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.

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.

2 Foolproof Ways to Ruin Employee Engagement and Cause Turnover

Post author By Wally Hauck, PhD, CSP
Post date March 19, 2018
No Comments on 2 Foolproof Ways to Ruin Employee Engagement and Cause Turnover

Can we agree leaders bear most of the responsibility for employee engagement and turnover? Gallup research tells us that managers are at least 70% of the reason why employees are disengaged. (Adkins, 2015) Employees eventually leave because they are disengaged and, according to Gallup, 70% of the time the relationship between the employee and his/her manager is not optimal. Employees expect that relationship to be optimal and when it is not it leads to disengagement.

Turnover is expensive. Some data claims the cost can be as high as 1-1/2 to 2 times the lost employee’s salary. (Bersin, 2013) This cost does not show up on the profit and loss statement. Why? It’s not measurable. Often the most important improvement factors in an organization are immeasurable. Turnover is measurable, but the actual cost is impossible to calculate. For example, how do you measure the loss of knowledge to the organization? How do you measure the loss of productivity while replacing that knowledge? How do you measure the damage to customer relationships? Albert Einstein said it well, “Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.”

If we can all agree the root cause of most disengagement and turnover is a poor-quality relationship with the direct manager, what is the manager doing or not doing to cause the poor-quality relationship? If we knew this, we could help managers take immediate action to correct it. Let’s consider two ways managers/leaders ruin employee engagement and cause turnover. First, they stop keeping their word. Second, they allow high performance employees to break their word.

Just this week Andrew McCabe was fired from the FBI by Attorney General Jeff Sessions only hours before he was eligible for his pension. The firing was justified by reports from both the Inspector General (OIG) and the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), both which reported on allegations of misconduct by Andrew McCabe. Some argued that the firing was unnecessary and damaged the credibility of the FBI and the morale of the hard-working employees of the FBI. Others argued that it was not only justified but it was about time and it protected the morale of the FBI staff.

Whatever your political inclinations, the main point is leaders must be impeccable with their integrity behavior if they want to protect relationships, employee engagement, and prevent turnover. Furthermore, they must always hold all staff to that same high standard. If they waiver from a high standard, trust is damaged. If they turn a blond eye when others break the standard, trust is damaged.

Impeccable with Integrity

Buckminster Fuller once said, “Integrity is the essence of everything successful…and…If humanity does not opt for integrity we are through completely. It is absolutely touch and go. Each one of us could make the difference.” Here is where leaders must begin their development. They must behave with integrity by managing their agreements and telling the truth. There are two statements describing behavior to get us started and keep to us busy the rest of our lives.

Two Simple Statements Which Are Not Easy

The first statement is, “Make only agreements you intend to keep.” An agreement (or promise and/or commitment) is defined as a task which is specific measurable and time sensitive and where you believe you can deliver the desired result. This means we must think about our commitments and promises to be sure we can keep them before we say “yes.” Otherwise, we must say “no! I can’t do that.” The Bible asks the question, who should you trust, the person who tells you what you want to hear and then fails to deliver? Or, do we trust the person who tells you “no” right upfront? The answer is obvious. It’s the person who is willing to say no.

The second statement is, “Communicate when you can’t keep agreements to those who need to know.” If a leader realizes their agreement might be broken, they must communicate immediately to protect their integrity. These two statements function as a unit to protect integrity in a typically chaotic environment of any organization.

Hold All Staff Accountable to that Same High Standard

One of the most destructive actions (or lack of action) by leaders is to turn a blind eye to broken integrity because an employee is a high performer. Just recently, Kristian Saucier, the former U.S. Navy sailor who served a year behind bars for taking photos of classified areas in a nuclear submarine, was pardoned by President Trump. Part of the justification for this action was Hillary Clinton was shown to have mishandled classified information with her email activity during her work as Secretary of State. (Gerstein, 2016)

This is an example of a double standard in how actions of leaders can create the perception that laws (or standards) are sometimes applied. This has had a major impact on the credibility of the FBI. According to a recent poll, sixty-three percent of polled voters believe that the FBI has been resisting providing information to Congress. (Penn, 2017)

Simple and Not Easy

Leaders bear most of the responsibility for employee engagement and turnover. Their job is simple. Behave with integrity and hold others to the same standard. This is not easy. It requires sacrifice and discipline. Although it is not easy, if our leaders cannot be consistent and disciplined, perhaps they are not meant to be leaders. If we are serious about employee engagement and in reducing turnover, we need high quality leaders with high quality standards. What do we have if we don’t have integrity? How can we perform? How can we influence others? How can we possibly engage others?

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:

Adkins, J. H. (2015, April 5). Employees Want a Lot More From Their Managers. Retrieved from Gallup Business Journal: http://news.gallup.com/businessjournal/182321/employees-lot-managers.aspx

Bersin, J. (2013, August 16). Employee Retention Now a Big Issue: Why the Tide has Turned. Retrieved from www.linkedin.com: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20130816200159-131079-employee-retention-now-a-big-issue-why-the-tide-has-turned/

Gerstein, J. (2016, August 15). Citing Clinton, sailor seeks leniency in submarine photos case. Retrieved from https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar: https://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/08/sailor-seeks-leniency-in-submarine-photos-case-by-citing-clinton-226995

Penn, M. (2017, December 15). Poll Shows Mueller, FBI Face Crisis in Public Confidence. Retrieved from www.realclearpolitics.com: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2017/12/15/poll_shows_mueller_fbi_face_crisis_in_public_confidence_429160.html

Growth Human Resources Management Personal Development

Why Don’t Performance Reviews Work at Home?

