Change: Being at The Same Place at The Same Time

Today's article is the fourth in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

Change?: Hit Delete, Insert "Desired Result and People"

"Gee, I hope I'm a target today?" 

That's not real high on my wish list when I'm getting ready for work in the morning.

But in case you aren't aware of it, there are a number of Change Management programs that use the idea of Change Sponsors and Change Targets. (If you aren't in the first group, breathe deeply and get in touch with your inner-dartboard).

One of the assumptions here is that whoever wants to start some kind of a change will have to go through a lengthy process of breaking down the (assumed) resistance of those Target people. The underlying dynamics of these models have kernels of truth that make them appear somewhat sensible and unbelievably marketable.

Consultant, standing if front of executive group: "How many of you have ever tried to get people to follow your ideas but were met with blank stares or even worse, resistance?"

Executive group: "Oooh, aaahh, our work lives and bonuses are in jeopardy because of resistant weasels. You are unbelievably insightful. The gods must be appeased. Do you have some incense and a suitable human sacrifice, preferably someone from HR?"

Consultant: "If I could show you a way to achieve your change without burning incense but only sacrificing the HR dude, when would you want to begin?"

Executive group: "Get the HR guy. Now"

Consultant: "This process, when followed correctly, only takes 2-5 years to get the Targets totally on board. Tell me about the change you want to make.

Executive group: We want people to stagger their summer vacations so that there's always 90% coverage in all of our work groups.

Consultant, stroking chin: "I think we can do that one in a year and a half."

Executive group: "Wunderbar! When do we get the darts?"

Us and Them

Once you introduce an Us and Them relationship you've set up a self-fulfilling prophecy. People who would have welcomed the chance to jump in and roll up their sleeves now find that they've been designated as potential problems. What's the natural human reaction to being labeled a "target" and "potential problem?" You feel justified in  becoming more of a problem than anyone ever imagined.

At this point, the consultant ("See, I told you so") looks brilliant. The program then rolls out in its entirety, takes on a life of its own, and continues until victory is declared regardless of the outcome.

Is There Another Way?

"Why did we hire 55,000 brains and only use three of them?"
    Woody Morcott, CEO, Dana Corporation courtesy of Wally Bock, who adds:

"Sometimes the best way to get people to the same place with you is for you to go to that place together."

We looked at the see-saw model in Part II        and        Part III (click to enlarge).

What would happen if changes and improvements started off like this?

We talk a lot about the importance of making decisions closest to the source; the power of teams, and participation.

Why not just acknowledge the totality of the collective brainpower, bring people together at the beginning, and start trying things out while learning together?

I think Lee Thayer has some good insight on this:

"We’re not very good at thinking about interdependence in our culture. We’re more of a something-caused-something-else kind of culture. We have nouns and then we have verbs, so we are susceptible to thinking that the leader causes what followers do. If you consider that critically, you can see that it doesn’t quite work that way. I might be able to kill you, but there is no way I can force you to like me – or to follow my lead. Children understand that very well before they are forced into a somebody – caused – somebody else to do this or that view of the world."

Is there a relationship between ineffective change and the "single great leader" syndrome?

Is the notion of "disruption" a clever but equally ineffective substitute for maintaining the equilibrium people need in order to feel safe enough to take risks?

If you liked this, I think you'll also like:

Yes, They can: Real Life Change

Initiating a Change? Think About This

 

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Change: You're Here, They're There, Now What?

Today's article is the third in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

Follow Me! (Please?)

In Part 2, our fearless leader reached a point of peace with the new "big thing" for the company. The journey wasn't--and isn't--a straight-up curve on the Grand Graph of Life.

Now that everything is crystal clear, it's time to "bring the troops along" and excite them with the power, insight, and sheer brilliance of the changes ahead.

Here's what that looks like visually:

Our change leader now has a group of people seven months behind on the intellectual/emotional time line. But the expectation is that they'll "get on board", "step up to the challenge", "be team players"...(sorry, I'm running out of buzzwords. So let's just continue on a path forward and get granular while at the same time viewing this from 30,000 feet).

I know that you know the scenario above. If you've ever held a job--anywhere--you've been at one or both ends at different times. For some reason it's the norm rather than the exception.

When The Change Process Replaces Original Intent

Nick McCormick's comment on the last article led me to this response:

"There was a time, not all that long ago, when companies made improvements by simply starting to do new things. The introduction of grand theoretical models of change added an intellectual understanding of what people experience, and need to experience, during changes. That's fine--I like and need mental models. But I watched it morph into the "We can't change until we have a change project" movement. Now there is an expectation that a grandiose process must accompany every improvement that takes place. Processes are supposed to enable results, not have a life of their own."

Does that mean we shouldn't pay attention to the dynamics? No, not at all. We need to understand them in order to help other people move through whatever they need to move through. More importantly, if this is the model that's used, we need to understand why we didn't "get there" overnight either

But I think there's a bigger issue. My issue is with the insistence on needing to follow a model of grand change that creates an "Us" and "Them" dynamic to begin with. Or, one that even assumes that changes can't be made by doing, then learning, along the way.

What do you think?

We'll look at both of those issues in the next post.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

How Do People Process Change?

Today's article is the second in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

We Don't Process "Change"

"Change" is confusing.

We want to process specific words and images that make sense. Tangibles that we can see, touch, taste, smell, feel...or at least as many of those as possible.

We want Sticky: "By November, 2008, we want to increase our customer base 10%, revenues 20%, and build a new facility for research. That means a more secure future for us and a little more space for everyone who has been working in tight quarters. Let me share where that idea came from and why I think we can do it..."

Hmm. I have an idea how I might contribute to that. And I'll be happy to get rid of my cubicle mate.

We often get: "We're going to build our market share and revenues to increase shareholder value, improve our state-of-the-art research, and facilitate the facilitation of facile facilities".

Oh, you heard that one before? Sorry. But as Dr. Phil would ask, "How's that workin' for ya?

I'm going to offer up a post on the Language of Change later in the series. Today I want to highlight the process, time element, and what they mean for those involved in initiating changes.

Where Change Begins and Why That's Important

I watch leaders, managers, politicians, and spouses (myself included) get into unnecessarily difficulty trying to make things different--and hopefully, better. The reason:

Changes demand personal processing time, from the initial idea to the announcement and then to the doing part. We all sort of know that, but don't always acknowledge the implications once we become excited about the change!

Here is a look into the time line and process of the person who is generating "the big idea":

You are the initiator of the big new idea. You spend days and weeks falling in love with it. Along the way, though, you aren't so sure. You start to resist the practicality of your own creation.

