In this and 3 subsequent blog entries, I’m expanding on the “5 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership” I outlined in a recent article.
The second law focuses on open communications; too often, usually in the misplaced interest of correctness or conflict-avoidance, we tap-dance around topics, subjects, and even direction. We assume — often incorrectly — that someone “knows what we mean,” though we didn’t come out and say it.
Law #2. If you want something specific done, say so specifically, using clear, plain language. Employees, generally, have some difficulty doing their basic jobs; adding “mind-reading” to their description is just plain unfair.
No hints, implications, or innuendos. Say what you want, and use English! Directness counts.
I was recently doing some coaching with a client executive who was lamenting the poor “listening skills” of his Operations VP. Seems he had told the VP that one of his director-level staffers was not fully competent, and that the VP should “do something about that person.”
3 days later, that VP fired that director. My client executive was shocked — he told me, “I told him to do something with her, you know, like coach, train, or develop. Maybe even warn her of her performance.” He said, “I didn’t tell him to fire her…”
The VP, of course, simply said, “The boss said ‘do something with her, so I did.”
“Problem fixed.”
Not really… I don’t need to tell those of you reading this the difficulty in replacing an experienced mid-level manager in a specific industry. Especially without even making an effort to change her performance or behavior in some way.
Of course, the senior executive felt his comments were sufficient… obviously, they were not. English would have prevented this misunderstanding… simply telling the VP that he should “improve her performance or behavior” would have been sufficient; perhaps even simply asking the VP what he’s done to work with the director would have jogged a reasonable conversation.
Instead, a miscommunication — caused solely by incomplete/indirect language — has created yet another “situation” at the company.
As if we didn’t already have enough to do, we go out creating challenges to deal with.
So, like the doctor when the patient says, “Doc, it hurts when I do ‘this,’ and the Doc says simply, “Stop doing that.”
As leaders, we need data and information to make sound decisions. Without them, we are but knee-jerk reactionaries, our direction and focus more resembling a weather vane in the wind than the rock-solid vision necessary for leading others.
So, as we start this new year, let’s decide now that we’ll do everything within our power to have access to that information. For instance: Do you blow up (real or perceived) when your staff brings you really bad news? Shooting the messenger is the pinnacle of foolish; the bad news continues, you simply don’t get it anymore.
The truth is, we should embrace those delivering us bad news. Even if they caused it. we can deal with the performance and behavior later, but right now, the best thing we can hope for is knowledge.
So, what do we say to our folks to prompt such open and forthright discussions? Well, realize first that your words don’t mean squat if your actions portray something else, but here are some suggestions:
1. Tell your staff to always be honest and frank with you, particularly when one-on-one. Having to “ask the right question” to get to an answer is no way to run a railroad. Or a manufacturer. Or a construction company.
2. Make sure they don’t color bad news positively. Present it “naked,” so to speak. As I frequently tell clients, “I’m just going to say this, and probably poorly. Please allow me to clean it up afterward.” You do the same. Unvarnished, bare truth first, pretty, glossy, covers later.
3. They need to know that you want ALL relevant information — good and bad. It’s not “horn-tootin’” to let you know of things that happened as planned; it’s simply informing your boss of relevant status. Both are important.
4. Tell them you want both sides of any story with known conflict. We can’t be interested in a one-sided flow of information; the hallmark of a good senior manager is the ability to see and discuss both sides, even if they personally favor one.
5. Make sure they realize that, if they know the answer, they should say so. Equally, if they don’t know the answer, they shouldn’t wrap it in so much BS that it appears they do.
These are merely suggestions. It’s a new year; time to correct some old “wrongs,” establish some new “rights.” One of those rights should be positive, accurate communications between you and your staffs.
As a friend of mine is so fond pf saying… “This ain’t rocket surgery.”
Human Resources is not a day care. As such, conflict resolution should only be a part of our accountabilities as it relates to making the business successful.
In other words, we aren’t resolving conflict merely to create some kumbaya-looking harmonious state; we resolve conflict so employees will work better and be more productive.
Sometimes, the right answer can be taken from a day care playbook: Shut up, sit down, and color. Quit touching her. Don’t make me stop this car. The list goes on.
They all mean the same thing — “Drop the petty stuff and get back to work.”
I know that sounds heartless, but we are actually paying these folks, right? I don’t think saying, “Hey, I paid you last week — do your job and quit starting trouble” is terribly out of line. In fact, we should probably say it more often.
Yes, there are times when conflict resolution skills come in handy; times when more finesse and delicate handling is called for. But let’s be real — that’s not the norm. Too frequently, HR gets involved in regular, interpersonal dynamics that have little to do with business productivity or success, and everything to do with one employee’s general dislike of another.
Stay focused on what matters. Don’t hesitate to say, “Shut up, sit down, and color.”
In this and 4 subsequent blog entries, I”m expanding on the “5 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership” I outlined in a recent article.
This first law is based on decision-making; one of the most significant things we must do, as leaders, is to make decisions. Some will be good, some require further decision-making.
Law #1: Never delay or abrogate a decision that must be made. Make it and move on. You may have to immediately make another decision; this doesn’t mean your first one was wrong, merely that your second one had the benefit of additional knowledge.
Let me share a story…
I used to work for a 30-year General, a war veteran with a chest full of medals, ribbons, and other colorful accouterments. Great guy, razor sharp, did not suffer fools lightly. His name was Brigadier General Lawrence Bose.
