C-Suite Network™

Menu
Search
Close this search box.

Author: Wally Hauck, PhD, CSP

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

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

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

Wally holds a doctorate in organizational leadership from Warren National University, a Master of Business Administration in finance from Iona College, and a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania.   Wally is a Certified Speaking Professional or CSP.|Wally Hauck, PhD, CSP works with leaders who want to optimize the people potential.  His company, Optimum Leadership, helps leaders reduce the greatest waste in America namely the failure to fully optimize the ability of people.

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

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

Wally holds a doctorate in organizational leadership from Warren National University, a Master of Business Administration in finance from Iona College, and a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania.   Wally is a Certified Speaking Professional or CSP.|Wally Hauck, PhD, CSP works with leaders who want to optimize the people potential.  His company, Optimum Leadership, helps leaders reduce the greatest waste in America namely the failure to fully optimize the ability of people.

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

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

Wally holds a doctorate in organizational leadership from Warren National University, a Master of Business Administration in finance from Iona College, and a bachelor’s degree in philosophy from the University of Pennsylvania.   Wally is a Certified Speaking Professional or CSP.

Categories
Growth Human Resources Management Personal Development

Why Bullying and Employee Engagement Don’t Mix

Bullying and Employee Engagement

Bullying and employee engagement don’t mix.  Bullying is one person intimidating or threatening another in a disrespectful, dominating, or cruel manner.   Bullies tend to put performance results ahead of all other considerations including respect and trust.  Bullies think about themselves and not about others.  Aggressiveness is action without regard to others.  It’s an “I win and you lose” strategy.   Assertiveness is action with a “win-win” strategy.  Employee engagement can only grow in a culture that discourages and prevents bullying while encouraging collaboration, respect, and effective relationships with win-win communications.

According to The Workplace Bullying Institute, 27% of American workers have suffered abusive conduct at work; another 21% witnessed bullying; and 72% are aware that workplace bullying happens.  It also tells us that less than 20% of employers act to stop bullying. (Gary Namie, 2014)

Bullying is a symptom.   Causes of bullying are a complex set of factors.  The first set of factors relate to the psychological needs and flaws of the bully.  According to author Susan Coloraso bullies tend to have specific attitudes and behaviors including blaming others for situations.  They lack the willingness to take responsibility for their actions or their miserable situations.  They lack emotional intelligence traits such as the ability to sincerely understand how others might feel and the ability to express empathy.  They tend to be narcissistic focusing all their concern about themselves and not about others.

Bullies also believe competition is an important strategy for success.  They have difficulty with collaboration because they feel superior and others are seen in an inferior position.  For them, aggression is the way to success.

Women and men can both be bullies, although men have a higher tendency toward physical abuse and women use more psychological abuse such as passive aggressive manipulations.

The second set of factors causing bullying is the lack of an effective response from the workplace system.  Dr. W. Edwards Deming said 94% of all results come from the system.  Bullies are mostly allowed to continue without feedback and/or consequences for their poor behaviors.  Although the root causes of bullying stems from the experiences, and probably the parenting, of the bully, it’s the responses (or lack of) of the system that keeps the behaviors alive.

Organizations that are unprepared and/or unwilling to create consequences for bullying behaviors will be victimized. Unfortunately some leaders give “lip service” to a set of organizational values that discourage bullying behaviors.  Instead of confronting the poor behaviors immediately and consistently, leaders can instead ignore (or downplay) the behaviors and place more value on the results bullies are able to achieve.  The results outweigh the desired motivation and willingness of the leaders to have a confrontation.

We teach what we allow.  Bullies learn their behaviors.  They are not born as bullies.  They were probably allowed by their parents, or even encouraged with subtle messages, to continue their tactics. The only way to change is to stop the subtle messages and confront the poor behaviors directly and respectfully with consequences important to the bully.

Besides respectful confrontation organizations should also evaluate the hiring process to ensure bullies are not allowed to slip through the “hiring cracks.”

A system of effective Fearless Feedback will go a long way toward reducing the probability of bullying.  This must start with the senior leadership. Senior leaders must make it clear that results with bullying are unacceptable even if the results are financially profitable.  Leaders must take a stand.  Financial results achieved with bullying tactics must be evaluated in the context of the cost to employee engagement.  The costs associated with low employee engagement levels are much more difficult (if not impossible) to measure than financial results.  The bullying will either stop or be significantly reduced if the system is set up to provide respectful and immediate feedback to bullies and if they are given the choice to either change their behaviors or move on.