Post author By Wally Hauck, PhD, CSP
Post date March 6, 2018
1 Comment on Why Don’t Performance Reviews Work at Home?

On St. Valentine’s Day this year there was a funny little piece on the opinion page. A wife giving a performance review for her husband. He was labeled a “potential optimal husband”. He was not quite there yet. She explained the development opportunities for him, acknowledged his accomplishments as a husband for the past 20 years, and made recommendations for development. (Brody, 2018)

It was funny because it was tongue in cheek. More importantly, it was funny because it is highly unlikely we would ever attempt to have a performance discussion at home with our spouse or partner. In my experience, I can’t think of any situation where I would be willing to receive that kind of feedback. I can’t imagine my partner would either. Am I wrong? If typical performance reviews are popular at work why don’t we use them at home? It’s because they damage trust and trust is the most essential element for a relationship.

They Damage Trust

The quality of a relationship is directly dependent upon the level of trust. Furthermore, the results of an organization are directly dependent upon the level of trust. Exceptional leaders recognize this and behave accordingly. They recognize their own behavior must demonstrate trust first before they can expect trust in return. An exceptional leader will ask great questions in a caring way, and they won’t criticize or micro-manage. Ernest Hemingway once said, “The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.”

When you judge someone, you immediately increase the probability of a negative emotional reaction. We all have our own opinions about behaviors and events. We are all biased with our views. But, isn’t it better to either withhold your bias and ask respectfully and positively for what you want? Or, another option is to honestly acknowledge your bias and then ask respectfully and positively for what you want. Our opinions may not be facts. The bible reminds us we should look for the boulder in our own eye before we point out the pebble in another’s. Aren’t we are better off asking someone questions and offering loving solutions than we are criticizing?

At home, we always need innovative ideas to make the home life better. The same is true at our work. Rarely will we improve creativity by criticizing others because it discourages risk taking. A typical performance review discussion will very often increase fear and anger and shut down innovation. This applies to a family and a work team.

Skylar Capo, 11, of Fredericksburg, Va., saw a little bird on the ground in her dad’s backyard. (News, 2011) She then noticed the family’s cat eyeing it, too. Skylar scooped up the woodpecker and looked for the bird’s mother. Her search turned up empty. She asked her own mom, Alison, to help her decide what to do. Her mom suggested they take care of the bird until it was strong enough to survive on its own. Being an avid nature lover and animal rescuer, Skylar was thrilled. She had saved the bird from an untimely death at the paws of the cat and she was going to learn how to care for it.

The Capos put the bird in their car to drive to a Lowes Home Improvement Store to search for materials they may need to care for the bird. Bringing the bird inside in a cage so it wouldn’t suffer in the summer heat while they shopped they began their search when a shopper stopped them. The shopper claimed to work for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. She explained they were in violation of protected species act. Two weeks later the Capo’s were fined $535 because the law prohibits the capture or transport of any protected species. A State Trooper, even though she was told the whole story, threatened Skylar’s mom to 1 year in jail if she ever did it again. Thankfully two weeks later the ticket and the threat were cancelled, and apology was given.

The typical appraisal process is frequently used to enforce policy and procedure. Policies are designed to control behaviors and they virtually always have positive intentions. However, as with little Skylar, policies often don’t fit every situation and therefore can cause unintended consequences (the cat killing a baby bird). Because it is used as an enforcement tool, the typical performance review discussion often stops creative action. What will little Skylar do next time she sees a baby bird in danger?

Any attempt to control behaviors of your partner at home will clearly end in disaster. Any attempt to make policy without full transparency and agreement from all at the home will also likely end in emotional upset. The typical appraisal holds many employees back from taking risks and this prevents the organization from achieving incremental change. The typical appraisal won’t work at home and the home has even higher trust than the work place. If it damages trust and creativity at home, what makes us think it can work in the workplace?

Brody, B. (2018, February 14). My Valentine’s Day performance review. USA Today, p. 7A.

Best Practices Growth Management Personal Development

A Useful Metaphor: An Organization is a House

Post author By Wally Hauck, PhD, CSP
Post date February 27, 2018
No Comments on A Useful Metaphor: An Organization is a House

Metaphors are useful. They help us to appreciate ideas, especially innovative ideas, by putting them into a context we already understand. A useful metaphor for building a high-performance organization is to imagine building a house.

In 2016 an article in the NY Times outlined the alarming news that a sizeable number of homes have their foundations crumbling. The homes are now worthless. According to the NY Times, the cement used in these homes has an ingredient that swells and cracks with exposure to oxygen and water. (Foderaro, 2016)

An organization with a crumbling foundation is worth less.

The Foundation

A house, and an organization, must have a solid foundation or it could eventually be worthless. In a high-performance organization, the foundation includes the Vision (an ideal picture of a future state), the Mission (purpose or aim i.e. why the organization exists), the Values (intrinsically important priorities), Management Theory (how the senior leadership thinks about problems and people), and Strategy (the long-term plan of action and priorities). If each of these is clear and communicated to all employees, it helps everyone to make decisions quickly and implement the structure.

The Structure

The structure (or framing and walls of the house) of an organization is made up of all those things that puts the items in the foundation into action. Because the structure is supported by the foundation, if the foundation is sound, the more effective the structure can be. A weak foundation will cause the walls to crack. The structure includes the policies, procedures (processes), competencies (skills), knowledge, learning, continuous improvement, problem solving, objectives, rewards, and measures.

The Roof

The roof protects the house from the external elements. In an organization, the roof represents the results. The stronger the results, the more the organization is protected from the threatening elements of the environment. These threatening elements include the competitors, the economy, the government regulations, the changing market conditions, the changing customer expectations and demands, etc. The results include, revenue, profit, employee engagement, customer loyalty and trust.

