In this and the final remaining blog entry, I’m expanding on the “5 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership” I outlined in a recent article.
The fourth law should be unnecessary — make your expectations — as a manager and leader — clear. And that’s “clear” as in crystal, not mud.
Law #4. Make your expectations clear, then back up a bit and give employees room to do their job. That doesn’t mean “never look back;” to inspect what you expect isn’t micro-management, it’s just good-management.
Employees – even top performers – need clear expectations. In fact, especially top performers. Give ‘em a target, provide resources and guidance, remove obstacles when necessary, then let them do their job.
Check back later, since you still have the real management responsibilities and accountability. Hate to quote Ziglar again, but there’s a lot of truth in remembering to inspect what you expect.
Tell your staff what you expect — in clear language; inspect the results of their efforts toward those expectations, then hold them accountable for that performance.
Let’s keep this simple — it doesn’t have to be difficult.
I was reminded (again) this week that just because someone says it’s a priority doesn’t make it so. True across the board: politics, government, military, and from the C-suite on down.
This reminder was about leadership development, of course, because that’s what we do. Do you think development is important in your organization? One quick way to tell: who’s in charge of it?
I’m re-plowing old ground here, since we’ve been over this time and again, but you leaders are wasting time and money on developing your younger leaders if HR is in charge of your leadership development program(s).
Don’t get me wrong – I have nothing against HR. Some of my best friends are HR professionals. Okay, not really, but there are some that I like and respect a lot.
It’s not that HR doesn’t have a role in your development program(s); it’s just that leadersdevelop leaders, not personnel, EEO or benefits specialists. I do appreciate when a senior HR leader develops others in his/her organization – if they’re not, they’re doing the organization a disservice – but you can’t develop leaders by telling them what color(s) and letter(s) they are.
If the C-suite doesn’t actively participate in the development of leaders in their organization, don’t count on it happening at any level below that. There is no way to reinforce and hone leadership skills without someone above being part of the effort. How else can a developing leader (and aren’t we all one) take risks without fear of paying for failure with their jobs? How else can they try new skills and measure success without someone who is involved to help them gain clarity about what’s working and what’s not?
You can teach people about supervision (reinforcement) and management (process), but leadership (people) development is a hands-on process that HR can merely facilitate. Don’t try to pin accountability on HR, though; the results are up to you leaders.
We can all wear buttons that tell others that we’re green until we get red under stress. Knowing I’m a type C or A or an STBJ doesn’t actually help anyone know what motivates me or makes me feel appreciated. How will you know if your team feels like they’re doing worthy work if you don’t ask them? HR sure isn’t going to tell you.
This week’s reminder was a CEO lamenting about how his senior directors needed development. Turns out neither he – nor the CxO – was particularly engaged in the last effort. They left it to HR and never considered the coincidence that all the senior directors had the same problems.
Hint: if you have a problem with a direct report, it might be them. If you have the same problem with all your direct reports… well, if everything around you smells like shit, you should check your own shoe.
If you leave developing your team to someone else, you might as well expect them to teach your pig to sing while they’re at it. You won’t be happy with the results in either case.
How about you? Who’s leading your team’s leadership development efforts?
Apologies for the length. We recently received an email from a junior executive we had worked with for several years. He left the client company about a year ago, and decided it was time to let us know what he thought of us. For those who know us well, you know this could have gone several ways… 🙂
Ed. The tuna reference will just have to remain a mystery… feel free to ask one of us if it’s bothering you to untoward proportions.
In my upcoming At C-Level, I make mention of a survey I recently completed, in which many of you participated. The full results should be available shortly, but I did want to give you a sneak preview.
