In an earlier post, I talked about the importance of setting SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely or Time-bound) goals. Now let's talk about regular conversations with your employees about their goals and their progress against their goals.
I recommend that you meet monthly with each of your employees. If you have too many direct reports to meet monthly, then meet every other month. In no circumstance should you meet with each of your direct reports less than once a quarter. The structure of these meetings will always be the same.
1) Greeting and Social
2) Review of progress against goals since last meeting
3) Reconciliation of planned progress with actual progress
4) Plan for progress until next meeting
5) Review action plan and close
By setting these regular meetings in place, and reviewing progress against plan on a regular basis, you can provide the resources your employees need to be successful, or reset the plan.
These regular meetings also give you the opportunity to make a timely intervention if an employee is not performing to plan. Things happen in everyone's life that disrupt our ability to meet our commitments. Sickness, death in family, new babies, weddings, graduations; both happy and sad events can distract from the time and energy needed to be successful at work.
What should you do if an employee consistently fails to meet their goals? The first step is to evaluate if the goals were too much of a reach, or if workplace demands have changed and the goals need to reflect that. If the goals are appropriate, you will need to ask the employee to help you understand why they are not meeting your expectations. You are limited in the direct questioning you can do, employees have a right to privacy that you can't abridge. If there is no reason forthcoming for the failure to meet expectations, you can use what you know to outline a plan.
"I see you have been out sick for 10 days in the last month. It is only natural that you would fall behind. How long do you think it will take you to catch up? What can I do to help you get through the backlog?" Usually acknowledging that the employee is only in the same situation that anyone would be in, and showing that you are willing to help, will get the employee to help you help them.
Sometimes, If a typically good performer is really struggling, there could be bigger issues in their lives that render them not able to perform. There are a number of ways to handle these situations, but great care must be taken to not further damage someone already in a bad situation.
It may be appropriate to reallocate work, or to give the struggling employee an assignment that they can escape into and get a reprieve from the challenges in their lives.
It may be appropriate to suggest a leave of absence, or consultation with medical or employee assistance.
No matter what, you can't ignore it. As leaders, we can have the opportunity to help our employees through their most difficult times. By taking the time to build an environment of caring and trust, you create the platform for the resolving performance issues in the most beneficial way possible.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Monday, March 30, 2015
What Matters Most
Thanks to Sharon for this blog topic, provided via comments. I love comments.
One of the most common mistakes leaders make is losing sight of what matters most. Unless you are a business owner, even though you are a leader, you still have a leader that you are accountable to. While it is important to keep your leader happy, focusing up can destroy your ability to be a leader of happy people.
From my perspective, the two most important groups are your employees, and your clients. You can look at your leadership as a client, and that is probably the best way to keep that relationship healthy. When a leader is all about growing their career, that becomes the objective they focus on. Healthy organizations are focused on organizational goals, and help their work group or team see how the work they are doing support that larger organizational goal.
Leaders who are working on their career, as opposed to the organizational goals create instability in two ways. One, if you are focused on looking good to your superiors, you can lose sight of the larger organizational goals. When that superior changes, you may have left your organization in jeopardy, because the contribution your organization is making to those goals may have eroded. Two, when leaders are about keeping the person they work for happy, instead of focusing on real contributions to the organizations goals, there is a good chance a change in leadership at the next level will result in your removal.
In my 35 years and 3 months of full-time employment, I had 16 different first-level leaders, and at least another 30 second-level leaders, in addition to the leaders I provided service to who were not in my line organization. I can say with complete honesty, in all of that time, I only had one leader that I would never want to work for again, and that leader was focused on looking good and getting ahead, not on organizational objectives.
The 16 leaders weren't neatly spaced either. I had a couple of long-term relationships, three leaders for three years each, two leaders for 4 years each, another for 6 years (because that was a GREAT leader - six of the best professional years of my life). In those times of leader transitions, the best asset I had was the strength of my goals and the alignment of my goals to the success of the organization.
I'm not advocating that leaders have adversarial relationships with their leaders. What I do advocate is holding your leaders accountable to stay aligned with the organization. It is totally acceptable to ask how an initiative supports the larger organizational goals. It is also appropriate to challenge when goals change with a leadership change. Keep the focus on alignment. Don't confront - solicit understanding. An opening like "This seems to be a different direction than with the previous leader. Can you help me craft the message to my team as to how this direction better supports the organization's goals?" or "I'd like to understand how you see my team supporting the organizational goals. Here is how I see it, are we in alignment?" You may end up working for someone who is so focused on working on their career, they don't care about alignment to organizational goals, and only care about you and your team in how you can make them look good. When confronted with that reality, your job is to find out how to protect your people, and carefully craft your messaging so that your people don't lose hope.
There is always a way to be inspirational for your people. When you focus on your leader, or your career, it is almost impossible to be inspirational. Inspired people are happy people. Happy people are productive people who are a joy to interact with. Do everything you can to preserve your team's joy.
One of the most common mistakes leaders make is losing sight of what matters most. Unless you are a business owner, even though you are a leader, you still have a leader that you are accountable to. While it is important to keep your leader happy, focusing up can destroy your ability to be a leader of happy people.
From my perspective, the two most important groups are your employees, and your clients. You can look at your leadership as a client, and that is probably the best way to keep that relationship healthy. When a leader is all about growing their career, that becomes the objective they focus on. Healthy organizations are focused on organizational goals, and help their work group or team see how the work they are doing support that larger organizational goal.
Leaders who are working on their career, as opposed to the organizational goals create instability in two ways. One, if you are focused on looking good to your superiors, you can lose sight of the larger organizational goals. When that superior changes, you may have left your organization in jeopardy, because the contribution your organization is making to those goals may have eroded. Two, when leaders are about keeping the person they work for happy, instead of focusing on real contributions to the organizations goals, there is a good chance a change in leadership at the next level will result in your removal.
In my 35 years and 3 months of full-time employment, I had 16 different first-level leaders, and at least another 30 second-level leaders, in addition to the leaders I provided service to who were not in my line organization. I can say with complete honesty, in all of that time, I only had one leader that I would never want to work for again, and that leader was focused on looking good and getting ahead, not on organizational objectives.
The 16 leaders weren't neatly spaced either. I had a couple of long-term relationships, three leaders for three years each, two leaders for 4 years each, another for 6 years (because that was a GREAT leader - six of the best professional years of my life). In those times of leader transitions, the best asset I had was the strength of my goals and the alignment of my goals to the success of the organization.
I'm not advocating that leaders have adversarial relationships with their leaders. What I do advocate is holding your leaders accountable to stay aligned with the organization. It is totally acceptable to ask how an initiative supports the larger organizational goals. It is also appropriate to challenge when goals change with a leadership change. Keep the focus on alignment. Don't confront - solicit understanding. An opening like "This seems to be a different direction than with the previous leader. Can you help me craft the message to my team as to how this direction better supports the organization's goals?" or "I'd like to understand how you see my team supporting the organizational goals. Here is how I see it, are we in alignment?" You may end up working for someone who is so focused on working on their career, they don't care about alignment to organizational goals, and only care about you and your team in how you can make them look good. When confronted with that reality, your job is to find out how to protect your people, and carefully craft your messaging so that your people don't lose hope.
There is always a way to be inspirational for your people. When you focus on your leader, or your career, it is almost impossible to be inspirational. Inspired people are happy people. Happy people are productive people who are a joy to interact with. Do everything you can to preserve your team's joy.
Friday, March 27, 2015
Final post on conflict
When I started the series, I promised to end it with a post on conflict outside the workplace. In some ways, it is much harder to manage conflict in your "real" life and in some ways it is easier. The hard part is you can't point to a corporate mandate or a workplace expectation. But you can set expectations in all of your relationships.
If we go back to the original post, On Conflict, First in a Series, that post talks about most conflict arising when two people "believe" different things. Beliefs are personal, and usually there are no clear cut answers. If you want to avoid conflict in your life, the first step is suspending judgement, and allowing others to believe whatever they want. This is where expectation setting comes in.
It is perfectly OK to tell the people in your life that while you know you will disagree on different subjects, it is not OK to be mean or derogatory simply because our beliefs differ.
Most of us have two types of people in our lives. The people we chose, and the people we are related to. I have some relatives (I think everyone does) who have very strong beliefs that conflict with my belief system. But they are family and I don't want to give them up. So I do a lot of conflict deflection with those people. I'll be honest, I probably limit my exposure to them a little bit too.
