A Leadership Assumption That Can Kill Employee Engagement

If you think you can, you probably will. You’ll find a way if you have the motivation.  If you think you can’t you likely won’t. When it comes to solving problems, attitude is everything and how we think about a problem is the first step to having a positive attitude. We all know these truths.   If a leader wants to have optimum employee engagement in their organization, they must evaluate their assumptions about people and problems and decide if those assumptions will support engagement or kill it. A leader’s assumptions can be either a powerful negative force or a powerful positive force for engagement.

No long ago I watched Jason Day, the Australian professional golfer, win the Well Fargo Open golf tournament.  He has a very useful and obvious habit. He closes his eyes just before each shot. Supposedly, he visualizes exactly what he hopes to do with the shot. He clearly understands that how one thinks about a situation will influence the behavior and that behavior will influence the result.

I have created a leadership development process called THINK-BEHAVE-IMPROVE. How a leader thinks will influence their behaviors and the behaviors of employees.  Similarly, how a leader behaves will influence an organization’s ability to improve.

At a recent client visit, the senior team was looking for ways to elevate the customer experience.  We were discussing issues identified during an employee focus group.  According to this focus group, the highest priority to improve customer experience was improving the ability of employees to handle customer calls.  Calls were being transferred multiple times and calls were being lost. It is widely accepted that optimum employee engagement is required to achieve optimum customer experience. (Adamsky, 2016)  The senior team was compelled to address these telephone issues.

During the discussion, the General Manager piped up in a frustrated tone “We have told the employees multiple times how to handle these calls. They just need to do it.”  A leader’s statements reveal their assumptions.  I asked this leader, “So, you think they are purposely not following your instructions and process?”  he said, “No, no, no.  That is not what I am saying. I just think they don’t get it.”  I asked, “So are they incapable or incompetent?”

One of the most damaging, and common, assumption is to think an employee’s behavior is a root cause of a problem. Employee behavior is rarely a root cause.  It is usually a symptom. In my example above, the General Manager assumes that the employees “don’t get it” because there is something wrong with those employees.  This assumption is not only damaging to employee engagement, it also prevents a recognition of the real root causes of the problem.  Instead of thinking there is something wrong with the employees, a leader must ask a series of process questions to uncover why the employees, “…don’t get it.” 

Instead of assuming a flaw in the employees, it is much more useful and healthy to assume there are flaws in the processes and methods used to provide instructions. Most often people who avoid embracing a change will have very good reason why. (Lahey, 2001)  It is a leader’s job to uncover those reasons.  They can do it by asking great questions.

Here are some process questions that can help us identify root causes:

  • What can we learn from this?
  • What process was used for training? Do we need to improve our process?
  • What are all the other factors which affect the employees’ ability to “get it?” and who is responsible for those factors? How can we improve those factors?
  • Did the employee not understand the instructions? What else do they need to understand?
  • Who is responsible for explaining the instructions? Did we communicate clearly and frequently enough?
  • What are the benefits employees will enjoy by not making the changes? How can we create other benefits more compelling to employees?
  • Do the employees understand why the change is so important and have we explained those reasons correctly and frequently?
  • What would the employees recommend for improvement?

An assumption that “they don’t get it” will lead to behaviors and/or communication which kills engagement. After all, who wants to be thought of as incapable, incompetent or purposely sabotaging a process?  When employees pick up on that assumption, engagement is dead and innovation to identify and remove the root causes is missing.  It’s tragic. The death of engagement and destruction of innovation with one assumption!

Check out the interview on C-Suite Best Seller TV to learn more about how to stop leadership malpractice and replace the typical performance review: https://www.c-suitetv.com/video/best-seller-tv-wally-hauck-stop-the-leadership-malpractice/

Wally Hauck, PhD has a cure for the “deadly disease” known as the typical performance appraisal.  Wally holds a doctorate in organizational leadership from Warren National University, a Master of Business Administration in finance from Iona College, and a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania.   Wally is a Certified Speaking Professional or CSP.  Wally has a passion for helping leaders let go of the old and embrace new thinking to improve leadership skills, employee engagement, and performance.

For more, read on: https://c-suitenetwork.com/advisors/advisor/wally-hauck/

Bibliography:

Adamsky, H. (2016). From Employee Engagement to Employee Advocacy: A Natural Progression. Aberdeen.

Lahey, R. K. (2001). The Real Reason People Won’t Change. Harvard Business Review.