Bullying and employee engagement don’t mix.  Senior leaders must decide if results from employee engagement are more valuable than short-term results with bullying.  If senior leaders pay lip service to respect and win-win solutions but then avoid respectful consequences for bullying, things won’t change and employee engagement will suffer.

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.

Fearless Feedback

 

Categories
Growth Human Resources Management Personal Development

The 5 Don’ts of Frequent Feedback

The 5 Don’ts of Frequent Feedback

The transformation of the typical performance review process often includes the phrase, “make feedback more frequent”.  That sounds like a good idea. It is if certain conditions are in place.  There are five conditions which will either make or break the efficacy of frequent feedback.

I was out of town for a weekend and decided to play golf at a local course. Because I was alone the starter connected me with a threesome.  One of the men frequently spoke. He spoke during everyone’s shots. He was whispered when someone was about to hit their shot yet you could still hear him.

He would not, or could not, stop himself. His frequent babbling was annoying enough but he made it worse by talking only about himself.  He babbled about how he had played this and that hole.  He added unnecessary details about the unfair bounce that prevented a par etc. etc.  It was not helpful and it was annoying. The same annoyance and lack of value can occur with frequent feedback about work performance unless these five conditions are met.

The Five Don’ts

The first of the five conditions important for adding value during frequent feedback is to have a clear standard of behavior that everyone agrees will add value. In other words, don’t forget to create a clear standard of specific and observable behaviors.  With a clear standard, managers and employees can provide helpful feedback based on that standard.  They can avoid expressing opinions.

This leads us to the second condition. Don’t forget to use data during feedback and avoid unsolicited criticism.  When a clear standard exists, everyone and anyone can ask if the behavior matches the standard.  Criticism or opinions are unnecessary.  A manager expressing an opinion about the performance of an employee can create fear in that employee.

Often the feedback will lead to emotions.  This is especially true when there are challenging performance issues which have not been addressed in a timely manner.  When there is emotion empathy is needed.  Don’t forget to provide empathy.  Empathy is the sincere expression that you understand the emotions someone is experiencing.  Feedback without empathy is worthless.  Empathy allows the person receiving the feedback to absorb it and use it.  If there is an emotion and there is no empathy the feedback is rejected.  The entire interaction becomes a waste of time.

This next condition don’t will seem out of order. Don’t forget to ask permission.  Get the person’s consent.  Ask permission to provide feedback. Even better, ask everyone in your organization to ask permission before they provide feedback.   Make it a rule or part of the standard.  Allow the person who is to receive the feedback to say, “no, I am not ready”.  Give them the opportunity to wait for a better time.

Our Declaration of Independence states, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”  Feedback is delivered between men and women with the consent of those receiving the feedback.  Give them the choice. Allow them to consent.

The most important condition is last.  This condition is also the biggest change in how the typical manager thinks about feedback.  Don’t make the feedback about the person.  Make the feedback about process or method.  Two of the earlier conditions were “don’t forget to use data during feedback (avoid unsolicited criticism)” and “don’t forget to create a clear standard.”  If these are handled then the only thing left to discuss is either the process within which the employee is working or the method the employee is using to perform.

Feedback doesn’t have to be about the person. Give them feedback about their methods and how those methods can change.  This will eliminate fear of change.

Frequent feedback is not enough to create optimum value and optimum improvement.  Be sure you create the right environment by implementing these conditions.  It will make the feedback easier and more effective.

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.

Fearless Feedback

 

 

 

Categories
Growth Human Resources Management Personal Development

How to Give White Flag Feedback

How to Give White Flag® Feedback

Delivering effective feedback is enormously important and enormously challenging.  I have spoken about this in my last two blogs.  I identified the three reasons why the feedback is so challenging namely the confusion between feedback and criticism, the concern about making things worse, and a lack of knowledge about how to give feedback such that the other party accepts it, learns, and applies the learning.

I also explained how we needed a tool that could make it safe to deliver and safe to accept.  I explained the importance of the White Flag® as a neutral symbol to pave the way for giving and receiving feedback in a non-threatening way.  The White Flag® is the international sign of truce.  It provides a context that allows for a free flow of information without fear of reprisal.

But how do you use the White Flag®?  What are the key steps and techniques?  Can anyone do it? The purpose here is to answer these questions and a few others.

