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 Management Personal Development

Trust Is Essential for the Health of an Organization – Part 4

This final blog in a four-part series about trust is important because every C-Suite leader needs to accept responsibility for creating environment that makes it safe to tell the truth and safe to trust. Managing the variation in trust within an organization must be everyone’s responsibility but the C-Suite leader needs to make it possible. And, I am very sorry to say many are not.

It’s still too easy for C-Suite leaders to blame their people for results that don’t meet expectations and/or budget.  What is the C-Suite leadership contribution to the poor results? If trust is less than optimal, that leader needs to withhold any blame. The ability to meet expected results starts in the C-Suite. The responsibility of managing the variation in trust (which leads to the desired results) starts in the C-Suite.

“Quality starts in the boardroom.”

-Dr. W. Edwards Deming

THINK – BEHAVE – IMPROVE (TBI) is a set of ideas which help us to appreciate how an optimum leader thinks, how an optimum leader behaves and how an optimum leader acts to improve the system within which they operate.  In this blog we will expand and clarify the IMPROVE portion of the structure.

“Where the rubber meets the road” is a popular phrase that means ‘there is a point where a theory is applied’.  In part 2 of this series we discussed ‘systems thinking’.  We identified ‘systems thinking’ as the desired leadership theory for optimum trust. In part 3 of this series we identified certain behavior required by leaders who want to demonstrate trust.  The rubber meets the road in this blog because we answer these questions:  What does a leader do when there is a mistake and/or poor results? How does that leader facilitate improvement?  What does that leader do to protect trust and address the problem?

We need a problem-solving model that addresses problems and still protects trust.  C-Suite leaders need a problem-solving model that gives them total confidence the problem will be solved without them needing to get in the middle and micro-manage.  As stated earlier, C-Suite responsibility lies in creating an environment which optimizes people to tell the truth, to manage trust, and optimally address problems.  A ‘systems thinker’ asks ‘system’ questions.  They avoid asking blame questions.

As in most situations in life, when we see a problem and it needs to be resolved, there are often two choices, an easy choice and the difficult choice.  One easy choice is to absolve ourselves from the problem.  When a leader blames their people for the problem they are absolving themselves from all responsibility and that does nothing for trust.

Another easy choice is to solve it quickly and hope it doesn’t return.  Matchbooks have been around since the late 1800’s.  The first ones had the striking strip on the front of the book along with a warning “Close cover before striking”. Careless consumers would often catch the entire book on fire because the other matches were easily exposed to a spark when one match was struck.  The warning was an ‘easy’ way to solve the problem.  It put the responsibility on the consumer to follow instructions and to be careful doing it.

It wasn’t until 1962 that a true resolution was found.  The manufacturers moved the striking strip to the back of the match book thus preventing a spark from igniting the other matches.  This was a true resolution to a problem. The resolution was not an easy one to create. It required thought and a change in the manufacturing process.  It required innovation and an investment in time and money.  It required thought and a predictable problem-solving method.  This method is known as Plan-Do-Check-Act or the Scientific method or the Learning Cycle.

The learning cycle can be traced back at least as far as Galileo who developed the idea of making observations, creating a hypothesis and then conducting an experiment. Edison used the method to test 6,000 materials before finding the one that proved to be most practical and cost effective for the filament for a light-bulb.

Plan-Do-Check-Act is the recommended problem-solving method for leaders who want to protect trust.  It requires the creation of an action PLAN including the steps of knowing what to improve, the identification of the current condition of the problem, and how to measure the success.

The DO portion is carrying out the plan. DO is about carrying out the planned experiment. The CHECK portion is about analyzing the data to see if the hypothesis was correct.  The ACT portion is about deciding to either revise the hypothesis, to revise the method, or to adopt the method just tested.  The adoption of Plan-Do-Check-Act creates an environment where blame is unnecessary.  Every member of a team can contribute their ideas and their effort to experimenting with new hypotheses and with new methods.

Adopting PDCA makes problem-solving a fun exercise that enrolls everyone.  It creates engagement and improved quality for customers.  PDCA allows for organizations to avoid the use of the typical performance appraisal because the focus becomes the experiment and avoids the evaluation of the individual.  It leads to great ideas like moving the striking strip.  The adoption of PDCA starts with the C-Suite and that is why “Quality starts in the boardroom.”

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.

Categories
Entrepreneurship Human Resources Management Personal Development

Trust Is Essential for the Health of an Organization – Part 3

In two recent blogs I have attempted to address the serious leadership responsibility of managing the variation in trust to produce desired results.  This is the third part of a 4-part series of blogs to provide a framework for a predictable method for building and maintaining trust.  The method needs to be actionable and predictable.  We can’t just wait for trust to be created. It’s too valuable for organizational performance and when it’s lacking, the damage is fierce.

A predictable method requires two important sets of ideas.   The first is an appreciation of the right definition of trust. We adopted The International Association of Business Communicators definition of trust: “a willingness to be vulnerable because of the presence of integrity, concern, competence and shared objectives.”[1]

Second, we need an effective leadership structure.   THINK – BEHAVE – IMPROVE (TBI) is a set of ideas which help us to appreciate how an optimum leader thinks, how an optimum leader behaves and how an optimum leader acts to improve the system within which they operate.  In this blog we will expand and clarify the BEHAVE portion of the structure.

We have seen organizations achieve incredible success with leaders who exhibit questionable behaviors.  There are numerous stories about the petulance of Steve Jobs.  Some days he was ‘good Steve’ and other days ‘bad Steve’.  Steve Jobs was well known for exaggerated emotional outbursts laced with profanity. Yet still, Apple has been amazingly successful and, as of this writing, is the most valuable company in the Fortune 500 (capitalization).

How does one explain the valuation of Uber in the face of recent leadership issues and the resignation of one of the founders because of sexual harassment and discrimination accusations?  As of this writing, Uber is estimated to be worth $70 billion and is known to have upended how people think about and use personal transportation.