General Bose, as many battle-hardened leaders (military and corporate) seem to be, was known to say some pretty profound things. The sorts of things you would tell yourself, “Hey, I need to remember that one…” Some actually stuck, which for me, is nothing short of miraculous. One, in particular…
“Shirt,” he would say (“Shirt” was sort of slang for “First Sergeant” in the USAF), “Leaders don’t really make good decisions or bad; they just make decisions. If they’ve done their job correctly, the people working for them make the results of those decisions good.”
Now, never mind whether you agree that decisions are never classified as “good” or “bad.” Set that part aside… more important is the leadership genius behind the comment. Our jobs as leaders is to make decisions. We’ve heard this a hundred times, so here’s a hundred and one: A mediocre decision made promptly and unequivocally trumps a really good decision delayed and hesitant.
Another fairly well known General, George S. Patton, put it this way: “A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.”
Consider this: If we’ve managed our talent appropriately, and developed our staffs as we should, most of our decisions will result in unmitigated success — those people working with us will make sure of it.
We spend no small amount of money on employee retention. Do we spend the right money on retaining the right employees?? Hmmm, I wonder…
Employee retention, the RIGHT employee retention, is a significant issue for businesses today.
Retention is personal; there are some things we can do to create a generally favorable environment, but that’s a small piece of the big puzzle.
You know how to retain key employees?? You ASK them what it takes to keep them. This isn’t rocket science, though we sometimes try to make it as difficult as possible.
Now, most managers would prefer it not be so ‘personal,’ since that brings them in close with employees, and puts them – as managers – squarely in the bulls-eye if the retention efforts don’t work out.
Sure, there are some foundational things we can do; Frederick Herzberg called them “Hygiene Factors.” [Shameless commercial plug: I identify these “Input Assumptions” in my Performance Triangle model] Acceptable compensation and benefits, a safe work environment, generally free from harassment, etc. All these are necessary, but simple. They aren’t, however, “satisfiers.” They merely remove the “DIS-satisfiers.” Not nearly the same thing, but significant nonetheless.
I sincerely believe that key-person retention and development should be a significant part of every manager’s accountabilities, and a central component of his or her incentive program. Succession plans are neat; employee and managerial development programs are great. All of these initiatives, of course, hinge on us KEEPING those employees. It’s time to take retention seriously.
Also interestingly, I have two clients who have retained me to find quality engineering and process-consulting professionals. These have become challenging searches, to say the least. Finding “bodies” is simple; online postings, a few databases, and you’re there. Finding QUALITY candidates, however, who can add value to these organizations, has become incredibly difficult.
Where did they go? 6-7 years ago, we couldn’t find technical talent, since it was all absorbed. 5 years ago, there was a glut. Today, there’s a shortage… did they all change fields? I suspect they are still there, just not as open to discuss leaving an organization that has hired and been good to them – much different than the “free agent” thinking that brought chaos to hiring in the late 1990’s and 2000.
Curiously, the things that retain workers today – development, skill enhancement, advancement opportunities – are those things that can create the vacuum necessary for an organization to get those workers to consider their opportunities.
Keep an eye on your workers, and develop necessary plans to keep them. Someone else — your competitors, likely — are looking at them as a potential trained talent pool…
I recently had a conversation with some really smart people around Dan Pink’s
book, Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Read the book, it’s a good one, discussing how intrinsic motivation trumps extrinsic almost all the time. If you were expecting me to now give you some detailed book review, you’re about to be disappointed.
As these things often do, we ended up in an extended “bunny trail” conversation around the whole subject of individual responsibility and accountability, and what that really meant from a leadership perspective.
Here’s what we discovered during our lengthy and oft-times pseudo-cerebral discussions:
Responsibility–the easiest part. Responsibility is simply a list of things we do, tasks we perform, jobs we are given. Alan Weiss called this “inputs.” You can be responsible for myriad things, both that you specifically control, and some… well, not so much.
In my world, I’m responsible for coaching, facilitating, consulting, providing proposals, answering emails and calls, responding promptly to clients, etc.
These are all Responsibilities.
Accountability–it’s not the same as “blame,” per se, though there is a certain sect of people who would ascribe such. No, it’s bigger than that, yet infinitely simpler. It’s the outcomes of our responsibilities. It’s the results expected from our inputs.
For me, improved leadership behavior, demonstrably better skills, increased performance of a business, function, or enterprise (that actually follows my consulting or advice!) are all Accountabilities. It’s the results or outcomes of my Responsibilities.
We often confuse these two, yet the differences are both clear and significant. Pay attention to them.
Leadership–heavily influences both Responsibility and Accountability. For instance, we influence–actually determine–what a subordinate’s Responsibilities will be. We tell them what we want them to do, what we expect them to be working on, when to be there, etc. Leaders have, quite literally, 100% control (there’s that word) over employee Responsibilities.
Now Accountability gets a bit fuzzier.
Yes, leadership determines, from a starting level, what results and/or outcomes that an employee will be Accountable for (sorry for the dreaded stranded preposition–couldn’t be helped). But there is also a measure of personal acceptance required for real Accountability to be visible to others–an important component.
An employee can be Accountable “because I said so,” but evidence of that employee actually accepting that Accountability requires a willingness on their part to demonstrate that accountability openly, e.g., “Yes, I did that,” “No, it wasn’t an accident, it was my intent,” “That was my responsibility, and I didn’t do it,” and so on. These demonstrate acceptance of accountability, and that’s something only the individual can do.
Now, leadership clearly influences all of this. Leadership has to make sure that Responsibilities are clear, reasonable, and have value. Leaders must also ensure that an environment exists where accepting Accountability is not necessarily fatal; that demonstrating Accountability is a mark of courage and success, not of weakness and/or failure.