Discouragement and self-doubt set in. So you ask for information and education. You even reach the point where you need to verify it with other trusted business leaders who have tried something similar. Finally, you accept your own idea and internalize it. It's yours. And it will work. You can see the possibilities as clearly as if the reality already existed.

You've completed the process of personal, internal acceptance and are a believer.

Why?

You have enough specific, concrete evidence to overcome self-doubt.

And you've totally forgotten about the emotional roller-coaster ride you took in order to get here.

What Do You Do Next?

You announce, with great enthusiasm, "We are going to change!"

For some reason, your loyal follower(s) don't respond with the same verve.

They question what it all means, how you know it can work, how it's better than what you have now (and how do you know that?). They even tell you why "it" probably "won't work here", and ask "OK, what do you want me to do?'

Those weasels are showing the "resistance" that you read about in one of those books.

Now: Work your way through that graphic above one more time.

Think about the totality of time, study, rumination, discussions, self-doubt,and the emotional highs and lows that had to happen before you--one person--"got on board". And it was your own idea to begin with.

Here are two questions:

1. What do leaders--initiators of change--need to do to genuinely help others arrive at the same place?

2. What has your experience been on either side of the initiative?

Join me for the next installment : How to increase understanding, acceptance, commitment, and participation.

If you enjoyed this article, I think you will want to read:

• Align Yourself Before You Align Everyone Else

• Initiating a Change? Think About This
  

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Making Changes, Leading Changes, and Changing Change

Today's article is the first in a series about Change from Steve Roesler.

What Are You Changing?

Apparently enough that more than a half-million authors & publishers are willing to bet their time and energy that you'll buy one of their books.

They're probably right.

You and I are making, leading, or responding to changes every day. What we really need to know is:

What is the healthiest, most effective way to address the changes in our lives?

So that's the real focus of this series. I'll keep it practical and applicable to life and life in the workplace.

Why is Change So Interesting?

1. Because it happens to everyone and has the "I can't believe this!"/ "Can you believe this?" factor. As a result, it's probably one of the best conversation starters available.

• "Do you believe who got promoted in IT?"

• "Ten pounds? Well, let me tell you how I lost 20!"

• "We don't need one more new housing development."

• "I don't know where I'll end up after the new organization is announced. Can you believe they're doing this again?"  (Organizations are places where stamping something with the "new and improved" label doesn't necessarily make their "customers" go "oooohhh".
  

2. Job Changes Are The Norm and A Process To Be Mastered

George Mason University and the Potomac KnowledgeWay surveyed 400 employed college graduates at least ten years out of college and under age 55. While gathering information about the importance of learning in the lives of the respondents, they also found that:

On average, college graduates have had 4 jobs since college with at least 1 more job change expected in the future. Many (32%) respondents in the Information Technology industry believe that they will have at least 2 more job changes in the future.

Those with advanced degrees changed jobs 1 more time than those without post-graduate degrees.

The majority (51%) of all college graduates interviewed have changed careers at least once since college. This is true regardless of industry or type of degree earned.

3. "We've got to change!" has become an acceptable managerial substitute for "Let's really find out what we need to do better."

Any pronouncement and promise of "change" by a leader or management group will:

• Fend off critics for some period of time

• Create an aura of hope followed by disappointment and cynicism if nothing worthwhile happens

• Cause employees to wince and wonder, "What does 'change' really mean and, most importantly, what does that mean for me?"

If any of this strikes a chord with you hope you'll spend the rest of the week checking in here at All Things Workplace. I also invite you to do two things:

1. Check your RSS reader or the site more than once a day, as I will be posting more than once.

2. Pass along questions, bewilderments, experiences, and solutions about Change. It really is all about learning together.

See you soon...

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Real-Life Change: Offer More Time, Less Judgment

"Effective in November, you will have to work 40 hours per week for 40 hours pay."

Huh?

I spent Wednesday and Thursday of this week working with a client on that announcement, the related context and details, and then helping conduct the meetings that followed.

At first glance, you'd really have to ask yourself, "What's the big deal here?"

But it was a big deal, and here's why:

1. The people affected (admin support) had been hired under a set of work rules that stated you would receive 40 hours pay for a 35-hour work week.

2. The company had been spun off from a Fortune 50 firm in New York City that had, over its 150 year history, determined that this was a good thing. No one alive today remembers why. Just that it was the policy and it was deliberately carried over. Which meant that:

• Some of those affected had worked for the original company and had as much as a 28-year history  of coming to work every day under one set of rules.

• Those hired in the past 15 years accepted their positions based on that explicit agreement. The implicit part of worklife--'things can always change'--wouldn't have been stated as part of any usual hiring process.

What's the big issue?

It is not about 40 hours work for 40 hours pay. Some of those involved have periodic demands that prompt a 14-hour day and even the occasional Saturday. For some, their work ends up in the hands of the Board of Directors, Wall Street, the media, and large clients. They understand the impact of their contributions as well as the importance to their bosses and the company.

The issue is life and relationships.

1. The life and relationships that each has established for themselves and those who rely on them.

2. The necessary predictability required to get kids off to school, care for elderly parents, swap duties with a spouse at a given time, and attend college classes or a choir rehearsal.

Just so you know, no one was really surprised that the policy was put into place. These are smart, committed people. And the company had no punitive or underhanded reasons for the change. To be clear, the change means that there will be a standard 40-hour week to allow for consistency in real-time responses to external constituencies and internal operations. It also creates a parity that didn't exist before as a result of individual scheduling based upon a boss's own work habits.This is a global company needing more predictability to get the job done in a marketplace with new demands.

Those affected can still go to their bosses to work out exceptional circumstances. As a result, people will cross-train in different areas so that issues of support, backups, and backups for backups become as seamless as possible. The bosses will have to be more deliberate in their granting of exceptions based upon the potential impact on their colleagues' work. The backups may, in fact, "belong" to another executive.

So How Did It Go?

Even though it was no big surprise, reality is always similar to a cold shower. It creates a discomfort that makes you realize just how well things were going before the water starts hitting you.

Those affected spent a lot of time thinking out loud about train schedules, kids' schedules, and all-things-personal that would have to be addressed. It would be a stretch to say there was an outpouring of joy. The time needed for specific questions and the ebb and flow of the discussion would have thrilled a group dynamics instructor.

But it will work for three reasons:

1. It was the right thing to do for the business and the shareholders, and ultimately the employees' longer term security.

