Should we use 360-degree evaluations to determine how well our managers are “managing?”
My answer will be brief, followed by some applicable humor (well, it’s funny to me…)
Management efficacy should be evaluated by measurement, not popularity. Don’t ask the question if the answers aren’t actionable. In other words, if the manager is kicking butt on all measurable fronts, what would you have him or her change if a survey came back with suggestions?
The right answer, of course, is nothing.
Having said that…
What would you like to hear them say?
Three friends of Thibodeaux’s from the local Cajun congregation were asked, “When you’re in your casket, and friends and congregation members are mourning over you, what would you like dem to say?
“Jacque said: “I would like dem to say I was a wonderful husband, a fine spiritual leader, and a great family man.
Ovide commented: “I would like dem to say I was a wonderful teacher and servant of God who made a huge difference in people’s lives.
“Then it was Boudreaux’s turn to said somethon: “I’d like dem to say, “Look at dat!!!!, he’s moving!”
Measure managers by results, not popularity or wishful thinking.
All have been used to describe domineering bosses. Leaders who are abusive, raise their voices, and intimidate. Personally, I call them something else.
Failures.
A leader who resorts to intimidation, brow-beating, threats and coercion is self-admitting the inability to successfully lead. I call it “business card leadership.” The sole source of this leader’s authority comes form a business card that says “you must obey me.”
Remove the business card, and these unsuccessful leaders couldn’t get a wolf to follow them while carrying raw meat.
Here’s a suggestion: “Be nice.”
For movie fans, remember the movie “Roadhouse” with Patrick Swayze? He’s a “cooler” (apparently some bigwig bouncer), and in one scene is giving other bouncers the rules. His commentary goes something like this:
All you have to do is follow three simple rules.One, never underestimate your opponent. Expect the unexpected. Two, take it outside. Never start anything inside the bar unless it’s absolutely necessary. And three, be nice.
He ends this conversation with the parting statement, “I want you to remember that it’s a job. It’s nothing personal.”
We could do well to internalize those three instructions above:
1. Expect the unexpected. “Stuff” happens. Remember that leading is only difficult “when it’s difficult.” When everything is running smoothly, all playing well with each other, everyone working at full competency, leading is easy. When something breaks down — and it will — it takes some skill.
2. Take it outside. Reprimand in private. Coach in private. never get emotional in a crowd. When you force defensiveness, career-altering emotions come into play. If you yell with others around, it’s apparent to others you are incapable of leading effectively. is that what you want?
3. Be nice. That’s right, be nice. At the end of the day, if someone simply refuses to be coached, comply with suggestions, etc., you can always fall back on “because I said so.” Don’t lead with that. Be nice. Calm voice. Phrase your demands as a question; reasonable (read :”keepers”) employees don’t really think a task question from their boss actually has a “no” potential response. It’s just courtesy. be nice.
And finally, remember this isn’t your life… it’s a job. It’s not a calling (for most of us), it’s employment. A way to make a living. A way to pay for the things we do when we AREN’T working. Think of it that way, and remember when you lose control, “your leadership is showing,’ and it’s not the best example to set.
Though that has all the makings of a great joke (appropriate apologies to those easily offended), I just wanted to highlight the diverse uses of today’s topic.
The three characters mentioned above are the most frequent users–or at least, most frequently referenced–of the Principle of Before, also referred to as the Empirical Priority Principle. Seems physicists thrive on making complexity from the simple… but I digress. Defined, The Before Principle “…asserts that within the circle of the world, what comes before determines what comes after without exception.”
Lots of examples for this. Battles before victories. Sweat before gains. Planning before execution. Investment before returns. If you want to win the lottery, you buy a ticket first.
So, let me add Management Consultant to the list of characters above (luckily, consultants are not easily offended). And let me better, more simply define The Before Principle: “You’ve gotta do this first.” And this applies to Leadership in a big way. For example…
Feedback–you’ve got to give it first to others, before others may be willing to give it to you. And I don’t mean just criticism; positive feedback is information provided solely to help someone grow and improve. Are you doing that today? If not, don’t expect to receive valuable feedback for yourself.
