Keep Values Simple

August 15, 2010

Simple Values

Few people would doubt the impact of a good set of values for any organization. Values provide a bedrock of beliefs on which leaders build the culture for their group. The true power of values lies in having everyone in the organization not only understand them but live them every day. That is why I believe it is a mistake to make the values too complex.

Some leaders get enamored by the idea of values and create a set of complex rules that would take a rocket scientist to remember. It is not uncommon to have a list of 20-30 values published by a leader. This sounds like a good idea on the surface; after all, the more values we have the better, right? Not so fast! If the list is cumbersome and hard to remember, then people will have a difficult time remembering them, much less following them every day.

Coach Krzyzewski of the Duke Basketball Program modeled a kind of philosophy with values that helps illustrate the power of a short memorable list. He has used the analogy of the “fist” with each finger being one powerful value that is used to create passion and unity among his teams. The fingers represent 1) Communication, 2) Trust, 3) Collective Responsibility, 4) Care, and 5) Pride. By centering all activities in relation to a powerful fist, Coach K has nurtured a consistent champion level team that has won two National Championships.

Another coach who understood the benefits of a simple philosophy of values was Lou Holtz. He took over 6 collegiate football programs in his career. He never inherited a winning team, but never failed to take that team to a Bowl Game by his second season at the latest. His values were boiled down to only three concepts: 1) Do what’s right, 2) Do the best you can, and 3) Treat others like you would like to be treated. The incredible simplicity of this philosophy made it easy to translate the passion embodied in these values into the hearts of all players. The results speak for themselves.

Simple but great values are not just for sports teams. Any organization will benefit from a memorable set of foundational concepts. My home town of Rochester, NY is blessed to be the home of Wegmans, one of the most successful chains of grocery stores in the world and a frequent top placement in the 100 best places to work in America. The current CEO, Colleen Wegman, said of their values, “We’re committed to our Who We Are Values because they set a strong foundation for us as a company – a foundation of caring about people and each other.” The Wegmans values are very simple: 1) Caring, 2) Respect, 3) High Standards, 4) Making a Difference, and 5) Empowerment.

If you are a leader in an organization, challenge your senior team to come up with a handful of powerful words that describe the essence of your core values. Keep the list of values short so everyone will remember and live them daily.

Simple Values

1 Comment | Candor creates trust, Communications, Enabling Actions, HR, Organization, Teamwork, Trust, Trust and motivation, Trust and respect, leadership | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by trustambassador

Improve Your E-Mail Openings

August 1, 2010

Humans have the ability to synthesize data with incredible precision. In his book, Blink, Malcolm Gladwell describes how human beings can form accurate impressions of situations and people based on just a tiny amount of data. Gladwell calls this “thin slicing,” which is the ability to sort out germane factors from a large array of data with lightning speed. Let’s look at the first few words of some example e-mail notes and see how people are likely to react to them.

• “Hi Alan” This is a friendly and neutral salutation that puts the reader in a happy place. Why? You have used the most important word in your reader’s vocabulary. You used his name along with the happy word, “Hi.” After those two words, your reader is subconsciously saying to himself, “This is going to be a nice note.”

• “Alan” Here you use his favorite word again, but without the word “Hi” or “Greetings,” your note starts out on a sober, stern, or businesslike note. Your reader is wondering whether he is going to get chewed out or get a raise.

• “So Alan” This is an alarming opening to an e-mail. The reader will instinctively cringe before even reading the third word. This is going to be rough. Either Alan has previously written something to upset you, or you have a serious question about something he has done.

• No name or greeting. Here you have lost an excellent opportunity to start your note with a polite greeting. Alan will usually not miss it on a conscious level, but he will be wary about the contents of your note until he reads further. Without the name as a courteous salutation, the first couple words will set the tone for better or worse. If you start with “Once again…” you are signaling that Alan is in trouble unless he knows you are thrilled with his most recent performance. At worst this is a trust withdrawal, and at best you have missed the opportunity for a trust deposit.

• “You dummy” There is no mistaking the tone of this greeting. Alan is going to put on his flack jacket before reading this note.

• “Bless you, Alan” This is the kind of note Alan will print out and put on his wall or take home to show his wife.

The words used to begin a note are the first “thin slice” of the tone for the entire e-mail. Make sure you get started on the right track. There is momentum when reading notes. If the reader starts out in a good frame of mind, things go more smoothly. If the opening is abrupt, curt, or is a blatant trust withdrawal, it will take a lot of honey in the rest of the note to make up for it.

It is like the difference between a conventional photograph and a hologram. If you take a photograph and cut out just a tiny piece of it, you will have only the data represented by that piece. If you cut out a tiny piece of a hologram and hold that piece up to the light, you will be able to see the entire image, only with less resolution than the larger hologram. Humans work the same way. If you have an entire note, you can study it and reveal great detail, but people can sense the body language in just a few words. The first few words of an e-mail are especially important.