Some of the friends I've chosen because we share interests aren't aligned on all beliefs. With these friends, I try to stick to the common ground. Luckily, I have many friends that are perfect for me. We align on important stuff, and naturally avoid the topics we learned make us uncomfortable.
If you can suspend judgement, and let everyone believe whatever they want to as long as they don't expect you to agree, and let go of having to be "right", a lot of conflict can be avoided.
If a person brings too much conflict and emotional pain in your life, you have to question why you keep them. If they are related to you, the love may exceed the pain, or the duty may exceed the pain. Never feel bad about yourself if you emotionally armor up so that the conflict doesn't hurt you anymore. You wouldn't need the armor if no one was lobbing hurt your way.
A simple "I love you and I am never going to agree with you on this subject so let's not discuss it" is always a good statement. You take responsibility for your beliefs, no judgement or criticism, just stating a personal fact.
After a conflict - because as much as we try to avoid them they happen anyway - a heartfelt apology is always a good start. "I'm sorry we argued. I will try harder to not be judgmental, and to listen to your beliefs without trying to change your mind. I love you, and you are too important to me to create this kind of pain in our relationship." Even if in your heart you feel like you were "right", is that important enough to you to sacrifice a relationship?
Because at the end of the day - conflict resolution is about maintaining relationships. If the relationship is beneficial to you, and you want to maintain it, finding ways to avoid and manage conflict are necessary.
We're all different - conflict is inevitable. What is not inevitable is that we let conflict destroy our relationships.
If we go back to the original post, On Conflict, First in a Series, that post talks about most conflict arising when two people "believe" different things. Beliefs are personal, and usually there are no clear cut answers. If you want to avoid conflict in your life, the first step is suspending judgement, and allowing others to believe whatever they want. This is where expectation setting comes in.
It is perfectly OK to tell the people in your life that while you know you will disagree on different subjects, it is not OK to be mean or derogatory simply because our beliefs differ.
Most of us have two types of people in our lives. The people we chose, and the people we are related to. I have some relatives (I think everyone does) who have very strong beliefs that conflict with my belief system. But they are family and I don't want to give them up. So I do a lot of conflict deflection with those people. I'll be honest, I probably limit my exposure to them a little bit too.
Some of the friends I've chosen because we share interests aren't aligned on all beliefs. With these friends, I try to stick to the common ground. Luckily, I have many friends that are perfect for me. We align on important stuff, and naturally avoid the topics we learned make us uncomfortable.
If you can suspend judgement, and let everyone believe whatever they want to as long as they don't expect you to agree, and let go of having to be "right", a lot of conflict can be avoided.
If a person brings too much conflict and emotional pain in your life, you have to question why you keep them. If they are related to you, the love may exceed the pain, or the duty may exceed the pain. Never feel bad about yourself if you emotionally armor up so that the conflict doesn't hurt you anymore. You wouldn't need the armor if no one was lobbing hurt your way.
A simple "I love you and I am never going to agree with you on this subject so let's not discuss it" is always a good statement. You take responsibility for your beliefs, no judgement or criticism, just stating a personal fact.
After a conflict - because as much as we try to avoid them they happen anyway - a heartfelt apology is always a good start. "I'm sorry we argued. I will try harder to not be judgmental, and to listen to your beliefs without trying to change your mind. I love you, and you are too important to me to create this kind of pain in our relationship." Even if in your heart you feel like you were "right", is that important enough to you to sacrifice a relationship?
Because at the end of the day - conflict resolution is about maintaining relationships. If the relationship is beneficial to you, and you want to maintain it, finding ways to avoid and manage conflict are necessary.
We're all different - conflict is inevitable. What is not inevitable is that we let conflict destroy our relationships.
Thursday, March 26, 2015
Mending the Damage caused by Conflict
By the time most people enter the workforce, they have already walked away from at least one relationship that they decided was not beneficial for them.
Your job as a leader is to encourage relationships in your group or team that are mutually beneficial, so there is a disincentive to sacrifice those relationships.
In my blog post, "More on Happy People", I talked about finding common ground on which to build relationships. This common ground is the place to start rebuilding relationships that have been damaged by conflict. First, I'll discuss when the damaged relationship is between you, the leader, and one of your team. Second, I'll discuss the leader's facilitation role in helping two employees repair their relationship.
Let's use yesterday's vegetarian / hunter conflict to set the stage. You as leader, sat down with the vegetarian and discussed the boundaries of acceptable conversation at work. You were firm with the vegetarian that comments that were critical or derogatory of people who hunt were not acceptable. The vegetarian got very upset with you, and told you that it wasn't fair that they could not express their views at work. You reiterated your expectation that critical and derogatory comments were damaging to the team, and that they would not be tolerated. The vegetarian stormed out of your office, visibly upset.
You also sat down with the hunter, and counseled the hunter to only share hunting stories with people who were not offended by hunting stories. The hunter was receptive to your counseling, and agreed to only discuss hunting with other hunters when no one else was present. The hunter left your office smiling.
The vegetarian observed this, and now thinks you and the hunter are great friends, and they are on the outside of the circle of trust and respect. What do you do?
First, let tempers cool overnight. Think about your common ground with the vegetarian. Where are you most comfortable and compatible with them? Let's say your biggest common ground with the vegetarian is that you both love to read. Because you are the leader, there is a power imbalance in the relationship and you are going to have to extend the olive branch to start repairing the relationship.
As part of your "getting to know you" time with all of your employees, it is important that you find out how they like to get past a conflict. Some people like to just pick up on the other side as if nothing happened. Others want to hash it out. Still others want their emotions acknowledge so they can move on. It is your job to know the style of your employees before the initial conflict occurs.
Let's say the vegetarian is a "hash it out" kind of person. So, the next morning you approach the vegetarian, and say something like this. "Good Morning, I hope you were able to have a good night last night. Would you like to come to my office and talk about yesterday afternoon?" Once in your office, your opening to the conversation would be something like this, "I know what an emotional subject animal rights are for you, but do you see how your interaction with the hunter was damaging to the team?" Hopefully, the vegetarian has calmed down enough to talk things through, and you can share that you have also asked the hunter to not discuss hunting in the workplace.
Say they are a "pick up on the other side" kind of person. The next morning might go something like this. "Good Morning! I started a new Jodi Picoult novel last night, and boy is this one making me think. Have you read 'Handle with Care: A Novel'? This let's the employee know you are OK, and going to your common interest is the first brick in rebuilding the relationship.
Say they just want their emotions acknowledged, the conversation might go like this. "Good Morning, how are you today? Let's go in my office for a minute and talk about yesterday afternoon." The conversation in your office would go something like this. "I appreciate how passionately you care about animal rights, and I know your emotion yesterday was from the true caring heart you have for all creatures. I've spoken with the hunter, and hunting is an 'off-limits' topic in this work group from now on. Are you OK?"
Next, you have to make sure the hunter and the vegetarian get to work on repairing their relationship. The longer the time between the conflict and the attempt to repair the relationship, the harder it can be to extend the hand of reconciliation. My advice is to tell both employees that you expect to see them reaching out to each other to begin rebuilding, and remind them to think about the common ground they found as they were getting to know each other. If necessary, at a team meeting ask a question of one or both of them about their common ground to get the conversation flowing.
Whatever you do, don't turn away and hope for the best. You have to make sure the relationships get restored. Because we all know how to walk away from a relationship by the time we get to work. And without believing in the benefit of maintaining the relationship, it is easy to walk away. When your team stops caring about each other, the happy quotient goes down. Happy people are energized, productive, effective people. You want to lead happy people.
You as the leader have to make certain the expectation is clear that your team will maintain high value relationships. It will pay enormous dividends.
Your job as a leader is to encourage relationships in your group or team that are mutually beneficial, so there is a disincentive to sacrifice those relationships.
In my blog post, "More on Happy People", I talked about finding common ground on which to build relationships. This common ground is the place to start rebuilding relationships that have been damaged by conflict. First, I'll discuss when the damaged relationship is between you, the leader, and one of your team. Second, I'll discuss the leader's facilitation role in helping two employees repair their relationship.
Let's use yesterday's vegetarian / hunter conflict to set the stage. You as leader, sat down with the vegetarian and discussed the boundaries of acceptable conversation at work. You were firm with the vegetarian that comments that were critical or derogatory of people who hunt were not acceptable. The vegetarian got very upset with you, and told you that it wasn't fair that they could not express their views at work. You reiterated your expectation that critical and derogatory comments were damaging to the team, and that they would not be tolerated. The vegetarian stormed out of your office, visibly upset.