These stories beg the question, “how can a leader(s) achieve such amazing success while behaving so inappropriately?”    It’s frustrating to many, including myself, to know that inappropriate behavior by leaders can still occur concurrently with incredible financial success.  It’s a paradox.  The answers lie in the interaction between strategy and culture and the priorities of the leadership at the time namely, the desire for short-term vs. long-term success.

The famous quote, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast” was originated by Peter Drucker and made famous by Mark Fields, President at Ford.  This thought helps set the stage for us here to help provide some answers and lead us toward how we can manage the variation of trust. The point of Drucker’s quote is both the culture of an organization and its strategy interact to achieve success.  They are interdependent. One will influence the other.  Culture will eventually either undermine the strategy or support it.  Overtime culture wins.

We can look back at our two stories and point to examples.  If it’s true that the leader(s) of an organization influences the culture, then we can point to how Steve Jobs evolved.  It can be shown that Jobs behavior softened over time.  We can make the case that the earlier culture of Apple also evolved to help support their aggressive strategy.

Recent articles about Uber reveal that they changed their core values.  Those closest to the organization describe the how the original core values often led to inappropriate behaviors including competition between colleagues.

The key answer to long-term success is consciously managing culture to support strategy.  This is our purpose with this series of blogs. By providing a structure and method to manage the variation in trust the culture will support strategy.  There is no reason why this can’t happen concurrently with start-ups and/or company transformations.  In an earlier blog (Part 1) the point was made that leaders often don’t focus on managing trust because their theory of trust is incomplete, and therefore their methods of building and maintaining trust are often ineffective.

The key question is, “How can we create a culture of trust which will support long-term success through the positive support of an aligned strategy?”  The answer: “We must develop aligned core operational values and then provide consistent feedback about those values behaviors.”

When the core values of an organization are operationalized, they provide a description of specific and observable behaviors.  For example, our point is it’s not enough to just say, “We behave with integrity” or, “We respect each other”. The leadership needs to define exactly what that looks like.  Otherwise, it is difficult, if not impossible, to provide credible feedback when needed.  The feedback needs to be timely and credible otherwise it is a waste of time.

There are three operationalized values which help leaders and staff to behave with trust.  They are Integrity, Respect, and Customer Focus.  Here are some examples of the observable behaviors that can describe these values.

  • Integrity: making only agreements we are willing and able to keep and communicating immediately if those agreements cannot be kept.
  • Respect: Treat others as we would like to be treated; listening with the intent to understand without interruption; expressing empathy as needed.
  • Customer Focus: Ask clarifying questions to be sure we understand what customers need; proactively making recommendations that will better suit their needs

These are only examples.  The statements above only begin to describe the behaviors which will enable everyone in an organization to manage their own behaviors first and to provide feedback to each other because the behavior is observable. More details are needed and are always created in the planning phase of a “creating a culture of trust” initiative.

When the desired behavior is observable it is relatively easy to express appreciation when its seen.  Furthermore, it’s just as easy to provide feedback when it is not.  Providing of feedback enables everyone to contribute toward managing the variation in trust.

The three operational values of integrity, respect, and customer focus align perfectly with the adopted definition of trust.  The four key elements in our definition of trust are integrity, concern (a demonstration of respect), competence, and shared objectives.  Integrity in the operational values of course, aligns with ‘integrity’ in our trust definition.  Respect aligns with ‘concern’ and customer focus aligns with ‘competence’ and ‘shared objectives’.

The consequence of this alignment is powerful.  Everyone now has the ability (and even the obligation) to observe behavior and either express appreciation or provide feedback for optimum learning.  Now we have the structure and the behavior we need to begin to manage the variation in trust.  Now we are closer to our intended purpose.

Leaders who start businesses and/or who are reinventing their businesses must focus on strategy to achieve results.  If we believe that “culture eats strategy for breakfast”, leaders can now concurrently create a culture of trust along with their new strategy. The results can be achieved more quickly and with less waste because poor behavior does not get in the way and slow them down.  Strategy will be nourished with “breakfast”.

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.

 

[1] International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) by Pamela Shockley-Zalabak, Ph.D., Kathleen Ellis, Ph.D., Ruggero Cesaria

Categories
Growth Human Resources Management Personal Development

Trust Is Essential for the Health of an Organization – Part 2

In a recent blog I promised to expand and clarify how a leader can, and must, predictably manage the variation in trust to produce desired results.  Therefore, the purpose of this 4-part series of blogs is to clarify why trust is so important, define and appreciate a definition for trust, to clarify the most effective way to think about trust, and to provide a framework for a predictable method for building and maintaining trust.  It needs to be predictable.

To accomplish this requires two important sets of ideas.   The first is an appreciation of the right definition of trust. We adopted The International Association of Business Communicators definition of trust: “a willingness to be vulnerable because of the presence of integrity, concern, competence and shared objectives.”

Second, I suggested we adopt a leadership structure of THINK – BEHAVE – IMPROVE (TBI). This structure will give us an introduction to how an optimum leader thinks, how an optimum leader behaves and how an optimum leader acts to improve both behaviors and the system within which they and their team members operate.  In this blog we will expand and clarify the THINK portion of the structure.

Leadership theory is so challenging because it’s paradoxical. We want control, but we don’t want micro-management.  We want freedom to act, but we must avoid chaos.  What is the best way of thinking about the world (about people and problems) that will enable us to manage the variation in trust and deal with the complexity and the paradox?  The answer is ‘systems thinking.’

As recently as 2012, a nurse, in an Ohio Hospital, accidently discarded a kidney that was awaiting a transplant and had been provided by a living donor.  The nurse had been on break, had been replaced by a different nurse, and was therefore unaware the kidney was submerged in an ice filled sludge.  She purposely disposed of the contents into a disposal hopper thinking the kidney was still in the operating room because “that’s what usually happens.”