Let me share an extreme example for clarity.

It is the first day of an online class. None of the students know each other yet. Allison is responding to a question about whether leaders are made or born. Here is a short section of her note:

• Allison writes: “I really do not believe there is any such thing as a natural-born leader. I believe that leadership is an acquired skill and can be improved constantly. When I was seventeen, I was promoted to shift manager. I was not a good leader to say the least.”

Another student (Roger, who has not yet exchanged notes with Allison) replied to her note as follows:

• Roger writes: “Allison wake up!!! How many seventeen-year-old kids are asked to be a manager??”

The note goes on, but for purposes of this illustration, these few words are all that is required. I believe Allison had Roger pegged after the first three words, and probably did not even read the rest of his note. If she did read it, she heavily discounted the information. To her credit, she did not take the bait and fire back a strong rebuttal. She just pretended the note never happened, which is a good strategy in a case like this.

Roger’s note was a blatant example of starting out in a way that completely alienates the other person. Usually the damage is more subtle, but the impact is similar. Here is another example of a note that begins poorly:

• “I really think you should be careful when you write, ‘people like you’ in a note. It tends to peg you as a bigot or someone who likes to put people in boxes.”

The first five words, “I really think you should,” give away the body language before the real content of the message is reached. After the opening phrase, the reader is prepared to get a lecture and reacts accordingly. Here is another version of the same message with a more constructive opening:

• “That was an insightful note. One possible upgrade is to avoid the phrase ‘people like you,’ because some people might find that offensive.”

The reader is more likely to absorb and heed the advice in the second note based on how it starts.

3 Comments | Communications, Enabling Actions, General blog information, HR, Transparency, Trust, e-mail | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by trustambassador

Become Your Problem

May 31, 2010

The following story illustrates that by personifying an inanimate object, we can gain some interesting new perspectives and insights. This not only helps us understand the system at work, but it also helps us resolve complex problems. The following story is really about the nature of teams.

Looking above, I can see a very bright light that seems to be focusing directly on me. What a pain! I have to squint to see what is going on. I can see a huge face with rimless bifocals and a large moustache scanning over me like it is looking for a cavity. Yikes – to be on the safe side, I keep my mouth shut. Every so often I can see a hand come over me with fingers lightly brushing over my face. I don’t mind; I like giving pleasure to people, but this is getting tiring. Enough of this inspection, I want out of here. OOPs, I have no legs. I’m stuck here on this flat surface looking into the light. Although I have “arms” of a sort, they remain as flat and immovable as the rest of my body. I think , “this is going to be a long afternoon.”

Suddenly, I can see a reflection off the focusing metal shield attached to the light bulb. Squinting through the glare, I can actually see myself lying on a very large, flat table. I can see that my color is mostly blue, but there is one corner that’s dark green, and one section that has a bright red spot. My shape is not at all pleasing to me. I am very stocky and my “arms” look like fat peninsulas or some kind of bulbous muscle mass like Popeye used to lure fair Olive-Oil away from Brutus. Meanwhile, where my legs should be were huge gaping holes that looked like they had been blown off by some ghastly mortar round, or perhaps the crash landing of a well-aimed meteor. So, looking at myself, I am not very proud. Oh the shame!

I start looking around me. I can see that there are others in the same condition. They are all flat, and can’t move either. They all have similar colors, but none of them are exactly the same. None of them have legs, and they all have the same gaping holes where the legs should be. Their arms are similar to mine, but not exactly the same.

I begin to notice a familiar smell. It is the peppermint the old geezer is eating to hide the tobacco smell from his suspecting wife. Who is he trying to kid? The peppermint will not hide the smell that has permeated his moustache. But there is another smell that’s familiar too. It takes me back to my childhood when I lived in the toy store inside a box. Yup, that’s a cardboard smell, no doubt about it. But why is there a cardboard smell? I begin to sniff discretely toward my neighbors on the table. Who is guilty of this odor? They all smell the same, kind of musty and, definitely very old. I suspect I smell pretty bad too. Oh the shame! I always figured that God was merciful when He arranged things so we didn’t have to smell our own breath. It was probably hard for Him to figure that out, so I give Him a lot of credit and gratitude.

As the old man stands directly overhead the glare is gone and I can see the reflection of my neighbors more clearly. They are just like me; flat pieces of cardboard with funny arms and no legs. Each one has a different shape and coloring. Some even have flat sides. I figure that comes from sitting on one edge for too long in the box.