Leaders want results. Sometimes leaders want results so badly and so quickly they forget to look at the foundation. They immediately address weaknesses in the structure (e.g. changing the performance management policy) or fix holes in the roof (e.g. offer employees new benefits to address engagement issues). Precious resources can be wasted by trying to fix the roof when the real root cause is a weakened structure caused by a weak foundation. The results are poor and so they “repair the policies to plug a leak in the roof” and they do it over and over. A better strategy is to reinforce the foundation, and then repair the structure because a lack of alignment on the elements of the foundation can create tremendous barriers to growth and quality for an organization.

A solid foundation must be more than just the creation of the Vision, Values, Management Theory, Culture, and Strategy for the organization. It is not enough to just clarify those items. A successful Leader must know how to align people behind these items and they must know how to have the patience to reinforce them capturing their hearts and not just their minds. We must capture both hearts and minds to achieve commitment. Alignment of all hearts and minds means people are willing to act, be creative, solve problems, be pro-active and have all those other characteristics or behaviors that CEO’s are looking for from their people. It’s not about motivating people. It’s about creating an environment within which they can naturally be self-motivated.

The foundation must have all the “bricks” in place (Vision, Mission or Purpose, Values, Culture, and Management Theory) because they are interdependent. The Vision tells us where we are going. The Mission (or purpose/aim) tells us why we want to get there. The values and culture tell us how we are to behave and how we make decisions along the way. The management theory helps us to think and solve problems and remove barriers we encounter. The strategy gives us our priorities. Together they help us answer the basic questions i.e. Where, How, Why, When, with Who. When these questions can be answered by every employee, they act. They make decisions quickly. They become like a self-organizing system.

The current management theory encourages this lack of alignment. Most leaders want to evaluate each individual separate from the environment and this creates competition, confusion, and waste.

In his book The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge describes the need for alignment in a team. (Senge, 1990) A great jazz ensemble, a great sports team, or an orchestra are all examples of aligned teams or self-organizing systems. The individuals have a sense of connection and interdependence. They can make decisions quickly and interact with each other with ease and accuracy without wasted time. They won’t do this without a solid foundation.

What is the condition of your “organizational house”? Is the roof leaking? Is the structure in need of repair? Perhaps you need to start with reinforcing your foundation. Perhaps it is time to find the root cause of the problem in the foundation and stop continuously repairing the symptoms.

Foderaro, K. H. (2016, June 7). With Connecticut Foundations Crumbling, “‘Your Home is Now Worthless’. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/nyregion/with-connecticut-foundations-crumbling-your-home-is-now-worthless.html

Senge, P. M. (1990). The Fifth Discipline. New York, NY: Currency and Doubleday.

Growth Human Resources Management Skills

6 Steps to Deliver Effective Feedback When You Dislike Conflict

Post author By Wally Hauck, PhD, CSP
Post date February 21, 2018
No Comments on 6 Steps to Deliver Effective Feedback When You Dislike Conflict

As a consultant providing insights to leaders who value employee engagement, I often receive calls to address performance issues that could have been prevented by simply giving frequent and effective feedback. If you see an engine light appear on your dashboard don’t you want to address it immediately? If you wait, don’t you risk additional expensive repairs and expensive inconvenience? Performance issues are no less urgent than an obvious engine light.

Recently, two managers from one of my clients called complaining about the new employee who often withheld valuable information and didn’t always cooperate with the managers or the team members. This behavior was damaging the performance of the team. The employee was attempting to hide some of his negative performance for fear he would be either criticized or disciplined. Neither manager wanted to confront him with these truths because they both disliked conflict and feared making things worse. This avoidance by managers is common.

The managers called me because they knew they needed an expert in delivering feedback. At one point during our conversations they encouraged me to deliver the feedback to the troubled employee to avoid their responsibility. “I can’t do that.” I explained. “I don’t have any data or observations. You have the data. And, you need to be the ones to give the feedback. Let me help you!”

Their intentions were good. They feared making the situation worse. They just needed the proper methods and skills, the encouragement, and the proper context to deliver the feedback. They knew they needed help. The good news is, they asked for help.

Managers often avoid delivering negative feedback to avoid conflict and unintended negative emotional reactions. Poorly delivered feedback can damage the trust in a relationship and lead to even more performance issues. Effective feedback requires a high level of confidence, emotional intelligence, and excellent communication skills. This is especially true during challenging performance discussions.

To make it even more stressful, an environment or industry with labor shortages (like the one they were in), managers will naturally hesitate to deliver challenging performance feedback out of fear the employee will quit. Unexpected turnover increases costs for the company and drama for the managers.

To add to these challenges, there are also certain communication styles which tend to avoid conflict and the key manager in this situation (the one directly responsible for the troubled employee) was a “poster child” for one of these communication styles.

What can one do to deliver challenging performance feedback when we know the discussion will become an emotional conflict? I provided six steps to the managers. They acted.

A Behavioral Standard

We need a standard set of behaviors that the employees are willing and able to embrace. This standard must include observable behaviors and is useful when it’s connected to the organizational values. If you don’t have one, co-create it with a team of employees. The managers already had one.

Reinforce Agreement on the Standard

If there is a standard of behavior, take time to remind the employee(s) how important the standard is and how it creates benefits for everyone including the organization, the employee and especially customers.

During a challenging performance discussion, a manager who references a standard of behavior can make the discussion about the standard and avoid criticism of the employee or their personality. The presence of a standard allows the manager to stay calm during the performance feedback discussion. The manager’s opinion is no longer needed. It’s about the standard of behaviors.