You also sat down with the hunter, and counseled the hunter to only share hunting stories with people who were not offended by hunting stories. The hunter was receptive to your counseling, and agreed to only discuss hunting with other hunters when no one else was present. The hunter left your office smiling.
The vegetarian observed this, and now thinks you and the hunter are great friends, and they are on the outside of the circle of trust and respect. What do you do?
First, let tempers cool overnight. Think about your common ground with the vegetarian. Where are you most comfortable and compatible with them? Let's say your biggest common ground with the vegetarian is that you both love to read. Because you are the leader, there is a power imbalance in the relationship and you are going to have to extend the olive branch to start repairing the relationship.
As part of your "getting to know you" time with all of your employees, it is important that you find out how they like to get past a conflict. Some people like to just pick up on the other side as if nothing happened. Others want to hash it out. Still others want their emotions acknowledge so they can move on. It is your job to know the style of your employees before the initial conflict occurs.
Let's say the vegetarian is a "hash it out" kind of person. So, the next morning you approach the vegetarian, and say something like this. "Good Morning, I hope you were able to have a good night last night. Would you like to come to my office and talk about yesterday afternoon?" Once in your office, your opening to the conversation would be something like this, "I know what an emotional subject animal rights are for you, but do you see how your interaction with the hunter was damaging to the team?" Hopefully, the vegetarian has calmed down enough to talk things through, and you can share that you have also asked the hunter to not discuss hunting in the workplace.
Say they are a "pick up on the other side" kind of person. The next morning might go something like this. "Good Morning! I started a new Jodi Picoult novel last night, and boy is this one making me think. Have you read 'Handle with Care: A Novel'? This let's the employee know you are OK, and going to your common interest is the first brick in rebuilding the relationship.
Say they just want their emotions acknowledged, the conversation might go like this. "Good Morning, how are you today? Let's go in my office for a minute and talk about yesterday afternoon." The conversation in your office would go something like this. "I appreciate how passionately you care about animal rights, and I know your emotion yesterday was from the true caring heart you have for all creatures. I've spoken with the hunter, and hunting is an 'off-limits' topic in this work group from now on. Are you OK?"
Next, you have to make sure the hunter and the vegetarian get to work on repairing their relationship. The longer the time between the conflict and the attempt to repair the relationship, the harder it can be to extend the hand of reconciliation. My advice is to tell both employees that you expect to see them reaching out to each other to begin rebuilding, and remind them to think about the common ground they found as they were getting to know each other. If necessary, at a team meeting ask a question of one or both of them about their common ground to get the conversation flowing.
Whatever you do, don't turn away and hope for the best. You have to make sure the relationships get restored. Because we all know how to walk away from a relationship by the time we get to work. And without believing in the benefit of maintaining the relationship, it is easy to walk away. When your team stops caring about each other, the happy quotient goes down. Happy people are energized, productive, effective people. You want to lead happy people.
You as the leader have to make certain the expectation is clear that your team will maintain high value relationships. It will pay enormous dividends.
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Conflict Resolution
The focus of this post will be work related, but there isn't that much difference in how this works in your personal life.
Conflict causes pain. Each of us have a "go-to" method when we are hurt. Some people strike back, some internalize and feel they "deserve" to be hurt. Some people get angry. Some people get sad. Some people actually offer up their pain to a higher power as a sacrifice or a plea. But we all hurt when conflict happens.
Because of this, it is very difficult to resolve conflict if there is not a relationship worth preserving. Think on that for a moment. This is why the talking heads on TV and the internet trolls thrive on conflict. They have nothing to lose. No relationship to preserve, no motivation to resolve their conflicts.
That is the fundamental difference between diplomacy and war. Diplomacy endeavors to build a relationship worth preserving. War accepts there is no relationship to preserve.
So, how is conflict resolved? If you as a leader have not invested the time in your employees to have relationships with them, and if you have not given them the time and opportunity to develop relationships with each other, you don't have the platform for healthy conflict resolution.
The first step in conflict resolution is understanding how the conflict occurred. What was the initial disparity of belief about? How did emotions get engaged and the hurt happen?
Often , the root of conflict is language choice. Let's say the team is creating a new classroom learning event. There is an exercise that has been created by a member of the team. I'm going to hypothesize two different feedback remarks. Think about the different emotions the two statements provoke.
"That is a stupid exercise and I think everyone will hate it."
"I not sure I see how that exercise supports the learning objective. Can you help make that connection for me?"
I think it is pretty obvious that the initial statement is far more likely to create unhealthy conflict. As a leader, your job is to listen for these type of poor language choices and redirect, but you can't be at every team meeting, so things can get out of hand.
For purposes of illustration, let's say that a team member has consistently been making poor language choices, and has really hurt another team member's feelings. The hurt team member comes to you as leader, because they feel attacked, belittled, and unable to address their feelings with their peer. What do you do?
Very specifically, get to dates, times and events. Coach the hurt employee on how to state what they feel. Statements like "I take it personally when someone says an exercise I created is stupid. I try not too, but it really does hurt my feelings." When confronted with this kind of direct feedback, most people will apologize. Next, offer to facilitate the conversation between the two employees. After coaching, some people feel comfortable trying to resolve the conflict themselves, others will want you there. No right or wrong answers here - it is all about helping preserve the harmony on your team. You as leader need to do what works.
If the conflict has come from a non-work related issue, the path is the same, unless the boundaries you have set up have been breached. Let's face it, there are a lot of contentious issues out there that can get out of hand in the workplace. An example might be that one team member is an avid hunter, and another is a vegetarian, who believes strongly that killing animals is wrong. Both are entitled to their beliefs, but if either one is passionate about what they believe in a disparaging way to the other conflict will result.
Let's hypothesize that the hunter comes to you because the vegetarian keeps making remarks like:
"People who can shoot an innocent animal will be shooting people next" and "A person just has to be mean in their heart to shoot a defenseless animal." Obviously, these are not appropriate workplace comments. But, the coaching is the same. The hunter should be coached on what to say to the vegetarian. Statements like. "I hunt because it is part of my family's tradition. I get upset when anyone characterizes hunters as bad people. It hurts my feelings and makes me angry." Hopefully, this will elicit an apology. Unfortunately, sometimes when passionate opinions are involved, it is more difficult. You as leader will have to coach the vegetarian in private about remarks detrimental to the group or team.
Again, if you haven't coached your people to find common ground and develop relationships, there is nothing to lose when conflict occurs. The relationships are the key. If you have facilitated the building of relationships among your team, private coaching with the individuals in conflict is in order. Remind them of what they like and respect about each other. Stress the importance of each set of relationships on the team to the health of the entire team. Demand that subjects where there is no common ground be eliminated from workplace conversations.
The same rules apply at home and in personal relationships. Make "I" statements. Request certain subjects be off the table for discussion if they always result in conflict. Be very careful of your language choices. Words matter.
It can happen that two team members repeatedly get into conflict. That will be another entire post. What can a leader do when team members can't or won't get along.
Next entry will be relationship restoration.
Conflict causes pain. Each of us have a "go-to" method when we are hurt. Some people strike back, some internalize and feel they "deserve" to be hurt. Some people get angry. Some people get sad. Some people actually offer up their pain to a higher power as a sacrifice or a plea. But we all hurt when conflict happens.
Because of this, it is very difficult to resolve conflict if there is not a relationship worth preserving. Think on that for a moment. This is why the talking heads on TV and the internet trolls thrive on conflict. They have nothing to lose. No relationship to preserve, no motivation to resolve their conflicts.
That is the fundamental difference between diplomacy and war. Diplomacy endeavors to build a relationship worth preserving. War accepts there is no relationship to preserve.
So, how is conflict resolved? If you as a leader have not invested the time in your employees to have relationships with them, and if you have not given them the time and opportunity to develop relationships with each other, you don't have the platform for healthy conflict resolution.
The first step in conflict resolution is understanding how the conflict occurred. What was the initial disparity of belief about? How did emotions get engaged and the hurt happen?
Often , the root of conflict is language choice. Let's say the team is creating a new classroom learning event. There is an exercise that has been created by a member of the team. I'm going to hypothesize two different feedback remarks. Think about the different emotions the two statements provoke.
"That is a stupid exercise and I think everyone will hate it."