The hospital suspended the two nurses after the incident; one was later fired, and the other resigned.  Furthermore, a surgeon was stripped of his title as director of some surgical services.  What a tragedy on many levels.

The nurse who discarded the kidney had walked past a doctor and other nurses carrying the container.  Should someone have noticed?  Should someone have said something?  How was she to know?  If we embrace the typical “industrial age” model of management, which uses command and control leadership strategies and focuses on holding people accountable for results, the act of firing the nurse makes total sense.  The general rule in this model is: “results were not achieved and someone (or perhaps multiple people) must be at fault!”  That’s the prevalent philosophy most of us were taught.  That model continues to dominate in our schools and our organizations yet today, i.e. “someone must be held accountable for the results.”  This model cannot create optimum trust.

Systems thinking is a way to see the world recognizing the interdependency of the parts of the whole. The interdependency idea helps us to realize that each part of the system (each employee) is impacted by and can impact all the other parts.  This idea makes cooperation and the quality of communication essential for achievement of the aim or purpose for which the system was created. Everyone cooperating and communicating fosters trust.

The industrial age model can be described using two different metaphors.  The first, “an organization is like a machine”. In this metaphor all parts can be individually evaluated for efficiency and effectiveness and are easily replaceable.  Furthermore, the parts serve no purpose on their own.  The parts each perform only to serve the machine.  They cannot make independent decisions.  Management is by domination.  The parts are dominated by their position in the workings of the machine.

The second metaphor is: “organization is like a human body”.  This is where the parts (the organs, the extremities) have no other purpose than to serve the whole.  Management of the parts is by command and control.  The parts serve the “head” because the “head” makes all decisions.  The parts have no decision-making skill nor purpose separate from serving the “head”.

A more useful metaphor for the systems thinking approach is “an organization is like an orchestra”.   In this metaphor the parts can exercise choice.  An orchestra and an organization are social systems.  A social system is self-organizing and self-regulating.  The parts cannot be controlled.  They instead can be influenced because they all have choice.  They can choose to serve the community (and the customer).  The quality of the interactions and the cooperation between the parts are the most important factors in achieving the purpose of the whole (the community).  It’s not about replacing the parts when a mistake occurs.  It’s about the parts understanding the purpose of the social system (to produce beautiful music), understanding their roles and responsibilities in that system, and how they can cooperate with each other.  These elements enable the system to produce the desired outcomes (e.g. beautiful music to be enjoyed or a successful operation).

In 2016 Wells Fargo fired 5,000 employees for creating millions of unauthorized bank and credit card accounts.  Customers complained, and leadership acted.  The employees were incentivized by the Wells Fargo leadership to sell a certain number of new accounts to banking customers within a certain timeframe.  More so, they were threatened by that leadership with disciplinary action if these stretch goals were not met.

To save their careers they created new accounts using customer data and without customer knowledge. Did the employees do this completely on their own or did the policies influence them?  What they did was wrong and there is no defending it.  Simply stated, in a social system, one part will influence the other and to remove root causes requires a new way of thinking about leadership and the impact it has on the parts and on the community. Wells Fargo leadership blamed the people, yet their incentive policy contributed to the inappropriate behaviors.

In our hospital example, there was probably a dozen or more hand-offs that occurred in that operating room between the surgery preparation time and the time the nurse returned from her break.  Each of those hand-offs was an opportunity for effective communication and cooperation.  Information about the location of the kidney was a hand-off.  What to do with the slush was a hand-off.  Each of those hand-offs was a process that could be improved.  To blame the nurse(s) does nothing to improve those hand-offs and therefore, nothing to prevent a reoccurrence.

If we fired every nurse and every bank employee in the country and replaced them all with highly trained substitutes would anything improve?  It’s unlikely because the system did not change.  Systems thinking provides every leader with the best opportunity to create an environment where trust can flourish.  The first section of our leadership structure is labeled THINK.  It means an optimum leader who wants to effectively manage the variation in trust must embrace systems thinking and the metaphor of the orchestra.  Do you want optimum trust?  Have you embraced “systems thinking”?

Categories
Growth Leadership Personal Development

Trust Is Essential for the Health of an Organization – Part 1

The health of an organization is directly dependent upon the level of trust between employees, management and customers.  Results cannot be predicted when the health of an organization is threatened. Therefore, results depend on the level of trust.  Exceptional leaders recognize all this and will work hard to build and maintain trust.  In my experience however, they are often frustrated with their efforts to build trust.  This is often because their theory of trust is incomplete, and therefore their methods of building and maintaining trust are often ineffective or prove to be short lived.

More and more CEO’s are becoming convinced that the soft skills of building and maintain trust is at least as important as technical skills for individual and organizational success.  According to Stephen M. R. Covey, a 2003 study by Watson and Wyatt showed how a high trust organization can return 286% higher total return than low trust organizations. (Covey, June 2007)

Furthermore, high trust organizations require less bureaucracy, enjoy lower turnover, are better able to manage change, are more collaborative, and can manage growth more effectively and quickly. (Covey, June 2007)

What should be our strategy to build trust? Of course, one can just trust others and hope they reciprocate.  Ernest Hemingway once said, “The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.”  This may be true, but a leader must have a predictable plan to build and maintain trust or risk wasting time and increasing costs.  We cannot afford increased costs, nor can we live with wasted time.  We cannot afford to just trust others and hope. As Rudy Giuliani once said, “…change is not a destination, just as hope is not a strategy.”

If one of the most important responsibilities of a leader is to manage the variation in trust, then a he/she must have a theory and method.  The purpose of this 4-part series of blogs is to clarify why trust is so important, define and appreciate a definition for trust, to clarify the most effective way to think about trust, and to provide a framework for a predictable method for building and maintaining trust.  It needs to be predictable. We cannot depend on hope.