You might also like

LinkedIn Is All About… [What?] The large number of LinkedIn connection requests coming to me from people who promise to...
I’m often asked by people what they should be doing on LinkedIn when they’re on the platform. Here are my recommendations: be strategic to ensure that what you spend your time on is aligned to your purposes for logging in.
South Korea trumps Germany and Japan in robotics, with the United States also lagging behind in the top 10. South Korea boasts 631 robots per 10,000 employees, which is 8 times the global average. The United States has 189 robots per 10,000 employees, placing it seventh. Despite its expertise in many areas of robotics and artificial intelligence, the United Kingdom lags behind other developed economies in 22nd place, with a robot density of just 71. That’s below the global average of 74 industrial robots per 10,000 employees. The only good news is that the United Kingdom is still one place above China. However, China has a human population of well over one billion people. By contrast, the UK is investing just £300-400 million in the same timeframe. It is worth noting that 85% of that investment comes directly from the EU. Countries with the most industrial robots per 10,000 employees:
Fundamentally, blockchain is a digital ledger system with no central authority. In addition, each “block” in a blockchain is made up of ten transaction records. Though much of blockchain’s architecture relies heavily on cryptography, the transaction data in the block itself is not encrypted and therefore public. As ledgers grow rapidly larger, the nodes must work harder to process the volume of information. Companies on the Cutting Edge Companies across every industry are finding success in implementing blockchain technology. IBM has focused on utilizing blockchain alongside its artificial intelligence software, Watson, to develop applications such as machine learning, diagnostics, and machine-to-machine communications and payments. This has the potential to make the internet “smart”. Using blockchain? The Future is Now The internet is the foundational invention of the digital age. Like the internet, blockchain represents a paradigm shift to trustless exchanges that enable transactions, but can also perform all kinds of computer work in a decentralized open-source manner, likely at very low cost.
Gradually we became aware that the growing heaps of plastic we collected and returned every week. But we also soon realized that there are so many cool alternatives available, and we found it fun and challenging to try them out. #2 STOP SHOP Light, green and organic Stop shop light means not buying any “things” except daily necessities, but still enjoying cinemas, eating out, “experiences”, along with some travelling. Or stop buying anything at all – altogether. Our new mantra is “purchase new to replace”. When we do eat meat – we often purchase meat from organic farms, and sometimes wild game when available. We also decided to start producing our own solar power last spring in combination with our thermal heating system. Sorting and bagging our food waste is a sobering exercise, and fast creates awareness of what we throw out, and how much. And this while air travel is responsible for 2 % of all global greenhouse emissions. Although this probably have had a significant effect on our total emissions – it feels very unrealistic to have the world stop travel.
And unsurprisingly, top of the prestigious list is Ripple founder Chris Larsen. Based on Larsen’s holdings of 5.2 billion Ripple tokens (XRP), Forbes magazine estimated his net worth at nearly $20 billion in early January 2018. Joseph Lubin, co-founder of Ethereum and founder of Consensys, comes 2nd with a net worth of between $1 billion and $5 billion. Bitcoin billionaires: The Top 10 of Richest People in Cryptocurrency as follows: 1. Joseph Lubin, Co-founder, Ethereum and founder at Consensys — $1 billion – $5 billion 3. Changpeng “CZ” Zhao, CEO, Binance — $1.1 billion – $2 billion 4. Matthew Mellon, Individual investor — $900 million – $1 billion 6. Matthew Roszak, Co-founder, BIoQ, and founder at Tally Capital — $900 million – $1 billion 8. Anthony Di Iorio, Co-founder at Ethereum and founder at Jaxx and Decentral — $750 million – $1 billion 9. Michael Novogratz, CEO, Galaxy Digital — $700 million – $1 billion Leave a Reply
Harvard University, known for its aggressive fundraising campaign, raised an all-time high $1.28 billion in the fiscal year 2017, surpassing fundraising totals from 2016 and topping Stanford University’s fundraising total ($1.13 billion) for a second consecutive year. In 2017, Harvard and Stanford were the only two universities to surpass the $1 billion mark, , according to the Council for Aid to Education (CAE). In the past, Stanford has traditionally topped Harvard’s charitable contributions, outpacing Harvard 9 out of the past 12 years. The list of 20 institutions includes 5 Ivy League universities: Yale University ($595.89 million), Columbia University ($603.08 million), the University of Pennsylvania ($626.49 million), Cornell University ($743.5 million), and Harvard University ($1.28 billion). Donations to American colleges and universities totaled $43.6 billion in 2017, displacing the $41 billion total set in 2016. The 20 US Universities That Raised The Most Money in 2017 Rank Institution Total