"I not sure I see how that exercise supports the learning objective. Can you help make that connection for me?"
I think it is pretty obvious that the initial statement is far more likely to create unhealthy conflict. As a leader, your job is to listen for these type of poor language choices and redirect, but you can't be at every team meeting, so things can get out of hand.
For purposes of illustration, let's say that a team member has consistently been making poor language choices, and has really hurt another team member's feelings. The hurt team member comes to you as leader, because they feel attacked, belittled, and unable to address their feelings with their peer. What do you do?
Very specifically, get to dates, times and events. Coach the hurt employee on how to state what they feel. Statements like "I take it personally when someone says an exercise I created is stupid. I try not too, but it really does hurt my feelings." When confronted with this kind of direct feedback, most people will apologize. Next, offer to facilitate the conversation between the two employees. After coaching, some people feel comfortable trying to resolve the conflict themselves, others will want you there. No right or wrong answers here - it is all about helping preserve the harmony on your team. You as leader need to do what works.
If the conflict has come from a non-work related issue, the path is the same, unless the boundaries you have set up have been breached. Let's face it, there are a lot of contentious issues out there that can get out of hand in the workplace. An example might be that one team member is an avid hunter, and another is a vegetarian, who believes strongly that killing animals is wrong. Both are entitled to their beliefs, but if either one is passionate about what they believe in a disparaging way to the other conflict will result.
Let's hypothesize that the hunter comes to you because the vegetarian keeps making remarks like:
"People who can shoot an innocent animal will be shooting people next" and "A person just has to be mean in their heart to shoot a defenseless animal." Obviously, these are not appropriate workplace comments. But, the coaching is the same. The hunter should be coached on what to say to the vegetarian. Statements like. "I hunt because it is part of my family's tradition. I get upset when anyone characterizes hunters as bad people. It hurts my feelings and makes me angry." Hopefully, this will elicit an apology. Unfortunately, sometimes when passionate opinions are involved, it is more difficult. You as leader will have to coach the vegetarian in private about remarks detrimental to the group or team.
Again, if you haven't coached your people to find common ground and develop relationships, there is nothing to lose when conflict occurs. The relationships are the key. If you have facilitated the building of relationships among your team, private coaching with the individuals in conflict is in order. Remind them of what they like and respect about each other. Stress the importance of each set of relationships on the team to the health of the entire team. Demand that subjects where there is no common ground be eliminated from workplace conversations.
The same rules apply at home and in personal relationships. Make "I" statements. Request certain subjects be off the table for discussion if they always result in conflict. Be very careful of your language choices. Words matter.
It can happen that two team members repeatedly get into conflict. That will be another entire post. What can a leader do when team members can't or won't get along.
Next entry will be relationship restoration.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Allowing and Supporting Necessary Conflict
I know I started this series on conflict by saying I really don't like conflict, and I meant it. That doesn't mean that I don't realize that sometimes conflict is necessary. In a group or team, too much agreement can lead to mediocrity. As leaders, we need to create a safe place for people to express their opinions, and air out conflict. The product that results will usually be better than one that results from consistent agreement.
I opened the topic of unconscious bias in yesterday's post. If you allow your teams to avoid conflict, the unconscious bias of the individuals in the group can lead the group to bias, or group think. This is very damaging to your product, as your clients will remain diverse. Whatever it is that your group or team produces or provides, no one in your client base will like everything. So part of staying successful is producing and providing a diverse enough set of offerings or services so that you maintain a large client pool.
So, how as a leader do you create a safe space for conflict to be resolved? It starts with the zero tolerance policy for disrespectful words and actions. Healthy conflict is always about your products and services, not about your individual team members. Healthy conflict revolves around "I" statements and active listening. Healthy conflict "depersonalizes" the product or idea. Healthy conflict always has the same goal - get the very best result for the customer. I'll provide an example.
Your software team is designing a new web interface for buying shoes. One team member believes the first filter should be on the following categories:
I opened the topic of unconscious bias in yesterday's post. If you allow your teams to avoid conflict, the unconscious bias of the individuals in the group can lead the group to bias, or group think. This is very damaging to your product, as your clients will remain diverse. Whatever it is that your group or team produces or provides, no one in your client base will like everything. So part of staying successful is producing and providing a diverse enough set of offerings or services so that you maintain a large client pool.
So, how as a leader do you create a safe space for conflict to be resolved? It starts with the zero tolerance policy for disrespectful words and actions. Healthy conflict is always about your products and services, not about your individual team members. Healthy conflict revolves around "I" statements and active listening. Healthy conflict "depersonalizes" the product or idea. Healthy conflict always has the same goal - get the very best result for the customer. I'll provide an example.
Your software team is designing a new web interface for buying shoes. One team member believes the first filter should be on the following categories:
- Women
- Men
- Children
Another team member believes the first filter should be on shoe type:
- Casual
- Dress
- Work
A third team member believes the first filter should be on brand:
- Red Wing
- Dansko
- Nike
Everyone is committed to their position, but the dialogue proceeds in a non-destructive manner. Statements like:
"I believe people want to immediately go to gender when shoe shopping."
"I believe we will get more impulse sales if people filter first by category."
"I think shoe shoppers are brand loyal, and we will get the best result if we filter first by brand."
No right or wrong here - just opinions being expressed in a healthy way. You as the leader suggest the client gets to pick which filter they want to use, and suggest the team develop a matrix. The dialogue will inevitably lead to a better collaborative result. The challenge is to keep ownership or "parenthood" issues to a minimum, and to keep the dialogue out of the "right" "wrong" territory. If you can help your employees to have productive conflict where there are no winners and losers, just improved outputs, you have mastered necessary conflict.
Monday, March 23, 2015
When comments or behavior cross into hurtful territory
I want to start by saying that I think most of the time when people say things that are hurtful and can provoke conflict, they aren't doing that with the intent of being mean.
Most humans are on the thoughtless spectrum. Let me explain what I mean by that. I mean we don't always think through what we say and do. We are all creatures of impulse to a greater or lesser degree.
This post is about the conflict producing remarks and behaviors that can not be tolerated. Deflection or conflict avoidance on this is very damaging to your organization.
I was fortunate to work for a large, international company that had clear direction on workplace behavior, so all I had to do was point to the global policy. Not every leader is fortunate enough to have that.
The first step in the process is to document and communicate your boundaries. A broad statement usually works. Something like:
"Respect for each other is the foundation of our team. Language that is discriminatory, abusive, or inflammatory will not be tolerated."
But words on paper don't change anything. You will have to have regular conversations with your team about what your respect statement really means. The conversations don't have to happen daily, but at least a couple of times a week. If you haven't read about unconscious bias, do some reading. Using unconscious bias theory to ground the conversation helps everyone see that we all have work to do to work harmoniously.
The sad reality is that we all have touch points, where even an innocuous comment can be hurtful And most of us are pretty good at hiding our touch points. So as the leader, you need to be sensitive to the dialogue and make sure to intervene before conflict can arise.
The expectation I set is that if someone says something that offends you, tell them, and ask them to refrain in the future. If the comment or behavior is made in a group setting, a simple admonition from the leader of "Respect", should redirect the conversation. If you encounter an individual who repeatedly crosses the line, you will have to have a private conversation, and advise as to future consequences for failure to change.
If an employee comes to you after multiple attempts to stop offensive remarks, or if they come to you because they simply can't tell the offender, you have to intervene. Nothing destroys a team faster than festering wounds.
My experience has been that most people do not want to offend, but they think everyone thinks like them. Simply pointing out that we are all different and deserve respect has worked in most cases. The most important rule is to recognize your own bias, so that you do not unconsciously allow that hurt speak to continue uncorrected.
The old "If I read about this conversation in the paper, would I be embarrassed that I took part in it?" is a great question to ask yourself. The other golden rule, "Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?" changes the tone of dialogue as well.
Mean speak is a slippery slope. A zero tolerance policy is best.
Next up - Allowing Necessary Conflict.
Most humans are on the thoughtless spectrum. Let me explain what I mean by that. I mean we don't always think through what we say and do. We are all creatures of impulse to a greater or lesser degree.
This post is about the conflict producing remarks and behaviors that can not be tolerated. Deflection or conflict avoidance on this is very damaging to your organization.
I was fortunate to work for a large, international company that had clear direction on workplace behavior, so all I had to do was point to the global policy. Not every leader is fortunate enough to have that.