2. The people involved know that, from an intellectual and business perspective, it was the right thing. Not just for internal reasons. The marketplace has changed and those changes reach into the way the organization needs to operate.

3. Deciding to opt in or opt out over the long run is a choice. Those who opt in--and my bet is it will be all or most--will move on successfully. So will anyone who decides to take another path.

Here's the most telling and honest statement made:

"I think this is right. But I don't have to like it right away."

Don't ask people to fall in love with something new and tell you how wonderful it is, even if they think it's the right thing to do. We all need time to reorganize our thinking, our schedules, and our lives.

Roesler's Rule of Change #3.21 (too may engineering gigs): Change really doesn't make sense until each individual makes personal sense of it.

If you enjoyed this, I think you will want to look at:

• What Does Your Implicit Contract Say?

• Ann Michael's Why Don't Companies Change?

• Are you tormenting yourself over the unkown?

• Intitiating A Change? Think About This

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

When Work Life Becomes Life

"I am often astonished at how deeply CEOs really love their work. Some have gone as far as sharing with me, "You know, Tony, as much as I love my family, it's work for me to leave this place, to leave the office and spend time with my family—as much as I love them." I even had one client tell me that if he had to give up either sex or running his company, he'd give up sex."

Anthony Smith, consultant and author of The Taboos of Leadership...from a Business Week interview with Marshall Goldsmith.

If that isn't enough to get your attention, according to a new report only one half of one percent of men in Japan take time off to be with their families. That from Tom Stern in his Fast Company article Wins of Our Fathers.

What You Can't Not Do

Readers here will recognize the expression. When people ask about pinpointing their strengths and talents, my first response is always "Look at what you can't not do." It's in your DNA. And if you have  leadership DNA, which seems to be intimated as well in the Business Week interview, then the inclination would be to lead. And to want to do it well.

At the same time, the very gift that allows leaders to successfully run large, healthy, organizations has the the potential to contribute to unhealthy families. If we really believe, as is so often touted, that "children are our future", then what are the future consequences of absentee parents? Are we setting the stage for young people to figure out life by watching their parents on media clips rather than receiving guidance across the kitchen table?

I'm not offering a sweeping criticism of leaders who love their work. In fact, I'm banging this out before heading to two days of client meetings away from home.

What I am suggesting in light of the articles above is this:

Really good leadership requires a soul-searching journey. Regardless of DNA or ambitions, living a full life as an effective adult also means weighing the totality of our responsibilities, choices, and their consequences.

Leaders are talking, with pride, of "giving back to the community" in order to help create a better world. That's great.

What are you giving or taking away from your family that will have even more impact on them and the world in which they'll have to live as a result?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Leadership DNA: Myths, Your Brain, and a Real-Life Leader

Now 77, Joe K. was a successful senior vice president at a major Utility during its most challenging period. He exhibited every characteristic of every definition of leadership throughout that time. I figured he'd had about twelve years to reflect on his leadership and probably had arrived at some conclusions on the topic.

So yesterday we played catch-up over a long lunch. His interview was the first in a series to gather real-life experiences for a collaborative publishing venture. The final product (book) will give readers a look into how the mind processes leader-related experiences and then how you can apply the outcomes in practice.

What nuggets did my client-turned-friend have to share from eight decades of life and leadership?

1.  "Leadership is either in your DNA or it isn't."

Ouch. Was he saying that all of those "You Too Can Be A Leader" tomes are filled with false hope for readers and potential big bucks for authors? A myth?! His answer:

No. It's that I realized early on that I didn't learn anything about leading until I tried to lead something. Only after I examined what had just happened and my part in it did I learn anything. Books and workshops gave me a way to frame what I had learned as well as some language to go with it. But none of that had any meaning at all without being tied to an activity.

What about the Leadership DNA part?

If you keep reading books but aren't leading any differently or more successfully as a result, you probably don't have it. That's fine. Exercise some self-leadership and find out what you are really good at. Then do it well. We need really good managers and solid employees who get the job done day after day. And they need the right amount of recognition for their contributions instead of being barraged with "leader this" and "leader that".

What's in this Leadership DNA that makes a person different?

2. "You're really an entrepreneur at heart."

For some reason, when I started out I never thought of my work as anything other than 'my business'. I ran everything as if I owned it. I don't know why. That's why I keep thinking about the DNA thing. It's who I was, who I am. But I did notice that other people I respected-- and who got things done--acted the same way. Honestly, I think leaders are really people who just won't take "no"for an answer if they are pretty sure they are right about something. We want to get out in front and shout "Let's go!"

That doesn't mean running over people or being disrespectful. To the contrary. I learned that if you want to take people someplace new, you have to respect their thoughts and experiences as well as always being straight and simple about what you are thinking. Chances are they'll show you how to actually get it done. But not if you haven't given them respect in the first place.

Looking back, are there specific skills that can be learned to use that DNA well?

3."Ask the right questions then shut up and listen. But actually listen."

I came from a financially poor family in a time when many of my childhood friends were equally as poor. It wasn't expected that we would go to college. I was even discouraged from going to college for reasons that seemed quite valid to my family. But I found ways to make it happen that didn't place any burden on them.

College taught me how much I didn't know. And I discovered that I have two characteristics that 'conventional wisdom'--at least in the U.S.--would have me doomed to leadership failure.

• Public speaking doesn't thrill me although I like connecting with people.

• I'm introverted according to any measure you choose to use.

But my engineering training taught me how to ask meaningful, probing questions. Aha!

I began asking questions (doesn't take long) and listening, really listening, to the answers. Do you know how much you can learn if you do that?! So I realized that I could play down my areas of discomfort but still lead as a result of how much I was learning. When it was time for action, I pretty much knew the whole story.

It's  strange. Ambitious people often get up in meetings thinking they have to show everyone how much they know. They believe that they'll automatically be viewed as leadership material as a result.

I wouldn't have had the confidence to lead on certain issues as often as I did had I not soaked in the collective knowledge and wisdom of the people in the room.

After the recent Leadership Series I was eager to hear Joe's reflections on the topic. Once we began talking, I was struck by his emphasis on learning leadership by "experiencing" leadership. I confess, it fits with what I've been emphasizing but it was unexpected in it's intensity. He was quite adamant about building people through experiences and letting them--and the organization--determine their capabilities as a result.

Robyn McMaster sparked my thinking, too, with how Brain Myths Shape Your Choices.

What are the conventional wisdom myths and brain myths that seem to be impacting Leadership in your organization?