Part 1:

Our bodies self-regulate.  Water is essential for good health and performance of bodily functions.  When our bodies need water, we become thirsty.  Our thirst motivates us to drink and therefore satisfy the need of our bodies.  Without water our bodies have trouble performing basic functions such as digestion.  We can become lethargic, develop headaches, lack concentration and can even stop performing our responsibilities.

Just as our bodies send signals for water, our organizations and employees can send signals for the need for trust.  With low levels of trust people can become disengaged, unproductive and even cynical.  Successful leaders will not only trust people to do the right things, they will know how and when to provide the “water” necessary for healthy organizational function.

Some leaders still create environments of distrust.  Often there are a few untrustworthy employees who continue to perform poorly.  Their presence, and the leader’s inability to know how to act cause the perceived need for rules and policies which damage trust for all.  Even though there may be a few bad ‘apples”, why not create a system that sends a message of trust instead of distrust?  What we need is a system that allows us to provide the ‘water’ when needed while eliminating the opportunity for the few ‘bad apples’ to influence policy.  This four-part blog series will help us do just that.

To accomplish this requires an appreciation of the right definition of trust. I suggest we adopt The International Association of Business Communicators definition of trust:  “a willingness to be vulnerable because of the presence of integrity, concern, competence and shared objectives.”  Knowing that trust can be defined with four key elements, managing each of these four elements can provide us with a framework to become more vulnerable while concurrently creating a trusting environment.   A trust environment will help us to bring out the genius in every employee.

We also need an effective leadership model and theory.  The leadership model best positioned to create a trusting environment is called THINK – BEHAVE – IMPROVE (TBI).  TBI clarifies how an optimum leader thinks in order to create a trusting environment, how he/she must behave to create trust, and how he/she takes action to improve the organizational trust.  Because trust is not a destination and because of the speed and frequency of change, trust must be managed constantly.  Just as one can’t just have one glass of water a day and expect to maintain personal health, a leader must be able and willing to provide ongoing trust when needed.  It never ends.

Soft skills are needed more than ever today and the ability to build and maintain trust is one of those critical skills.  “…the types of skills increasingly in favor are strong communication, empathy, collaboration, and trust building.” (Boris Groysberg, March 2011)

The following three blogs will describe the detailed method of how to think, behave, and improve trust in an organization.  Stay tuned.

Boris Groysberg, L. K. (March 2011). The New Path To the C-Suite. Harvard Busienss Review.

Covey, S. M. (June 2007). The Business Case for Trust. CEO Magazine.

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.

 

Categories
Growth Human Resources Leadership Personal Development

Is It Appropriate to Behave Like a Child at Work?

Recently, an employee at one of my clients suddenly quit his job and provided no notice or grace period. He claimed his supervisor was behaving like a bully toward him.  In my discussions with him it became clear that he was overly sensitive to any kind of conflict.  He couldn’t handle change well and he tended to over-react to challenges including any kind of unexpected change in the schedule, responsibility and/or task.

In my opinion, this employee was emotionally unintelligent and therefore behaved like a childish victim.

There are two major types of childish behavior we see from employees.  The first type of childish behavior is very useful.  Employees who are playful like children can be innovative problem solvers.  Innovative childlike behavior can offer a big advantage because employees can see things from a completely unique perspective.  They are open to innovative ideas.  They are playful and enthusiastic about simple things.  They are fun to be around. We feel young and energetic around them.  This is the playful innovative child.  This is the kind of childish behavior we want from our employees.

The second type of childish behavior is damaging.  This is the type of behavior that caused the Human Resources people to shake their heads like bobble head dolls.  This is when employees behave like immature victims.  They avoid responsibility and blame others for their problems.  They fail to act to solve problems unless they are told to do so.  When they do act, it is usually incomplete or of inferior quality and they rarely, if ever, will be proactive to avoid problems.  Their best excuse is “It’s not my job.” Or, “He is attacking me.” Or, “I can’t do that.”

Virtually every Human Resources person I have spoken to in the past 20 years vigorously shakes his/her head up and down whenever I ask if they regularly see employees behave like children.  Why is it that adults behave like children at work?

It’s ironic, when we treat employees like adults they have a much higher probability of behaving like playful innovative children.  When we treat them like children they act like childish victims.  Here are three major reasons why employees behave like childish victims.

We have policies that scream ‘I don’t trust you’

85-90% of organizations conduct performance reviews and that policy sends a clear message, “I don’t trust you.”   Performance reviews rate employee performance. It is like giving the employee a grade.  Pay for performance policies attempt to control employee behaviors by making them focus on specific goal achievement.  Both policies send a subliminal message that “We can’t trust you to do the right things and so we must control your behaviors.”

We teach what we allow

One thing that drives Human Resources professionals crazy is the unwillingness or inability of managers to discuss difficult performance issues with employees.   Many managers avoid these confrontational discussions.  A manager’s unwillingness to confront bad behaviors teaches employees that it is OK for them to behave like childish victims.  Without feedback the “children” will repeat the behaviors.  Furthermore, these same employees often encourage others to behave badly and/or become disengaged. We need to give managers better tools to have these discussions immediately.  We need to shift the conversation from negative confrontation to trust building and learning.

We have all been treated like childish victims and so we carry-on the tradition

Our public-school system treats us like children.  One might say, “Of course we treat students like children because they ARE children for much of their schooling.”  But, we limit freedom of choice and that encourages the victim mentality.  Students have little choice in what they study and they often have little understanding about why they are studying it.  Even teachers have limited choices about curriculum or learning outcomes because they are told to teach to specific tests.  This lack of choice has been one factor in the significant weakness in critical thinking skills. (Yanklowitz, 2013)

This lack of freedom creates a feeling of victimhood.    People need and want to have choices.  They want to feel they have control over their own world.  They need to have freedom to act on their own (within boundaries).  Even children need that feeling to boost their innovative playful tendencies.  When we attempt to control behaviors, we damage that innovative playful nature.   When we create the perception of limited control we end up with 35-40% drop out rates or kids pumped up on Ritalin.