Whoa – -be careful! All of a sudden I am picked up and held very close to the bifocals. The peppermint smell nearly makes me black out. The geezer puts me down in a new place and puts the arm of neighbor directly into one of my “leg holes.” Ahaa. I have it. I am a puzzle piece! I have just been mated up with the matching piece in my sector.
Now, I begin to realize that all the pieces on the table are unique, but linked together into a system – like a Team. Each of us has a role, but the total system is very complex and needs the proper contribution from everyone. It is interesting to note that the team could not function without the support of a card table. A missing table would make it difficult to assemble the puzzle just as a team could not function without the support of management.

Thinking about the similarities between a puzzle and a team made my head swim with ideas. For example, the Geezer started the project by getting the box out, which is just like when a team is forming with members. The first thing he did was look at the picture because he needed to have a Vision as he started the project. Lack of a vision would make the task nearly impossible, just as it is for any team. Then he opened the box, which is the equivalent of having the team convene with open minds.

It is interesting that after the geezer dumped all the pieces on the table and spread them out (like a first meeting) he turned all the pieces “face up” so he could see our true colors. When some of us were face up and others face down, he was unable to understand the diversity we all bring to the team. Without considering the unique talents of each piece, the system would not function as designed. It would struggle and falter, just as many organizations do. By seeing and appreciating the diversity of each team member, the old geezer can make our system all it was meant to be.

Some members take on a leadership role. They have a unique property: corners. They let the geezer know the extreme boundaries of the capability of our team. They also provide a kind of vision to work within. Without these leaders, the system would lack focus; there would be no real purpose.

Other pieces, the ones with one flat side, are not that way due to laziness, but because they are special too. They connect the corner pieces so the old man can visualize the overall scope of the puzzle and begin to sort out the colors. They identify the boundaries of our system and show the constraints we all must respect. Without these management pieces, our system would lack control and be all over the place. Instead, we have a sense of purpose and direction – like a team’s strategic plan.

All of the pieces have a role to play in the system. It cannot work properly unless each one assumes the correct role. I take a position of pride near the junction of the tree line and sky. But what’s this huge red dot? Could it be a mistake? Maybe I am part of another puzzle. Maybe I don’t belong here. Or it could be an errant dot from the marking pen of a careless child years ago. It could even be acne! Oh the shame! I’ll just have to wait to find out.

The wife has called old geezer to dinner, so my new friends and I had a chance to chat as all puzzle pieces do when the owner isn’t around. I found out that they all enjoy being part of this system, but also rejoice in their unique contribution to the end result. We are organized into sections or quadrants in that some pieces are sky and others are trees or water, etc. We all need to know our role or contribution to the group. There are also some special pieces, like me, that are links between sections. Like the edge and corner pieces, I fulfill a role of direction for the tree and sky sections. I also provide some comic relief and confusion with my red spot. Others around me are sensitive to my difference and try not to embarrass me. I am thankful for that. Even though I am different, I have a role to play that is very important to the system.
Our system is starting to take shape and we realize that each piece has a place and that it must fit perfectly with all adjacent pieces for things to work out. You cannot force one piece to mate with another (even with a hammer or shoe heel) without damaging the system.

Finally, dinner is over and Mr. Geezer returns, this time with the wife in tow. Now, with two of them working, things are pretty hectic. For one thing, if you get picked up, it isn’t entirely clear which person has you airborne. You have to guess by the body language or smell. Mrs. Geezer’s hands smell like lemons; a remnant from her dishwashing soap. I keep looking into the reflection to see if I can get a better picture of our total system.

Suddenly, I see her. She is beautiful. Her shape is fantastic, and her colors are bright and clear, just like mine. But wait . . can it be true . . yes it is . . she has a red spot too. Oh joy – I am not alone. Hers isn’t as big and bright as mine, but for sure it’s red. The minute she sees me, her eyes light up. “What a wonderful red spot you have”, she said. “I was beginning to think there were only a few of us here.” “You mean there are others,” I asked? She reassured, “Oh yes, the old man put all the spotted ones over by the sign.” “What sign is that?” I asked. She said, “We don’t know yet, but it starts with CONG.” “Maybe they will put us back in that part of the system before they finish the puzzle.”

But things didn’t work out that way. Mr. & Mrs. Geezer worked late into the night. The peppermint supply was reduced to sticky wrappers in the wastebasket. One by one all the pieces with spots were brought over to my area between the trees and sky. That left the area of the sign open to be filled in more with, “CONGRA, “YO,” and “GSAW”. On and on it went until shortly before midnight they had the puzzle completed. I was locked in with my new girlfriend, which felt pretty special. Also, my red spot was just one of many around me in a circular pattern. I could clearly see the outline of a fireworks shell bursting just above the tree line. I looked over at the sign, it said, “CONGRATULATIONS, YOU NOW KNOW WHY A JIGSAW PUZZLE IS LIKE A TEAM”.

Finally, I was impressed to find out that puzzle pieces have a sex life. Mrs. Geezer noted each piece had four partners, and was so embarrassed she had to avert her eyes. Oh the shame!