If you enjoyed this post, I think you'll want to read:

• Ten Life Lessons from Business

• Five Good Articles on Leadership You Can Read Today

dna graphic from www.csb.yale.edu/.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Communication Problem? Maybe Not, So Try This

How many workplace issues are introduced to you as, "We've got a communication problem?"

"Communication" Doesn't Communicate

Communication is a catch-all phrase. It's  generic, socially acceptable, and really just sends the signal that someone wants to start a conversation. But it probably won't end up being about communication.

Psychologists and counselors refer to these kinds of introductory pronouncements as "presenting" problems." They're  a call for help when someone doesn't know what to do or may not even be aware of the real issue.

Unless you know the genuine issue, you can spend a lot of time creating an elegant solution for the wrong problem.

In organizations, communication is the #1  presenting problem.

The next time someone lays a communication issue on you, follow through with:

"That sounds interesting. Help me out. Describe specifically what you see happening and why it's a problem."

You may discover that the Marketing group refused to follow guidelines from Research and ended up slightly misrepresenting a product.

You don't yet know the cause. But you do know the real situation and where to focus your energy.

How many presenting problems can you uncover today?

If you've got a favorite "presenting problem" story, toss it into the mix with a comment below. You may help someone else see how to probe and work on the right thing at the right time.

And if you enjoyed this post, you might also learn from: Use The Right Words At Work

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Leadership: Plucky, Lucky, and Sometimes Sucky

This is the last in a series in conjunction with John W. McKenna's  leadership challenge Why Most Leadership Sucks, Even Yours. It was originally posted yesterday. Shortly thereafter, half of the post disappeared.
 

For every wartime Winston Churchill whose pluckiness sparked a country's determination, there are political, business, and military leaders who will tell you with honesty: "Sometimes I've just been plain lucky." No doubt Churchill felt those moments, too.

As for the "sucky" ones, we all have our own personal horror stories. The talented, evidenced-based  Bob Sutton just won journalism's Quill Award for best business book with The No Asshole Rule. Commentary on bad leadership and bad behavior abounds. And it sells. It's even cathartic, like watching a "reality" show and thinking "Wow, I'm glad I"m not as crazy as they are!"

But it doesn't necessarily make you any better. Is your goal really to be "comparatively less worse"?

Now that's sucky.

What do you expect from leaders and why?

I've written before about the power of implicit and unspoken rules and expectations. I believe the same is true of leadership. Our expectations (and those of leaders themselves) are often the result of:

A. Unspoken or misguided information and beliefs about what actually makes leadership effective

B. The absence of a clearly demonstrated, universal understanding within an organization that says, "Here's what to expect from leadership in our company. If you want to work here and advance here, this is how we get things done. "

Learning from the Sometimes-Unpleasant Truth

Watch very carefully; my fingers will never leave my hands:

1. Leaders get paid for Larry The Cable Guy "Git 'er Done"   results.

2. Many people get upset when leaders don't do it the way Mr. Rogers  did it.

3. The truth is, we may have a hard time handling the truth. The Ambiguities of Effectiveness was presented in April to the Society of Industrial and Organizational Psychologists by Dr. Robert Hogan. His data pinpoint Dark Side characteristics of effective leaders as well as the  Bright Side. I'd suggest that you read the findings multiple times to really digest the implications.

A couple of items struck me immediately:

First, if many leaders wrestle with an internal tendency toward "naughtiness" and "living on the edge" a bit, we may be fortunate that there haven't been more Enron and Tyco-like scandals. Perhaps its a tribute to self-awareness and self-discipline on the part of many in leadership positions.

Does this mean that we should begin to de-emphasize ethics and morality in order to give leaders a full head of unbridled steam?

Hardly.

If anything, it explains the need for accountability, increased self-understanding, and attention to ethics by B-Schools, Boards, and leadership development initiatives. It also signals a call for leaders to be surrounded by people with "do the right thing" influence.

Second, the findings on vision ought to raise some eyebrows. Dr. Hogan allowed that the entrepreneurs (leaders) in the sample were less visionary and more pragmatic than their managerial counterparts. I'm not surprised. After years of conducting assessments, other research with which I've been involved shows rather clearly that what we commonly call vision" is a talent possessed by only about a third of those in leadership roles.

What does that mean? It means that we ought to stop expecting everyone at the top of every organization to possess "vision". Or, if we think vision is so important, then assess and confirm in every way possible the existence of that characteristic.

The Impact of Understanding

In "B" above I stated the need for organizational understanding about being clear regarding what leadership actually means in the organization. I haven't experienced any group that does this better than the military.

From Day 1 it's clear who leads, who follows, how both of those are supposed to happen, and when roles, responsibilities, and actions are to changed based upon situational criteria. And from Day 1 everyone is put into situations that promote leadership skill-building.

Code of conduct, rewards, sanctions, and performance standards for everyone are spelled out in detail. There are procedure manuals that tell you where to find the other procedure manuals.

Overkill? Not when the consequences are death instead of a loss of market share.

The clarity that comes from this attention to detail is actually freeing. Regardless of one's position in the grand scheme of things, the clarity and definition allow each person to focus on excelling in one's role. Feedback is continuous. I could go on.

Am I recommending that organizations use the military model to create software or sell widgets?

Nope. The model wasn't designed for that. Yet there are principles such as clarity, organizational understanding, and constant "doing" that make leadership development more effective.

What can you do in your organization to use those principles to your advantage?

Make it Real Like Dean Does

Language makes a difference. The list of "competencies" we see every day ultimately are seen as politically correct buzzwords that make eyes glaze over.

When it comes to playing "follow the leader", see if the brief note below doesn't pretty much sum it up for you. It was sent along by long-time business executive Dean Fuhrman who still takes time out of his busy schedule to add to the conversation and share his experiences. Here's Dean's take:

Steve - Here is my list of what I want in a leader - - Treat me like an adult ... in return I will do the same for you - Tell me the truth ... even if there are various shades and even if it is bad - Talk to me ... let me have some time to develop my own insights into the situations at hand, and then let me participate - Admit your own mistakes - Lean on your strengths and recognize your limitations (even publicly) and then fill them in, even if it takes letting someone else take over in that area - Be collaborative - Don't be a jerk - Help me be my best ... help me liberate my strengths/minimize my weaknesses - Work "with" me ... we're all in it together anyway so be with me Interesting, I think any follower should follow the same model for any leader they are following.

Thanks, Dean. What do you all think?