There are three key factors that optimize the use of the White Flag® tool.  These three factors can be summarized in three words, Think-Behave-Improve.

First, to use the White Flag® properly it is most useful to think about it in the most useful way.  The purpose of the White Flag® is not to assign blame on a person. The purpose is to partner to uncover the real root causes of mistakes.  The giver and the receiver can partner to search for root causes inside the process. Those root causes can nearly always be found in the process (94% of the time according to Dr. W. Edwards Deming) and not the person. Feedback therefore is not about making someone wrong. It is about making the process right.

In order to trigger the feedback there needs to be clear expectations.  These expectations can take the form of operationalized values behaviors.  There are three categories of values behaviors namely integrity, respect, and customer focus.

These behaviors must be operationalized meaning they are observable by anyone.  By making the expectations observable anyone can decide if the expectations are being met simply by observation. If they do not observe what is expected that becomes the trigger for feedback and therefore the use of the White Flag® tool.

Once we know feedback is needed we must deliver it in a manner that optimizes learning.  We are calm.  We wait if there is too much emotion (either with us or the other person).  We ask permission to give the feedback. We share the data (what we saw or heard) and avoid opinion or judgement.  We provide clarification if necessary.   We ask questions to find the real root cause of the problem. We ask “what process is not working?”  We ask questions to identify the first 15% of that process and then we identify how to improve that first 15%. We do this in partnership not in judgement.  We do it as a team and not in isolation.

All the while we are asking these questions. We are calm.  We are inquisitive. We ask questions to learn and not to blame. We ask these questions to uncover a new action step to address the process issues.  The White Flag® is a tool to decide how to fix a process as a team.

The White Flag® is a tool that makes feedback fearless and effective.  It is simple. It’s not easy and it’s doable and necessary for learning.

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 Management Personal Development

5 Elements to Improve Speed of Change

5 Elements Improve Speed in Your Organization with Self-Management

Birds flock.  Why?  They are cooperating to find food, shelter, and avoid predators more quickly and easily.  How do they flock?  Hard-wired into their brains are the principles of flying at the same average speed, distance, and direction as their closest neighbors.  The hard-wired principles enable them to behave instinctively and accomplish the three goals more quickly and easily (shelter, food, and safety).  They are a self-organizing social system.  Their success depends on the cooperation of all the birds following all the hard-wired skills.

Can an organization operate as a self-organizing and/or self-management system, and should it?  Yes! Nature holds examples of self-organizing systems (birds, bees, ants etc.) and we can also find them in our economy.  WAZE, Lyft, Uber, Wikipedia and even the internet are all examples of self-organizing and self-management systems.  Can we apply these ideas in our organizations and teams?  Just as the success for the birds depends on cooperation to follow principles, success in organizations depends on cooperation of the people.

There is an important distinction between self- management and manager-dependency. Most organizations have a manager-dependent environment.  For example, in the typical organization managers are expected to know the answers and to solve the problems. They are expected to be omniscient and omnipotent.  They are expected to provide feedback to employees to create improved performance.  That is why they are often promoted to the manager.  They once did they job and so they have all the answers.

A manager-dependent environment encourages employees wait to receive ideas for improvement from their managers before making any significant changes in performance.  There is a hesitation to try new things for fear of being criticized or evaluated by the manager.    A manager-dependent environment creates fear and therefore less innovation.  Self-Management increases employee engagement and innovation.  Employees create their own feedback mechanisms and can act autonomously.  This accelerates the decisions and therefore accelerates the ability to adapt to changes.  It improves speed.

When my daughter Emily was 12, one morning she missed her school bus.  She was very upset and came downstairs to my office crying, “Dad, I missed the bus.  Can you take me to school?”  Of course I agreed but then asked her a question, “what do you need to do to catch the bus on your own from now on?’  She looked at me in a thoroughly confused manner.  At that moment I was not sure she could think of an idea.

When she arrived home that afternoon she said, “Dad, I thought about what you asked.   If you buy me a timer I will set it 5 minutes before the bus arrives and if it goes off I will know I only have 5 minutes left.  I can then easily catch the bus.”

I told her that sounded great.  I also asked her what else she could do to be prepared in the morning.  She said she would set her books out by the front door right before bed time.  For the next 2-1/2 years she used this method and always caught the bus on time.  She self-managed her ability to catch the bus by creating and following her own process.