Acknowledge your possible contribution

Because managers (and especially Sr. Managers) are the most responsible for the working environment of an organization, it’s always useful for them to take partial responsibility for poor performance of a team or team member. Taking some responsibility for the situation will reduce the tension, minimize negative emotions, and increase the cooperation during the performance discussion. From the employee perspective, the manager could have easily contributed to the poor performance unknowingly.

If the employee believes the manager has contributed to the poor performance, and they aren’t given opportunity to release it, there will likely be a negative emotional reaction when the manager attempts to deliver their feedback.

Facilitate agreement to hear the feedback

Avoid giving the feedback without asking for permission first. This gives the manager control of the interaction and concurrently, it gives the employee a sense of autonomy. This technique optimizes respect. Increased respect leads to increased openness. Once you ask permission to ask questions, you are able to lead the conversation by asking questions.

Adopt a process and practice

There is a difference between a script and a process. A script can be restrictive and create an insincere impression. A process includes specific recommended steps. If the manager follows the steps and uses their own choice of words, the feedback will likely be sincere and will increase the probability of acceptance. More importantly, if the manager practices the process steps, this increases confidence and sincerity which leads to acceptance.

Make the conversation about learning

Make the conversation about the learning and not about the flaws in the person. Both the manager and the employee will learn from a valuable feedback conversation. Avoiding criticism of the employee can be accomplished if the manager follows the previous steps and then focuses on process and methods that the employee uses to achieve goals.

The manager and employee can brainstorm options for changing methods. The discussion is NOT about the employee and/or their personality. It’s about “What can we learn, and how can we improve our methods?”

The managers followed these recommendations and the result was very positive. Furthermore, their success has led to improved courage in providing feedback in other situations.

Anyone concerned about delivering negative feedback can learn from my two client managers.

Growth Management Personal Development

Overcoming 3 Feedback Myths – Let’s Use Systems Thinking Instead

Post author By Wally Hauck, PhD, CSP
Post date February 6, 2018
No Comments on Overcoming 3 Feedback Myths – Let’s Use Systems Thinking Instead

A myth is a false belief used to explain natural phenomenon. We tend to hold onto our myths for years and we often continue to use language which is consistent with the myth even after veracity of the myth has been put to bed. For example, for hundreds of years people believed the earth was the center of the universe. Thanks to Copernicus and Galileo we know this myth is false, but we still use language consistent with the myth e.g. “The sun will rise at 7:05 AM EST in CT.” The sun doesn’t rise. The earth rotates.

Myths can be fun and useful. They can also be damaging. Believing lightning never strikes the same place twice is comforting in a thunderstorm, but this too is a myth. Lightning strikes the same place often because the taller the object the greater the probability of a second strike. NASA proved this in 2003. (Rob Gutro, 2003)

Myths about how to communicate feedback to people can be damaging to employee engagement, can increase turnover, reduce productivity, and damage quality. We need to dispel these false beliefs because, as leaders, we can’t afford to lose good people and we can’t afford to have ineffective feedback upset employees who might then upset customers.

Myth #1: Managers Are Omnipotent and The Most Useful and Actionable Feedback is from Managers

Managers are not omnipotent and yet many organizations continue to rely almost exclusively on a manager’s feedback for performance improvement of individuals. The reliability of the typical performance appraisal has been discredited and some organizations have rejected it.

Leaders need to reject the idea that managers are omnipotent first because they’re not and second, this myth leads us to the false belief that more frequent feedback from managers will help performance. Instead, senior leadership must first accept responsibility for the culture of the organization. They must know how to create an environment of trust. Then and only then can frequent feedback make a difference.

Yes, managers can help set up how employees receive feedback, but there is no way we can depend on managers to be a consistent and useful source of feedback for improvement. Thinking that managers are omnipotent is inconsistent with systems thinking. Employees are adults who self-manage at home. Why can’t they self-manage their own feedback at work?

Myth #2: Frequent Feedback Fixes Performance Management Failures

The typical performance appraisal has been largely discredited and rejected as an effective tool for the modern workplace. Many organizations have instead shifted to managers providing more frequent feedback or check-ins. PwC, a major consulting firm, found that up to 60% of employees (especially millennials) want feedback either weekly or daily. Virtually all performance management consulting companies recommend more frequent feedback now (in place of annual reviews) because they claim it improves employee engagement.

But, how do you know the feedback is any good in the first place? If the food in a restaurant was bad, would you decide to eat it in smaller bites more often? This incomplete approach still maintains that managers are omnipotent feedback gurus. It’s still a “manager dependent process of feedback”.

This myth also assumes feedback given by managers is useful, accepted, and implemented. Many Human Resources executives complain about the quality of the feedback from managers.

Frequent feedback is a great idea but is not enough to create optimum value and optimum performance improvement. The feedback needs to be credible and useful for it to be acted upon. Without systems thinking, the feedback quality will fall short.

Myth #3: Majority of the Feedback Must Be About How the Person Must Improve

In my daily Google alerts there are at least 6 items about performance management. Nearly all these articles or blogs focuses on how managers must give more frequent feedback to the employee and how managers need to improve their feedback delivery skills. But, is that the highest priority?

We refuted myth #1 above by asserting the need for managers to create an environment where employees can self-manage. This includes finding ways to access their own feedback. Employees are adults who can self-manage. They don’t need to depend upon the manager.

