C-Suite Network™

Menu
Search
Close this search box.

Author: Wally Hauck, PhD, CSP

Wally Hauck, PhD, CSP works with leaders who want to optimize the people potential.  His company, Optimum Leadership, helps leaders reduce the greatest waste in America namely the failure to fully optimize the ability of people.

Wally’s vision is to eliminate the traditional performance review process from the planet. He has a cure and a replacement for this "deadly disease" called it the Complete Performance Improvement Process or CPIP.  CPIP improves the quality and frequency of feedback to create high performance.

Optimum Leadership, provides ideas, tools, and processes, that help leaders to think, behave, and improve. Wally works with C-level executives and HR professional to achieve extraordinary results.

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 Hauck, PhD, CSP works with leaders who want to optimize the people potential.  His company, Optimum Leadership, helps leaders reduce the greatest waste in America namely the failure to fully optimize the ability of people.

Wally’s vision is to eliminate the traditional performance review process from the planet. He has a cure and a replacement for this "deadly disease" called it the Complete Performance Improvement Process or CPIP.  CPIP improves the quality and frequency of feedback to create high performance.

Optimum Leadership, provides ideas, tools, and processes, that help leaders to think, behave, and improve. Wally works with C-level executives and HR professional to achieve extraordinary results.

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 Hauck, PhD, CSP works with leaders who want to optimize the people potential.  His company, Optimum Leadership, helps leaders reduce the greatest waste in America namely the failure to fully optimize the ability of people.

Wally’s vision is to eliminate the traditional performance review process from the planet. He has a cure and a replacement for this "deadly disease" called it the Complete Performance Improvement Process or CPIP.  CPIP improves the quality and frequency of feedback to create high performance.

Optimum Leadership, provides ideas, tools, and processes, that help leaders to think, behave, and improve. Wally works with C-level executives and HR professional to achieve extraordinary results.

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.

Categories
Growth Human Resources Management Personal Development

3 Reasons to NOT Treat Star Performers Differently

We love our heroes and star performers.   I love them too. There is very often a mystique about a hero or star.  I watched an interview with Medal of Honor recipient Army Staff Sergeant Salvatore Guinta.  Guinta stepped into the line of fire to help two comrades on the battlefield in Afghanistan.  He acted seemingly without fear in the face of incredible danger.  He succeeded.  He is clearly a hero in every sense of the word.  However, predictably, he didn’t see himself in that way.  He claimed to behave the way he was trained and that every other soldier is expected to behave that same way.  He followed principles.

In January of 2009 “Sully” Sullenberger landed a USAIR flight in the Hudson after both engines shut down from a bird strike.  He was honored by everyone including the President of the United States, his hometown, and 60 Minutes.  He was called a true America hero by many in the press.  His actions were called a miracle.  He claimed that he and his crew were only doing their jobs.  He said, “But I know I can speak for the entire crew when I tell you we were simply doing the job we were trained to do.”  Sullenberger followed processes based upon solid and proven principles.

Why is it so often that our heroes are so modest and downplay their star qualities and give away their accolades?  They know something that we often forget.  They have a system supporting them.

In the case of Sullenberger the flight crew was thoroughly trained to react quickly and decisively in an emergency situation.  Sullenberger took control of the plane and instructed his co-pilot to read through the appropriate check lists.  The check lists and the cooperation of the co-pilot did as much to save all 155 people as did Sullenberger.  They all played a significant role in the coordination of a successful heroic event.  Sullenberger did NOT act alone. He could not have possibly done it alone yet we still want to hold him up as some super natural champion.   Heroes understand systems.  The general public doesn’t yet appreciate the influence a system has on performance.  We don’t yet think in terms of systems.

There are three reasons why we should not treat star performers differently whether it is in the military, the airlines or in our organizations.  First, doing so ignores the overall system interactions that helped contribute to the successes.  We can forget the catcher who snags a wild pitch to save a perfect game for the star pitcher.   We ignore the co-pilot’s role of reading and fulfilling the emergency engine startup check list or the flight attendant who keeps the passengers form panicking even though they need to stand on the wing of a jet in the middle of the Hudson River.  System interactions contribute greatly to a hero’s success.  Acknowledging this helps us engage others and understand a bigger picture.

Second, treating “stars” differently prevents us from duplicating successes in the future.  By giving all the credit to one person that event becomes a “person dependent event” not a system dependent event.  If the success is great don’t we want to duplicate it as much as possible?  Sullenberger is now retired.  Does that mean we cannot teach others to duplicate his actions?  Why can’t we have 100 heroes in USAIR and not just one?

