by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Apr 2, 2014 | Miscellaneous Business Topics
I was facilitating a group of key managers recently, and we began discussing effective empowerment and how it would look.
When I opened up for questions, a recently-promoted manager asked, “What if an employee doesn’t want to be empowered–what if all they want is to continue status-quo in their current role?”
This is a great question, that many of us have been faced with at one time or another. Some people want their lives to remain constant; to not change or evolve hardly at all. Others fear failure so greatly they insist they want no additional responsibility whatsoever, thereby reducing the likelihood that they’ll be removed from their comfort zone.
Sometimes, it takes more than a manager offering responsibility to get an employee engaged with the idea.
To this I have two comments: First, these employees will just need to “get over it.” Life doesn’t stand still, and our businesses clearly do not either. We must constantly morph our business into something new, adaptive, and different, sometimes merely to maintain our organizational status quo.
Further, employees unwilling to grow can jam up a development pipeline, taking a seat that could be filled by someone willing to invest the discretionary effort to help the organization succeed.
Next, just as importantly, we must make sure that our employees really know what we are asking of them.
For instance, to be successfully empowered, our employees need:
- An understandable definition of empowerment (to you), what that means to them, and what exact accountabilities, responsibilities, and activities you mean to delegate.
- Sufficient and appropriate information to make the decisions we are hoping to delegate. Realize that, especially in the early stages of empowerment, these employees do not have the benefit of our knowledge; many of the decisions we make in a 5-minute flurry would seem difficult and complex to someone unaccustomed to the effort.
- Input into the total decision-making process. Note, I said “input.” Sometimes you’ll move forward with their ideas and suggestions, other times not. The key to making this work is to continue to ask for and expect that input.
- Skill development. It’s unreasonable to expect someone to handle new responsibilities, especially those of a higher order – that you might likely delegate – without some attempt at providing them with the necessary new skills and knowledge.You may not have to send them back for an MBA, but simply saying “handle this” probably isn’t enough.
- Your support and consistency. Empowerment is, at its core, really effective delegation. You must be willing to live with processes, attempts, approaches, and even mistakes… without reversing course. The first time you “crawfish” is the last time someone sticks their neck out in effort.
That doesn’t mean you let someone give away the store. Zig Ziglar always said to “in-spect what you ex-pect,” and there’s a ton of truth in that. Final accountability still rests on your shoulders, and there may come a time where you must unilaterally reverse a catastrophically poor decision. Just don’t do so randomly.
Empowerment—really effective delegation–results in better overall decisions, quicker actions, and frees up some of your time for more strategic efforts. When done correctly, it’s clearly a win for all. Employees get developed, decisions get made, and tasks get accomplished.
Do it right, and it’s a home run all around.
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Mar 19, 2014 | Brazen Leader, Miscellaneous Business Topics
I’ve had several clients and colleagues ask about impending
staffing challenges; more specifically, what happens when opportunities for key
performers are appearing in ready form?
We are staring down the barrel of impending poaching
opportunities. Most efforts at reorganization and such have distilled talent
down to key performers; Now, other firms are going after them.
It’s coming… What
to do? Some things to consider:
- Anybody who tells
you money doesn’t matter… well,they’ll lie about other things as well. Money isn’t a prime motivator for most; it’s
seldom even a satisfier, but it can be a dissatisfier… People expect to be
paid what they are worth, and if another, reasonable organization offers them
25% more, your pay is the issue.
Fix it now. Get
market lines on your compensation, and act proactively – it’s simply too late
after they’ve received an offer.
Once and employee receives an offer, you’re on borrowed
time. Even if you convince them to stay
for the moment.
- YOU know they’re
good, but do THEY know that YOU know??
Top performers know they are top performers. Not necessarily egotistic, they do, however,
have solid self-awareness. The question
most have is, “do you recognize the value that I bring to this
organization??” “Do you give
me the recognition that value deserves??”
And not just money; there’s personal recognition, peer
recognition, intangible rewards, and professional development investments. All of these tell top performers that you
know they are top performers..
- Ask Them! To quote Tom Peters, “This company had a
unique way of communicating; they talked to each other!” Want to know what those top performers really
need? Do something really whacko and ask
them. That’s right, plain, simple
English. “Say, Top Performer, I’ve
been wondering. You do such a good job
around here (remember, s/he knows this already), I wanted to make sure we were
taking care of you properly. What can we
do so you will continue to really, really like working here for us?”
Top performers are generally reasonable; you won’t hear
“double my salary,” or “give me 10 weeks of vacation.” You may hear, “Well, I’d like to spend
some time working in R&D;” or “I was hoping to start my MBA, but
I’m not sure if the schedule will work…”
Then, to coin a line from Picard, “Make it so.”
Keeping top performers isn’t nearly as difficult as we
sometimes think it is. It’s a function
of being aware of their value, and ensuring that THEY are aware of our
knowledge of their value. Then, do right
by them. That’s your best bet in
immunizing them against the coming poaching epidemic…
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Mar 3, 2014 | Miscellaneous Business Topics
Communication: I’m not sure that word means what you think it means…
First, that phrase in the subtitle above – “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 managers were poor communicators. For this, they seem to want acclaim…
I’m kidding.