How to increase speed.  To become more highly competitive organizations must ask employees to make more decisions on their own.  A recent book about the virtues of talent management has just been published.  It reinforces the Jack Welch management methods.  Welch insisted on providing frequent honest feedback with complete candor.  In my experience managers don’t have that kind of time to provide frequent feedback.  They lack the time and the skills to constantly be observing employees and providing feedback.   Managers should instead rely more on employee, trust them more, and facilitate them creating their own answers to their own problems just as my daughter was able to identify a way to catch her bus.

The 5 Elements

For employees to figure out ways to self-manage their own performance, a leader can clarify and communicate the key principles that will enable all employees to self-manage.  The five principles are Vision, Mission, Values, Strategy, and an effective Leadership Theory.  The leadership theory that provides the best opportunity for self-management is Dr. W. Edwards Deming’s Theory of Profound Knowledge.

A leader’s first responsibility is to create an environment that facilitates performance improvement. Those interested in accelerating results and performance need to be courageous and trust that employees can create their own solutions.  It requires a method to create an environment of trust and self-organization through the clarity of the 5 principles.

A manager-dependent environment is slow and talent management often includes a ranking of employees, rewarding the top performers and “yanking out” the poorer performers.  This policy and practice creates unnecessary competition minimizing the opportunity for innovation.  The “birds” will not naturally cooperate in this environment.

A leader can clarify the key principles which will allow the “bird” to self-manage.  Clarifying the strategic initiatives, the vision and mission enables employees to create their own objectives and methods for performance improvement.  With autonomy comes choice.  With choice comes engagement.  With engagement comes performance.   With self-management comes speed.

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 Management Skills

Fearless Feedback: The White Flag

Fearless Feedback: The White Flag®

In a previous blog I identified the three barriers preventing effective feedback namely confusion between feedback and criticism, the fear of making things worse, and not knowing how to deliver feedback to ensure it is positively accepted.

What if there was a way to provide feedback clearly and safely so it is welcomed?  What if there was a tool to eliminate the fear for both the giver and receiver?  That tool is called the White Flag®.

One of my very first clients was a very tall woman who often received complaints claiming she intimidated others.  She did not have a “mean bone” in her.  She had an assertive manner which could often be misinterpreted by others (harsh and intimidating).

Although I was able to share powerful techniques and she demonstrated a desire to change her communication she would sometimes fall back on bad habits.  She would forget to make the changes and I couldn’t always be there to remind her to use the new techniques.    I needed to find her help in the moment.

She had a few highly trusted and trusting employees who loved working with her.  If I could somehow get them to help remind her when she fell back on bad habits perhaps it would help her make the changes we were all looking her to make.

I was watching the movie the Patriot starring Mel Gibson.  His men had been captured by the British and he was on his way to negotiate with General Charles Cornwallis to release them.  He was carrying a large white flag.  He was safe from attack.  He had information Cornwallis wanted to hear.

The white flag is an international sign of truce or ceasefire, and request for negotiation. It is also often associated with surrender, since it is often the weaker military party which requests negotiation. A white flag signifies to all that an approaching negotiator is unarmed, with intent to surrender or a desire to communicate.  The American Red Cross has a similar symbol to protect neutral parties help the wounded in a war or a disaster.

If I could get the trusted employees to use the White Flag® in the moment they could help her make the desired changes.  She had good intentions.  She wanted good performance in her department.  She was not using the right methods and needed help to remember.

The White Flag® tool is important to provide safety for both the giver and the receiver of feedback.  The White Flag® is about learning and not about attacking.  The White Flag® initiates a valuable discussion about process and method.  It optimizes learning about method while minimizing or eliminating the possibility for criticism.

My client was able to hear the feedback from her trusted employees exactly when she needed it.  She was able to make the changes needed to her method of communication. She stopped being threatening and intimidating.

How does the White Flag work?  What is the technique?  The next blog will clarify. Stay tuned.

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 Management Personal Development

Three Reasons Why Feedback Can Be Fearful

Have you ever had to tell someone something but you hesitated?  Perhaps they said something hurtful.  Perhaps they disappointed you in some way.  Instead of speaking up, you avoided the confrontation.  You second guessed your position.  You may have even made up excuses for the offender’s poor behavior.  Giving effective feedback can be quite difficult and if it’s avoided can cause even more damage.