Finally, treating heroes and stars differently prevents us from learning.  It creates a barrier to learning. Aren’t we are saying, “We just couldn’t have done it without them?”  Instead, isn’t it more important to acknowledge their accomplishments and the system interactions and ask, “What can we learn from this?”  Isn’t it just as important to learn from our successes as it is to learn from our mistakes?

So much time and effort is spent now on looking for ways to keep our star performers in our organizations.  We court them, provide opportunities for them, we lavish them with praise and bonuses just to be sure we them happy.  The next time you see a star being honored think about what we might be missing.  What other system interactions need to be honored and who else needs to be engaged?  How can we duplicate that same set of circumstances and interactions such that we duplicate the success?    Finally, ask, what can we learn?   If we want continued success and continued engagement in our organizations we need to stop treating our heroes so differently.

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/

Categories
Best Practices Growth Management Personal Development

Moving from Judgement to Coaching: The Four Quadrants Tool

Is it a good idea to judge others?  The Bible says no.  “Do not judge, or you will be judged…For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”[1]  “Do not judge, you will not be judged.  Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned.  Forgive, and you will be forgiven.”[2]

These thoughts fly in the face of one of the most popular organizational performance management policy, the typical performance appraisal.  They negate the very foundation upon which the policy is based, i.e. the manager will judge the performance of each employee and provide a grade or rating to improve that individual’s performance.

The judgement of employee performance by managers is well intended but creates unintended negative consequences.  The most damaging consequence is the damage to trust, optimum communication and optimum relationships between the judge (manage) and the judged (employee).  Trust and optimum relationships are corner stones of the foundation of optimum performance.  Therefore, the typical appraisal causes an outcome that is the opposite of its intended purpose.

An employee’s behavior is a root cause of a problem is one of the most common and flawed assumptions upon which the typical performance appraisal is based.  Employee behavior is rarely a root cause.  It is most often a symptom of a dysfunctional process or policy.

So, what do we do if we want to avoid judgement while protecting trust and relationships.  We need the Four Quadrants tool.  This tool uses two key dimensions of performance and creates insight and guidance for optimum coaching and feedback.  The two dimensions are the ability to keep agreements and the ability to manage variation in processes.

This provides four different situations for the manager to decide the best coaching approach with that individual.  If a manager reviews these two dimensions prior to a coaching session, he/she will be able to be more productive and address root causes of performance issues instead of only addressing symptoms.

Does the employee keep their agreements, for example, do they come to work on time, do they treat others with respect, do they follow policy? These are observable behaviors.  It’s data.  It’s the manager’s job to uncover the root causes of these poor behaviors and ask the employee to correct them.

Is there too much variation in processes within the employee scope of responsibility?  This also requires data.  To judge this situation a manager must have data that shows the variation in the individual processes within the employee’s scope of responsibility.

Instead of evaluating the individual employee, the manager can now have a dialogue with the employee about the root causes of the broken agreements and the root causes of the variation.  In this coaching model, the employee and manager become partners to uncover root causes.  They are no longer “judge” and “judged”.  They are looking at the data not the person. 

The Four Major Situations

High

#2

The employee is keeping their agreements but there is also too much variation in their processes.  Something needs to change to reduce the variation.

 #4

The employee is keeping their agreements and there is low variation in their processes.

 
#1

The employee is not keeping their agreements and there is also too much variation in their processes.

 #3

The employee is not keeping their agreements and there is low variation in their processes.

 
Ability to manage variation in process
Low
High

In this model, it’s the employee’s responsibility to keep agreements and to ask for help to manage the variation in their processes.  It’s a manager’s job to assist them to uncover barriers that prevent them from keeping agreements or managing variation.  It’s their job together to find the root causes of poor performance.

Judgement of an individual is no longer necessary to improve performance.  If you set up observable standards of behavior, and ask these two questions you can partner with an employee to make positive change:

  1. Is the employee keeping agreements?
  2. Is there too much variation in the processes within their scope of responsibility?

You can then partner with employees to look for the real root causes.  Two brains working on root causes will improve performance faster than just one judge and one who is judged.

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/

[1] Bible: New International Version Matthew 7:2

[2] Bible: New International Version Luke 6:37

Categories
Growth Leadership Skills

Are Leaders Aware of Their Impact?