1 Comment | Candor creates trust, Communications, HR, Table stakes, Teamwork, leadership | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by trustambassador

Operate Ahead of the Power Curve

May 23, 2010

A wise mentor of mine used to have a saying that he often shared with me. He advocated I should “operate ahead of the power curve.” It took me a while to figure out what exactly he meant by that and a lot longer to appreciate how fantastic his advice was. I now try to operate ahead of the power curve always, and it reduces my stress level, improves the quality of my work, makes me less edgy with others, and allows me to display a more professional and controlled image. So, exactly what is this magic advice all about?

The advice is to always do the bulk of the work on a project or assignment immediately so you have it nearly completed well ahead of any due date. Then you can relax and complete the work at a less frantic pace to produce high quality work with very little stress.

Do it in school

I do a lot of university teaching where students are encouraged to write their assignments early in the week. Get the bulk of the writing done at least 1 or 2 days in advance of the due date, then finish up the editing after taking a break. By tricking yourself into thinking the paper is due on Saturday when it is actually really due on Monday, it changes the process dramatically. Now, the student applies significantly more effort early and can relax on Sunday. This improves the quality of student life and also leads to higher quality work. Reason: most students procrastinate until Monday afternoon to even begin writing. Then, they are in a state of panic while trying to concentrate on the organization and technical aspects of the paper. Little interruptions close to the deadline become huge annoyances because they distract the student from an important mission at a critical time. But if the work was already done two days earlier, then a last minute distraction can be accommodated with grace.

Do it making a movie

In Hollywood, when they make a movie, they have a saying for when the bulk of the movie is completed. They say it is “in the can,” which means the expensive shooting is completed and initial editing is done. What remains is the fine tuning to produce a finished product. This is done at a more leisurely pace, which helps improve the artistic creativity of the finished work.

Do it writing or consulting

I do the same thing in my writing and consulting work. For example, I am writing the bulk of this article on Thursday morning. I intend to put it out on my BLOG on Sunday evening, so I will have a draft to refine for 4 days before putting it out. I am doing some leadership consulting with a company in two weeks. I already have my materials organized and packaged up for the event. I will have a chance to soak on the material and make many refinements over the next 14 days and do so at a relaxed pace. That will make a significant difference in the quality of my work.

Do it in a tough spot

Let me share a graphic example of how powerful this philosophy can be. Several years ago I was a Division Manager in a large company. There were 4 Divisions in a large unit of the company, and we were told there would be a forced ranking of all our professionals in order to select who would be leaving as a result of a planned RIF. My Division was not the most powerful group, so I realized my people would be at a disadvantage when it came time for the rankings. As soon as I learned the ranking sessions would take place in two weeks, I immediately told all my Department Managers to drop everything for a command performance meeting that afternoon. We went into action immediately to map out a strategy. It became obvious that we did not have enough supporting evidence on the merits or talents of some of our professionals. We established a listing of what things were needed to have at our finger tips during the ranking process and set out to gather that information. It took nearly all of the two weeks but with a few days to spare, we stood back and looked at our organized data base. It was impressive.

Meanwhile, the other 3 Division Managers went on with their daily activities that habitually took up all of the time. They fretted and worried about the upcoming ranking process. The day before the ranking began, these managers hunkered down with select underlings to discuss their people. There was a lot of infighting and bickering among the various sub managers, and things became highly strained. They worked nearly all night frantically trying to get their ducks in a row. Meanwhile my managers and I were able to spend some quality time calmly focusing on our values so we would do the responsible thing the following morning.

During the ranking process, it became obvious that the other three Divisions had not done their homework well and were in a panic while my managers were well rested and ready. Whenever someone from another Division tried to downgrade one of our good people, we had a string of examples and hard data to back up our claims. They had very little documentation and only anecdotal stories as evidence. Finally one individual from the most powerful Division stood up slightly purple with rage. He said, “Whipple, the only reason your people are all coming out on top is because you were more prepared.” He was angry at me for being prepared? For once, I was speechless and said nothing.

Do it for yourself

You are probably saying to yourself, “How do you get the time to do the work well ahead of deadlines”? It is simply a matter of priority. It can be done if the will is there and the practice has become a habit. The peace of mind gained by having tasks well in hand long before the due date is well worth the early workload. The added benefit of higher quality work makes a huge difference in terms of one’s reputation.

Leave a Comment » | Communications, Enabling Actions, HR, Organization, Teamwork, leadership | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by trustambassador

Socratic Struggles

April 29, 2010

The Socratic Method uses a series of questions designed as a discovery process for the person who is being questioned. The technique is often used in educational venues to help students learn critical thinking skills. I believe the application of the Socratic Method at work can be a powerful tool if used carefully. It can also backfire if used poorly or with a heavy hand.