We have grown up with these limited choices and, so we perpetuate the culture of control in our organizations because that is usually what we know.

Summary

We must capture the good childish nature of our employees and avoid the childish victim behaviors.  The only way to accomplish this is to treat employee like adults, give them more freedom, and trust them.  We need to rethink our policies that send the wrong message of mistrust and replace them with those that send a message, “I trust you.”

 

Yanklowitz, R. S. (2013, October 15). A Society with Poor Critical Thinking Skills: The Case for ‘Argument’ in Education. Retrieved from www.huffingtonpost.com: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuly-yanklowitz/a-society-with-poor-criti_b_3754401.html

 

Categories
Growth Human Resources Management Personal Development

Effective Leaders Use Systems Thinking Not "Blame Thinking"

“I do not judge success based on championships; rather,

I judge it on how close we came to realizing our potential.”

– John Wooden

I strongly believe that leaders who want to bring out the genius of every employee and who want to optimize results (especially through customer experience and employee engagement) must be systems thinkers.[1]

Bill Walsh, the renowned National Football League coach, had an unusual belief about quarterbacks: “They are only as good as the system they played in.”

In 1970-71 while an offensive coordinator for the Cincinnati Bengals, Walsh developed a passing game that enabled Virgil Carter, a below-average quarterback who up to that point had never even completed half of his passes. That system propelled Carter, the weaker quarterback, to lead the league in completion percentage at 62.2%; the system also increased his yards per completion by 24% (going from 5.9 to 7.3).

In 1979, Walsh joined the San Francisco 49ers as head coach. He used the same system he had employed in Cincinnati to propel another quarterback, Steve Deberg (who by most statistical measures was one of the NFL’s worst) from a 45.4% completion rate to an astonishing 60%. That year, Deberg ended up throwing more completions than any other quarterback in NFL history up to that point.

In the two years that followed Walsh found Joe Montana who is now known, in many circles, as the “best” quarterback in NFL history. I prefer to think that all three quarterbacks took advantage of the best system in NFL history – a system that challenged them, successfully, to reach their full potential as John Wooden suggested.

How did Walsh do it? He didn’t try to change the quarterback. Instead, he changed the system within which the quarterbacks played.

Effective leaders must understand why and how to manage their systems.  It’s about managing the system rather than trying to manage the people. The central tenet here is that “An employee is only as good as system he or she works in.” This core belief flies in the face of the typical belief held by the typical organizational culture, which, whether it is stated explicitly or not, usually holds that the performance of an individual can be measured and improved separately from the system within which he or she works. This is false.  Leaders who act with this false belief will continue to create unintended consequences which will hold back the potential of both the individuals and the entire system.  Leaders who assign blame will create fear and damage innovation. Leaders who focus on optimizing the system will bring out the genius of every employee and results beyond their expectations.

I love Dunkin Donuts Coffee. Nearly every morning I will pick up a large cup just before a client meeting and bring it into the meeting with me. I always order a large and I don’t like sugar. For years, I ordered my coffee using this process: “May I have a large, cream, no sugar.”

About 10 % of the time I would get sugar in my coffee. Since I can’t drink coffee with sugar I would have to either toss it out and be out $2.25 (and be cranky) or go back and order another. The Dunkin Donuts were always friendly about replacing the coffee; it was just a hassle to go back and replace it.

One day I ordered a coffee, got in my car. and headed to my appointment. I tasted the coffee; sure enough, it had sugar. I got angry. I decided to go back and complain loudly (at the clerk) about how they don’t seem to hire people who don’t know how to listen.

By the time I got to the store, the implications of an emotional confrontation with the store manager and the clerk gave me pause.  Perhaps my own process was not working. Why was I mentioning sugar at all if I didn’t want any sugar?

I decided at that moment to change my process. I began asking for a “Large — just cream.” In the four years that followed my new process, I have not gotten sugar in my coffee a single time. Not once!

As it turns out, our brains have a difficult time hearing a negative. If you ask someone to stop thinking about pink rabbits, they will think about pink rabbits. If you ask for no sugar, they will hear the word “sugar”.

It was the mention of sugar (the process) that caused the problem. The Dunkin Donuts worker was not the root cause. My system was the root cause. Once I changed the process the problem disappeared.  It made no sense to blame the clerk.  That was my first reaction.  That is how we have been taught to think about performance improvement.

Leaders are responsible for the system within which the employees work.  If the system is flawed it will create a high probability of dysfunction and it is the leader who has set up the system.  I was the leader of my coffee ordering process and it was my order process that caused the dysfunction of the Dunkin Donuts clerk.  Once my process was changed, the clerks I encountered performed perfectly every time.  How can one explain the perfect performance of multiple clerks at multiple stores if it is not the performance of the system?

A leader who appreciates systems will be able to recognize the real root causes of events and will spend most of their time improving the system and enrolling the employees to help improve the processes within the system.

The typical performance management process attempts to improve the individuals through feedback.  Furthermore, today organizations are requesting even more frequent feedback from managers to employees.  Is that frequent feedback about individual performance or is it about how employees can improve their processes and their interactions?  Are we systems thinkers or are we blame assigners?  To be optimally effective we must become system thinkers.

[1] Systems Thinking: Is a discipline of using data to identify patterns, processes, and structures that cause events. It’s a way of thinking and acting to obtain knowledge to make changes in process and structure to improve the interactions between the parts of a system and instead of making improvements to the parts of the system.  Excerpts taken from The Art of Leading: 3 Principles for Predictable Performance Improvement by Wally Hauck, PhD, CSP

Categories
Growth Human Resources Management Personal Development

3 Employee Engagement Killers You Will See At An Airport

I originally thought about entitling this blog, “How to avoid behaving like an airport.”  When I think about airport customer experience and employee engagement I remember how much I dislike traveling now.  The thought of it gives me a stomach ache and heartache.