Postlude (Sorry. I'm a musician)

After five consecutive articles on leadership, I've learned--or remembered--that leader development is,indeed, a life-long process. If you think you've arrived, you definitely haven't. Why? Because you've subtly announced that you'll now stop or slow down your learning. Pick your favorite leadership model. You'll see that Learning is an ingredient. So, by definition, those of us who are committed to leading have committed to a life of learning.

When John W. McKenna initiated this whole challenge, he generated a horde of followers and contributors. Thanks, John. You showed leadership that did not suck! For that, John deserves your vote for his manifesto. The deadline is September 16 and I've already weighed in with mine. Give John some manifesto-love right now.

Finally, the series has revealed the personal, ongoing nature of becoming a leader. We spend a lot of time critiquing those who are trying to move organizations--and even nations--successfully into the future.

But here is the real question that I believe, if responded to, will make a difference:

"What are you going to do to become the kind of leader you think they should be?

If you enjoyed this post, I think you will also like:

• Leadership, Management, Mintzberg, and Sensibility

 

• Lots of Leadership Training But Still Lots of Bad Bosses?

 

• Is Leadership Development Process or Projects?

 

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Leadership Glitch! Correction in Progress

Somehow my final post in the John W. McKenna leadership challenge series was fully published then half of it disappeared. Can't figure out why.

Argh!

I am in the process of re-writing the post.

Steve

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Leadership: What About These Factors?

This is the fourth in a series in conjunction with John W. McKenna's leadership challenge.

So far, we've looked at influence, a real-life leader story, and the idea of viewing leaders as people, not roles.

What about the multiple factors that are impacting leadership and leaders today?

Here are some that may not be so apparent.The list is incomplete and I hope you'll add to it. I've seen or experienced each one as a manager as well as in my consulting practice. Some are disguised as good things and conventional wisdom. Others you may not have thought about.

Leadership and the Not-So-Obvious

The Leadership Movement

I believe that the leadership movement, replete with books, tapes, and clever sayings has (with good intentions) created as many problems for leaders as it has solutions. Here's why:

1. It has elevated leadership to a god-like practice with god-like qualities. Yet it is practiced by ordinary men and women.

2. The manager/leader dichotomy is intellectually understandable and helpful in delineating the skill one has to exercise in a given situation at a given time. Otherwise it is bogus and, from observation and experience, actually gets in the way of organizations accurately viewing the development of their people. I've never seen a manager who didn't have to lead. Nor have I ever seen a "leader" who didn't have to manage.

3. The range of attributes used to describe effective leaders are relatively standard. You won't find substantive differences among respected writers, researchers, and practitioners.

• No one can be a "10" on all of the stated attributes. No one. Do everyone a favor and don't expect it.
  

• Organizations need to spend some time pinpointing the handful of qualities that are most important in executing the strategy. Focus on hiring and building leaders with those qualities and inclinations, and help them become adequate in the others. But do make them become adequate. If they say it's too much of a struggle, then let them know that that's how you learn.

• Take a page from physicians: You can't cure every illness. Do no harm.
  
  Sometimes the best thing a leader can do is no harm. Make sure that yours have the discernment to know when to make that call.

4. Leadership development is still, for the most part, classroom-based. People are reading books or hearing lectures about leadership. Uh, that's called "increasing one's awareness." There are good programs to learn about leadership. The most useful classroom programs that I've run involve computer-based simulations that require decisions that impact financial, customer, and employee outcomes.

If you're going to actually develop leaders, then let people start leading from the get-go. You can't tell if someone has long-term leadership potential unless you--and the individual--check to see if anyone will follow them.

I can't tell you the number of times that some client has said, "What we do is important! We can't afford to have young/new people managing a project or running a big-time meeting. It's too risky."

OK, fine. When it's time to activate your succession plan, do so with the knowledge that people with absolutely no experience in managing/leading will now have the capability to make mistakes costing  hundreds of thousands of dollars instead of a few thousand.

4. Start doing "What About Bob?" development. Baby steps. (This is related to #3).

Before every leadership  program in which I am involved (sure, I do those, too), I ask participants to rank the value of their development activities to-date. Every one--I said every one--is emphatic about job assignment and small project leadership being the major influence on their development.

What about classroom learning? They said that it gave them a good conceptual model to fully understand what they were experiencing and to develop mental models for their own variations-on-a-theme.

What and How: Potential Conflict

When we sign on with a company, we are saying that we agree with what it wants to do and that we're willing to receive compensation in order to help achieve it. But the sticking points start to emerge when the "how" begins: how we'll do it, how you do it, how come we're working harder than they are, and how can we do it better?

The "how" issue is important because the how helps define our uniqueness and our unique contributions. How we do something is the expression of our expertise. In fact, starting at certain levels in an organization, it's why we were hired.

If leaders get in the way of the how without good reason they'll see a decline in initiative and commitment.

Leaders, Followers, and the Relationship

As strange as it may sound, some people don't like it when the word "follower" is used. In an age when cashiers are "associates" and trash collectors are "sanitary engineers," it's not surprising that egalitarianism would make it's way into the workplace.

Yet if we demand that the heads of our organizations be effective leaders, then we better understand that they can't live up to that expectation without followers.

My online friend and EQ expert Galba Bright describes the productive adult leader/follower relationship in this way:

The most effective leaders I've observed often lead...however, they often follow ..in the sense of eliciting the views of their team and enabling them to shape the direction of the organisation...part of it involves enabling people to lead themselves..it is a messy, frustrating and often very rewarding process.

What works for me is the idea of influence, because it encompasses a range of nuances and behaviours that go far beyond issuing orders for followers to carry out. Sometimes one influences by direct orders, another time, by showing a very deep understanding of the person that you're seeking to influence.

Galba's right, of course. People who are effective in all areas of life know when a situation requires strong, even non-negotiable direction and when a goal is best served through the right degree of participation with the right people.

Are there any other factors that are not-so-obvious but really important to effective leading?

I'm going to add a couple tomorrow in the wrap-up post.

But I know you probably have a shopping list from your own personal experience, so take a moment and let the world know (all enlightening comments cheerfully accepted!).

photo attribution:  www.sphoto.com

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Leadership: Is It About Them or Me?

This is the third in a series in conjunction with John W. McKenna's leadership challenge.

Leadership, Choices, and Implications produced heartfelt comments  that show just how personally leader effectiveness is perceived and experienced.

The leader described drew reactions ranging from "he's clearly not a leader" to (my paraphrase) "He could have been better, but he was a good leader".