Respect–You receive respect from others, above or below you in the organizational food chain, after you first give them that respect. Listen. Show you care about them. Be courteous. Include when appropriate–or even close to appropriate. Give credit where due, and recognition frequently. Show gratitude, always. Keep your promises. Be on time. Respect isn’t tolerance, nor does it mean you like someone. It’s a positive, ongoing behavior acknowledging someone’s abilities, accomplishments and worth. You don’t deserve respect because of your position, you are afforded the opportunity to show respect for others. Don’t screw that up.
Trust–The holy grail of leadership. We need lots of things to be good at leading; we need trust to lead at all. Frequently called “The currency of leadership,” never is the “Investment before returns” more true. You want folks to trust you? Trust them first. My close friend Richard Fagerlin (author of Trustology) likes to say that trust must be given, never earned. I believe that to be true, but I also believe that trust given freely is usually returned. No, I don’t live in a Pollyanna world, and yes, there are some people simply not trustworthy. For those few, we steal from Ronald Reagan: Trust, but verify. But we still must trust first.
Empower people to do their jobs. Understand that well-thought mistakes are learning events, not cause for a beating. Focus more on outcomes. Realize that more often than not, employees want to do a good job. Our job, then, is to let them. Get better at saying yes. Don’t expect someone to trust you if you haven’t shown them trust first. Ain’t gonna happen.
So, this Principle of Before may not have its roots in leadership vernacular, but it’s pretty darned pertinent for those wanting to lead. It’s actually the very basis of leadership, when you think about it:
Nobody really likes them. Yes, some are better than others in dealing with them, but they are likely not high on our most-favorite interactions list. Tough conversations make us uncomfortable. Maybe we even don’t know what to say or how to say it. We don’t always know how to handle them without either damaging a currently-positive relationship or escalating a crappy one.
Either one, our druthers are to not have to deal with them. Unfortunately, that’s seldom an option. Unlike fine wine, good scotches and well-kept cigars (I’m simply listing my relevant vices), the conflict behind the need for those conversations does not get better with age.
Unfortunately, until AI makes us all obsolete, people are in the mix; if people are in the mix, there will be conflict. If conflict is in the mix, we’ll be having difficult conversations.
So then, what to do? Books are written and workshops are held to address how best to have these discussions. Various glossy hardbacks are rife with advice on how to conduct these particularly onerous chats. What if, instead of getting better at them, we figured out how to not have them in the first place? Try this instead:
Avoid difficult conversations by having difficult conversations.
Say whaaat? Kevin, your aforementioned vices are causing you to say crazy things… if I don’t like having those conversations to begin with, why the hell would I intentionally create them??
Simply put: brief, preemptive discussions can prevent having to deal with those bigger, difficult conversations.
A story… I was doing a C-level 360 survey recently, and in following up on an earlier comment I asked the person I was interviewing “So, how well does this executive deal with really tough conversations—you know, serious conflict?” The person paused for several seconds, which is usually a precursor to something bad or negative. Instead, he surprised me…
“Actually, he does a really good job of avoiding having to have those difficult conversations.”
Well, I must say that caught me a bit off-guard. “So, he simply avoids having them altogether,” I asked?
“No, he avoids having to have them,” he replied.
Well, I’m just a public-school graduate from south Texas… I told him to please explain. He went on to explain to me, in thoughtful detail, how this executive has the near-term, immediate conversations with others that prevents things from escalating to unhealthy conflict or those dreaded difficult conversations.
“When performance or behavior is off, or some expectation is unmet, this executive deals with it then, while it’s simply feedback. Instead of waiting until things build up and emotions come into play, he just has those simple, brief conversations—positive and negative—on a regular basis.”
In doing so, he seldom must deal with what most people would call a difficult conversation.
He doesn’t avoid having them, per se… he avoids having to have them.
Hmmm, avoiding a problem instead of dealing with it after it’s created? That’s some cutting-edge thinking right there.
This is a question I frequently ask clients when discussing how best to approach someone in a (usually) tough conversation or conflict. As leaders, if we want to “win” the discussion, we simply flash our business card, tell ’em “because I said so” and to get back their butts back to work. Immediately solves the issue at hand.
But what problems does the jerk-boss approach create in its wake? Does it fix enough to overcome the negativity of the process? Does it actually change behavior?