Whenever I travel my wife always asks, “How was the trip?”  At best my answer is usually, “OK.  Nothing really happened.”  Occasionally I am lucky and the center seat is open.  Then I might exclaim, “Great, I had no one next to me and it was a pleasure.”  But, about 20% of the time I end up sitting in the center seat which more than offsets any excitement about the center seat being open.  Notice I am not mentioning the screaming baby.

I digress.  These issues are mostly the “luck (or un-luck) of the draw” and so it is difficult to hold airport leadership accountable for these random annoying events.  The next time you are traveling look for these issues.  It’s an opportunity to remind yourself to avoid certain behaviors that can damage employee engagement and customer experience every time.

Furthermore, these are behaviors (and habits) and behaviors can change.  Leaders who have these behaviors can change them immediately if they are convinced employee engagement needs to be managed and if they are convinced they damage employee engagement.  Habits are difficult to change but Viktor Frankl once said, “Those who have a ‘why’ to live, can bear with almost any ‘how’.”   If leaders appreciate a big enough “why” to change their behavior, I am saying that they can and they must!

If we truly appreciate the importance of employee engagement and how it impacts customer experience, we can change our habits.  Let’s not be like an airport.  Let’s not be:

  • Uncommunicative on essential information
  • Weak on personal accountability
  • Indifferent to feelings

Uncommunicative on essential information

Imagine you are at an airport.  Have you ever experienced an unexpected delay on a flight?  Imagine you are sitting at the gate and the expected boarding time passes and you neither see nor hear any communication about the change.  You walk to the customer service desk and you ask for an update.  You are then told there is a delay.  The communication was not proactive.  It was reactive.  The airline was either unaware or purposefully delayed communicating the status of the flight departure.

Imagine being in that situation.  How are you feeling?  Is there more trust or less?  Is there more credibility or less?  Is there more stress or less?  Leaders need to anticipate the feelings and reactions of employees if important information changes.  Poor communication at a time like this is either misleading and/or incompetent.  It damages trust and damaged trust will damage engagement.

On a recent trip the gate agent made an announcement. I couldn’t understand her in part because of the quality of the PA system and in part because she made the announcement at the same time another adjacent gate agent was making an announcement.   Although I could not understand her words, her body language told me it was serious and not good news.

I asked the people around me what she said.  They didn’t know either.  I walked up to her and told her she could not be heard and asked her to repeat it. She told me it was a delay due to maintenance.  She did not repeat her announcement.  My guess is she was worried about the negative reaction.

Effective leaders can anticipate reactions to changed information by putting themselves in the “shoes” of the employees.  Any change that could have been communicated and is not done in a proactive method will create a reaction that feels disrespectful.    Any reaction that feels disrespectful will damage trust which will damage engagement.

Weak on personal accountability

Who do you call at an airport when you are upset about an issue?  You can talk to (or yell) at a customer service agent.  Does it help?  They rarely have the authority to act for correction.  When your flight requires a change perhaps an argument with the customer service person will work.  For that issue they are empowered.  They can and will also act on your behalf when the airline is at fault. Other than that, you might be very frustrated at the answer you get to correct when you attempt to correct an issue. For example, to whom do you complain when the TSA line is too long and you are about to miss your flight?  Will TSA respond?

An organization with high employee engagement has clarified roles and responsibilities and has empowered the employees to act.   This allows freedom to act. Freedom to act on behalf of the customer will create an impression that the employees are trusted to do the right thing for both customers and for the company.  This improves engagement.  Any time you can demonstrate trust you have improved engagement.

Leaders can take time to help employees to know their roles and responsibilities.  They can take time to ask questions about issues employees encounter which require quick decisions and good judgement.  Leaders can take time to give employees the tools to act on behalf of the company to do their jobs properly and to serve customers with grace and respect.  It is rare to see this at an airport.

Indifferent to feelings

Do people get upset at airports?  YES!  Pretty much every day.  What can we do when people get upset?  We can provide empathy.  We don’t always have the answers to the issues and we don’t always know the root causes of problems.  What we always have is the ability to express empathy.

Empathy is the sincere expression that we understand the importance of an issue and we appreciate how the person must feel about the situation.  We can always do this. Leaders always can do this. Why not do it?

In my experience, there is a shortage of empathy in the workplace.  Empathy helps people to move past the negative emotions and move toward positive action. Leaders are in the best position to both demonstrate empathy and to show others how important the expression of empathy is for mental health and problem solving.

There are three simple behaviors leaders can do to avoid damaging employee engagement.  Why not anticipate communication on important issues?  Why not demonstrate accountability and why not help others to demonstrate it as well?  Why not demonstrate empathy when there is emotion?  Simple actions that are doable can make a big difference to both employees and customers.  Why not?  Why not avoid behaving like the typical airport?

Categories
Growth Human Resources Leadership Personal Development

Diversity Alone Is Not Enough – The 5 Initial Conditions to Optimize Performance

Many consultants and consulting companies tout the benefits of diversity and make amazing claims about the results of having a diverse organization.  Diversity is perceived as a competitive advantage and as a progressive necessity if an organization is going to be able to claim a modern reputation.  I am unconvinced.  Just like anything else in life, too much of a good thing can become a negative.

There is an impressive list of benefits that experts claim diversity generates.  These include improved innovation and creativity, reduced turnover, improved ability to recruit, improved productivity, excellent company image.  Not so fast.  When we read these claims, there is little mention of the complexity of factors that contribute to these desirable results.  Any consultant who claims to be able to achieve these goals with diversity alone is at best unsophisticated and at worst misleading.

Making the claim that diversity alone is responsible for these outcomes, is like saying a certain brand of gasoline is responsible for lower maintenance costs on your car.  There are too many other factors which are contributing to the outcome.