I Know What I Want And I'm Right

Why the bi-polar responses to the same leadership story?

Because each of us has an idea of what is "right". And what's right bubbles up from the inner depths of how we think things should be. That can be very useful, since it creates a gap that shows where there might be potential for improvement.

But it can also cause an overpowering idealism that clouds or ignores the many realities of a situation. If the idealistic power is so great, one's ability to see clearly can become vastly distorted. If so, the willingness to understand, empathize, and forgive is often replaced with selfishness and callous judgmentalism.

Business leadership is especially prone to this phenomenon. While millions are reading and writing about the way things could be and should be, those in leadership roles still have to "do it." And they have to do it while finding some way to at least minimally satisfy the myriad and idiosyncratic needs of shareholders, boards of directors, regulatory agencies, managers, and employees. At the same time, they have families to care for complete with PTA meetings, ball games, health issues, and the inevitable deaths of loved ones.

Try This

So here is my suggestion for a healthier view of leadership and a way to bring additional peace into your own working life:

Start humanizing leaders using the same lens of reality and forgiveness with which you view your own humanity.

At the same time, stop demonizing them by making them actors whose "role" is defined in light of the ideal that exists only between the covers of popular books.

The books are about potential. So are people.

What's Ahead?

We'll look at the impact of the leadership "movement", whether or not the leader-follower label is a dichotomy or a relationship, and then, to honor John's endeavor , a peek into the "suckiness" factor.

A word of thanks to Alex the Chief Happiness Officer , the always-brainy Dr. Robyn McMaster , real-life executive Dean Fuhrmann, thought leader Peter Vajda, and the coach who will accelerate your momentum, Joan Schramm, for the thoughtful comments that added to this post. And to Galba Bright: the followers will follow shortly.

If you enjoyed this post, I invite you to continue with:

• You, Your Boss, and Your Organization

• Work Satisfaction: Is Your Heart At Peace?

• Forgiveness Is Good Business

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Leadership, Choices, and Implications

This is the second in a series in conjunction with John W. McKenna's leadership challenge.

"I Have Always Been a Leader"

For a number of years I consulted to the CEO of a publicly-traded global company who proudly stated, at every opportunity, "I have never held any position other than 'executive' since graduating from university."

That was partly true. He was so good at his particular financial discipline that his first employer gave him an executive title (even though he was an expert individual contributor). It was a good recruiting tactic.

As things go in the wonderful world of corporate life, that title immediately landed him in the company's succession plan. He was promoted regularly and ultimately did end up managing people (obviously).

In fact, he liked to refer to himself in company meetings and events as "Your Fearless Leader".

Diagnose This!

For your evaluative pleasure, here are some behavioral facts:

1. His apparent listening skills were almost non-existent.

2. After asking a question he would allow a brief response. Then, without fail, he would interrupt the respondent--regardless of who it was--and go on a seemingly endless dissertation regarding his own question and why he was right.

3. His "people skills" as defined by current standards of "minimum competency"  wouldn't get him a certificate of completion in a 101-level workshop.

4. He spent almost no time on issues of management or leadership development. During his tenure there was no intentional initiative of any scope to grow a new generation of skilled managers.

5. Once, before walking onto the stage to make a speech, he turned to me and said: "Mr. Roesler, if I get a standing ovation it is because I am, indeed, the 'fearless leader'. If I do not, it is because you screwed up when you wrote the speech."

5. His relationships and reputation with Wall Street and the financial community were second to none.

6. The company experienced consistent, incremental growth during his tenure.

7. There was little to no employee turnover during his tenure.

8. He knew or cared little about organizational theory yet was a keen student of profitability.

9. Although he talked about himself constantly, I never once heard him speak ill of anyone else.

10. He was consistently clear about a narrow range of objectives. Everyone knew what they were.

11. If he said "We should do this", people did it.

Was He a Leader?

When he looked over his shoulder there were always people following. So according to yesterday's definition posed by no less than Peter Drucker, he was indeed.

Most importantly, he was the right person at the right time for what the company needed: big picture financial direction.

People responded to his direction because they knew it was the right thing to do. His ability to influence came from the acceptance of his expertise.

Yet by all of the fancy and sophisticated measures and techniques promoted today, he would be seen as--well--"sucky." The shareholders, directors, and employees didn't think so. They settled for "eccentric" and got on with things. One of those things was not a group hug.

Was he as  effective as he might have been?

Heck, no. With just a little attention to tuning up his EQ I believe his name would be a household word.

But that wasn't his goal. His goal was to lead a profitable company and then retire.

He did both.

Yet he made choices along the way that impacted the longer term health of the organization:

• Neglecting management development created a weakness in the ability to deal with a changing marketplace and related financial challenges.

• Likewise, that lack of management sophistication and skill have left the managers unarmed in the fight to help their people understand and address the changes as they unfold.

• Relying on his own strength worked well as long as he was healthy and his expertise was what was needed.

• Ignoring his ongoing personal development has consequences for those who followed him and who he chose to interrupt at all of those meetings.

Our CEO friend was not a failure in "in the moment". In fact, he was a successful leader during his tenure.

What comes to light is the importance of the long-term legacy and implications of one's leadership choices.

Leaders, Followers, and Long-term Growth

Here are three questions that seem to naturally emerge from this example and that we'll continue to pursue in the series.:

1. Does the long-term growth of any entity mean that its leaders need to be constantly attentive to their own long-term growth?
   
   
2. And in the case of our CEO friend above, did his lack of "followership" experience diminish his leadership experience?
   
   
3. Is there such a thing (in this day and age) as a legitimate leader-follower dichotomy, or does that mindset weaken an organization?

What do you think?

If you enjoyed this post, I think you'll also want to read about Wisdom, Discernment, and Integrity in Your Organization

photo attribution: movies.yahoo.com/

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Leadership: It's All About You

This is the first in a series in conjunction with John W. McKenna's leadership challenge.

You know it and I know it:

It is time--right now--to stop recycling, re-packaging, and re-labeling attempts to microwave new leaders into  existence. Yet that approach must be important, fascinating, or both, because it's a huge moneymaker. Look at this:

Leadership books at Amazon: 216,369  vs. 105,009 for Nutrition & Diet. There are twice as many authors and publishers banking on people wanting to become leaders than caring about becoming healthy ones.

Google "leadership" and you can spend the rest of your lunch break reading your choice of 160,000,000 results. Want to know the definition of "leadership"? No problem. There are 9,650,000 search results for leadership definition.

