In this final related blog entry, I’m closing out the “5 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership” I outlined in a recent article.
This fifth law is something we all wrestle with mightily. It’s caused many a manager or leader to be ineffective, or less than fully effective, and robbed many an employee of the benefits of nearby, accessible leadership.
Law #5. Employees need their managers to be leaders; they don’t need a shoulder, a buddy, a simpatico, or a commiserator. If you want a friend, buy a dog.
We really do struggle with this. Everyone wants to be liked, and it always seems difficult to decline a beer after work, or something similar.
I’m not advocating a monk-like existence, disallowing any contact with your troops; merely reminding you that they would like to have a friend, but they need a leader if they are to be successful.
You do want them to be successful, don’t you?
Thanks for your patience as I moved through these 5 irrefutable laws (at least in my opinion). These laws are fairly intuitive, and certainly not rocket science… or brain surgery… or rocket surgery.
They are simple management and leadership axioms that have passed the test of time.
Sometimes, it’s the simple things that work. Try it sometime — you just might like it.
Someone recently asked me to give them a general overview of incentives. Never-mind the cliff-notes request format, we simply over-complicate this stuff.
Understanding incentive compensation is simple, and is largely human nature:
1. That which is rewarded is repeated,
2. You don’t get what you want, hope for, manage to, or request — you get what you pay for (as a tenet of compensation, not necessarily a life philosophy), and
3. Simplicity wins.
Exception, contrarian arguments like you mention are just that, and based more on opinion than empirical evidence.
Well crafted incentive schemes will generally work when we can show that:
1. Working harder (bigger, better, stronger, faster) will improve my job performance, and
2. My improved performance will create rewards, perhaps an increase in salary or valued benefits, and
3. I value these rewards.
(oft-paraphrased from Vroom, though not sure his was original)
You know who I’m talking about, too. Those people who just never seem happy; who always see the negative even when the message is positive; who suspect ulterior motives regardless of act. They are the literal “pain in your neck.” Personally, I could recommend you just whack ‘em. That’ll please a lot of people working nearby, and you’d be surprised at the immediate effect that would have on other malcontents in the organization.
But then, we wouldn’t need this article, so here we are. You’re stuck with them, or keeping them for some reason, or simply want to help them emerge from their dark hole.
Here are some ways you can deal with these sourpusses:
What attitude? Typically, when you try to address an “attitude,” you get a blank, puzzled stare, and some horse hockey about they “have no idea what you’re talking about.” So, let’s get specific. Frankly, it’s not the attitude; it’s the observable behavior that’s a problem.
“Sue, I hear you comment or complain every time we roll out a new initiative. Frankly, I want it to stop. Now. Keep it to yourself, or go speak with your supervisor. No more vocal whining to others.”
You get the idea. Freedom of speech is a protection between the individual and the state (government). Employees’ speech is not protected in the workplace; you can determine–and explicitly state–what is and isn’t acceptable in your organization. (obvious exceptions to this are harassment, retaliation, SOX disclosures, etc.) The idea here is not overt heavy-handedness, it’s making sure the workforce isn’t subjected to a constant complainer’s rants.
Proselytizing may help. Try to convert them to your way of thinking. Be direct in your comments, and explain why it’s in their best interest to become more positive. Let these folks know that their perceived attitudes (demonstrable, of course) are noticed by others, and certainly effect their ability to succeed in the organization.
In other words, explain the WIIFM: “What’s in it for me.”
“Janet, I want you to be more positive in your interactions with others. Your negativity is noticeable and not much fun to be around. I want to help, so let’s discuss.”
Sometimes, the “next step” may be necessary. “Bill, I need you to behave more positively—in fact, it’s necessary if you want to continue to work here. Smile a bit, be pleasant when asked for help, respond to ‘hellos’ and ‘good mornings.’”
Zero tolerance is the rule. They are called “non-negotiables.”
When you decide to change a malcontent to something more positive, be specific as mentioned above, and then be prepared: you must address each and every “slip” or transgression that deviates from your discussion.
Every. Single. Instance.
No letting up, no “letting it slide.” If you do, each time it occurs you’ve “reset” the entire change process. There can be no turning back. If they do well for three weeks then have a relapse, you simply cannot think “well, they’ve done well up until now—let’s see how it plays out.” No, you’ve got to address it.