From a long-range perspective, with only senior executives (more than 20% were CEO/COOs) participating, here are the top 3 issues you identified:
1. Finding, hiring, developing and retaining talent,
2. Organizational changes, outsourcing, merger/acquisition assimilation, and
3. Compliance, poilitical change, legislation.
We’ve got work to do. Changing our focus to these initiatives — on a long-term basis — takes proactive thought and some simple change management methodologies. Change is simple; just close your eyes, hold your breath, and wait. It happens. Effective change management, on the other hand, takes some skill. From my view of the world, 3 things are necessary for senior executives to successfully drive positive change:
1. Belief and commitment. You gotta believe — really believe — that what you are doing is right and appropriate, using a variety of litmus tests. Mid-management and line employees will quickly detect if your commitment is anything but resolute. Change management isn’t for the weak at heart, so strap in, point the way, and hold the course (I always wanted to use that line).
2. Provide direction. Even if people can believe in your resolve, and even if they understand the basic need, they need real direction, from YOU, to know where to head. Don’t expect overnight adjustment and buy-in to your newfound commitment for change; until that real buy-in occurs, they need a really good map — a compass is probably a better word — to help them start off in the right direction.
3. Unqualified support for the cause. Pay attention here, this one’s really, really important. Not only can you not afford to lose your focus (see “commitment” above), but you must insist others join in the quest. You must insist. Help them work through their issues, convince — as best as possible — for the need to change. At the end, though, the change must occur, and you must be prepared to make all those decisions necessary, some good, some tough, to make it happen. Naysayers can be a fatal distraction. Disbelievers can poison an effective team. Misdirected managers can ruin the entire effort. Make sure you stay aware, and be prepared to do whatever is necessary to ensure the focus is maintained by all.
2007 is upon us; we have work to do, and some unique challenges facing us.
First, that phrase for this post — “I’m just sayin’,” drives me nuts. I hate it. Now that I feel better for sharing…
A diversity consulting firm called The Novations Group, apparently surveyed a couple thousand managers, and concluded that senior managers were poor communicators. For this, they seem to want acclaim…
Survey respondents blamed senior management for (in order of survey popularity):
1. Relying too much on e-mail.
2. Assuming a single message is enough.
3. Having no feedback loop in place.
4. Messages lacking clarity.
To this, I say “hmmmm…”
Nonetheless, there is some truth here.
We all rely too much on email. Email is great for simple information/data sharing. It breaks down when we try to have conversations, include emotion, or the worst: we try to manage by email.
Walk down the hall or pick up the damned phone. Email is the worst medium on the planet for any communication requiring acknowledged understanding, purposeful dialog, or meaning other than the simple written word. There is no defined ‘subtlety’ in emails. And managers shouldn’t use it as a proxy.
Another pox on communication occurred while we were gutting mid-management from organizations. In flattening org charts, we forgot that most on-the-ground communications with employees was done with middle managers. Today, they are either extinct or a bit harried from the evolution of their jobs.
Further, much of what we as senior leaders do has at least a modicum of confidentiality. Next thing you know, we’re acting like everything we say and do is some state secret.
It ain’t.
The problem, of course, is in the absence of communication, our employees fill in all the details, blanks, and relevant information themselves. From spotty knowledge, connecting rumor dots, or simply making it up as they go. None bodes well for us while trying to lead an organization in this age.
Next week, I’ll post some tips and techniques for communications that, though maybe not necessarily “easy,” they probably won’t leave visible scars.
In this and 2 remaining blog entries, I’m expanding on the “5 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership” I outlined in a recent article.
This third law is a reminder that development is essential for employee growth, and for your own well-being. In other words, it’s both selfish and generous; making someone else smarter while you do less work. This is a good thing, eh?
Law #3. If you always answer employee’s every question, you’ll forever be answering employees’ every question.
Questions are teaching moments — don’t rob employees of the opportunity.
Sounds trite, and I don’t mean it to (ok, maybe I mean it to be a little trite). If an employee is asking because they’re stupid, get rid of the employee. If they are a decent employee asking because they do not know, then teach them.
Next time, they’ll know how to do it — or at least the thought process behind it — and you won’t have to. How’s that for planned efficiency??
Now, you have time to go do something important. And to answer in advance: No, answering every employee’s every question is not something important you should be doing. If you’re doing that, you may as well just do it yourself…