raised 1 Harvard University $1.28 billion 2 Stanford University $1.13 billion 3 Cornell University $743.50 million 4 Massachusetts Institute of Technology $672.94 million 5 University of Southern California $668.33 million 6 Johns Hopkins University $636.91 million 7 University of Pennsylvania $626.49 million 8 Columbia University $603.08 million 9 Yale University $595.89 million 10 Duke University $581.05 million 11 New York University $567.12 million 12 University of Washington $553.89 million 13 University of California-Los Angeles $550.93 million 14 University of Chicago $483.47 million 15 University of Michigan $456.13 million 16 University of Notre Dame $451.43 million 17 University of California-San Francisco $422.17 million 18 University of California-Berkeley $404.59 million 19 Ohio State University $401.85 million 20 Indiana University $398.26 million Amount Raised From Different Sources, 2017 Source Total Percentage of total Alumni $11.37 billion 26.1% Nonalumni individuals $7.86 billion 18.0% Corporations $6.60 billion 15.1% Foundations $13.13 billion 30.1% Other $4.64 billion 10.6% $43.6 billion Leave a Reply
A Cautionary Tale for Business Leaders On the Value of Credibility & Empathy. From the size of his hands to the size of his first “State of the Union” TV audience, President Donald Trump has spent the two-and-a-half years of his candidacy and presidency getting caught in outright lies, maligning everyone from American immigrants and Red Star families to a former Miss Universe, and taking credit for successes over which he had little control. His missteps and struggles may still yet offer important lessons for organizational leaders about building and maintaining credibility among stakeholders. Are your employers, executives, and important external stakeholders able to predict or discern what matters to you and what your priorities are? Do you insult, stereotype or humiliate colleagues—or even rivals? A company is not a democracy, so you have the right—and responsibility—to act in a way you believe is in your organization’s best interest. How much will you be able to count on your team and organization when the going inevitably gets tough? How do you publicly face defeats, deliver bad news and mediate between competing interests? While everyone prefers to be liked, leaders aren’t there to be beloved, nor should they strive to make people happy all the time. But you risk your longer-term ability to lead your organization if you publicly peg failures to individual executives.
Among the top 110 cities where millennials want to live, the Canadian city of Montreal was ranked the second best for 2018, followed by London, the Dutch capital Amsterdam, and Toronto. Vancouver, also in Canada, comes in sixth, followed by Barcelona in Spain, while New York City, in eighth, is the only US city in the top ten. The first city in the United States to appear on the list is New York City at 8, beating the likes of San Francisco (13th), Austin (14th), Miami (16th), and Los Angeles (29th) Other U.S. cities to make the full list of 110 cities are Portland (34th), Chicago (35th), Philadelphia (45th), Denver (51st), Boston (69th), Seattle (72nd), and Washington, D.C. (74th). While U.K cities also highly rated are London (3rd), Manchester (10th), Bristol (12th), Glasgow (19th), Birmingham (23rd), Edinburgh (58th), and Coventry (63rd). Berlin, Germany 2. New York City, USA 9. Sydney, Australia 25. Québec City, Canada 28. Mexico City, Mexico 34. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 56.
This is the epitome of a leader who recognized that leadership of his people meant declaring a vision, determining to safeguard his people, and delivering on his promise. Are they secure in the vision you have for them and the company? Leadership is serious business. Declare a vision. Take out a piece of paper, and write down the number of employees entrusted to your care. Determine to safeguard your people. Vision is key, but vision alone is not enough. Just as you declared the vision to your people, you must also share the plan with them. Deliver the vision. Top Non-U.S. Business Schools For Executive MBA In 2018.
It is growing increasingly clear that even at double-time pay, many American Airlines pilots have not been persuaded to give up their family holidays and fly in the days surrounding Christmas. Last week, the airline acknowledged a scheduling glitch allowed many pilots to drop their December flights, putting more than 10 thousand flights in jeopardy of cancellation. The pleas continued over the weekend for captains and first officers and yet some 12 hundred flights, largely in the eastern United States are still without the required crew compliment, a problem that affects both international and domestic flying. In Charlotte, the airline is lacking more than 150 pilots for international flights between the 23rd and the 28th. It is down 200 in Dallas-Ft. Worth and in Miami as well. Chicago and New York's LaGuardia aren't in good shape either. Ask pilots at the carrier and they'll say it is no mystery why the airline is having trouble getting them back in the cockpit. Even with 10 to 20 years seniority many pilots at American still cannot get holidays off. When the computer showed they could opt off holiday flights, Tajer suggested, "They didn’t muddle through with 'why?' Then they told their spouses and their kids."