For years I personally found it very difficult to give effective feedback to others.  In my first business partnership I experienced difficult situations.  My partner would often embarrass me in front of clients.  Or perhaps he would omit important information for me to do my job.  I was often caught being either confused or ineffective in front of clients.  I always found excuses not to give him feedback about these difficult situations because I was afraid.

Eventually the partnership had to be dissolved.  Over time, I came to realize that I contributed to the demise of our company because I lacked the ability and willingness to tell him the truth.  It was at that moment I decided to commit myself to giving necessary feedback without fear.  I created the process called Fearless Feedback.

There are three major reasons why feedback can be difficult in organizations.  First, our definitions are confusing.  Feedback can be misinterpreted as criticism.  People do not like to be criticized and most people are fearful of delivering criticism because it won’t be easily accepted.  It is interesting how 96% of people want feedback if they know it can improve their performance. (Folkman, 2014)  Furthermore, 92% agreed that negative information is effective if delivered properly. (Jack Zenger, 2014)

A useful distinction is needed.  Feedback is data for the purpose of learning and criticism is an opinion or judgment.  Unless we make this clear distinction confusion and resistance will be the result.

Second, many managers will avoid being seen as a judge of behavior out of fear of making things worse.  This explains why many of us hesitate to say anything. We don’t want to make things worse than they already are.  We fear damaging trust and relationships by speaking our truth and so we remain silent.  Many fear they will be seen as biased and their insights will be rejected.  This rejection can cause hurt to the giver not just the receiver.

Third, many managers were never taught how to give effective feedback.  This lack of knowledge damages confidence.  A lack of confidence not only damages the credibility of the information but it can also create fear of loss of credibility by the giver.  A loss of credibility is the greatest fear in the workplace. (Kathleen D. Ryan, 1998)

What if there was a way to change our mindset about feedback such that we welcomed it with open arms?  What if there was a way to deliver it without fear?  What if people expected it and felt obligated to both give it and receive it? The next two blogs will explain the details of the Fearless Feedback process including what it is and how to use it. Stay tuned.

 

 

Folkman, J. Z. (2014). Feedback-The-Powerful-Paradox. Retrieved December 26, 2016, from http://zengerfolkman.com/: http://zengerfolkman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/ZF-Feedback-The-Powerful-Paradox.pdf

Jack Zenger, J. F. (2014, January 25). Your Employees Want the Negative Feedback You Hate to Give. Retrieved December 26, 2016, from https://hbr.org: https://hbr.org/2014/01/your-employees-want-the-negative-feedback-you-hate-to-give

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

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.

Why Feedback can be Fearful

How to Know When to Give Feedback

Categories
Growth Human Resources Leadership Personal Development

How to Know When to Give Feedback – Be a Supportive Reporter

Ever since Adobe, GE, Microsoft, Accenture, Deloitte, and SAP decided to radically change their performance management processes HR exerts have been touting the need for managers to give more frequent, less formal, and more useful feedback.  But how does an effective manager know when to give feedback?  Furthermore, do managers even know what to give the feedback about?  Putting aside how to give the feedback, let’s focus here solely on when the timing is right and the role of the feedback giver.  I suggest managers and leaders need to be “supportive reporters.”

In my experience, there are two clear situations that can trigger useful feedback.  The first is when integrity is broken.  The second when a process has too much variation.

Imagine you are a weather prognosticator (meteorologist).  You call for rain and it doesn’t rain.  Should your boss give you feedback?  Wouldn’t you already know that was a mistake?  Would your boss’s feedback help you to learn something new? If not, what’s the purpose?

Did you lie? Do meteorologists lie?  I know what you are thinking, do they exaggerate just to get ratings?  This seems to be especially true when a snow storm is forecast.  The reporting often seems a bit sensational and people scurry to the grocery store to empty shelves of water and milk.

If meteorologists don’t lie, then what was the root cause of the mistake?  Was it the computer models used to forecast?  Was it the data used to enter the models?  Maybe we don’t even know.  Obviously, the meteorological process has too much variation.

Again, there are two clear situations that can trigger useful feedback.  The first is when integrity is broken.  The second when a process has too much variation.

When people break their promises (agreements) they damage performance for themselves and for others. Any broken agreements require immediate feedback.  An agreement is like a promise.  It is a specific and time sensitive task where a predictable process is used to achieve it.

Delivering information completely and on-time can be considered an agreement.  Arriving on-time is an agreement.