My wife and I attend Catholic Mass each Sunday.  At Mass is an altar server.  This is a lay assistant who attends to supporting tasks at the altar such as fetching and carrying, ringing the altar bell, among other things during the liturgy.

Altar servers in our church range in age from about 7 to 18.  At an early Mass the servers are often tired and fidgety.   During readings and hymns we can find them yawning, giggling, fidgeting, and/or preening.  They are likely bored, and they look it. Their behaviors are distracting and often amusing too.  Their actions and facial expressions often send clear messages they don’t know why they are there, they don’t yet appreciate the significance of the celebration, and they are unaware of the impact they are having on the congregation.  The congregation is distracted from their most important responsibility, worship.

As people mature they become more aware of how they are influencing others.  As adults, and as leaders, if we are to positively influence others, we must be aware of the impact of our behaviors, actions, decisions, our words, and our tone of voice.  This awareness is one of the key skills of emotional intelligence.

Emotional intelligence is a set of abilities that helps identify and manage emotions and influence others’ emotions and behaviors.  There are four skills that must be developed for a leader (or anyone) to be emotionally intelligent:

  • Being aware of our emotions
  • Expressing those emotions appropriately for the situation and/or to intentionally and consciously achieve an outcome
  • Recognizing emotions in others
  • Influencing others to express their emotions appropriately by using empathic understanding and appreciation

Daniel Goleman, the author of Emotional Intelligence and Primal Leadership explains how “Emotions may spread like viruses…”  The reason “lies in the design of the human brain.” (Daniel Goleman, 2002) What a leader does and how he/she does it automatically influences others around them because the limbic brain is an open-loop system.  Our limbic brain allows us to come to each other’s emotional rescue when necessary.  For example, a crying baby is comforted by its mother.  In hospitals, the comforting presence of another can lower the blood pressure of a patient.  “Scientists describe the open loop as…one person transmits signals that can alter hormone levels, cardiovascular function, sleep rhythms, and even immune function inside the body of another.” (Daniel Goleman, 2002)

The altar servers are unknowingly impacting the emotions of the congregation.  The servers are immature and a bit self-centered.  Leaders cannot afford to be immature and self-centered.  Ideally, maturity and situational awareness develop as we age, and this enables us to function more effectively by getting others to trust us and to cooperate.  Because of the open-loop system, any lack of maturity in a leader’s behaviors can damage employee attitudes. Poor attitude of a leader will transmit to others. Poor attitude leads to inferior performance and poor results

For example, this past week an employee at one of my clients shared how a comment from his CEO, during a 7-hour workshop, so disturbed him that he could not fully participate during the rest of the workshop.  Just as the altar servers were unaware, many leaders unconsciously do things and say things that create fear. Fear is created when “Managers and supervisors are…acting in threatening ways, though unconsciously…” (Kathleen D. Ryan, 1998)

As a leader, are you aware of the emotional impact your behaviors, actions, decisions, your words, and your tone of voice have on others?  Are you able to identify their emotions?  Do you have the emotional intelligent skills to be aware and influence?  Are people able to speak the truth around and to you?  Is there a high level of trust between you and your team members?  Are the relationships with managers and employees open and honest?

Emotional intelligence skills can be developed, and they are essential for consistent optimum performance.  Without these skills “the congregation” will be distracted from their most important responsibilities.

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.

Daniel Goleman, R. B. (2002). Primal Leadership: Realizing The Power of Emotional Intelligence. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Schools Press.

Kathleen D. Ryan, D. K. (1998). Driving Fear Out of the Workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

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

Categories
Culture Growth Leadership Personal Development

Managing Bias with Behavior

A great deal of time, effort and money is being invested to reduce or eliminate bias in our society.  It seems we are now hyper sensitive to any kind of bias that we may see it even when it might not exist.  Starbucks is now on the front line of this investment.  How do we manage this hypersensitivity and maintain our trusting relationships?  Please notice I asked how to manage bias and not reduce or eliminate.  Managing bias is all we can do. The purpose of this blog to explain why and how.

Two African American men were arrested at a Starbucks in Philadelphia in early May 2018.  Their arrest spurred accusations of racial bias.  They asked to use the restroom.  The manager explained, “Only paying customers can use the restroom.”  The men sat without purchasing anything.  Soon after the manger asked them to leave.  Her justification was the policy at this Starbucks i.e. “only paying customers can occupy a table.”  The men objected to leaving the store claiming to be waiting for a colleague for a business meeting.