Immediately.
No try, only do. Master Yoda was right – there’s no credit for saying “I’ll try,” or “make every effort.” There’s only credit for actually doing.
You need a firm commitment from this yahoo that s/he will take immediate, positive action to correct this unacceptable behavior – not that they’ll “do their best to be more positive,” in some vague indeterminate sense.
Make it crystal clear that this is not some esoteric “hope you can do better;” it’s a must-have, a condition for future advancement, opportunities, and yes, maybe even continued employment.
Close ain’t good enough (pardon the grammar transgression, mom). To continue the thinking from 3 & 4 above, this isn’t hand grenades or horseshoes.
Even when this person is making an effort, you must be diligent. They’ve got to nail it down correctly. Coming close, even if well-intentioned, won’t work here. Remember, you could have simply tolerated the behavior as we had been doing; you chose, instead, to attempt to change it. You must stay the course, and you must be crystal clear.
Close isn’t good enough.
Inspect what you expect. Follow-up, diligently and repeatedly.
This person needs to know that you aren’t simply “having a nice discussion.” We are discussing performance-related behaviors, we expect them to change to reach acceptable standard, and we intend–as with any good performance management effort–to follow-up to insure those changes are implemented.
In other words, “I’ll be watching…”
This is important, for a couple of reasons: First, this employee needs to know–really, personally understand–that your expectations are for immediate, positive performance improvement. No better way to demonstrate that then being around to see it.
Second, you may actually “catch them” doing something right, in which case, that’s a super time for a little positive reinforcement (see proselytizing above).
Never let ‘em see you sweat. Don’t get mad, upset, frustrated or annoyed. Treat as you would any other aspect of an employee’s performance. You’ve done nothing wrong—don’t feel bad or guilty, and never assume ownership of someone’s employment conditions when they have the power to change and control those conditions.
Remember, this too shall pass.
Malcontents generally know they aren’t the most pleasant people in the world; they typically, however, feel somewhat justified in their actions, and certainly don’t always realize the extent of their behavior. And those who do generally succeed in being “difficult to talk to,” so their behavior goes unchecked.
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.
We obviously need both processes AND people in a successful business activity (don’t we?). But which is more trustworthy?
Wow, what a great question, if I do say so myself.
Processes are simply and totally repeatable; they are the diagram for a series of successful operations that a business needs to succeed, and when done correctly, act as a blueprint for those operations. In other words, they are consistent, repeatable, and known for their prior success. Good stuff, these processes. They tell us what to do, how to do it, and when it must occur. Seems like nirvana to me, eh?
Hmmm, maybe not…
People, of course, are the fly in the ointment.
When processes break down, people are generally at the core. When specific actions begin to work against the system instead of in support, we can again usually point to people as the difficulty. The people element in a process is the least consistent, the least replicable.
In other words, people are nowhere as “clean,” from a business activity view, as are credible, substantiated, proven processes. They are free-thinking, changing, ad-hoc, seat-of-the-pants animals. Having said that (I love that phrase)…
Processes are woefully inadequate in their contingency and coverage. You cannot possibly have a sound, working, proven process for every conceivable business operation, activity, or event. And processes, of course, cannot think, use judgment, or learn from mistakes (not that some people always do either).
In other words, the process is the best start, but ultimate completion — and success — rests on people.
So, my choice is people… but not without reservations.
Deming said that the system (processes) causes up to 90% of all errors in a business. I’m not sure that, outside a discrete manufacturing process, that always holds true as a specific number, but as a concept, it seems quite accurate.
The rub of the system is that, the processes we hold so dear are created and authored by people, who have the same limitations inherent in the processes they are creating.
In other words, we use an error-laden ‘process’ (people), to create our ‘processes.’
Heavy stuff.
I’ve got a nifty idea, then… How about we use people to create sound, meaningful processes that successfully take advantage of the available strengths of our – you guessed it – people??
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.
Personally, I could recommend you just whack ‘em. That’ll please a lot of people working nearby, and you’d be surprised at the immediate effect that would have on other malcontents in the organization.
Remember, this too shall pass.
Deming said that the system (processes) causes up to 90% of all errors in a business. I’m not sure that, outside a discrete manufacturing process, that always holds true as a specific number, but as a concept, it seems quite accurate.