Wow. Are people who are striving to become good leaders trying to satisfy multiple definitions and the myriad of related criteria?

Stop for just a moment. If you were asked by a "leader" how you define that role, what would you say?

After you have a general idea, read on.

Leadership Definitions From Four Experts:

• Peter Drucker: "The only definition of a leader is someone who has followers."
  
  
• John C. Maxwell: "leadership is influence - nothing more, nothing less."
  
  
• Warren Bennis:  "Leadership is a function of knowing yourself, having a vision that is well communicated, building trust among colleagues, and taking effective action to realize your own leadership potential."
  
  
• John W. Gardner: Leadership is the process of persuasion and example by which an individual (or leadership team) induces a group to take action that is in accord with the leader’s purpose, or the shared purposes of all.”

Can You Find the Similarities?

One striking similarity for me is that none of the definitions includes rank or title. Three of the four are explicit about influence and persuasion. Two of the four state or imply process and potential vs. "I've reached it!"

But my favorite is Drucker. He's saying "Look over your shoulder. If you don't see anyone, you're not leading." More importantly, if you have followers, you're leading.

• If it's really that simple, then why do you and I, along with thousands of others, meditate on the deep meaning of "leadership?"

• Do individual definitions vary so much that leaders simply can't win?

• Could part of the problem be that you and I won't let someone lead because we refuse to be followers?
  
  Perhaps instead of arrogant, "sucky" leadership, we sometimes have arrogant, "sucky" followership.

• If it's all about influence and being influenced, what gets in the way?

Whether your role is leading at a given moment or following at a given moment, it is all about you... the kind of choices you make about how you influence others and whether you will allow yourself to be influenced.

Let's continue that conversation in the next post. In the meantime, add your thoughts and experiences to the conversation with a comment. You'll help others see new ways of looking at the issues. That's  influence!

And if you enjoyed this post, I think you'll also like:

What's Ahead for Leadership 2007?

What's Your Unique Talent for Persuasion? Here are 3.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Leadership All Week: Accepting the Challenge

Why Most Leadership Sucks, Including Yours... is a provocative manifesto proposed by John W. McKenna at The Leadership Epidemic .

John issued a challenge:

"While I have some definite opinions on why this is the case, I know that not everyone feels the same way I do. As such, I am trying to develop a more-complete and balanced understanding of what other people think. To accomplish this task, I am challenging Bloggers to post an entry supporting their position."

While I can't yet determine where John is really headed with the totality of his thinking, I'm intrigued by his challenge. And, he deserves a tip of the hat for reaching out in order to add to his own understanding. That's what community and collaboration is all about.

So here's what I'm going to do. Each day this week, I'm going to do one or more short/long posts on the topic depending on my schedule. (Argh! I still work for a living). Each will address some aspect of leadership and reflect:

Why Most Leadership Doesn't Suck, Including Mine...

See you later today.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Help Kids, Gain Publicity, Find the Missing Link Love

Seconds after writing the title to this post, I found out that the Age of Conversation edged over the $10,000 mark to help disabled kids through Variety, The Children's Charity.

Now you can get a copy of the book, help kids like the one pictured here, and gain some publicity and no doubt some author link-love for yourself.

How?

Easy. Buy a copy of the book before September 16 and your profile will be featured on the official Age of Conversation blog.

Visit "Age" co-editor Drew McClellan's blog right now to see how to make sure you get profiled because the kids--and the conversation--are depending on people like you.

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Employee Needs, Silent Communication, and What To Do

Silent Communication appears to be an oxymoron.

It's not.

Silence communicates powerfully. But because it's, uh, silent, the interpretation is left to the recipient.

Is that what we really want?

Dr. Robyn McMaster gets credit for starting this conversation with How Do You Respond To The Silent Treatment?

From her brain-based expertise, she notes:

"When you doubt and feel anxious, cortisol, a chemical hormone literally floods your brain and nervous system. And, it throws you into a tizzy so you do not think clearly."

Which means that silence causes confusion. But we don't like confusion. So we add our own meaning to the silence in order to reach a state of equilibrium. However, Robin's insight shows that our mental state at that time is actually weakened, so that our conclusions may prove to be less than ideal.

Silence doesn't cause a vacuum so much as it does an irrational mental spiral. That's a formula for trouble in any setting.

Making Someone Disappear and Re-Appear

The act of making a suggestion or comment--then being greeted with total silence--can be insidious. Why? It communicates that a person's very existence isn't being acknowledged. It's very different than the impact of "Gee, I don't know if that idea will work or not" or "Let me think about that."

The second shows relational acknowledgment and engagement and can be built upon. The first discounts one's being.

If your 'hearing" silence, ask this: "Help me understand whether my (comment, suggestion) is a questionable one or are you thinking about it?"

Getting the conversation going again--even if the answer is "I think the idea stinks"--is better for the soul than being deemed non-existent. And can probably lead to an actual productive conversation.

What if We...

...began intentionally teaching about the impact of silence?

I confess that after years of leading seminars and workshops I only address the issue when it arises as a question. More often than not, it's in a consulting situation rather than in the classroom.

What I've learned from hearing myself write is that it's time to become purposeful about silence, communication, and what it means, to one's self and others.

Makes sense to me. What do you think?

Related articles you might like:

• Workplace Conversations Can Mean Workplace Security

• You, We, I--Relate and Communicate

• Great Communicating Thoughts from Bert Decker

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Employee Needs: Workplace Spirituality a Workplace Reality

Here's how this got started:

1. Graeme Codrington's Corporate Chaplaincies post from an article in The Economist grabbed my online attention.

The factual heart of The Economist article is that spiritual support is being made available to workers in many places. I found the "spirit" of the article to be snarky and condescending to people of faith.

2. While reading the articles, I received this brief email:

Steve

Thanks for your time.  I appreciate your help; does this make you (company name)'s
spiritual advisor?

What had I done?

I had spent about an hour listening to a client's struggles for which I had no solution. The only thing I could do was acknowledge the depth of the situation and how it must feel.

But I was struck by his reference to the spiritual nature of the interaction.

3. Science Daily popped up on my RSS reader with the research finding Thoughts Related to God Linked to Altruism.

Researchers Azim Shariff and Ara Norenzayan found that people just having thoughts about "God concepts" increased altruism.

After discussing their experiment, Shariff said:

"These are compelling findings that have substantial impact on the study of social behavior because they draw a causal relationship between religion and acting morally -- a topic of some debate."

Based on a lifetime of experience and observation I can't say that the conclusion was startling. But for those seeking research-based evidence to help put certain pieces of life together, the findings could be profound.