To make up for his incident, Starbucks funded a $200,000 inner city grant program.  The two African American men agreed to facilitate training for inner city entrepreneurs with the money.  Starbucks corporate also decided to close all 8,000 corporate owned stores on May 29th for an all-day training program to help its employees to avoid racial bias. (Jason Hanna, 2018)

Was there bias?  Did the manager act inappropriately?  Did the African American men behave inappropriately?  Why were the police called?  Was it because of racial bias?  According to two decades of research we now know all have unconscious biases which can influence our behaviors and/or our decisions. (Mahzarin R. Banaji, 2003)

We cannot control our bias.  It is often unconscious because this is how our brains work.  We associate people with the probability of certain actions based on our experiences. These associations are helpful.  They can also be harmful because they can create biases.

Here is the good news.  It is more useful to accept the fact that we have biases and to behave accordingly.  It is better to accept our biases than to think we can remove them through an all-day training because the research shows removal of bias is impossible.  I could make the case the African American men in Starbucks acted inappropriately because they behaved contrary to the store policies.  I can also make the argument the Starbucks manager behaved inappropriately by calling the police without optimum communication and without seeing any provocation from the men.

If we have bias and cannot remove it with training, what are we to do?  The key is to follow specific behaviors to assure we are always respectful.  Furthermore, it’s useful to have policies which always serve customers.  The African American men may not have been customers that moment because they did not buy anything at that moment.  They were certainly potential customers.  Their behaviors may not have matched the exact store policy, but they were not being disrespectful.  If they had behaved disrespectfully, the manger would have been justified to call the police if they refused to stop.

Our “unconscious” bias is one of the reasons why the typical performance management process often backfires.  A typical performance discussion will have two people with unconscious biases.  Rarely does the performance management process provide an opportunity for the two participants (manager and employee) to acknowledge their bias.  This will create a barrier to trust and communication.

How do you manage bias?  You always behave with respect, you articulate your bias, you optimally communicate what you need to do, and you avoid tolerating those who behave disrespectfully.  Policies should not be treated as inflexible law.  They are guidelines for which there are always exceptions.  The key is to always behave with respect, to consider how to serve customers, and to act respectfully even when those customers are being disrespectful.

Starbucks is investing a great deal of time and money in an all-day training that will not accomplish its purpose.  Perhaps they should just acknowledge bias and conduct respectful behavior training instead.

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.

Bibliography

Jason Hanna, K. S. (2018, May 3). The men arrested at Starbucks are paying it forward big time. Retrieved from cnn.com: https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/03/us/starbucks-arrest-agreements/index.html

Mahzarin R. Banaji, M. H. (2003). How (Un)ethical Are You? Harvard Business Review.

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

Categories
Culture Growth Management Personal Development

What is “Influence Influenza” and What is the Cure?

Influenza is a series infection. It causes fever, aching, and is often debilitating and even deadly if the immune system is weak.  Managers suffer from “influence influenza” because they are often debilitated by the need to have difficult performance conversations.  There is an epidemic of an unwillingness and/or inability to influence employees to change their inappropriate behaviors and/or poor performance.  What are the root causes of this epidemic and what is the cure?

It is managers who suffer from this affliction because leaders understand how to give feedback.  Leaders understand the difference between control and influence and leaders know how to create followers.  Leaders know how to influence.

Root Causes

We are taught control techniques. We use performance appraisals and pay for performance carrots and stick to create change in behaviors.  Control means people are forced to do certain behaviors.  Influence means they want to do those behaviors. At a recent training conference for a major automobile manufacturer, my colleagues and I learned that the owners of dealerships were threatened with a fine if they didn’t attend the training. This is a perfect example of carrots and sticks control. This type of control technique damages motivation, engagement and cooperation.  It can even create anger.

Wells Fargo was fined millions for issuing fake credit card accounts and overcharging customers to lock them into new deals. (Prentice, 2016)  They not only provided monetary incentives for the employees to “sell” these deals, they also threatened employees with loss of employment if they failed to meet the goals.  This is an example of the standard form of control techniques.  Employees had to behave in a certain way. Customers were manipulated.

Managers are fearful to use influence because it requires effort, courage, and critical thinking. The carrot and stick approach is so much easier.  It is easy for a manager to set up an incentive program and/or make threats to get the behavior they want and then, if it doesn’t work, the manager can always blame and punish the employees.  This is exactly what Wells Fargo did. (Egan, 2016)  5,300 employees were fired.