Survey respondents blamed management for (in order of survey popularity):
- Relying too much on e-mail.
- Assuming a single message is enough.
- Having no feedback loop in place.
- Messages lacking clarity.
To this, I say “hmmmm…”
Nonetheless, there is some very apparent truth here.
We all rely way 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 leaders do has at least a measure of confidentiality. Next thing you know, we’re acting like everything we say and do is some state secret.
It isn’t, and you know it. Loosen the information purse strings and share some of that stuff. It matters.
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.
I’m just sayin’…
by Triangle Performance Staff | Feb 27, 2014 | Miscellaneous Business Topics
When it comes to effective communication, who really is the judge? Based on my experience all too often managers think they are the best judge of how clear they are. I mean their message is completely clear to them so why would it not be with any intended receiver (like an employee)? That thinking negatively impacts more organizations than any of us would like to admit. Managers are often astonished when employees complain about a lack of or unclear communication. “But we talk to them all the time,” they say, and they are right but so are their employees. Managers may talk, but employees don’t hear. Communication has less to do with their ability to speak well and more to do with their ability to “communicate.”
The key to being effective starts with the manager accepting the fact that clarity can only be measured by what is received not what is delivered. Managers need to establish whether their communications are not just heard but understood, and if not, what the reason is for the gap because it is only through “understanding” that we find the effectiveness that we seek.
So why is communication often heard but misunderstood, or missed altogether? Here are the four of the most frequent and most serious inhibitors of effective communication:
Misreading Emotional Impacts
Facts are heard, emotions are felt and when facts mix with emotions the opportunity for mis-“understandings” are rampant. Often times the errors in corporate or individual leader communications don’t relate to factual accuracy. The miscommunications usually relate to issues around feeling the communication, its sincerity, its authenticity, its integrity, and it’s caring. Anybody can hear a communication: “We are going to merge with XYZ Company, but everyone’s job is safe.” In many situations that message won’t embraced simply because of the turmoil (emotional) created by big change. To be effective in that communication the leader/organization has to consider and convey an understanding and recognition of the potential emotions that employees might feel, a communication needs to convey genuine emotion, not merely fact and consider the emotional filters that can get in the way of the intended message.
Communication should inspire (create an emotional connection), not merely provide facts and information: facts alone rarely inspire.
It is difficult to inspire people with a memo or e-mail. Inspiring people and communicating feelings is easier face-to-face. Patton could not have inspired his troops with emails about fighting the Germans on the beaches. Managers must have the courage to talk to their employees, not hide behind the cruel remoteness of their computer screens. Just a note to remember in our electronic message driven society, the time it takes to talk to one person, while much longer than it takes to send off a thousand emails, yields immeasurable efficiencies in the effectiveness of the message and its ultimate reception.
Bias or Misunderstood Mental Models
What comes to mind when the biggest schmoozer in the company stops by your office to say hello or to ask if you need any help with that new project? Your immediate response to the friendly greeting is likely to be “I wonder what he wants from me now?” Even when people genuinely try to mend bridges and reconstruct broken relationships, if there is an existing bias or a lack of trust, everything they say is likely to be misconstrued as something that relates to their self-interest.
Bias, mistrust, bad assumptions, etc… create unintended filters and sometimes entirely block communication. The result: employees either not listening or hearing a message very different from the intended one.
FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE RECEIVER
The most frequent barrier is simply not considering the audience. It is our nature to see the world through our own eyes, with our filters and bias’. Because of that we usually create our messages in a way that we would want the message communicated to us. The simple fact is we are not all the same. We each see the world differently (refer to mental models above), we each judge the world using ourselves as the standard for normalcy and because of that we probably communicate effectively with some (like us), but likely miss a much larger group. Additionally, each of us have unique needs as it relates to the content of what is communicated to us. Some need brevity or they get lost in the words (or quit listening), others need that personal connection (emotion) and then others need lots of detail or a thorough explanation. When we don’t get what we need from someone’s communication, we typically ignore it, misinterpret it or make assumptions to fill the gaps. Regardless of what we (the receivers) do, the message can become muddled or completely twisted. It is critical that a manager know his or her tendencies and also work to meet the information needs of others when communicating even the simplest of messages.
OUT OF BALANCE TALK / LISTEN RATIO
Employees find it hard to listen with an open mind to managers who do not themselves listen. Listening skills are the first step in communication skills and are by far the more impactful of the skills. Significant resources are spent teaching us how to communicate (talk) but rarely how to listen. Listening requires character and some ethical stature. Listening requires humility and compassion. These skills come naturally to some, and with hard work to others. A note to remember for leaders is that an organization that wishes to improve the way it communicates must first improve the way it listens.
How a company communicates, how trusted its communication is, and its capacity to inspire its people with its communication all contribute as much to its success as any other of its strategies. But effective communication is a function not only of managerial skill, but also of corporate and managerial character that is interestingly enough driven by effective communication.
