internalize the impact of management actions while they are being developed. Make sure top management knows how things will be perceived at lower levels before actions are announced. Avoid sounding negative in these discussions by offering possible alternative decisions or more creative ways of describing them. Ask questions instead of making blunt statements. For example, instead of saying, “They will interpret this as another attempt by management to line their own pockets,” you might offer, “Would it be better received if we coupled this announcement with the employee bonus plan?”

• Avoid being a “Chicken Little” in discussions with upper management. Ultimately, you need to support and sell these decisions downward, so work to influence your superiors. Do this from a viewpoint of “what is best for the business,” rather than “how to keep the masses from revolting.” Senior managers want to do what is best for the organization. They sometimes need help understanding the impact of poor decisions on their own destiny. You can be the voice of reason, but only if you maintain credibility and perspective.

Every day when people go to work in organizations, they give effort to further the cause of the group. That is about as much as we can say for the general population. The amount of effort as a percentage of what is available varies greatly from one person to another and from one organization to another. The effort for one particular person also varies significantly from one point in time to another.

Each of us has a vast storehouse of “discretionary” effort that we either give or withhold on a daily basis. Let’s examine the factors that govern why some people freely choose to give a lot more of their discretionary effort to their organization while others, equally qualified, habitually hold back most of their potential.

Of course, it has to do with motivation. On any given day, some of are motivated to go above and beyond the requirements and others are turned off. Can you imagine the power if there was a way to have most people in the organization fully engaged in the work most of the time? The result would be a huge productivity improvement for any organization.

The interesting thing to me is that the formula for giving maximum discretionary effort is different for each of us. No two people are completely alike, although there are many things that universally turn people off, the formula for turning an individual on is personal. What follows is a method to discover your key to maximum discretionary effort.

First, visualize a time in your life when you performed at a peak level for an extended period of time of your own free will. Remember the circumstances by which you compelled yourself to put forth incredible effort, often with little rest or breaks. Try to identify what it was in that set of circumstances that enabled you to perform at that level. Here are some examples of what people have thought of for this exercise:

• I had to do it because it needed to be done, and I was the only one that could do it.
• It was a huge challenge; I was told it was impossible.
• I felt empowered; finally I was cut loose to do it my way.
• It was just important for me to get this done.
• I was aspiring to prove something to myself.
• I had to show them what I was made of.
• It was do or die, so I did.
• My team believed in my, so I had to do it.
• I understood the goal and it was important to me.

Keep working at it until you have identified the true essence of what enabled you to perform at that level. Write it down in one single sentence.

The sentence you wrote will be your personal specification for giving your maximum discretionary effort. Many times in life you can configure work to align with this kind of statement. When you do, you will instinctively be performing with at least twice the productivity of your usual pace.

The beauty of this simple exercise comes when you do it as a group activity. I recall one meeting where I had a corporate Vice President with his whole team, and we did this exercise. It turns out the VP was most energized when he had to parachute into the jungle with a knife between his teeth. His subordinates were turned on when they were trusted and empowered to get things done in their own way. The ensuing discussion revealed why there had been so much tension in the organization. Subsequent retraining of the VP led to much higher performance among his direct reports.

You can do this experiment at any level in the organization. Not only will it help you understand yourself better, it will also give you new insight into how to lead your employees.

Assuming best intent is a simple concept that can save a lot of grief and acrimony in any organization. Human beings have a curious way of jumping to conclusions when something done by another person does not track with expectations. We jump to assign blame and think of all the evil things that might be behind the action. In doing so, we fail to take into account a myriad of alternate scenarios that might explain the paradox as being something more benign. We have all experienced this phenomenon, and there is a simple antidote. Assume the best intent rather than the worst.

A place to view this phenomenon most easily is in e-mail communication. One person will dash off a note and leave out a critical part of the background for an action. The person reading the note will say to himself, “Ed is clueless. He obviously is out to try to embarrass me with these statements. I don’t care if he is having a bad day or not, he has no business making these statements without getting his facts straight.” So, what started out as an innocent note from Ed, turns into the fuel for an e-grenade battle. The response coming back to Ed assumes the worst intent, so it is far off base in Ed’s mind. Ed writes back a blistering note, and we are off to the races.

Several days later, after numerous notes and escalating distribution lists some manager steps in and asks these two feuding juveniles to stop the food fight. All of this acrimony and conflict could have been avoided if the recipient of Ed’s first note assumed the best intent rather than the worst.

He would have gone over to Ed’s desk and said, “Your note was confusing to me. I am not sure I follow how you concluded there was no information coming out of my group.” Then Ed could have explained how that was not his message at all, the words just did not convey what he was trying to say. This gives Ed the chance to write a simple note of apology and clarification, which he is happy to do because he was approached in an adult manner.

This technique is helpful for all forms of communication, not just the online environment. If we teach people to assume the best intent whenever there is a disconnect, it prevents people from going off on each other inappropriately. This creates a significant reduction in conflict, and since conflict often gets amplified in the pressure cooker of the work environment, this little remedy can save a lot of hurtful turmoil.