A lack of trust prevents communication.  When trust is low, a manager is often off balance.  The lack of balance can create a lack of confidence, hesitation and/or procrastination.  According to the International Association of Business Communicators, trust can be created by treating others with integrity, respect, accomplishing tasks and agreeing on shared objectives.[1] When one or more of these elements are missing, a manager is off balance.  These elements can be managed if the manager is willing to make the effort and if they have the skills.

The Cure

Influence requires a deep appreciation of why behaviors must change. Instead of using carrots and sticks, people need and want a “Big Why” to change.  Managers who want to become leaders and who want to use influence must begin to communicate and reinforce the “Big Why” for employees.  They must be able to articulate the benefits the change will create and the consequences if it fails.

Finally, managers can learn to use the Socratic Method.  Asking powerful and useful questions is the best way to influence others.  This sounds simple and it is not easy. It requires critical thinking skills, patience, and an appreciation that employees might have habits that need to be changed.  A change in habit is difficult.  Managers who learn to ask great questions, with the proper tone, and with the helpful (even loving) intentions will begin to become a leader who knows how to influence others.

Managers who hesitate to address poor or unhelpful behaviors of employees likely have “influence influenza”.  It’s time for a cure. If we want our organizations to be optimally successful we must become leaders who influence and stop just being managers to try to control.

 

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:

Egan, M. (2016, September 9). 5,300 Wells Fargo Employees Fired Over 2 Million Phony Accounts. Retrieved from cnn.com: http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/investing/wells-fargo-created-phony-accounts-bank-fees/index.html

Prentice, R. (2016, September 19). Wells Fargo Goes Far to Cheat Customers, and It Was Predictable. Retrieved from utexas.edu: https://news.utexas.edu/2016/09/19/it-was-predictable-that-wells-fargo-cheated-customers

[1] The International Association of Business Communicators definition of trust

Categories
Culture Growth Management Personal Development

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.

Categories
Growth Management Personal Development

Are You a Traditional Manager or Facilitator for Self-Management?

Are you a traditional manager or self-management facilitator?    A shift is occurring.  Some managers recognize the need to change now and they are aware and working hard to personally transform their thinking and their methods.  Some organizations will be able to delay the transformation and others will need to change now or will suffer increased costs in turnover and low employee engagement.  Those organizations who are unaware of the need and/or who ignore it may end up going the way of the Dodo bird at some point.

The current management model that requires managers to “drive” results, and evaluate performance is not fast enough to keep up with changes occurring in the global economy.  There is a need for instant adaptability and traditional managers, as smart as they may be, cannot respond or plan fast enough.  The need to adapt to change is one of the dynamics creating a need for organizations to prepare for self-organizing teams and employees who can self-manage.

Besides the need to adapt to the speed of change, managers must also be able to create environments that engage people naturally and not force so called engagement with bribes and threats.  Many traditional managers use so called “new” motivational initiatives to create employee engagement but these programs are often just the same old traditional management with fancy digital bells and whistles.

Furthermore, it is impossible for bribes and threats of the traditional management policies, such as pay for performance and the traditional performance review, to encourage optimal innovation and creativity.  Those policies are no longer able to meet the needs of the organization nor the needs of engaged employees.  Like the Dodo and the Dinosaur, the environment has changed, and these policies are going extinct.

How do you know you are making the transition to a self-managing facilitator?  Here are a few questions to challenge you and to consider what you are doing.

Are you a systems thinker?   In the face of mistakes, do you step back and ask questions about how the system is impacting the results or do you immediately think about blaming the individual who made the mistake?

Do you understand that there is always variation in processes and therefore you avoid setting new policies and expecting perfection in policy deployment?   Do you appreciate that the individual employees work in the system that you created?  Do you believe if an employee makes a mistake it is rarely done on purpose but instead it’s likely because of the way YOU designed the process?  Do you accept that it is your job to work on improving that system?

Have you clarified a specific context of trust and do you have a process to continuously reinforce trust by behaving with integrity?  Do you continuously reinforce the company values, mission and vision?  When employees do not appreciate why their jobs are so important and how their responsibilities impact the customer, do you ask “How can I improve my communication about company values, mission and vision?”