An example of a work situation where the so-called Socratic Method might come in handy is a situation where you want to advocate a specific course of action to a superior but you expect significant pushback. Let’s picture a situation where you are trying to convince your reluctant boss to approve some off site training which includes travel for you.

The straightforward approach is to: explain the benefits of the training, advocate why this will be helpful to the organization, and ask for permission to travel to the seminar. However, based on your knowledge of the boss in previous encounters, you suspect that he is going to turn you down flat regardless of the promised benefits. In this case, advocating a course of action and arguing your case will likely produce a negative response. Furthermore, once the boss has said no, subsequent attempts to change his mind will only be an annoyance. You are likely to hear “What part of NO didn’t you understand?”

Using the Socratic Method means asking the boss questions about his satisfaction with how things currently are. You now stand a better chance of getting a reaction you can then build, with additional questions, into a stream of thought. Continuing to ask leading questions rather than advocating a position allows the boss to discover some of his own thought patterns that can be consistent with what you would have advocated in the first place.

Perhaps your final question in the series might sound like this. “I wonder how, I might be able to get the skills to do what you’re suggesting”? After a few seconds of thought, The boss might reply, “Well, you could get some training and bring those skills back to our group.” You might then reply, “That’s a great idea! Would it be okay if I looked into some training options to accomplish that”? Note that you are now in a position to praise the intelligent boss for suggesting something you wanted to do all along. You get what you want, and the boss is your hero rather than a tight-fisted curmudgeon.

Now the boss has mentally committed to having you get some training because the idea was generated by his brain rather than yours. When you come back the next day with a specific proposal to get the training, you’re far more likely to have the boss agree to the expenditure than if you had simply advocated the benefits of doing it yourself.

I mentioned at the beginning of this article there is a huge caveat to applying the Socratic Method. It is because the technique is fundamentally manipulative in nature. You have an idea what you are trying to get the boss to verbalize, and you keep asking questions that direct the conversation toward that end. If you are not extremely deft at posing this string of questions, the boss may become highly annoyed and suspicious that you have an ulterior motive for asking your open ended questions. If this is the case, you may be doing more harm than good. Socratic questions must be used with great skill. Let’s examine six categories of Socratic questions and suggest a method of application that may help you be successful.

Below is a list showing six different types of Socratic Questions. I think this handy guide is useful because it provides different avenues of logic, so the questions don’t all begin to sound the same.

1. Questions of clarification:

To prompt others to explore their questions and prove basic concepts and ideas of arguments Examples: What examples can you provide? What do you mean by…?

2. Questions that probe assumptions:

To query others’ beliefs concerning their arguments. Examples: How did you arrive at those assumptions? What if we looked at it this way?

3. Questions that probe reasons and evidence:

To delve deeper into supporting claims others use for their arguments. Examples: How do you know this? What is the cause? Can the evidence be refuted? How?

4. Questions that probe perspective:

To have others query their viewpoints or perspectives; they attempt to look at the argument from another perspective. Examples: What is another way of looking at this? What are strengths and weaknesses of your perspective?

5. Questions that probe consequences:

 
To identify consequences and determine if they are desirable; use as others develop arguments and logical consequences become foreseeable. Examples: If we follow your argument, what are the consequences? Are the consequences desirable?

6. Questioning the question:

 
To probe the intent of asking the original question. Examples: Why did you ask the question? To what point are you driving?

A best practice for applying these questions is to mix up the type of question as the conversation unfolds. By applying the specific type of question naturally as the discussion proceeds, it seems more expected and less manipulative.

If your true intent is to naively probe the thoughts that are under the surface in the other person’s head, you can gently guide the conversation without detection. In other words, do not try to corner a person into saying something that he or she does not really want to advocate. That is true manipulation, which will invariably backfire. Instead, by using the Socratic Method, help guide the discussion so the person first sees the true benefits from his or her own perspective. The person then becomes an advocate instead of a roadblock.

It occurs to me that using the Socratic Method can be helpful, but it requires skill and practice to apply it successfully in the real world.

Leave a Comment » | Candor creates trust, Communications, HR, Organization, Transparency, Trust, Trust and motivation, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by trustambassador

Accountability and Trust

April 25, 2010

Holding people accountable is a fundamental premise of good management. Establishing solid goals and providing feedback along the way helps employees recognize the importance of performing up to expectations. Unfortunately, some employees do not meet their goals for a variety of reasons. When this happens, managers need to hold people accountable, but there are often problems in executing this closure step.

If goals were not met due to employee laziness, lack of initiative, poor attitudes, or any other negative personal trait, then the accountability step is appropriate and should be done along with the appropriate documentation. When employees fail to meet expectations due to things that are truly out of their control, then holding them accountable seems punitive beyond reason.