We have all seen aggressive drivers weaving in and out of traffic to shorten their drive times while ignoring both traffic laws and the safety of other drivers. When I see one of these drivers, I often provide immediate feedback using my horn. This is especially true when they nearly cut me off. Leaning on my horn is my way of providing feedback to the person. When necessary it can be effective to at least create awareness if not change behavior. But, 99% of drivers are NOT aggressive drivers. How do they receive feedback? Does it make sense to use my horn with them too? There is no reason to do that because they are following traffic laws and behaving with integrity and with respect.

Feedback about behaviors is appropriate when those behaviors are observed and inconsistent with a standard. Systems thinking explains how results come from methods and processes not people not just employee behaviors. Poor results are most often about the quality of the methods people use and not about the quality of their character or their behaviors. And, individuals rarely, if ever, have control over all the factors of these methods. Employees are interdependent. They need to rely on the quality of interactions between all the methods. One employee’s ineffective method can prevent another employee from implementing their methods. In other words, one employee can impact the performance of another employee.

Therefore, employees need feedback about their methods or processes and the manager doesn’t always have the knowledge to provide credible feedback about those methods. An alternative is receiving feedback from their customers (internal or external) instead. Feedback about methods from customers can be much more useful and credible.

Dr. W. Edwards Deming helps us to appreciate systems thinking and the learning cycle. His Theory of Profound Knowledge is way to avoid these three myths. They myth of “managers are omnipotent and can provide effective frequent feedback” needs to be replaced with systems thinking. Systems thinking helps us to appreciate that feedback about the quality of the interactions between people and departments is what creates performance improvement.

Growth Human Resources Management Personal Development

How to Be a Feedback Hero/Heroine: 5 Key Elements

Post author By Wally Hauck, PhD, CSP
Post date January 29, 2018
No Comments on How to Be a Feedback Hero/Heroine: 5 Key Elements

What is a hero? It is a person admired for their courage and their outstanding achievements. It’s someone who fights through their fear and accepts a challenge to achieve a worthy goal(s).

We are a bit obsessed with heroes in the USA. According to IMDB.com (Internet Movie Database) there have been 86 superhero movies in the past 40 years (1978 to present day). That is more than 2 superheroes saving the earth and standing against evil per year for 40 years. Why are we so enamored by them? I am not a psychologist, but I can guess. It’s the drama. It’s the battle between “good” and “evil”. Most of us want “good” to win and it most often does. Even though we know “good” will win, we still watch.

In the workplace the manager is often seen as a hero. He/she is an all knowing being who solves problems faster than a speeding bullet. Seeing our managers as heroes is unfortunate. They are not superhuman. They are not omnipotent even though we often expect them to be so. However, it is useful to see a courageous leader serve others by providing effective feedback because that skill provides individuals with development opportunities and leads to employee engagement. Employee engagement leads to improved customer experience and that leads to measurable financial results.

If a hero is an admired courageous person who achieves amazing results, we want them. To become a feedback hero requires insight into 5 key elements. Knowing and practicing these elements can make anyone of us a hero.

What is feedback?

Feedback can be a formal annual event, but it is more likely an informal and useful conversation. If we are to attract the best talent, optimize their employee engagement, create a culture of trust, optimize innovation, and adapt to the speed of change, we must give and receive frequent fearless feedback. It must become as natural as breathing.

A key insight for managers to become feedback heroes must include the clear distinction between feedback and criticism. Feedback is data from a process for the purpose of learning. Criticism is opinion or judgement. Most managers don’t make this distinction and they often make things worse because they deliver criticism, but they think it is feedback. The person receiving the so called “feedback” rejects it because it feels judgmental and hurtful because it is.

Unsolicited criticism damages employee engagement. The feedback discussion offers a better chance for positive change. Criticism is about the quality or character of the person. Feedback is about the methods the person uses and methods can be changed.

Why is feedback needed?

There are six major reasons why effective feedback is needed. Feedback helps: (1) improve performance; (2) accelerate learning and innovation; (3) people make decisions to more easily and naturally adapt to change while minimizing loss of productivity; (4) create accountability to certain desired behaviors; (5) to improve employee engagement; (6) improves customer experience. In other words, it is a key for us and our organizations to develop toward high performance.

According to a Harvard Business Review Journal article, 72% said they thought their performance would improve if their managers would provide corrective feedback.

Furthermore, 92% of the respondents agreed with the assertion, “Negative (redirecting) feedback, if delivered appropriately, is effective at improving performance.” 12% were Baby Boomers, 50% were members of Generation X, and 38% were in Generation Y

And finally, 70 % of employees indicated that “My performance and possibilities for success in my career would have increased substantially if I had been given more feedback.” (Flokman, 2014)

Some additional insights from the Harvard Business Review article are: The willingness of a manager to provide feedback to employees is a powerful way to increase employee engagement and commitment. In addition, those employees who receive the least are the least engaged. Receiving corrective feedback from a boss produces a much higher level of engagement than receiving none at all.

Zenger goes on to claim that receiving the right kind of positive feedback has a huge impact on improving employee productivity and increasing engagement and feedback is the cornerstone skill underlying a number of leadership responsibilities.

Who needs to give feedback?

Everyone can and must provide feedback. In the famous words of Michael Corleone, “It’s not personal. It’s only business.” A business is a social system. In a social system everyone can be both an internal customer and an internal supplier. Customers who give useful feedback to suppliers are creating improvement. Learning is occurring. When learning occurs, improvement is not far behind.

Everyone can be a customer and/or supplier of information in a system. Therefore, everyone can and must be able to provide feedback to their internal suppliers and even their internal customers. Feedback does not have to be “manager dependent”.

When is feedback needed?