Do you ask questions about what barriers are holding employees back from doing an optimum job?  Do you listen and act on their suggestions?  Do you then facilitate agreements with employees to act on their own?  Do you encourage them to self-manage?

Are you able to provide the tools that enable your people to create self-managing teams make more and more of their own decisions?  Do you provide employees with the tools and the data they need to track their own performance in a collaborative way without you micro-managing?

Are you trusting them to continuously improve their hand offs with each other?  Do you explain that higher quality hand offs delivered faster increases profit and happier external customers?

Are you personally developing, and offering opportunities for your people to develop the skills of emotional intelligence, critical thinking skills and systems thinking skills?

The traditional manager has a difficult job, but the future self-management facilitator is prepared with a completely new set of sophisticated skills.  Are you making the transition?  Are you getting the help you need to make the transformation?  If not, watch out for the Dodo.  You might see it cross the street in front of you very soon.

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/

Categories
Best Practices Growth Management Personal Development

2 Reasons Why Your Performance Appraisal May Not Really Be About You

My sister worked for a company that was about to be sold to an investor.  She called me in a panic.  Her performance appraisal was scheduled and she was nervous they were about to fire her right before the sale.  I assured her the request to schedule a performance appraisal was to provide the new buyer with evidence about the performance of the current employees.  I was sure the buyer merely wanted to have some evidence about how effective they were and if they could support the change in ownership.

The next day she called to tell me I was right.  Her original fears were unfounded.  Her performance review was excellent and met all her expectations.  Clearly the seller (my sister’s current employer) wanted to convince the buyer the people were excellent.

Was that performance appraisal really about her or about the sale?  Most performance appraisals are not really about the people but instead about some other motivation or intended outcome.  This is so unfortunate because the latest research shows that people are hungry for feedback, especially millennials. According to Harvard Business Review, 70 percent of employees indicated that “My performance and possibilities for success in my career would have increased substantially if I had been given more feedback.” (Folkman, 2014)

The typical appraisal will likely include things such as a bias, a manipulation, poor leadership, justification for a raise or bonus, justification for a firing, and justification for a promotion or a demotion.   Aren’t performance appraisals supposed to be about improving the performance of the individual?  If so, why would leaders misuse the policy for their own selfish motivations?

The typical performance appraisal process is a failure and there are numerous reasons why. Here are the main two basic reasons:

  1. The basic assumptions behind the current appraisal are flawed
  2. The appraisal process is most often manipulated to justify some motivation other than its original purpose e.g. justifying a raise (or bonus) to keep a high performer happy or justifying the firing of a poor performer.

The main assumption of the current appraisal process is that improving the quality of the people will improve the organizational performance.  This describes our desire to analyze the parts of a whole in order to understand the whole.  This is inconsistent with systems thinking.  Leaders must embrace systems thinking to achieve predictable organization improvement. Most organizations continue to practice the Frederick Taylor method of management which is really a “command and control” approach.  The typical appraisal is a tool of the command and control and Frederick Taylor Scientific Management approach. (Caramela, 2018)

Most leaders now assume that poor organizational performance is rooted in poor employee performance.  Although many have revised their performance management process, a large majority of organizations still conduct the typical performance appraisal process or something very similar.  The typical performance appraisal process is merely a dysfunctional yet sophisticated form of blame.  Its assumptions are:

  • Individuals have control over the results of their work and the factors that allow them to achieve their goals. This is false.  There are always many factors that contribute to the success of a goal.
  • Managers can evaluate individual performance separate from the contributions of others and the influence of the work tools, environment etc. This is false.  Managers cannot separate their bias (either positive or negative) from their evaluation.

Both of these assumptions are inconsistent with systems thinking.  A systems thinking assumption is, “the quality of the interactions between employees (and departments) is more important for improvement of the organization than improving the quality of the people.”  In other words, you can’t separate the evaluation of the person from the quality of the interactions that person has with their co-workers and the working environment.  If this is true one must conclude that the typical appraisal doesn’t evaluate the individual.  It evaluates the interactions.  It is not about the person it’s about the interactions of that person in that particular environment.

Leaders often manipulate the appraisal process to serve their own purposes.  Just as with my sister, the owner manipulated the process to make all employees “look good” so the new buyer would be impressed.  This compromised the opportunity to receive real feedback for improvement.  It compromised the truth.

Leaders very often will compromise the process to achieve some short term goal.  The appraisal then becomes more about achieving the goal and less about the person receiving the appraisal.