In an organization (a system) people are interdependent.  If one person expects something from another, and they don’t get it, their performance will suffer.  If the meteorologist expected new data from an affiliate and did not receive it on-time, the quality of their prediction will suffer.  The affiliate broke an agreement.  The affiliate needs feedback to prevent that from happening again.

Anytime an agreement is broken, there is an immediate opportunity for feedback. The feedback discussion will focus on preventing that agreement (promise) from being broken in the future.  An apology from the offender might also be appropriate. The discussion will center around improving the process to keep the agreement next time.

This past Sunday I was supposed to be the lector at the Church. It was not in my schedule on my phone and so I showed up at the Church not expecting to be the lector. Somehow I made a mistake and mis-read the schedule.  I still don’t understand how that happened.  I just missed it. A friend of mine had to stand in for me at the last minute. I had no idea I made a mistake (broke my agreement from the perspective of the Priest and the lector coordinator) until she called me later that morning and told me I had broken my agreement.

She and I laughed about it. She was loving and caring and funny in her feedback. We laughed even though I was embarrassed.  I immediately checked the schedule (and my phone) again to be sure that wouldn’t happen again (my process).

We need to be sure employees are aware they broke an agreement and that you and others know they did it as well. Because it is so important employees understand and appreciate the need to keep their agreements, feedback in these situations is essential.  It’s important everyone self-manage their own agreements and the feedback encourages this skill.

Be a supportive reporter and a coach for integrity and help others if they need help.  My friend in Church was a supportive reporter.

The second reason to give feedback is when a process needs improvement.  This is a bit more complicated and usually requires the use of quality improvement tools.

When integrity is broken and when processes need fixing are the two triggers when feedback is needed.  Anything else might be interpreted as either micro-management, and or bullying.  Be a “supportive reporter” instead.

How-to-Know-When-Feedback-Video

Categories
Growth Human Resources Leadership Personal Development

Avoid Triangulation: How to Save Time and Money in a Conflict

Avoid Triangulation: How to Save Time and Money in a Conflict

Have you ever been pulled into a conflict between two employees?  Two employees have an emotionally charged discussion, they fail to resolve the conflict and one of them comes to you, “Joseph is refusing to do his work.  I am sick of it.”  What do you do? Do you get in the middle?  Do you call together both employees to discuss the issue?  Don’t do it. It’s a trap.  It will likely waste your time and damage profitability too.  What can you do instead?

We learn this triangulation technique at an early age.  Triangulation is when a third party (neutral) is brought into a conflict for the purpose of reaching a resolution.  Here is a typical example.  Two children are playing and one does something the other doesn’t like.  Before you know it, “Mom!!!  Joseph took my toy!!”  Triangulation is a demonstration of either laziness or a lack of skill in resolving conflict.  It’s understandable in childhood. Children don’t know any better.  It is dysfunctional in the workplace and needs to be avoided.

There are three reasons why you should avoid being pulled into the middle.  It will likely waste your time.  It will rarely create a lasting resolution.  It will teach dependence.

Wasting Your Time

According to an Accountemps Survey in 2011, “Managers who were interviewed said they spend, on average, 18 percent of their time — intervening in employee disputes.” (Keeping the Peace: Accountemps Survey: Managers Spend Nearly a Full Day Each Week Dealing with Staff Conflicts, 2011)  Imagine you could save nearly 1-1/2 hours a day (seven hours a week or nine weeks per year), how much more could you accomplish?

Unlikely a Long-Term Resolution

When you are pulled into the middle, staying neutral is a big challenge.  Your biases will get in the way of appearing neutral to both employees.  One or both will likely see you on one side or the other.  This will prevent a solution from sticking.  Any perception of bias will create a perception of weakness in the quality of whatever solution is reached.

Teaching Dependency

If you insist on stepping in the middle of a conflict, what is the likelihood the employees will get you in the middle next time too?   It’s highly likely and, if employees depend on you for conflict resolution, innovation, productivity, and profit will suffer.

Correct Strategy

If getting in the middle should be avoided, then what is the correct strategy when employees can’t resolve their own conflict?  If you are being dragged into the middle, there are 3 key actions you can take to reverse the trend. First, identify the type of conflict.  Second, provide the correct tools.  Third, facilitate a discussion with the employees to resolve their own conflicts.