The best leaders ask for more feedback, Recent research of over 50,000 executives, found that “Leaders who ranked at the top 10% in asking for feedback were rated, on average, at the 86^th percentile in overall leadership effectiveness.” The bottom 10% in asking for feedback rated in the 15^th percentile in overall leadership effectiveness. Conversely, if a leader was rated in the top 10% at giving honest feedback, their reports ranked their engagement in the top 23%. (Jack Zenger, 2013)

Delivering feedback more frequently, and less formally, in a dysfunctional environment will not make things better. The typical manager will make specific demands and then attempt to catch the employee either doing something right or doing it wrong. This strategy creates a context of mistrust and sends this message to the employee, “You are incapable of managing your own performance without me watching you.”

A different approach involves facilitating a set of agreements with the employee. An agreement is a specific, measurable, and time sensitive task that is delivered with a predictable process. Instead of making demands the manager created, shift the responsibility for creating a process to the employee. Ask the employee to make agreements.

If the employee fails to keep their agreement(s), it’s time for immediate feedback and coaching. This shift allows for more effective feedback without the demand for forced frequency. If the employee is willing and able to manage agreements, there is no need for feedback from the manager. If they refuse or can’t manage agreements, then immediate feedback is appropriate and necessary. The feedback discussion will center around the need for a process to improve. It’s never about the person. It’s always about the process.

In this context, the purpose (the point) of feedback is 3-fold: First, to discuss when and if agreements are broken; Second, discuss when a process must be improved: Third, when appreciation can be expressed for a job well done.

In this context feedback is not dependent upon a calendar. Instead, it is delivered when everyone can learn something. We learn how to keep our agreements, we learn how to improve a process, and/or we learn when we did something extraordinarily positive and want it repeated.

How to give feedback

We have been taught ineffective (dysfunctional) and fearful way of delivering feedback and most organizations perpetuate this environment of fear. I call it leadership malpractice. We need fearless feedback instead. We have been taught to judge the person. Instead, let’s use learning and love and avoid criticism.

Let’s assume the person wants to learn and their best intentions are always positive. Therefore, how we deliver feedback will be factual, emotion free, supportive and with a serving attitude.

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

Jack Zenger, J. F. (2013). Overcoming Feedback Phobia: Take the First Step. Harvard Business Review.

Growth Management Operations Personal Development

Apple Has a "Bad Spot" That Damaged Trust

Post author By Wally Hauck, PhD, CSP
Post date January 16, 2018
No Comments on Apple Has a "Bad Spot" That Damaged Trust

We in the USA are so fortunate when we grocery shop. Our grocery stores have excellent quality and amazing selection. Thank you “capitalism”. Choice and a combination of competition and cooperation (capitalism) have provided this. So, when we choose fruit, we can afford to be picky. If we want apples, we can afford to choose only “perfect” apples. There is no reason to choose an apple with a bad spot, correct?

Apple just created their own bad spot and it caused me to pause and ask if perhaps I should pick a different “apple”. They purposely slowed the iPhone processing on the older phones. That decision alone is not the reason for my concern. I am concerned because they didn’t communicate. They didn’t ask. They just did it and they damaged my trust in them. I saw a bad spot.

Apple management claimed the positive intentions of saving battery life and avoiding unwanted sudden shut downs. Class action suits were filed, and Apple management was forced to apologize. Some customers believed Apple intentions were not so positive. These customers are upset because they believe the slowdown was timed immediately after a new product release to encourage upgrades.

There is no doubt the iPhone is an impressive product with very high standards and very high quality. But, high quality and innovative technology does not cause people to disregard disrespectful communication or a lack of timely communication. Apple’s lack of communication about this change was part of the reason their customers interpreted these decisions as manipulative in nature.

For us leaders, this is a great lesson. There are basic leadership qualities people expect in all interactions. They expect to be treated like adults. They expect to be treated with respect and integrity. Customers are unwilling to compromise these. They are especially less likely to forgive and forget when they are missing at the same time.

What could Apple have done? Perhaps communicate respectfully before acting? Even better, perhaps provide the opportunity for feedback, e.g. allow customers to take a survey or provide their opinions about viable solutions for the older batteries degrading? It doesn’t matter how great a product or service is. If the company treats customers with disrespect and/or breaks in promises, loyalty will be damaged.

We can extrapolate this to employees. No matter how brilliant an individual leader is, if he/she can’t treat constituents with respect and integrity, their willingness to trust that leader will be damaged. Their willingness to follow the leader will suffer in ways that cannot be measured.

The actions by Apple management show a weakness in emotional intelligence skills. Technical skills are important, and Apple has an abundance. But if they can’t predict how their customers will feel when they make major decisions, those technical skills will not save them from the damage to loyalty.

When shopping for apples, there is no reason to choose the one with the bad spot.

Best Practices Growth Human Resources Management Personal Development

Attempting Fairness Isn’t Fair – The Difference Between Policy and Process

Post author By Wally Hauck, PhD, CSP
Post date January 5, 2018
No Comments on Attempting Fairness Isn’t Fair – The Difference Between Policy and Process

Treating all employees fairly with a specific policy sounds important, reasonable, and necessary. Fairness is important, correct? All managers should work to achieve it. Correct? Unfortunately, the concept of fairness is vague at best and misleading plus harmful to employee engagement at worst. Being fair depends on interpretation. Interpretation of a situation can create too much variation. Any attempt to be fair with all employees using policy alone will create unintended negative consequences.

When my daughter Emily was a junior in college she worked part time for a catering company. She served dinner to the elderly at a Senior Living facility. Her boss rarely saw her. He did little more than create the work schedule for the workers (including Emily). He never needed to be at the location because the students worked well as a team and needed little direction or supervision. The process for serving dinner was very predictable and relatively easy to learn and implement. Plus, the customers were very happy.