There are five initial conditions a leader needs to manage prior to reaching to achieve diversity goals.  These conditions will have a much greater impact on these desirable results and will help support a diverse workforce.

A Compelling Vision

A vision is an ideal picture of a future state of the organization.  Pete Senge explains, in his book The Fifth Discipline, that a compelling vision is like stretching a strong rubber band. It pulls people toward the ideal picture and so it helps them to be motivated to achieve the description of the future organization.  A clear and compelling vision that is communicated consistently will improve motivation and align people who are diverse in background. A common vision naturally draws a diverse workforce together into an effective team.

A Compelling Mission

A mission is the reason why an organization exists.  Viktor Frankl, author or Man’s Search for Meaning’ once said, “Those who have a ‘why” to live, can bear with almost any ‘how’.”  Millennials are famous for needing to know why they are being asked to do something. If we are able to explain “why” something is needed, it naturally creates intrinsic motivation and high-quality work.

On a recent trip to a client I encountered a sign in the rest room.  It read; “Did you know that 40% of people who go to the bathroom fail to wash their hands?  Did you know that not washing your hands properly can encourage the spread of germs that cause diarrhea, the flu, and even hand-foot-mouth disease, and even death?  Washing your hands can protect you from these diseases and others.”

I immediately washed my hands and I do it every time.  No one must remind me because I know why it is so important. A well communicated mission will bring a diverse group of people together to achieve a vision.

A Clear Set of Values

Values describe how we want to behave while working toward the vision and mission. When people know how they are supposed to behave with each other and they can agree on that behaviors, it makes the environment safe for communication.  Diversity consultants claim that communication is improved because of the diversity. I disagree. It improves when people share the same values.

It is because of an aligned set of values that make it safe for people to converse even when they are diverse in background. Again, an aligned set of values enables diversity to work as an advantage.  Values comes first, diversity next.

An Aligned Strategy

A strategy explains the priorities of an organization. People who join an organization often have their own ideas about what the priorities must or should be.  Individuals in an organization are not authorized to decide priorities for the organization.  Effective leaders clarify and communicate the priorities of objectives people need to accomplish.

Without an aligned strategy, people can have competing priorities.  When there is competition of priorities there is waste and increased costs.  An aligned strategy will save the organization money.  It will also compel those with diverse backgrounds to work toward the same goals.

The Most Effective Leadership Philosophy

For 20 years I have asked senior teams this question, “What is your leadership philosophy?”  Rarely can I get an articulate answer to this question.  This is because we have been taught an outdated leadership model which is holding us back from optimizing employee engagement.  Frederick Taylor was an engineer who formulated a specific leadership model in the early 1900’s which requires employees to follow a specific set of actions to meet performance standards.  The outdated policy of the typical performance appraisal is consistent with Taylor Philosophy.

We need to evolve our leadership model. We need a leadership model which provides greater opportunity for higher trust, more cooperation, productive conflict, effective leadership and self-management.  We can have a diverse workforce but we also need an aligned leadership philosophy which brings us together as a team.

Diversity is a factor in a high-performance organization. It is not THE factor.

 

 

Categories
Growth Human Resources Management Personal Development

Make Firing Employees Easier and Faster – Let Them Deselect

Which is more valuable to an employer, the job skills employees possess or the skill of behaving with integrity. I can appreciate how this is a very unfair question. One can argue that we need both in our employees and that would be a fair statement.  Others may claim that behaving with integrity is not a skill at all but a measure of one’s character.  Job skills are worthless (as well as job knowledge) without integrity and any employer who holds onto an employee who knows a lot about the job but who has a pattern of broken integrity is costing the organization in ways that cannot be measured.

If you have ever had to manage a poor performer you know the stress it can cause and the energy it can drain from you.  To manage a poor performer, it is first necessary to have a clear definition of a poor performer. The most useful definition is: “an employee who demonstrates a consistent and frequent pattern of broken integrity.”  It is their inability or unwillingness to be have with integrity on a consistent basis that makes them a poor performer and a candidate for firing regardless of how much they know.

Adopting this definition helps make firing an employee much easier. Poor performers are shouting with their behaviors “Fire me!” They are “deselecting”. Deselecting means they are making the choice to leave you and/or your organization.  It’s their choice not yours and you merely need to help them to fulfill that wish.  You are merely deciding the timing.

There is another benefit to adopting this definition.  It enables you to take the bias out of the decision making.  With the bias out, the organization is better protected from legal action.  There are two crucial factors required for this deselection strategy to work properly.  First, an embrace of the definition of poor performer is necessary (“an employee who demonstrates a consistent and frequent pattern of broken integrity”).

Second, there needs to be a clear definition of integrity.  If the definition of integrity is clear and the definition of poor performer is clear, these two definitions work in cooperation to remove the bias.  Here is the definition of integrity I use in my business.  It has four parts and is operational.  It describes behaviors which makes it easy to observe and to measure.  The observable behaviors make it easier to remove the bias.

Integrity:

  • Make only agreements[1] you intend to keep.
  • Immediately communicate when you can’t keep agreements to those who need to know.
  • Admit when a mistake is made, apologize, and look at the system[2] as a team for a solution (no blame, make no excuses, no complaining).
  • When a mistake is seen from others communicate it respectfully, ask they provide a sincere apology, and work to correct it and prevent it from occurring in the future.

By adopting these two definitions a leader can influence all employees to self-manage their own agreements and to therefore self-manage their own integrity.

Anyone who willing and able to manage their agreements has the basic ability to perform. Anyone either unwilling or unable to manage their own agreements does not have a basic ability to perform.

Behaving with integrity is a basic skill and when it’s missing, the person cannot perform his or her basic duties.  Even if the person has exceptional skills in other areas, the absence of an ability or willingness to keep their own agreements will neutralize the other skills and/or knowledge.  In many respects Bernie Madoff was a knowledgeable and intelligent investor.  His lack of integrity cost his customers their money and cost him his freedom.

