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.
Written by Simma Liberman, The Inclusionist Creating inclusive workplaces where people love to do their best work and customers love to do business.
According to findings of the Center for Talent Innovation “The engine for serial innovation is a diverse workforce that’s managed by leaders who cherish difference, embrace disruption, and foster a speak-up culture. Inclusive leader behaviors effectively “unlock” the innovative potential of an inherently diverse workforce, enabling companies to increase their share of existing markets and lever open brand-new ones. (more…)
When we use control and leadership in the same sentence, our brows start to furrow. We see controlling behavior as an anathema to empowerment–something to be summarily eradicated, not embraced.
Well, yes, sort of.
Controlling behavior in leadership–when used within relationships–is clearly bad. The world doesn’t need more micro-managers, we have plenty. But make the distinction clear: when used within relationships is the qualifier.
Personally controlling the controllable is something altogether different. And no, I’m not simply playing with words. Let me explain…
Relationships notwithstanding, there is a lot going on in a typical manager’s world. Changes, innovations, developing people, idiotic boss demands… the list goes on. Add to that the occasional “he’s touching me!” and we see quickly that the old, tired phrase “control is just an illusion” is neither old nor tired enough. In fact, it’s still pretty damned active.
There are so many things–most things–over which leadership has little or no control, that for those things we can control, we should do so viciously and purposefully. Our own behavior, for example. The feedback I give others… whether I decide to mentor someone or not… how I act/react to challenges–do I show resilience, modeling that behavior for others, or do I run around shrieking and pulling my hair?
We don’t control much in the big scheme of things, but we do control more than we often think. Grab those things you do control, make sure they happen as you want them to, and save the mental and emotional bandwidth for those things where control is simply a distant mirage, making us believe that water is just over the next sand dune.
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.
Why do we make so many things harder than they have to be?
If you think about it more than a nanosecond, that question applies to more aspects of our lives than just work, but I’m a consultant, not a therapist. So, I think I’ll stick to business and confront one of my least favorite subjects: setting strategy for next year.
I don’t know about you, but I’m not looking forward to my next strategy session. I can picture it: a “retreat” with other executives, wishing we were anywhere else and wondering what’s for lunch. And that doesn’t actually sound so unattractive, unless you’re the guy or gal who has to keep everyone’s attention focused on the task at hand. (more…)