After working a year for this company Emily was scheduled for a raise. The company policy required employees be considered for a raise only after receiving a performance review. This policy was an attempt to treat all employees fairly and to ensure employees who receive a raise in fact deserve one. It sounds reasonable and necessary. However, there is a problem. The boss was rarely, if ever, available to observe her performance. He therefore had to guess. There was no predictable process in place to access Emily’s performance. The policy existed but there is no process to carry it out. Senior leadership wanted a fair policy for all employees. What they got instead was a great policy for damaging motivation.

The boss and Emily met. He rated her a 3.5 out of 4. He attempted to justify his rating. In this company’s performance management policy, the “1” rating is unsatisfactory and requires immediate dismissal; the “2” required immediate improvement with a performance plan; the “3” means “meets expectations”; and the “4” means “exceptional”. The boss explained that “no one ever” receives a “4” rating because he doesn’t believe in awarding a “4”. He explained, “everyone can improve and therefore the rating of exceptional is unreachable and unattainable”. The boss had his own interpretation of the policy. In other words, he had his own process and he was incapable of explaining it effectively without damage to my daughter’s engagement.

My daughter was disappointed in her rating because she had never missed a day of work scheduled, had filled in for other employees when they called in sick or needed an evening off multiple times, and the clients loved her. She continually received unsolicited accolades and even gifts from the seniors.

She decided to speak up, “How can you rate my performance, you are never here?” “That’s not true” he replied. “Occasionally I arrive at the end of the shift in time for me to see you mopping the floor.” She was not only disappointed but also appalled by his explanation. She was de-motivated and discouraged. All this unintended consequence because she was due a raise.

Policy alone cannot deliver fairness, nor can it deliver engagement. An event that was intended to increase engagement actually damaged it. Policies don’t deliver fairness, processes do. Without predictable processes, based on sound theory, fairness will be non-existent and engagement will be damaged.

While all employees need to understand policy it is not the policy alone that delivers the outcomes. It is the process. Employees also need to be treated as individuals. Their individual needs, characteristics, skills all need to be addressed to honor their unique make-up. The current performance appraisal process doesn’t deliver this (nor will it ever be able to do so in its current form). My daughter’s story is not uncommon. The typical performance review can create a disengaged employee even if it is a “good” review.

A process is needed that is both flexible and clear. Then the variation needs to be managed to achieve desired outcomes. Too often a leader “sends down” edicts to the masses and expects compliance. It just doesn’t work that way. Not in today’s knowledge economy where employee engagement is a strategic advantage. Policy is an unsophisticated and damaging way of achieving engagement and the results show it. The policy to conduct a performance review will not predictably deliver employee engagement even when the intentions are good.

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/

Growth Human Resources Leadership Personal Development

4 Insights to Manage Emotions for Life Success

Post author By Wally Hauck, PhD, CSP
Post date December 28, 2017
No Comments on 4 Insights to Manage Emotions for Life Success

As an employee engagement consultant, I am often called into help an organization resolve very complex conflicts. The relationships have been damaged and emotions are high. In my experience, the level of emotional intelligence of the involved parties plays a significant role in 100% of these situations. I can safely claim that higher levels of emotional intelligence can prevent these complex conflicts from escalating and damaging the relationships.

Daniel Goleman, the author of Emotional Intelligence once said, “If your emotional abilities aren’t in hand…no matter how smart you are, you are not going to get very far.” My experience confirms this and, it begs the question, what can we do to improve our emotional intelligence and how can we therefore be more successful?

Emotional intelligence involves four very important skills. The first two involve our skills i.e. the awareness of our own emotions and the ability to express them appropriately. The second two involve the emotions of others i.e. the ability to recognize emotions with others and the ability to influence them to express them appropriately.

These are challenging skills that require effort to develop and we all can benefit from making an effort to continuously learn to enhance each. That is why I want to share 4 key insights to help each of us continuously improve.

Moods are temporary so, avoid communication when emotions are negative

George S. Pransky, PhD., in his book The Relationship Handbook, helps us appreciate that moods are temporary perceptions of the world. Because they are temporary, Pransky advises us to wait when we are having negative feelings toward someone before we communicate. (George S. Prannsky, 1992)

Pransky is a marriage counselor. After advising couples over many years he advises we treat negative emotions as a signal to slow down, restore our positive energy, and think about changing our perspective. Temporary negative moods are an outcome of a certain perspective. If we shift perspective, we can shift our mood. Those couples who avoided communication and waited out the negative emotions had the most success in achieving long-lasting and happy relationships.

Blame is a victim’s response, not a leader’s

Imagine holding a bell. You shake the bell and it rings pleasantly. What caused the ring? Was it the bell or the clapper? It’s a silly question misguided. The sound came from the interaction between the two. Both contributed. Attempting to blame another person for a negative mood makes as much sense as asking “what caused the ring”.

The negative mood is asking us to stop and shift perspective. Avoiding blame is a useful rule to follow during this evaluation period. Better questions are, “what did I do to contribute to this negative perspective? What can I do differently to change it?”

Notice the other and express empathy

Empathy is such a powerful tool and is often overlooked. This is a tragedy. Empathy helps us to influence the mood of others. Empathy costs us nothing. It is merely an expression that helps both parties remember they are human and are capable of negative feelings. When we express empathy, we are not agreeing with another’s perspective of the world. We are simply relating as another human being who can experience a mood.