The first step in the process is to document and communicate your boundaries. A broad statement usually works. Something like:
"Respect for each other is the foundation of our team. Language that is discriminatory, abusive, or inflammatory will not be tolerated."
But words on paper don't change anything. You will have to have regular conversations with your team about what your respect statement really means. The conversations don't have to happen daily, but at least a couple of times a week. If you haven't read about unconscious bias, do some reading. Using unconscious bias theory to ground the conversation helps everyone see that we all have work to do to work harmoniously.
The sad reality is that we all have touch points, where even an innocuous comment can be hurtful And most of us are pretty good at hiding our touch points. So as the leader, you need to be sensitive to the dialogue and make sure to intervene before conflict can arise.
The expectation I set is that if someone says something that offends you, tell them, and ask them to refrain in the future. If the comment or behavior is made in a group setting, a simple admonition from the leader of "Respect", should redirect the conversation. If you encounter an individual who repeatedly crosses the line, you will have to have a private conversation, and advise as to future consequences for failure to change.
If an employee comes to you after multiple attempts to stop offensive remarks, or if they come to you because they simply can't tell the offender, you have to intervene. Nothing destroys a team faster than festering wounds.
My experience has been that most people do not want to offend, but they think everyone thinks like them. Simply pointing out that we are all different and deserve respect has worked in most cases. The most important rule is to recognize your own bias, so that you do not unconsciously allow that hurt speak to continue uncorrected.
The old "If I read about this conversation in the paper, would I be embarrassed that I took part in it?" is a great question to ask yourself. The other golden rule, "Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?" changes the tone of dialogue as well.
Mean speak is a slippery slope. A zero tolerance policy is best.
Next up - Allowing Necessary Conflict.
Friday, March 20, 2015
On Conflict, first in a series
First, thanks to Melanie for suggesting this great topic. Second, I have to tell you, I really hate conflict. I think it has to do with being a middle child. We are born mediators. Something about having to compromise from our earliest memories.
Compromise is the enemy of conflict. Unfortunately, we live in a world more and more conflicted, where compromise is often viewed as defeat.
When I Google "conflict resolution skills" I get 14,300,000 hits in .24 seconds. That should give you an idea of how rich this topic is.
My plan is to start at what causes conflict, and conflict avoidance strategies. Then we will move into when and why conflict can be necessary. Next will be how to keep conflict healthy (no small endeavor). Conflict resolution and relationship restoration and preservation will be the final installments. This could be a long road, as I like to keep my entries kind of short and easy to read.
So, what creates conflict? According to dictionary.com, the word conflict is both a noun and a verb, and the words that appear repeatedly in the definition are words like contradictory, opposition, discord and antagonism. From a purely linguistic perspective, it appears that conflict occurs when there are differences in belief, and those differences provoke a negative emotion or action, escalating difference to conflict.
Working from this position, the first technique of conflict avoidance is understanding. Why are your beliefs different from other peoples?
One of my basic principles, we are all individuals, and are an amalgam of our genealogy, our upbringing, and our life experiences. This leads directly into different belief systems. Another of my basic principles, most conflict originates in a place where there are not neatly defined "right" and "wrong" answers. Most of us can't help but invest emotion into what we believe and perceive as "right". Seeking first to understand why the person we are in conflict with also thinks they are "right" is incredibly difficult. What if the first step is to work on not believing in your own "rightness"? How about changing to accepting that belief is not a scientific principle?
I'm sure at least one of the people reading this just thought, "But what if my conflict is with someone who refuses to believe in science?" Seek to understand. Maybe that person is intellectually challenged and really can't understand science. Maybe they have such a strong religious belief system that it overrides their intellect. Maybe they are strongly and systemically misinformed. When faced with this situation, you have to ask yourself does it matter that they don't believe what I do? How does their belief system get in the way of my organization achieving our goals and objectives? If the answer is that the belief system causing conflict does not interfere with the organizations success, the right path is conflict deflection.
What is conflict deflection? It is taking the statement causing conflict, and deflecting to a safe space where there is harmony. I'll give a couple of examples.
"Boy, that global warming sure isn't happening. This is the coldest winter I remember." The conflict deflecting response could be "I lost 8 pounds just shoveling snow." Or, "Sure did make for great skiing." Or, "We even had frost in Louisiana, and the crawfish are small." Leave the conflict producing remark out of the deflected conversation.
"The last thing the US needs is to get into another war." The conflict deflecting response could be "You know what could be an interesting exercise, go to Amazon.com, search books, first for "war" then for "diplomacy" and see which one gets more hits. Or, "Did you know the National World War II museum is in New Orleans?" Or, "I've been to World War II museums in the US, France and Japan. What an education on the difference perspective makes."
Or the ultimate deflection, "Guess What? I'm going to see (insert event) this weekend and I'm really excited." Sometimes ultimate deflection is all that you can find. It helps if you establish a pattern of inconsequential conversation segues into your personal style. That makes the deflection far less obvious. It actually gets easy with practice.
Remember, this blog is mostly leadership in the workplace, where opinions don't really matter unless they interfere with the organizations objectives. It is much harder when conflict over belief occurs in family or friend relationships.
Next installment will be conflict producing remarks that have to be immediately addressed because they are hurtful to a group or individual.
I'll close the series with conflict management, avoidance and resolution in relationships outside of work.
Compromise is the enemy of conflict. Unfortunately, we live in a world more and more conflicted, where compromise is often viewed as defeat.
When I Google "conflict resolution skills" I get 14,300,000 hits in .24 seconds. That should give you an idea of how rich this topic is.
My plan is to start at what causes conflict, and conflict avoidance strategies. Then we will move into when and why conflict can be necessary. Next will be how to keep conflict healthy (no small endeavor). Conflict resolution and relationship restoration and preservation will be the final installments. This could be a long road, as I like to keep my entries kind of short and easy to read.
So, what creates conflict? According to dictionary.com, the word conflict is both a noun and a verb, and the words that appear repeatedly in the definition are words like contradictory, opposition, discord and antagonism. From a purely linguistic perspective, it appears that conflict occurs when there are differences in belief, and those differences provoke a negative emotion or action, escalating difference to conflict.
Working from this position, the first technique of conflict avoidance is understanding. Why are your beliefs different from other peoples?
One of my basic principles, we are all individuals, and are an amalgam of our genealogy, our upbringing, and our life experiences. This leads directly into different belief systems. Another of my basic principles, most conflict originates in a place where there are not neatly defined "right" and "wrong" answers. Most of us can't help but invest emotion into what we believe and perceive as "right". Seeking first to understand why the person we are in conflict with also thinks they are "right" is incredibly difficult. What if the first step is to work on not believing in your own "rightness"? How about changing to accepting that belief is not a scientific principle?
I'm sure at least one of the people reading this just thought, "But what if my conflict is with someone who refuses to believe in science?" Seek to understand. Maybe that person is intellectually challenged and really can't understand science. Maybe they have such a strong religious belief system that it overrides their intellect. Maybe they are strongly and systemically misinformed. When faced with this situation, you have to ask yourself does it matter that they don't believe what I do? How does their belief system get in the way of my organization achieving our goals and objectives? If the answer is that the belief system causing conflict does not interfere with the organizations success, the right path is conflict deflection.
What is conflict deflection? It is taking the statement causing conflict, and deflecting to a safe space where there is harmony. I'll give a couple of examples.
"Boy, that global warming sure isn't happening. This is the coldest winter I remember." The conflict deflecting response could be "I lost 8 pounds just shoveling snow." Or, "Sure did make for great skiing." Or, "We even had frost in Louisiana, and the crawfish are small." Leave the conflict producing remark out of the deflected conversation.
"The last thing the US needs is to get into another war." The conflict deflecting response could be "You know what could be an interesting exercise, go to Amazon.com, search books, first for "war" then for "diplomacy" and see which one gets more hits. Or, "Did you know the National World War II museum is in New Orleans?" Or, "I've been to World War II museums in the US, France and Japan. What an education on the difference perspective makes."
Or the ultimate deflection, "Guess What? I'm going to see (insert event) this weekend and I'm really excited." Sometimes ultimate deflection is all that you can find. It helps if you establish a pattern of inconsequential conversation segues into your personal style. That makes the deflection far less obvious. It actually gets easy with practice.
Remember, this blog is mostly leadership in the workplace, where opinions don't really matter unless they interfere with the organizations objectives. It is much harder when conflict over belief occurs in family or friend relationships.
Next installment will be conflict producing remarks that have to be immediately addressed because they are hurtful to a group or individual.