Instinctively we know that leaders who have made an impact on us personally have been effective communicators. They practice solid communication skills both listening and expressing themselves effectively.
Someone once said that an idea is not worth nothing unless it is communicated effectively. “Leaders are people who make ideas come alive through communication skills.”
by D. Kevin Berchelmann | Feb 14, 2014 | Brazen Leader, Miscellaneous Business Topics
An article in a recent Wall Street Journal once again extols the virtues of getting rid of performance reviews. It’s written, of course, by a career academic and author who fancies himself a consultant as well.
Therein lies the problem. I have no problem with academics, per se. I just want them to remain in academia. It’s when they venture out into the real world that their distorted perceptions and laboratory theories fall apart.
Someone need to lock those guys up, before they do real damage to some unsuspecting company.
In summary, this gown-wearing, tasseled professor believes that performance reviews have no impact on measurement, pay, development or, in fact, performance.
And perhaps, given his limited, myopic experience, that’s been true. And I’m certainly not one to claim that all performance reviews are of great value. Some aren’t. Sometimes managers, untrained and unprepared, fail at the effort. Sometimes, we don’t communicate regularly enough to prepare them for success.
But to paint all performance management with the same “ineffective” brush is, well, just plain stupid. Well-trained managers, managing performance in a well-thought process, can create a higher-performing organization than would ever occur if we were all left to our own devices.
You would, of course, have to spend some time in the real world to know that. The real reason for this article in the WSJ? The proposed alternative:
“Performance Previews”
That’s right, an entry piece to introduce–in all likelihood–this pointy-haired ivory-tower resident’s new book. Didn’t see that coming.
More consultant-speak and fads. Yes, that’s what we need…
Not.
But that’s just me.
by Triangle Performance Staff | Feb 6, 2014 | Executive Improvement, Kevin Berchelmann, Miscellaneous Business Topics
NPR just published a great article about the impact of “toxic leadership,” something that I think we all would agree is a problem, and not just in the military. (Army Takes On Its Own Toxic Leaders)
Aside from the horrifying findings of the research (toxic leaders playing a role in the suicide of our soldiers), the article paints a vivid picture of a very special type of leader, one that I have encountered in many places. The article speaks to a new definition printed in the Army’s leadership bible (Army Doctrine Publication) that most, in and out of the military, can relate. What’s interesting is that the Army went to significant pains to describe what leadership isn’t. In doing so, they’ve painted a vivid picture of what most of us have encountered somewhere in our career and hopefully use that experience to learn what not to do similarly to the Army’s efforts with their definition of “Toxic Leadership.” (Army Doctrine Publication 6-22)
The Army’s definition, while wordy (like most military regulations) can best be summed up in its first line:
“Toxic leadership is a combination of self-centered attitudes, motivations, and behaviors that have adverse effects on subordinates, the organization, and mission performance.”
Have you ever run across someone like that who was in a managerial role? Someone who saw their employees, and likely their peers as a means to an end, typically an end that was completely self-centered in nature? If not, consider yourself fortunate.
So what is the cost of BAD leadership? In corporate America, we might see bad leadership tied to suicide but I personally think the suicide being committed most often is committed by our corporations rather than the employees subjected to it and what’s worse, it’s usually a slow suicide.
The cost of bad leadership can be measured in results, but more importantly the costs can be best measured in terms of results compared to said effort. Far too many organizations turn a blind eye to bad leadership because the bad leaders get results. How many times have you heard (or maybe even thought to yourself) “we can’t get rid of him; he gets results.” Maybe the thought should be “what is he costing us in terms of results we could be achieving?” These managers often do deliver results in the short-term but at a significantly higher cost than necessary. In many cases, those costs go far beyond hard dollars which is why they are sometimes easy to overlook. The real costs are frequently soft dollars that are harder to measure but carry much more impact.
Setting aside the emotion laced conversation of suicide, simply replace that with voluntary resignation or complete disengagement (quitting without leaving). Bad leadership negatively impacts the investment made in every new hire (military or corporate) by limiting the potential return (outputs) from that investment and significantly impacting the life cycle of the asset itself (separation or quitting without leaving). Longer-term, though suicide may not be a typical result of bad leaders in corporate America, the damage it does or can do to our current employees and future leaders is significant.
What makes bad leaders even more dangerous is that they tend to be very good at convincing those above them that they are good leaders and end up capitalizing on that false perception and get moved to even higher levels of responsibility. Their damage, then, is not localized and much harder to repair once discovered.
So what do you do about “toxic” leaders? I suggest that you treat them as what they are, a toxin. With toxins you usually have two choices, cut it out along with the damaged tissue (other infected leaders) or isolate the toxin by surrounding it with positive leadership and mitigate the negative impact. Most importantly, you have to deal with toxic leaders or like a real toxin in our bodies, the damage spreads and the longer it remains, the faster and deeper it spreads and dealing with the issue becomes more difficult.
So the question of the day is, do you have any toxic leaders?