Identify the type of conflict

There are two sources of conflict, interests and positions.  Conflicts of interests are serious and very difficult to resolve. It means that the two people (or organizations) have totally different foundational priorities.  The Palestinians and Israelis have conflicts of interests.  Israelis desire to live in peace practicing their faith, living in a democracy and operating in a capitalist economy.  Many Palestinians want the destruction of Israel.  In organization, the existence of conflicts of interests are likely an indicator of a leadership failure.

Conflicts of positions are much easier to resolve and offer the best opportunity to innovate.  Imagine a couple want to take a trip to New York City.  The husband wants to drive.  The wife wants to take the train.  They both share the same interest, i.e. a trip to NYC.  They disagree on how, the position.

Conflicts of position offer an opportunity to talk and possibly negotiate.  Organization should have a very high percentage of conflicts of position. Any conflicts of interest are a failure of leadership skill and/or communication.  These types of conflict indicate a lack of clarity of the context.

Provide the tools

If it is a conflict of interest then, as a leader, you must get to work!  Clarify the vision, mission, values, strategy, and leadership model.  The lack of clarity has trickled down through into the minds of the employees.  You must ask, “Have we clarified the vision, mission, values, strategy, and leadership model for the organization?”  Any confusion about these five key cornerstones will likely create unnecessary conflicts.

If it is a conflict of position, it is a perfect time ask, “Do the employees have negotiation skills and/or experimentation tools and do they have permission to use them?”  The learning cycle is a perfect tool to take ideas and test them.  The learning cycle (Plan-Do-Check-Act) gives employees empowerment to test their positions.   A position is a theory. For example, in my NYC example, the husband might say, “Honey, if we drive we will have a better time because we can relax and leave whenever we want.  Can we try it this time, and perhaps take the train next time?”

Conflicts of position require emotional intelligence and specialized tools to lead emotional discussions.  Providing these tools enables employees to resolve their own conflicts.  Providing these tools is a leadership responsibility.

When you prepare the context and provide the tools, you can transform children into adults.  You will create an environment where you no longer have to be in the middle and you will observe employees independently resolve issues and create innovative solutions that the “middle-person” never could.   Facilitate a discussion to encourage employees to use the tools and create their own solutions.  Let them do it. Prepare them and turn them loose.  It will save you time and make you more money.

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.

Keeping the Peace: Accountemps Survey: Managers Spend Nearly a Full Day Each Week Dealing with Staff Conflicts. (2011, March 15). Retrieved from http://accountemps.rhi.mediaroom.com: http://accountemps.rhi.mediaroom.com

Categories
Growth Human Resources Leadership Personal Development

3 Methods for Lasting Change We Can Learn from Jesus

3 Methods for Lasting Change We Can Learn from Jesus

There are many things we can learn from Jesus even if we are not Christian. One important lesson is how to be a change agent for our teams, organizations, or communities.

The ability to lead change is a key competency of any leader and that is especially true today with the speed and frequency of change.  According to Fortune Magazine, only 12% of the Fortune 500 companies in 1955 are still on the list today.  Why? One reason is the inability to adapt to change.

There are three methods we can all use to facilitate change.  I chose the word facilitate carefully because it is not about controlling.  It is about offering options which provide the greatest benefits and which will generate the best results.  A facilitator makes things clear and shows the way. It is up to others to make the choice to follow.

Method 1: Identify a Small Group of Committed People

Don’t try to change everyone.  Find a small group of committed, well connected, and credible people who can help you communicate your very clear and compelling message of change.  This idea was clearly articulated in the book the Tipping Point by Malcom Gladwell. (Gladwell, 2000) Jesus did this with his 12 apostles.  Even Jesus couldn’t save everyone because we all have free will.  Judas didn’t make it even though he had a seat in the C-Suite.

Method 2: Offer Evidence and Understanding to Those Who Doubt

I find the “four stage model” for change useful.  The four stages in a change process are:

  1. First, we start out in comfort with how things are.  There is no need for change.
  2. The second stage is denial.  This is where everything that is not working is someone else’s fault.  “There is no need for me to change because the conditions just don’t justify it.”
  3. The third stage is anxiety.  This is where we know we need to change but we are unsure if it is possible. We may feel shame or embarrassment that we messed up and we can feel depression.  Sometimes we avoid feeling depressed and stay in denial.  It is normal to move back and forth between denial and anxiety especially if the change we are being asked to make is a big one.
  4. The final stage is insight.  This is where we try something new to address the desired change and it works. This gives us hope that we CAN make the change and it is working. This is the positive feedback stage.