That performance appraisal with your name on it is really NOT about you.  It is really about how you are able to interact with others, environmental factors outside of your control, and about the intentions of the manager conducting it.  Good luck trying to learn something that will help your development!

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:

Caramela, S. (2018, February 13). Management Theory of Frederick Taylor. Retrieved from Business.com: https://www.business.com/articles/management-theory-of-frederick-taylor/

Folkman, J. Z. (2014). Your Employees Want the Negative Feedback You Hate to Give. Harvard Business Review.

Categories
Growth Human Resources Management Personal Development

2 Blind Spots Leaders Often Have Regarding Performance Discussions

Have you ever watched a movie where the hero is being chased by predators through the woods? He quickly arrives at a cliff screeching to a halt and nearly falling off into a river far below. He now has a choice, stay to face the predators, which will likely kill him, or take a chance and jump into the river below risking possible severe injury or even death. He reacts and jumps.

In my opinion, this describes the decision many major organizations made when they made major changes to their performance management processes. They were being chased by the poor results of the typical appraisal. These include significant wasted time, complaints by employees (especially millennials) about the quality and frequency of feedback, and the lack of quality skill developmental discussions.

Many of the employees (especially millennials) who are unsatisfied with the typical appraisal process claim the feedback is poor and doesn’t help focus on developmental needs. As high as 65% say it is not relevant to their job  (Meinert, 2015). Only 8% believed their performance management systems made a significant positive contribution in employee performance (David Rock, 2013).  These Performance management “predators” are real.  Even so, reacting and jumping into a “river” you don’t really understand, is not necessarily the best option.  When you have blind spots, you only see the jumping option.

Accenture, GE, Microsoft, Adobe and Deloitte and several others reacted and jumped. Some went into the “river of software” where the hope was to spend less time and remove much of the paperwork angst. Some jumped into the “river of more frequent check-ins” to avoid the annual conversations which managers dread, which waste time, and that upset employees.

Although Accenture, GE, Microsoft, Adobe and Deloitte have “jumped” why are their employees/executives still unsatisfied? There are two reasons in the form of two blind spots.  The first is the lack of appreciation for a system. The is the “appreciation for a system blind spot”. The second is the idea that a manager is the key person who must provide feedback. This the “omniscient manager” blind spot.

Blind Spot #1: Appreciation for a system

Organizations are social systems with interdependent parts. One of the main reasons the typical appraisal process fails to gain support and creates frustration is because it is inconsistent with systems thinking. Systems thinking is a sophisticated way of thinking about performance.  Results are more dependent on the design and functioning of the system than on the actions and decisions of the individual performer.  Yet, most organizations (even those who jumped into one of the rivers) still insist managers provide consistent and frequent feedback to individuals.

In a social system, the focus needs to be on improving the quality of the interactions between the people and avoid evaluating and/or criticizing the individuals.  Any attempt to evaluate and/or measure the performance of the individuals ignores the influence of the system on those individuals and ignores the opportunity to improve the interactions.

The individuals work in the system.  Leaders are responsible for designing and/or working on the system.  If leaders design the system and the system influences individual performance, evaluating individuals is unsophisticated at best and malpractice at worst.  It’s a blind spot.

Blind Spot #2: The Omniscient Manager

Why do organizations continue to insist that managers deliver the frequent feedback? This idea is a holdover from the hierarchical view of organizations. Instead, why not design a performance management process that provides opportunities for everyone to learn from everyone? Why not allow everyone to innovate their service and performance to improve the quality and speed of the system interactions? Why not make it about “internal” customers?

A manager cannot possibly know enough to help employees with all their interactions. The employees’ “internal” customers will know much more about the performance and will know more useful information. The typical performance management approach is based on the false belief that managers must be omniscient and omnipotent simply because they have the big title and the position.  This is the blind spot.

A redesign that offers the option to speak to multiple employees, especially those who are the internal customers, would provide significant opportunity for those who desire frequent quality feedback. This redesign will focus on the quality of the interactions between internal supplier and internal customer.  Some leaders believe “crowd sourcing” software will perform this trick. Perhaps.  In my experience, the crowd sourcing software tends to be designed with blind spot #1. In other words, that type of software still evaluates the employee instead of evaluating and improving the interactions between the employees.

If an organization is ready to replace their appraisal process because the leaders find themselves at the edge of the cliff, it is important to recognize the two blind spots and redesign the process to address the two root causes of dysfunction. If not, you’re just jumping off that cliff because the predators have caught you. That’s not strategic leadership. It’s reactionary and can be deadly for performance and for employee engagement.