Yeah, no. It certainly doesn’t change behavior. At best, it creates mindless drones, waiting for another direct order to determine what they should do. At worst, it creates a disgruntled malcontent, sowing discord and malice among peers and blindly adhering to your rules, even if they damage the outcome. A behavior I call malicious compliance. You’ve seen it before — it’s when an employee does something they clearly know was wrong, and when asked ‘why,’ quickly responds “Because you told me to.”
We know these people. Bad news, hoss; we likely created them.
If you want to win, you can. Instructions above (jerk). If you want to change behavior, it’s as simple, just a bit more involved. Direct communications are always fine, just remember that if you want someone to change their behavior willingly, you’ll need to communicate in a manner they can accept and internalize. In all likelihood, yelling, screaming and saying “because I said so” are not “…a manner they can accept and internalize.”
Remember, it’s a clear sign of weakness if you must rely solely on your position to get things done. We can pay someone a whole lot less for those same results.
A good manager never has to remind others of his or her position; a good subordinate never has to ask.
Coaching Slugs… the uncoachable. Also sometimes known as:
Light’s on, nobody’s home.
She just doesn’t get it.
How’d he slip through HR?
The 80/20 rule…
Or, my personal favorite…
A waste of time.
As egalitarian and “fair” as we sometimes hope to be, there’s no getting around it — some employees can be a waste of our development time, and we should stop doing that the instant we realize that condition. Make an effort, to be sure, but get better at knowing when it’s time to fish or cut bait.
Perhaps they were mis-hired to begin with; perhaps they were promoted well past their ability to grasp new concepts; perhaps they simply don’t want to do what’s required… I don’t know, and at this stage I wouldn’t spend a ton of your time digging into the “why.” The “what,” is “I’m spending my time for no return, when I could be spending it on someone else for recognizable value.”
Not really much of a choice, is it?
Quality guru Joseph Juran said (loosely paraphrased) that we tend to spend 80% of our time on those things that deliver 20% of our aggregate value. I would argue that, when discussing employee performance, motivation, and one-on-one development or coaching, that figure is much closer to 90/10. Maybe even higher.
Really, how much time do you spend with your highest performers… your top 5%? I’m not talking MBWA face-time, drinks after work, or breakfast forced-marches. Nor am I describing time spent at those infernal time-wasters called “staff meetings.” I’m talking about working with that A-player one-on-one, investing your personal time, counsel and expertise, and making sure that those “A’s” receive more emphasis than the “C’s.”
Let’s be clear: time spent growing top performers is never, ever wasted time. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for lesser beings.
I know this sounds harsh, and decidedly un-empathetic. I assure you it’s not. It’s simple pragmatism wrapped in what’s best for both organization and employee. Let’s face it, if you’re spending an untoward amount of time with an under-performing employee, it’s unlikely that same employee is “living the dream” at work.
Yes, we should do an appropriate amount of development for those employees who don’t quite “get it,” but seem to have both the wherewithal and the give-a-$h!t to grow significantly with some well-thought attention. But be wary, critical, and skeptical; prepare to cut the cord the instant you realize you are repeating yourself, notice issues of ethics or integrity, or that the employee’s “light” just hasn’t “turned on.”
Remember, development — coaching, training, appropriate responsibilities — are a vital part of growing our future leaders. But they must bring a few things to the table that you simply cannot coach in. You can’t train them to have a work ethic, for example. They must bring that with them when hired. You cannot train them to be honest or ethical — someone well before you influenced that past repair.
And most important: some people, no matter how much we want to believe the best, just don’t have the intellect to handle the work at hand. I don’t mean high IQ scores; they just need to have enough gray matter to learn and perform the job at hand.
To quote that master of pithy responses, comedian Ron White, “no matter how hard you try… you can’t fix stupid.”
Trust–The holy grail of leadership. We need lots of things to be good at leading; we need trust to lead at all. Frequently called “The currency of leadership,” never is the “Investment before returns” more true. You want folks to trust you? Trust them first. My close friend Richard Fagerlin (author of Trustology) likes to say that trust must be given, never earned. I believe that to be true, but I also believe that trust given freely is usually returned. No, I don’t live in a Pollyanna world, and yes, there are some people simply not trustworthy. For those few, we steal from Ronald Reagan: Trust, but verify. But we still must trust first.