I believe there is a direct link between holding people accountable in an appropriate way and the level of trust in an organization. Extreme cases are easy to understand. For example, if an employee working in the World Trade Center failed to hand in an expected report on September 12, 2001, trying to hold that individual accountable for the failure would be ludicrous. For one thing, it would not matter at all to the dead employee. On the other extreme, if an employee has made no effort whatsoever to even start an activity that was promised, holding that person accountable for the lapse is logical and necessary.

Unfortunately, many situations are in a gray area in between extremes. An employee usually will have some sort of excuse that justifies not being able to perform up to expectations. That is, he or she has rationalized the lapse based on some mental process that exonerates the employee from toeing the line. When a manager attempts to hold the individual accountable for the missed goal, it seems unfairly harsh to the individual employee and trust plummets.

The conundrum is that employees who witness their peers not performing up to expectations, yet not being held fully accountable, leads to a lowering of trust in the organization as well. For the manager, it is a kind of “darned if you do, darned if you don’t” situation. It becomes important for the manager to explain that we hold people accountable for their actions, and we do not condone a string of excuses or reasons why the goals were missed. Yet we still need to all allow some latitude for truly uncontrolled situations where it was impossible for the employee to perform up to expectations.

There is a direct relationship between how a supervisor handles the issue of accountability and the level of trust achieved at any point in time. Skilled managers recognize this sensitive area and navigate the choppy waters with great care. Using the golden rule is a great way to apply the right amount of personal sensitivity to a situation, but still get the message across that people are expected to meet commitments. Properly reinforced, this attitude will maintain trust within the organization even though some difficult or unhappy discussions need to happen with certain individuals.

How the accountability is communicated to the employee has everything to do with how it is perceived and received. If managers are consistent with follow through on commitments, then employees expect to be called out if goals are not met. Having a firm but kind conversation with the employee, in private, about a performance lapse is far superior to catching the employee off guard and rubbing his or her nose in the problem. If the manager berates the employee publicly and with a mean spirit, significant damage to the relationship will result. If managers can reinforce the effort while still insisting on the deliverables, then employees will respect that and modify their behavior.

Leave a Comment » | Candor creates trust, Communications, Enabling Actions, HR, Trust, Trust and breach of trust, Trust and motivation, leadership | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by trustambassador

Dumb is Smart and Smart is Dumb

April 11, 2010

In his famous program, “Effective Negotiating,” Chester A. Karrass, makes the observation that, in negotiations, often appearing dumb is a great strategy. The idea is that acting naïve causes the other party to fill in some blanks with information that may ultimately be helpful to you in the negotiation. Conversely, acting as if you know everything is usually a bad strategy, because you end up supplying too much information too early in the conversation. This habit gives your opponent in the negotiation a significant advantage.

As I work with leaders in organizations of all sizes, a similar observation could be made about leadership. Being dumb is sometimes smart, and being too smart is often dumb. Let’s examine some examples of why this dichotomy is a helpful concept.

To make enlightened decisions, leaders need good information. It sounds simple, but in the chaos of every day organizational issues, it is sometimes difficult to determine which set of information is true. Rather than blurting out their preconceived notion of what is going on, if leaders would simply act a little confused, like the brilliant detective Colombo, they would elicit far more information from other people. The way to execute this strategy is simple. Refrain from making absolute statements, and ask a lot of open ended questions. This draws out alternate points of view from individuals and allows the leader to hear many nuances before tipping his or her hand.

When leaders display hubris, and expound their perspective on every issue before others have a chance to voice their ideas, it stifles collaboration and creativity. Therefore, being smart is often a dumb strategy. Of course, no rule of thumb works in every situation. Leaders need to know when the time is right to divulge their opinion. Unfortunately, due to over active egos, most leaders like to weigh in on issues far too early. This colors objective conversation and cuts off interesting alternate perspectives.

The same logic holds when making decisions after the information has been gathered. If leaders would say, “I wonder what we should do,” instead of, “Here is what we have to do,” they would draw out the best ideas available. Smart is dumb and dumb is smart in terms of getting a smorgasbord of options from which to choose.

The antidote to this problem is simple. Leaders need to understand this dynamic and catch themselves in the act. By being alert to the dangers of advocating too early, leaders can improve their batting average at allowing everyone to enter the conversation at an appropriate level. Sometimes in a crisis situation, it may be necessary for a leader to be highly directive and quick on the draw. Usually, it is better for the leader to allow conversation around sensitive issues, and then work with people to find the best solution.

If you are a leader, it is important to catch yourself on this issue and begin to train yourself to have more patience and improve your listening skills. It has been said many times that the Lord gave us two ears and one mouth, because we should listen twice as much as we speak. Many leaders do not understand this simple logic, and it works to their detriment. They are dumb because they are too smart.