I'll close the series with conflict management, avoidance and resolution in relationships outside of work.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
The lonely leader
One of the most difficult aspects of leading happy people is the toll it can take on your relationships with your peers in leadership. For those who are holding on to the old command and control practices, who think trusting your employees is an invitation to being taken advantage of, your happy employees and positive organization are an insult.
The employees who work for these leaders will often complain about your employees, which in turn will have leaders approaching you with complaints. You may hear things like:
"A has been out of the office a lot lately. I don't see how things aren't falling behind."
"B spends too much time on the phone."
"C appears to leave early every Friday."
There is only one correct response to comments of this kind.
"I hold myself and my employees accountable to meet our objectives, and we are on track. Thanks for stopping by."
This response may be followed up with accusations that you, your employees, and your leadership practices are creating dissension in the larger organization. Stand firm, as this is not true. The larger organization will not get better if you allow yourself to get bullied into being a bad leader because it fits the norm, you will simply join the downward organizational spiral bad leadership feeds.
Sometimes, you will have an opportunity to help another leader grow into a more productive and rewarding leadership style, and when you get the opportunity, seize it. I still believe that the most potent sales tool is success, and if you stay the course, your success will eventually lead to others seeking a better way to lead.
Wednesday, March 18, 2015
Trust
There is a great book that I would recommend to everyone. The title of the book is When No One's Watching by E. Scott Geller. It is a fictional tale that explores the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and the leader's role in motivating and enabling employees.
The basic premise of the book is what you get from your employees when no one is watching is what they are intrinsically motivated to do.
How to create intrinsic motivation is presented in the book through the story of Joanne. Sometimes the story is a little simplistic, but the learning value is very high.
Where am I going with this? I promised yesterday to talk about working unsupervised. If your employees are intrinsically motivated, this is never a problem.
There are a number of reasons why employees work unsupervised. You may have a globally distributed organization, so you are not physically located in close proximity to your employees. Your organization may offer flex time, so your hours differ from your employees, even though you are located in the same office. Your organization may also offer work from home arrangements.
I still remember being flabbergasted by a colleague who said, " I couldn't pass the red face test if I let my employee work from home." What? What red face test? If you don't trust your employees to do what they are supposed to do unless you watch them 100% of the time, maybe you need to rethink your leadership capabilities.
If an employee doesn't perform unless you watch them, it is a leader fail, plain and simple. It could be that the employee is not suited for the work, leader job to help them find something they are suited for. It could be that the employee is not motivated or challenged by the work, leader job to motivate and challenge. It could be that they are suffering in some way, physical, mental or emotional, and simply can't perform, leader job to help them to find escape from their pain through inspiring work.
Many organizations have a policy on work from home that demands an employee prove themselves worthy of the trust implicit in a work from home relationship. I personally think that is kind of backwards. If the work is readily accomplished from any location, why not allow work from home? There are benefits to people being in the same place sometimes, and you want to build a sense of esprit d'corps and create a real sense of team, sometimes you have to be together in the same place.
But some work actually is better done alone. In a private place. Without interruption. And sometimes the only choice is to work from home to take time off. Bad weather, sick children, sick parents, the list can be endless. When you set up a work from home arrangement with a new employee, you are saying, "I trust you. I believe in you." What a powerful way to start a relationship. My experience has been that people live up to trust. The better you treat people, the more they have to lose if they damage the trust.
Believing in your employees, their talents, their contributions and their trustworthiness, creates an upward spiral for your organization. Coupled with meaningful goals that have been documented and are regularly discussed, happy employees are a natural outcome.
The basic premise of the book is what you get from your employees when no one is watching is what they are intrinsically motivated to do.
How to create intrinsic motivation is presented in the book through the story of Joanne. Sometimes the story is a little simplistic, but the learning value is very high.
Where am I going with this? I promised yesterday to talk about working unsupervised. If your employees are intrinsically motivated, this is never a problem.
There are a number of reasons why employees work unsupervised. You may have a globally distributed organization, so you are not physically located in close proximity to your employees. Your organization may offer flex time, so your hours differ from your employees, even though you are located in the same office. Your organization may also offer work from home arrangements.
I still remember being flabbergasted by a colleague who said, " I couldn't pass the red face test if I let my employee work from home." What? What red face test? If you don't trust your employees to do what they are supposed to do unless you watch them 100% of the time, maybe you need to rethink your leadership capabilities.
If an employee doesn't perform unless you watch them, it is a leader fail, plain and simple. It could be that the employee is not suited for the work, leader job to help them find something they are suited for. It could be that the employee is not motivated or challenged by the work, leader job to motivate and challenge. It could be that they are suffering in some way, physical, mental or emotional, and simply can't perform, leader job to help them to find escape from their pain through inspiring work.
Many organizations have a policy on work from home that demands an employee prove themselves worthy of the trust implicit in a work from home relationship. I personally think that is kind of backwards. If the work is readily accomplished from any location, why not allow work from home? There are benefits to people being in the same place sometimes, and you want to build a sense of esprit d'corps and create a real sense of team, sometimes you have to be together in the same place.
But some work actually is better done alone. In a private place. Without interruption. And sometimes the only choice is to work from home to take time off. Bad weather, sick children, sick parents, the list can be endless. When you set up a work from home arrangement with a new employee, you are saying, "I trust you. I believe in you." What a powerful way to start a relationship. My experience has been that people live up to trust. The better you treat people, the more they have to lose if they damage the trust.
Believing in your employees, their talents, their contributions and their trustworthiness, creates an upward spiral for your organization. Coupled with meaningful goals that have been documented and are regularly discussed, happy employees are a natural outcome.
Tuesday, March 17, 2015
Sins of the Past
Quick question. How often to you allow OPM (Other People's Mistakes) to influence your life and your decision making?
Let's face it, we are all an amalgam of all of our past experiences, good and bad. We respond to the world and the people in it in ways that have been shaped by our innate nature, our upbringing, and our experiences. Often, the experiences that shape us the most are the unpleasant ones. Why do we allow this?
Are you the leader who makes people prove they deserve your trust? Or, are you the leader who willingly gives trust and allows a person to reinforce your decision or make you change your mind? What leads you to make a person prove they "deserve" your trust? Did they demonstrate that they are not trustworthy? Or did someone else disrespect your trust and now you project that hurt and disillusionment on everyone else?
In my opinion, the single greatest challenge of leadership is honest introspection. It is very difficult to analyze our own weaknesses; but it is necessary if you are going to be a good leader leading happy people.
For many, we use parental models for our leadership decision making. While this can be a valuable construct, some things about it are flawed. Important disclaimer needed: If you are leading young adults (< 23) you may need to use a somewhat parental model. I'll take the two paths separately.
You are leading a team that ranges in age from 17 to 35. The 17 to 23 year old employees are still learning how the work world works. It is not a matter of trusting or not trusting with developmental employees, it is sizing your expectations appropriately to their spot in the work world understanding curve. Simple example. In society in 2015, having a device in your hand or on your person that you check every few seconds is normal. If my employees are public facing (cashiers, wait staff, bartender, teachers) the client expects the employee's attention. As a leader, I have to clearly set the boundaries for personal device use. I realize you may need to do this for all your employees, as the proliferation of personal devices has been relatively recent, but as a leader you will probably need to be more diligent in your oversight of your newer to the workplace employees, as they may be struggling to break a habit.
The premise that defeats many leaders and destroys the effort to create happy employees is that your employees are trying to:
Let's face it, we are all an amalgam of all of our past experiences, good and bad. We respond to the world and the people in it in ways that have been shaped by our innate nature, our upbringing, and our experiences. Often, the experiences that shape us the most are the unpleasant ones. Why do we allow this?
Are you the leader who makes people prove they deserve your trust? Or, are you the leader who willingly gives trust and allows a person to reinforce your decision or make you change your mind? What leads you to make a person prove they "deserve" your trust? Did they demonstrate that they are not trustworthy? Or did someone else disrespect your trust and now you project that hurt and disillusionment on everyone else?
In my opinion, the single greatest challenge of leadership is honest introspection. It is very difficult to analyze our own weaknesses; but it is necessary if you are going to be a good leader leading happy people.
For many, we use parental models for our leadership decision making. While this can be a valuable construct, some things about it are flawed. Important disclaimer needed: If you are leading young adults (< 23) you may need to use a somewhat parental model. I'll take the two paths separately.