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.

Bibliography:

David Rock, J. D. (2013). One Simple Idea That Can Transform Performance Management. Retrieved from http://blueroom.neuroleadership.com: http://blueroom.neuroleadership.com/assets/documents/readings/HRPS_PS-36-2_ResearchCorner.pdf

Meinert, D. (2015, April 1). Is It Time to Put the Performance Review on a PIP? Retrieved from https://www.shrm.org: https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/news/hr-magazine/pages/0415-qualitative-performance-reviews.aspx

Categories
Best Practices Growth Management Personal Development

One Question You May Not Want to Ask as a Coach

What is coaching?  It is a process that uses trusting relationships to inspire insights and new options to create positive change for individuals and teams.  Ideally, it is a predictable process.  If we know what questions to ask and which to avoid, it can become more predictable.

Coaching with adults is rarely about telling them what to do (it can happen children’s sports). It is instead about asking great questions at the right time.  The purpose of asking great questions is to help people uncover new options on their own.  These new options ideally improve their ability to create positive change and/or positive performance improvement.

Asking questions like “Why did this happen?”, or “Why did you do that?” are rarely the right questions during a coaching session.  These “why” questions can lead down a confusing path which can often waste everyone’s time.

Every morning I walk our two rescue dogs. One morning I decided to take them to a new venue.  I drove in, parked and we walked for about 45 minutes. When it was time to leave, I decided to exit the parking lot from the same place I entered.  It was difficult to safely exit from that location because of a sharp curve and overgrown brush prevented me from seeing oncoming traffic from the left. I needed to make a left turn and crossing over that lane seemed unsafe.

After a moment or two of looking for oncoming traffic, I pulled out only to see a speeding vehicle headed right for my driver’s side door, I quickly accelerated.  The driver missed me by inches. He signaled his displeasure and leaned harshly on his horn.

The next day, at that same venue, I was overly cautious when leaving due to my previous experience.  After a few minutes of reflection, I realized there was another location from which to exit the parking lot.  It was hidden and therefore not obvious.  That is why I missed it the previous day.  Furthermore, there was no signage.

If I had a coach at that moment helping me with this situation, and the coach were to ask me, “Why did that near accident happen?”  I might start listing all the reasons why I was not at fault.  For example, “I could not see oncoming traffic.” Or, “The other driver was speeding!” and/or “There was the lack of signage.”  Even a simple situation like this will open the likelihood of having a blame discussion.  Blame tends to lead us into a loop of confusion and/or a lack of action.  Blame questions lead us away from choices we have control over.

What if that same imaginary coach asked me, “What can you do next time to avoid this danger?”  and, “When can you start doing that?”  These questions focus on behaviors, actions, and the choices and control I do have.  If we agree with the definition of coaching above, “a process that uses trusting relationships to inspire, insight and new options to create positive change” then asking “why” questions is very often a poor choice.  Asking “what, when, and how” questions offer much better choices for identifying positive action and new options.

Of course, there are places where “why” questions can be useful.  One popular occasion is when one is searching for root causes of poor performing processes.  There is the very useful quality improvement technique described as “asking why 5 times”.  This technique is very useful in conjunction with a cause-and-effect brainstorming session.  In this technique, for each major cause, a facilitator asks, “Why is this happening?”   Each time we ask why, in this situation, it can lead us to have a deeper understanding about what is happening in a process.  That is the main point.  In a discussion about process, “why” questions are useful. The discussion is then about the process and not about the person and/or his/her behaviors.  That’s the difference.  Once you identify a process it is useful to ask “why” questions.  Until you identify a process we want to improve, “why” questions can lead us astray.

If my imaginary coach at the dog park first asked me, “What process is not working?”  I might answer, “The process of exiting the park!”   He/she could then ask, “What is the first 15% of that process?”  My answer might be, “Deciding where to exit!”  Finally, if my imaginary coach asked, “How can you improve the first 15% of that process?” I might answer, “Search for a safer exit option!”  “When can you start doing that?” might be the next question.  This would lead me to that same insight I had already reached i.e. a new safer choice for an exit.

“Why” questions can be useful.  But, in coaching situations they can lead us down a wasteful path full of blame.  Using “what”, “when” and “how” questions are likely much more useful and less emotional. Try it.  You’ll see.

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.