1 Comment | Candor creates trust, Communications, HR, Organization, Teamwork, Transparency, Trust, leadership | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by trustambassador

13 Keys to Reduce Turnover

April 4, 2010

The problem of employee turnover is a conundrum for any organization. One would think that during times of high unemployment, the turnover rate in most organizations would be at an all-time low. The reality is far from that. While there is a lot of variability from one industry to another, if you take all industries together, the total turnover rate in 2009 was a whopping 15%.

We know the cost of employee turnover is more than the annual salary of the individual lost. In fact, most estimates place the total replacement cost at roughly 150% of the employee’s salary. A quick calculation shows that for a company with 1000 people who have an average annual salary of $50,000, the annual cost for employee turnover adds up to over $10 million. These costs go directly to the bottom line.

Reducing employee turnover is not rocket science; however, many companies struggle with very high turnover year after year. The common denominator of high turnover in organizations is poor leadership. Therefore, organizations that stress leadership development have an inherent advantage that can mean the difference between survival and extinction.

Let’s examine several ways an organization can drastically reduce the level of turnover at very low cost.

1. Develop People – Organizations that focus on employee development enjoy higher employee satisfaction, which leads to lower turnover. If each employee has a concrete development plan that is reviewed at least annually and contains a variety of growth opportunities, the employee will have little reason to look for greener pastures elsewhere.

2. Recognize Good Performance – Reinforcing people for doing good work lets them know they are appreciated. Tangible and intangible rewards are a great way to show management appreciation for workers who excel. This improves morale if done well. However, understand that reinforcement can be a minefield if it is not handled properly. Make sure employees receive sincere appreciation by management on a continuing basis.

3. Build Trust – By extending trust to employees, leaders demonstrate their willingness to support them. This pays off in terms of higher trust on the part of employees toward the organization. There is a whole science on how to build trust. By creating a real environment, more trust in an organization will lead to lower turnover.

4. Reduce Boredom – Employees who are underutilized, tend to get bored and restless. If there is a vacuum of activity, people often get into mischief. It is important for managers to craft job duties and responsibilities such that people are actively engaged in the work every day.

5. Communicate More – In nearly every corporate survey on employee satisfaction, the issue of communication surfaces as either the number one or number two complaint. Communication needs to be ubiquitous and consistent. It is not enough to have a monthly corporate news letter or an occasional town hall meeting. Communication needs to take many different forms and be a constant priority for all levels of management.

6. Cross Train – Employees, who have been trained on several different jobs recognize they are of higher value to the organization and tend to be less inclined to leave. Along with the pleasure of having more variety of work, employees appreciate the ability to take on additional skills. Having good bench strength allows the organization to function well, even during times of high vacation or illness.

7. Don’t Overtax – During lean economic times, companies have a need to stretch resources as much as possible. Many organizations exceed the elastic limit of what employees can be expected to maintain long term. This leads to burnout and people leaving for health reasons or just plain quitting in disgust over the abuse. It is important for management to assess carefully how far resources can be stretched, because going beyond the elastic limit guarantees a high level of employee turnover. I believe this rule is habitually violated in many organizations, and they pay for it big time. Stretching people too far is a false economy. If you organization is guilty of this, print out this article and put it on the bulletin board.

8. Keep It Light – When managers apply constant pressure to squeeze out the last drop of productivity, they often go over the line, and it becomes counter productive. If leaders grind people down to a stump with constant pressure for perfection and ever higher productivity, the quality of work life suffers. Employees can tolerate a certain amount of this for some time, but eventually they will break down. It is smart to set very high goals, but very important to have employees believe the stretch goals are attainable. One good way to provide this assurance is to have the employees themselves participate in setting the goals. The best companies find ways to work in a little fun somewhere, even (and especially) in high pressure situations.

9. Feedback Performance – there needs to be a constant flow of information on how all employees are doing in each area of the organization. People who are kept in the dark about their performance become disillusioned and cranky. The simple kindness of letting people know how they are doing on a daily or weekly basis pays off in terms of lower turnover.

10. Train Leaders – All levels of management and supervision need to be highly proficient at creating an environment where the culture is upbeat, positive, and has high trust. This does not happen by accident, or simply by desire. It takes work and lots of emphasis by senior leadership to make sure that there are no weak links in the management chain. In most organizations there is a dud of a manager somewhere between the well intentioned and talented top brass and the worker bees. The result is that great objectives, ideals, and processes are morphed into oblivion by the time they reach the shop floor. The antidote is to improve leadership effectiveness at all levels and remove any dud who is incapable of changing.

11. Hire Right – Putting the right people into the organization at all times is extremely important. One bad apple can really do a lot of damage. Focus on the selection process with some behavioral attitude surveys and make sure you do your homework with previous references.

12. Create Ownership – When people are actually part owners of the enterprise, they have a lot more stake in sticking around. This can be done in hundreds of ways from stock options to including employees in strategy sessions.  Always seek to let people have a real stake in the action. It pays off.