You are leading a team that ranges in age from 17 to 35. The 17 to 23 year old employees are still learning how the work world works. It is not a matter of trusting or not trusting with developmental employees, it is sizing your expectations appropriately to their spot in the work world understanding curve. Simple example. In society in 2015, having a device in your hand or on your person that you check every few seconds is normal. If my employees are public facing (cashiers, wait staff, bartender, teachers) the client expects the employee's attention. As a leader, I have to clearly set the boundaries for personal device use. I realize you may need to do this for all your employees, as the proliferation of personal devices has been relatively recent, but as a leader you will probably need to be more diligent in your oversight of your newer to the workplace employees, as they may be struggling to break a habit.
The premise that defeats many leaders and destroys the effort to create happy employees is that your employees are trying to:
- Get Over
- Lay on your leg
- Get away with something
Why in the world would you think that? If you have an employee that has already demonstrated those behaviors, you have a responsibility to address that individual behavior with that individual employee head on. The rest of your employees do not deserve to be punished for Other People's Mistakes.
Happy employees know they are valued. It is an impossible sell to tell people I don't trust you but I value you. Let's go back to the personal device use. For public facing employees, no matter their experience level, you have to make your expectations clear, and reinforce them with observation and feedback.
What about personal device use for non public-facing employees? This is more of a challenge for many leaders. There are environments where personal devices are logically restricted. Do you want your surgeon answering a text mid-surgery? The clear cases are easy - what about the rest? I'm going to throw an idea out there that may sound crazy - but here it is. If you have done your job as a leader, and have worked with your employees on SMART goals that have enough stretch, and you are holding your employees accountable to their goals, and providing the resources they need to reach their goals, you don't need to care about their personal device use beyond where it interferes with teamwork and courtesy.
For example, if you have an employee working independently on a project, what should matter to you is that they deliver their product on time and accurately. If they Facebook five minutes an hour or Tweet eight times a day but deliver what you have agreed is a reasonable product - no harm - no foul. However, if you have team meetings or team projects, you will have to establish boundaries for common courtesy. Such as, no checking devices when someone is engaged in conversation with you, unless you have pre-warned people you may need to check. (i.e. - my mom is in the hospital, I have to keep an eye on my phone. My baby was lethargic this morning, my spouse will be calling if things escalate and a doctor visit is necessary. I have furniture being delivered, the delivery people will call so I can meet them there, you get the drift).
Some people may accuse me at this point of allowing Other People's Mistakes to influence my instructions. I look at this space a little differently. We didn't need rules for this until recently. I want to make my expectations clear so that everyone is on the same page, and we don't disrupt the functioning of the team because we have different expectations for normal.
Setting expectations is good. Expecting people to take advantage, be rude, be untrustworthy? Not so good. Expect the best of your employees. Make sure you clearly state your expectations. Make sure your expectations are grounded in purpose. Why is a rule a rule? The enemy of a healthy organization is arbitrary unexplainable rules. Don't fall into the trap.
Next installment - Working Unsupervised
Monday, March 16, 2015
On Work
Some people reading this blog may think that goal setting and SMART goals are only for corporations and technical jobs. I don't think about it that way at all. All work is rewarding, all jobs have value, all people should be appreciated for their contribution, and motivated to feel good about their contribution.
Martin Luther King, Jr. is quoted as saying:
Martin Luther King, Jr. is quoted as saying:
"No work is insignificant. All labor that uplifts humanity has dignity and importance and should be undertaken with painstaking excellence."
and
“If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as a Michaelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, 'Here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well.”
This is the belief system I subscribe to. So, no matter what the people you lead do for work, your job as a leader is to make certain they see the dignity and importance of the work they are doing, and then inspire them to do their very best.
As I had shared in an earlier post, it was easy to stay inspired working in Environmental, Health and Safety (EH&S), the very work of protecting people and the environment is a calling that lit up my soul and my passion. But on the way to being an EH&S professional, I was a waitress, a cashier in a drug store, a Burger King employee, a fitting room attendant, a stock clerk and a cashier in at Lerner's, a payroll clerk, an accounts payable clerk, a cost accountant and a capital accountant. Not as easy to see the inspiration in all those jobs. What kind of SMART goal can a waitress have? What inspiration can a leader provide?
Again, it all goes back to the objective of the organization. I'm going to stick with the waitress as my example. Why do people go to a restaurant to eat? Maybe it is a special occasion, or maybe they are traveling. Maybe they have a sick family member and the restaurant is close to the hospital, or the family has gone to eat after a funeral or memorial service. Whether the occasion is happy or sad, food offers comfort. So, for the waiters and waitresses I lead, the objective for my organization is to provide our guests with the most courteous, comfortable and pleasant experience possible, in a timely and efficient, but not rushed atmosphere (unless the patron asks us to speed it up).
So, my SMART goals might look like this:
Greet all customers with a smile and an offer to get drinks within 2 minutes of being seated at one of my tables.
Fill all customer orders with 100% accuracy, delivering orders to the kitchen within 2 minutes of leaving each table, and picking up completed orders within 2 minutes of being notified by the kitchen that orders are complete.
You can see where this is going, and I'm sure can fill in the rest.
Next, as the leader comes your responsibility to inspire. Workers in any service industry have a unique opportunity. They have the opportunity to make the world a better place, one smile, one kind word at a time. That in an of itself, is inspirational. You as a leader can add self-determination to the inspiration by giving your employees some latitude on "give-aways" to the customers. Giving wait staff the flexibility to give a free dessert to a small child with great manners, a free second glass of chocolate milk to the child that spilled theirs, extra bread to the family that is sharing entrees, obviously to save money. With the tangible ability to "make it better" coupled with the belief that their job is to uplift and improve the customer's day, inspiration is achieved.
Now all you have to do as a leader is make sure you set the stage for success. Staff so that the employee goals can be met, or acknowledge those instances where your decisions have gotten in the way of your employee's success. The best leaders take responsibility for their employee's happiness on the job by setting clear expectations, providing adequate resources, providing timely and targeted feedback on performance, and always showing gratitude for the unique contribution each employee makes.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
Everyone's best doesn't look the same
So, I said that next I would talk about variability of results. This is a really hard topic. Let's face it, there is a spectrum of ability in the human race. Everyone that works for you is not going to be a super star. Your job as a leader is to know your people and their capabilities well enough to construct SMART goals for each of them that stretch them enough without discouraging them.
The difficult part of the equation for you as a leader is a function of how much discretion you have in your company to reward performance. If you have a lot of discretion, it is much more difficult. I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but it is real.
In a tightly structured system where you have little discretion, it is as easy as determining whose goals brought more to the overall objectives of the organization, and then ranking. You can then explain results via strength of goals, not always a welcome message, but easily crafted and delivered. If your salary structure involves a point system (like the Hay Points) there are identified measures for goals to help you with your messaging.
In a more open structure, the challenge for the leader is much greater. If A worked twice as hard as B to deliver half as much, how do you allocate the rewards available to be spread among your team?
The task for the leader in this type of environment is to identify how strong the goal plan is, and what percentage allocation achievement of the goals will yield, when goals are being formulated for the performance period. This makes goal setting a three step process for the leader. Step One, sit down with each employee and their draft goals. Step Two, evaluate all of the goals in terms of organizational impact and stretch for the involved employee. Step Three, go back to each employee and inform them of the strength and impact of their individual goal plan. Make sure that you have thought about how they can strengthen their position by modifying their goals. Take great care not to use other employee's goal plans as examples. That could create a very unhealthy competition in your organization.
Never forget that healthy organizations involve employees striving to be the best they can be. When employees believe success is achieved by being better than someone else, you undermine teamwork and solidarity. It is your job to keep each employee motivated to be the best they can be, not comparatively better than a peer. That said, the reality is that everyone knows that humans all fall on a spectrum of performance. Most adults know when someone is better at something than they are. Your job as a leader is to help the people you lead accept themselves as they are, understand that their contributions have value, and help them grow into the best they can be.
The difficult part of the equation for you as a leader is a function of how much discretion you have in your company to reward performance. If you have a lot of discretion, it is much more difficult. I know this sounds counter-intuitive, but it is real.
In a tightly structured system where you have little discretion, it is as easy as determining whose goals brought more to the overall objectives of the organization, and then ranking. You can then explain results via strength of goals, not always a welcome message, but easily crafted and delivered. If your salary structure involves a point system (like the Hay Points) there are identified measures for goals to help you with your messaging.