Recently a client needed to address concerns with one of the employees.  This employee had worked there for many years and was a bit of a trouble maker. He would often have disrespectful outbursts with co-workers. He often would refuse to follow through on agreements and would often break agreements.

It was brought to our attention by a co-worker he had threatened another co-worker with bodily harm.  He was confronted.  He admitted it and was promptly warned about the policy, and suspended for one day without pay.  When he returned to work he refused to participate in mandatory meetings, and he purposely destroyed company property in protest to his suspension.

This pattern of broken agreements and disrespect was a clear indication of deselection.  For years he had caused disturbances and the leadership would usually ignore them because his job knowledge and experience was in short supply in the industry.  Once the leadership saw the poor performance pattern, and once the organizational leadership saw the waste he was creating, it was easier to see how he was actually deselecting.

Always put integrity first as the list of skills needed to be a high performer.  Putting the job skills ahead of integrity skills will predictably cause more waste for everyone.

[1] Agreement: An activity that is specific, measurable and time sensitive and has a predictable process to achieve it.

[2] System: A series of interdependent processes that achieve an aim.

Categories
Growth Human Resources Leadership Personal Development

Do You Want Your Employees to Feel like Volunteers or Slaves?

Do you Want Employees to Feel Like Volunteers or Slaves? 

If you are a leader of a team now, ponder this idea: everyone in your organization is a volunteer.  Would you treat them differently?  Why would you want to treat employees as volunteers and how can you start?  This blog will touch on the answers.

I bet each of us, at some point, has been a volunteer (on a board or team).  It is usually a huge challenge because often only 20-30% of the people do all the work.  The other 70-80% either coast or don’t even bother to show up.  You’re probably thinking, “Well that problem is often true with employees as well” and you would be correct.  Leaders who want to treat employees as volunteers must make two important shifts.  The first shift must be how we think about our leadership responsibilities.  The second change must be how we act as a leader.

Why should we want volunteers?

Treating employees as volunteers is the foundation for creating an engaged workforce. Volunteers feel empowered and feel a part of something important larger than themselves.  Volunteers do tasks because they want to.  Disengaged (slaves) do things because they must (they are bribed or threatened).  Disengaged employees are compliant.  Volunteers put in extra effort because they love what they do.

Volunteers are committed emotionally and intellectually.  The disengaged are controlled by domineering forces either spoken or unspoken.  Engaged (volunteers) employees creates greater profitability, quality customer service, and innovative ideas.  Disengaged employees cause costs to go up.  Study after study shows the benefits of an engaged workforce.  Treating employees as volunteers will lead toward higher engagement, higher profitability, and expanding success in many areas of performance.

During slavery in the United States certain behaviors were prevalent among the slaves. These included the avoidance of work, theft, and an outward defiance of authority. One could interpret these behaviors as demonstrations of resistance for the loss of freedom.  In my experience, these same behaviors are prevalent with disengaged and actively disengaged employees.  My theory is an increase in freedom and autonomy will help eliminate most, or all, of these resistance behaviors.

Shift #1 – Change how we think about our responsibilities

It is not a bigger challenge to manage volunteers it is just different and it requires a shift in thinking and it requires different skills.  The shift is to stop managing people but instead lead them with an environment which encourages self-management.  Volunteers self-manage.  The disengaged (slaves) require management control.

There is an important distinction between self- management and manager-dependent management.  Most organizations have a manager-dependent environment.  Manager-dependent environment encourages employees to wait to receive ideas for improvement from their managers before making any significant changes in performance.  This type of environment creates more fear and less innovation because there is less freedom and less autonomy.  Self-Management increases employee engagement and enables natural feedback mechanisms and autonomy.  This accelerates the decisions and therefore accelerates the ability to adapt to change.

Shift #2 – Change how we behave

Typical managers often put in controls and policies that create compliance.  Leaders of volunteers spend their time helping employees understand the mission, vision, values, and strategy of the organization.  They must also explain how the employee’s responsibilities fit into these and how they can contribute to the achievement of all of those items.  These leaders spend time explaining “why” the work is so important.

Leaders of volunteers spend time helping employees match their skills to the task they hope to perform.  If the task is too difficult they will refuse it because it might embarrass them if they perform poorly.  Conversely, if the task is too easy they get bored.  A leader of volunteers must match the skill of the volunteer or it won’t get done.  A typical manager will use carrots and sticks to attempt to ensure compliance to get the task done regardless of the match of skills with the task.

Typical managers must spend a good deal of time with attorneys to understand how to force accountability.  Managers of volunteers continuously manage trust.  Attorneys are unnecessary in a culture of trust.  The leaders of volunteers must facilitate the removal of barriers to performance.  Typical managers must create new rules when mistakes are found or when jobs remain incomplete.  Typical managers see the person as the root cause of problems.  Leaders of volunteers review the system to remove the barriers that prevent the trusted volunteers from doing their jobs.

Typical managers use performance appraisals and pay for performance policies.  Performance appraisals control behaviors with threats to either future promotional opportunities or future pay (if pay-for-performance is linked to the appraisal).  Leaders must be willing to let go of these addictive policies.  They are inconsistent with a culture of engaged volunteers.

Thinking differently about people

To create an environment of volunteers, leaders must begin to think about employees as unlimited human potential not as human resources.  This potential, when released, can possibly add unlimited value to the organization.   Resources can be used up.  Potential can be tapped as an unlimited supply.  I suggest the Human Resources Department to change its name to the Human Potential Department.

Thinking differently about policies

What happens when people stop performing or stop following the rules?  When this happens, they are telling you “I don’t want to work here anymore.” Accept their decision.  Let them go physically because they have already de-selected mentally.

When you decide to treat employees as volunteers it can be scary because the skills are different and require discipline and effort.  Yet, it is the future.