Providing those who are in denial and anxiety with empathy, understanding (love) and data helps them to get the insights they need to make the changes.

Jesus had big advantages with the miracles performed.  We don’t necessarily need miracles to help people move through the four stages (although it would help).  We need empathy, clearly articulated benefits, clearly articulated consequences, and data for all those in denial and anxiety.   Thomas doubted Jesus’s appearance to the apostles after the resurrection.   Thomas wanted data and Jesus provided it.

If we can support those who are doubtful and give them an opportunity to demonstrate the new behaviors, they are more willing to make the change.  It requires data, support, fortitude, and emotional intelligence to make the change work.

Method 3: Create a Ritual

Jesus created the ritual of the bread and wine to help everyone remember him and His word. To help people remember the clear messages and the benefits we need a ritual.  Find one, create it and stick with it. I encourage clients to use morning huddles to reinforce the values of the organization.  This frequency of reinforcement is like a ritual that reminds everyone they made a choice, it is working, and it is benefiting them personally.

Other rituals that reinforce positive change include:

  • Consistently facilitating agreements with people instead of telling them what to do.
  • Looking for processes that need improvement and delegate the “fix” to the staff instead of doing it yourself.
  • Hold more frequent huddles and communicate how organization is doing, express appreciation for all the excellent work, and tie the results to the change initiative.
  • Jesus was an excellent change agent.  If we can apply his methods, we can become profound change agents too.

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.

Gladwell, M. (2000). The Tipping Point. Malcom Gladwell.

Categories
Growth Human Resources Leadership Personal Development

Frequent Performance Feedback: What’s the Point?

A client called to discuss an employee’s poor performance.  Although the basic work was getting done, there were behaviors the manager (and others) wanted to see improved.  It seems the employee would often disappear.  The department employees being available (or reachable) always was essential to serve colleagues (internal customers) who often had urgent questions.  These questions need to be answered or internal projects would screech to a halt and cost the organization significant loss of revenue and productivity.  My client was uncomfortable and was asking for guidance.

 

The client asked me, “How do I get my employee to be at his desk when he is needed?” The typical manager would likely make specific demands and/or make threats such as insist on frequent meetings to assure compliance with the demands.  Or, he/she might threaten to possibly hold a negative performance review rating.  What’s the point of these?  Control?  Control techniques are often outdated and ineffective in our knowledge economy. Employees can always find ways around the arbitrary rules.  My client knew this and thus the reason for his call.

 

Many, if not most of the firms transforming their performance management processes are recommending more frequent and informal feedback in place of formal performance review meetings.  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.

 

This all sounds seductive but what’s the point?  Managers are not very skilled at delivering feedback and they claim to have no time to deliver feedback more frequently.  These are barriers, but the bigger reason to be cautious before jumping on the “more frequent” bandwagon is the dysfunction caused by a flawed context. If organizations shifted their context from control to self-management it would make an enormous positive difference in performance while requiring less time for managers.

 

Delivering feedback more frequently, and less formally, in a dysfunctional context will not make things better.  In a control context, 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.”

 

I recommended a different approach to my client: facilitate a set of agreements with the employee.  An agreement is a specific, measurable, and time sensitive task that is delivered with a predictable process.  I recommended my client facilitate agreements around being available.  I suggested he reinforce the importance of being available.  He then asked the employee, “What agreement(s) are you willing to make to be sure you are available always for our internal customers?”

 

Instead of making demands to follow a process that the manager created, the manager shifted the responsibility for creating a process to the employee to keep his agreement.  This shift (in context) allows more effective feedback without the demand for forced frequency.  If the employee can be more available, the process the employee created worked.  There is no need for feedback from the manager.  If it doesn’t work, then feedback is appropriate.  The feedback will be either about the process needing improvement about the broken agreement. Either way, the feedback is needed and can be immediate.

 

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. Either we learn how to better keep our agreements, we learn how to improve a process, or we learn when we did something extraordinarily positive and want it repeated.

 

Forcing more frequent feedback without a good context (the point), will not deliver the desired results.  Managers and employees will likely get tired of meeting so frequently.  The arbitrary calendar demand to give frequent feedback will likely not deliver enough learning.  By asking, “What agreement(s) are you willing to make to self-manage?”  the context changes to self-management and away from manager dependency.  This puts the responsibility where it really belongs, on the employee and not on the manager.  Frequency is great but what’s the point?  Learning is the point.

 

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.