13. Empower People – Actually the correct way to word this is create an environment where people are happy to engage their power for the benefit of the organization.

These are 13 ways in which leaders can lower the level of turnover in any organization. The magic here is not any new discovery; but the consistent application of these principles will make a huge difference in any organization. The good news is that the items mentioned above are not very expensive. They are all common sense – too bad they are often not common practice.

If you study the best companies to work for worldwide, you will discover they have a much lower turnover rate than the average numbers. I believe having the kind of culture where employees are locked in with no desire to leave for any reason is a sustainable competitive advantage. It is easy to achieve if you follow the 10 rules listed above.

Leave a Comment » | Candor creates trust, Communications, HR, Organization, Trust, Trust and motivation, leadership | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by trustambassador

Leaders and Managers

March 16, 2010

There is a lot of information on the contrast between leaders and managers. Typically we see a side by side comparison with items such as:

“Managers do things right” while

“Leaders do the right things.”

I like to take a different slant on describing the differences because I believe a pure manager comes to work with an entirely different mindset from a pure leader. Of course, there really is no such thing as a pure manager or leader, it is always some kind of a combination of the two concepts. Here is how I describe the differences.

The Manager

The manager wants everything to go smoothly. He or she wants every process to run the way it should and get the maximum productivity. There should be no waste. The manager wants everyone to follow all the rules and be there every day motivated to do good work. In essence, the manager wants to stabilize things and clone everything to be exactly right. The manager is all about doing things right, and is most closely associated with the mission of the organization (what they are trying to accomplish). The manager works with the process, the equipment, the schedule, and the people in terms of what they should be doing. Managers are now oriented.

The Leader

The leader is often a destabilizing force. He or she is most interested in where the organization is going rather than just optimizing today’s processes. That may mean making people unhappy for some time in order for the greater good. If people are too complacent and do not see the dangers, the leader is there to create a burning platform. Leaders are sometimes very unpopular. The idea is to do the right things, which may mean some pretty difficult decisions. The leader is all about the vision of the organization (where they are trying to go). The leader works with the balance sheet, the strategic plan, the product line, and the people in terms of what they can become. Leaders are future oriented.

The Leader/Manager

This person is able to combine the best of both worlds and act in both roles. All of us act as leaders and managers at times, but each of us favors one mode or the other. A good balance between the two extremes is the best place to be. In general, the world has far more competent managers than competent leaders, so if you have leadership tendencies, that is a good thing to have.

Really great leaders do not mind being average managers. They recognize their weakness and surround themselves with outstanding managers to handle the details.

1 Comment | Communications, Enabling Actions, HR, Organization, Teamwork, Trust, Trust and motivation, leadership | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by trustambassador

Keeping People In the Loop

March 4, 2010

If you go into any organization and do a survey about what leaders are doing well and poorly, the vast majority of groups will put “communication” at the top of the list of things to improve. This is true even though most leaders are nearly consumed trying to keep people in the loop on a daily basis. Why is there such a disconnect between needs and performance?

There are numerous reasons for the gap. First, the magnitude of information that needs to be shared is growing exponentially. With the global markets and worldwide scope of most operations, the complexity is dozens of times more daunting than it was just a decade ago. The ubiquitous access to all kinds of information and misinformation on the internet means that leaders need to unscramble a plate of informational spaghetti on a daily basis. What used to be cells of gossip and rumors quickly becomes a rats nest of damage control when a horde of titillated bloggers or twitterers swings into action.

Corporate communications can no longer be a matter of having a quarterly Town Hall Meeting. Information needs to be disseminated on a continuous basis, and misinformation needs to be beaten down almost hourly. Is it any wonder key executives get bogged down and withdraw to let the “communications officer” handle the mess. Yet when a CEO unplugs from the communication process, this is how people get the idea he is hiding something or he just does not care about telling them the truth. That creates a significant trust problem.

Whew, is there an antidote to this malaise? I think there is. It is a simple remedy that has been known for centuries. It is called “walking the deck,” or if you are a politician, “pressing the flesh.” The trick is for top executives not only to practice the art of interfacing with people, they need to insist that all middle and lower managers do the same thing. This is particularly true when times are tough.

If there is a crisis or emergency, most managers and leaders like to retreat to the safety of their office and communicate electronically. Unfortunately, spewing out long explanations of current realities may seem like progress, but consider how many of the people are reading or understanding these tomes. My advice to leaders is to at least double their shop floor time when times are tough.

If top leaders insist on a culture of talking with workers directly often and insist that all managers in the chain do this routinely then the crushing load of communication can become more manageable. The side benefit is that the workers will not be besieged with a flood of electronic drivel to digest daily.

4 Comments | Communications, Enabling Actions, General blog information, HR, Organization, Trust, leadership | Permalink
Posted by trustambassador

« Previous Entries