Empathy is the expression of understanding. It acknowledges the existence of a mood and helps release any negative emotion thereby enabling logical discussion. Calm logic can then lead to creating innovative solutions to complex problems.

In his book Primal Leadership, Daniel Goleman explains how negative emotions overwhelm the brain. This is useful because it helped humans to survive. Fear helps us to focus and decide to either fight or flee. The ability and willingness to effectively express empathy releases the brain to focus on solutions and away from fear. (Daniel Goleman, 2002)

A leader’s mood influences others’ moods

A leader’s mood will influence the moods of others and therefore the leader’s mood can either improve performance of a team or damage it. A leader’s ability to be upbeat in the face of challenges will help teams to overcome those challenges.

The emotional part of our brain (the limbic) is open loop meaning it can connect with others. This enables humans to support each other in the face of challenging emotional situations. Recent disasters such as the floods in Houston demonstrate the power of this open loop insight. People can console each other. People can sense the emotions of others and even influence them to change just by being there and managing a mood in the face of disasters.

Why do we congregate during funerals? To console each other. We facilitate healing just be being there and sharing emotional support for each other. We savor the open loop. We savor the connection with others. Why not use it to influence positive moods.

Summary

How do we enhance our emotional intelligence skills? We must practice if we want to be more successful in life. These four insights can help. For example, if we realize our moods are temporary and give ourselves a time to reflect; if we avoid communication during low moods; if we avoid blame and realize we are a contributor to our own perspectives; if we learn to provide empathy and realize it is a powerful tool for influencing others’ moods; and, if we realize how our moods can influence the performance of others we can continuously improve. It requires effort and it is worth every bit of it if we want success.

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: Harvard Business School.

George S. Prannsky, P. (1992). The Relaitonship Handbook. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Growth Human Resources Leadership Personal Development

3 Reasons Why Soft Skills Are No Longer the "Red-Headed Step Child"

Post author By Wally Hauck, PhD, CSP
Post date December 19, 2017
No Comments on 3 Reasons Why Soft Skills Are No Longer the "Red-Headed Step Child"

Soft skills are those personal attributes, attitudes, and communication methods that enable people to have high quality interpersonal interactions. Softs skills have been the “red-headed step child” of the C-Suite leaders for a long time. They have been dismissed and/or ignored because they were thought to be unimportant or even unnecessary to get results and getting results is what the C-Suite wants.

Since the middle of the 19^th century, with the rise of the industrial age, leaders with knowledge and education usually rose to the top of organizations. They organized work in their companies to make it easier to control behaviors. The fundamental premise behind this approach was “the primary cause of problems is the dereliction of duty” by individual workers. Individuals needed to be managed (controlled) to prevent mistakes and to maintain high productivity. Control the individual and you can control the organization. The purpose of the organizational chart is to sufficiently specify those duties so that management can quickly assign blame, should a mistake occur.

This approach took on a militaristic tone, which is not surprising because retired military officers had great influence on the leadership of early businesses. New businesses relied on the technical and managerial contributions of engineers. One of the few and certainly the best source of engineering education in the US was the US Military Academy at West Point.

Our economy has evolved. Competition is global and more intense. We need everyone to have knowledge not just a few concentrated at the top. We can no longer control behaviors from the top and remain competitive. Soft skills are needed more than ever. (Boris Groysberg, 2011) Our “redheaded step child” must be fully welcomed into the family! There are three specific reasons why everyone, especially leaders, must develop their soft skills.

Reason #1: Employee engagement is a competitive advantage

Employee engagement is a highly desirable measure of organization performance today. Employee engagement is emotional response employees feel that causes them to exert extra discretionary effort into their work without bribes or threats. Employee engagement can only exist when employees are treated with respect, listened to, and trusted. Unless leaders know how to use soft skills, such as effective listening, expressing empathy, and treating people with respect (avoid bullying) in all communications they will unknowingly be damaging employee engagement. Leaders without soft skills unknowingly damage performance of their staff and their organization.

Reason #2: Employees must feel safe to offer new ideas

New ideas are the life blood of a growing enterprise. New ideas and innovation can only be generated by employees in a safe environment. Leaders who understand soft skills can consistently create that safe work environment.

Daniel Goleman, the author of Emotional Intelligence and Primal Leadership clarifies. Those leaders who can use soft skills to influence good moods with employees will create an environment of innovation. (Goleman, 1995)

Reason #3: Productivity improvement must come from leveraging knowledge and tasks

Productivity in our country has consistently improved in the last 30 years. This improvement has helped us grow our wealth and improve our lives. Productivity growth is slowing because much of the gains have been with major leaps in technology that have helped us all work longer hours and/or more days per week. We are now able to work 24-7 because technology allows us to stay connected regardless of where we are or what we are doing. I don’t know about you, but I can’t work any more hours without becoming exhausted or even psychotic. Growth will still come from technology but we need more growth to maintain our living standards.

To boost productivity and profitability leaders must leverage their knowledge and allow employees the ability and opportunity to self-manage. Self-management requires high levels of trust. Leaders who can create trust quickly and maintain it will boost productivity. Improvements in trust require soft skills.

Our economy has evolved and so our leaders and their skills must evolve with it. Soft skills are more important today because the knowledge economy has arrived and the industrial age is waning. Leaders need soft skills to make the adjustment. Soft skills cannot be learned with just training classes. Leaders must create environments that encourage the use of soft skills. They must receive feedback from peers and employees and they must heed that feedback and adjust their behaviors accordingly.

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.

Boris Groysberg, L. K. (2011). The New Path to the C-Suite. Harvard Business Review.

Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional Intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. NY NY: Bantam Books.

Quick links

Follow Us