In a more open structure, the challenge for the leader is much greater. If A worked twice as hard as B to deliver half as much, how do you allocate the rewards available to be spread among your team?
The task for the leader in this type of environment is to identify how strong the goal plan is, and what percentage allocation achievement of the goals will yield, when goals are being formulated for the performance period. This makes goal setting a three step process for the leader. Step One, sit down with each employee and their draft goals. Step Two, evaluate all of the goals in terms of organizational impact and stretch for the involved employee. Step Three, go back to each employee and inform them of the strength and impact of their individual goal plan. Make sure that you have thought about how they can strengthen their position by modifying their goals. Take great care not to use other employee's goal plans as examples. That could create a very unhealthy competition in your organization.
Never forget that healthy organizations involve employees striving to be the best they can be. When employees believe success is achieved by being better than someone else, you undermine teamwork and solidarity. It is your job to keep each employee motivated to be the best they can be, not comparatively better than a peer. That said, the reality is that everyone knows that humans all fall on a spectrum of performance. Most adults know when someone is better at something than they are. Your job as a leader is to help the people you lead accept themselves as they are, understand that their contributions have value, and help them grow into the best they can be.
Friday, March 13, 2015
What investing teaches you about how to set the right SMART goals
So, in my first post, I mentioned SMART goals. I have a few more building blocks to put in place before goals can be addressed directly. In the last post, we talked about investing in the people you lead. One of the most significant challenges of leadership is that when everyone does their best, they don't all achieve the same results. Another challenge is that everyone is good at different things.
So, when you invest in your employees, you have a chance to learn what like to do, and what they are good at. This is probably not a news flash to you, but everything someone likes to do they are not necessarily good at, and every thing someone is good at, they don't necessarily like to do. The first challenge of leadership is to learn what your people are good at, what they like to do, and then level set their expectations if the two are not in alignment. Often, you will have to offer a bargain to your employees where you ask them to do something they are good at that they don't enjoy, in exchange for the opportunity to do something they enjoy that they are not good at.
This is a delicate negotiation. That is why the relationship you have built is so important. Your job as a leader is to enable success for your employees. This means that you have to understand them, their strengths and their weaknesses, and align their goals to their strengths so that they can be successful. Without the base of a trusting relationship, where they know you care about them and their success, it is impossible to deliver the hard message that someone is not good at something they think they excel at.
So, once you have established purpose and built relationships, the hard part starts. You have to be honest and kind in your evaluations of a person's talents and how they support the organization's goals. The easiest way to preserve the dignity of the employee is to set them up for success in their strengths. Success is addictive. In the early moments of your leadership, seek opportunities to create successful outcomes, building on the strengths of your employees. Once they enjoy the addictive power of success, re-directing goals to their strengths is much easier.
Some struggle with this approach, as it can appear to be manipulative. I prefer to view this approach as supportive of a successful outcome. Again, the ultimate goal is a balance. People usually do best when they do what they like to do. Your job as a leader is to keep them happy, so in effect, doing what they like to so. If they are not as good at what they like to do as what they want to do, you as a leader have to create an extrinsic reward for what they are good at.
Next post we discuss the variability of results.
So, when you invest in your employees, you have a chance to learn what like to do, and what they are good at. This is probably not a news flash to you, but everything someone likes to do they are not necessarily good at, and every thing someone is good at, they don't necessarily like to do. The first challenge of leadership is to learn what your people are good at, what they like to do, and then level set their expectations if the two are not in alignment. Often, you will have to offer a bargain to your employees where you ask them to do something they are good at that they don't enjoy, in exchange for the opportunity to do something they enjoy that they are not good at.
This is a delicate negotiation. That is why the relationship you have built is so important. Your job as a leader is to enable success for your employees. This means that you have to understand them, their strengths and their weaknesses, and align their goals to their strengths so that they can be successful. Without the base of a trusting relationship, where they know you care about them and their success, it is impossible to deliver the hard message that someone is not good at something they think they excel at.
So, once you have established purpose and built relationships, the hard part starts. You have to be honest and kind in your evaluations of a person's talents and how they support the organization's goals. The easiest way to preserve the dignity of the employee is to set them up for success in their strengths. Success is addictive. In the early moments of your leadership, seek opportunities to create successful outcomes, building on the strengths of your employees. Once they enjoy the addictive power of success, re-directing goals to their strengths is much easier.
Some struggle with this approach, as it can appear to be manipulative. I prefer to view this approach as supportive of a successful outcome. Again, the ultimate goal is a balance. People usually do best when they do what they like to do. Your job as a leader is to keep them happy, so in effect, doing what they like to so. If they are not as good at what they like to do as what they want to do, you as a leader have to create an extrinsic reward for what they are good at.
Next post we discuss the variability of results.
More on Happy People
So we covered one important aspect of happy people - having a sense of purpose. The second is the hardest for most leaders. In order to lead happy people, you have to invest in them. Personally. The biggest dividend you will ever get in life is from the investment you make in relationships. Don't get me wrong - you won't necessarily have anything in common with the people you lead other than the work you are doing - but you have to find space for a relationship with them.
With some people - it may be hard to find common ground. Never forget we are all humans. That is a good starting point. To help me find a platform to build a relationship on, I often look at people in all the different roles they play. For example, I am daughter, sister, mother, wife, race walker, avid reader, car head, bad bowler, water lover, outdoor lover, rainbow celebrator, theater fan, wino, beer aficionado, Saints fan, Catholic, dog lover - you get the picture. When I have someone on my team that I struggle to find common ground with, I think of all I am, and try to think of all the things they are. Eventually, there is always common ground. The ingredient that makes it work is time. You have to invest time in someone to know all they are.
Once you find your common place - you can now build a relationship. Once you have a relationship, you can invest in each other. Knowing what lights people up gives you the power to light them up. Really a simple concept. The investment in knowing the people you lead is the key that opens the door. By the way, this is a great way to make new friends with all kinds of people. Start with looking for common ground.
With some people - it may be hard to find common ground. Never forget we are all humans. That is a good starting point. To help me find a platform to build a relationship on, I often look at people in all the different roles they play. For example, I am daughter, sister, mother, wife, race walker, avid reader, car head, bad bowler, water lover, outdoor lover, rainbow celebrator, theater fan, wino, beer aficionado, Saints fan, Catholic, dog lover - you get the picture. When I have someone on my team that I struggle to find common ground with, I think of all I am, and try to think of all the things they are. Eventually, there is always common ground. The ingredient that makes it work is time. You have to invest time in someone to know all they are.
Once you find your common place - you can now build a relationship. Once you have a relationship, you can invest in each other. Knowing what lights people up gives you the power to light them up. Really a simple concept. The investment in knowing the people you lead is the key that opens the door. By the way, this is a great way to make new friends with all kinds of people. Start with looking for common ground.
Leading Happy People
Don’t let the title mislead you. This is not an instruction manual for how to lead happy people. This is instead a guide to help you to make certain that the people you lead are happy. It is much simpler than you can imagine, and also much more difficult. The largest challenge to leading happy people is suspending judgement. Leading happy people is a goal oriented leadership approach, in which you and your employees set SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timely or Time-bound) goals together, and then performance discussions center on the progress towards these goals, and how you as a leader can facilitate success.
For many, the first step is in truly understanding the objectives of your organization, and then identifying how you and your employees contribute to the organization achieving these objectives.
For most humans a sense of purpose is critical. When you have objectives like:
- Increase sales by 15%
- Improve customer satisfaction by 10%
- Reduces costs by 5%
How does that inspire a sense of purpose?
So the challenge is figuring out how your employees support the organizational goals, and how to translate that support into inspiring objectives.
Fortunately for me, my career was in Environment, Safety & Health (EH&S). It is easy to be inspirational when you are helping to protect people and the planet. Not all career paths lend themselves to the easy sense of purpose. But all can.
Most of my musings on leadership are the culmination of reading management and leadership texts over the years, with a strong foundation in adult learning theory.
The first step in creating inspiring objectives is to look beyond the mundane. Let's say you work in Accounting or Finance or IT. For a short time in my career, I worked in EH&S software application support. I would regularly say in meetings, "Making the world a better place, one application at a time." It always got a good laugh, but it also motivated my team. Inspirational Objective - Improving the usability of the software my clients need to use so that it is intuitive and easy for them. Making people's lives less stressful is an inspirational objective. Every function can make it better. You as the leader just need to imagine how.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)