Why Does Any of This Matter in the Workplace?

Everyone who has ever held a job knows that workplaces are social communities. They reflect the breadth, depth, intellect, emotions, and expertise of the people who inhabit them. And people are inhabiting them for longer hours due to demands for productivity.

At the same time, organizations ask for engagement and commitment as well as espouse the merits of "authenticity".

What that really means is that companies are asking for the "whole" person to be present.   

If that's true, then any fragmentation of one's "self" would, by definition, weaken one's ability to  engage completely and in a fully authentic way.

Asking employees to park the spiritual foundation of their belief systems at the door is, therefore, a recipe for weakness. Just google Workplace Spirituality and you'll find that this post is only one of the 1,780,000 search results. The reality of spirituality has meaning to many.

What's going on in your world of work when it comes to faith and spirituality?

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

What Does Your Implicit Contract Say?

When 300 engineers at a major East Coast utility were told to re-apply for jobs in their department as part of a major reorganization, they were livid.

"I've been here 18 years."  (Longevity means immunity to change)

"I hired the idiot who's running this thing." (If I gave someone their job, they won't mess with mine)

"They already know what I can do." (I only have to prove myself once)

"No other utility has ever had to go through this." (This place isn't being run according to the norm)

"No one told me this could happen when I was hired." (This wasn't part of the deal)

"My wife and I have planned our retirement for 23 years." ('They' are responsible for my cradle-to-grave existence)

The Danger of The "Invisible Assumed"

When you signed on with your current employer you probably discussed:

Salary, benefits, corporate vision, the marketplace, performance expectations.

Chances are you won't  become really upset as a result of any of those items changing a bit. It's the ones you assumed to be true that will come back to haunt you.

You'll become disenchanted as a result of someone breaking the implicit contract .

The contract that you created in your own mind. Visible only to you.

In the real-life example above, the implicit contract had to do with the unspoken nature of Utilities:

Stable, Secure, Lifetime Employment, Methodical Career Progression...

No one ever said those things out loud. They were just "known."

Q: Do you and your spouse get upset about what you talked about before you got married or what you assumed would be true?

Tips for Employees and Employers

Employees:

1. Before you sign on the dotted line, check out your assumptions.

2. Make a written list.

3. Check out their validity with your prospective company or boss.

Employers:

1. Before introducing a change, take a look at the culture.

2. What is it that drew people to your company in the first place?

    Security? Action? International travel? Work close to home?

3. If one or more of those traditional characteristics (the unspoken attraction) will change, then help neutralize the impact by discussing it openly.

Tell what is going to happen and why. Explain the reality of implicit agreements and that you realize this might be one such example. You'll give people a mental model to understand what they are experiencing.

Finally: What happened to our  300  engineers?

a. They had been told before the process started that no one would lose a job with the company. They would hopefully be better matched as a result of the process. And, everyone did remain employed.

b. The department as a whole was more effective.

c.  About 10% chose to retire rather than  make the change.

What is your implicit contract? How did your employer's reputation contribute to that?

For more on Change:

Making Changes: Does Everyone Know Why Part I

Making Changes: Does Everyone Know Why? Part II

Change or Die from Holger Nauheimer

Photo attribution: www.barco.com

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Employee Needs, Maslow, and Getting It Right

The "Misunderstanding Maslow" Factor

Most of us have been exposed to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. In fact, I've read that it is the most-used model in management training. I think it's also one of the most mis-represented and misunderstood.

Just in case you stepped out of the meeting room that day for an oatmeal cookie and bottled water:

Psychologist Abraham Maslow synthesized the research available up to 1954 about what motivates people. He came up with a shopping list of needs that we all try to satisfy. Have a look at the graphic below and double-click for a larger version.

I've never seen much argument about the content of the list. But the hierarchical implication has been rendered invalid by later research. Yet managers are still told that this is a "ladder that people climb" and that employees must have one set of needs satisfied before they move onto the next.

That means there are still vast numbers of well-meaning managers thinking, "Oh, I really can't start working on high performance until we have all of our "group issues" sorted out.

Not so.

The fact of the matter is that we're constantly chasing satisfaction in all of these areas simultaneously to some degree.

For example: You may be working on becoming an accepted member of a team. But that doesn't stop you from spending a little time adjusting your 401k mix and volunteering with Habitat for Humanity.

The only need that I've seen block the rest of the hierarchy is a seriously unmet Physiological need. If you're worried about your next meal, losing your home to foreclosure, or paying out-of-pocket for a major surgical procedure, the pressure at that level doesn't allow much freedom to focus on anything else.

How can organizations use this for meaningful impact?

Management Policies and Managerial Engagement

This discussion is really a continuation of Unspoken Needs of Employees: Survey and Ignoring Real Employee Needs . (Look at those to see what the expressed needs of employees are right now).

1. Physiological and Stability/Safety needs are met through corporate policies: adequate pay, benefits, and safety procedures. These are satisfied when organizations who claim "People Are Our Most Important Asset" back up the statement by ensuring that these needs are met as a matter of policy and philosophy.

2. The higher level needs can only be satisfied by assignments, development, and solid day-to-day management. This means that "Managers are the Mediators of Meaning" for their people. Respected consultants and writers Wally Bock and Jim Stroup also stress that the immediate supervisor has consistently been shown to have the most impact on one's performance, productivity, and feelings about the workplace.

Every supervisor reading this now has one more tool to talk with employees about where they are and what they need to keep their batteries charged at a given moment. But there has to be conversation as a matter of course.

The Employees Have Offered the Answer

Will you accept the gift?

If your company is agonizing about retention and productivity, the expressed need right now is in the area of health benefits. If you can address that satisfactorily, it looks as if your retention concerns can be reduced.

Managers: If you will take time to interact with respect and invite meaningful participation, you stand a good chance of boosting productivity. These are higher level needs that relate to higher levels of performance. It's your job to meet your people where they are.

Employees have said, "Here's what we need."

Will you trust the workforce and act meaningfully on what is meaningful. For up to 62%, their retention depends upon it.

Here are related posts that I hope will add to your managerial toolbox:

• How Do You Build Up Your People?

• Workplace Conversations Can Mean Workplace Security

• Job Seekers Want...

 

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.

Employers: Ignoring Real Employee Needs Could Be Costly

Unspoken Needs of Employees: The Survey showed us last week that:

• Employees say 100% health care coverage is more important than competitive salary.

• Employees know they are working longer and not seeing a related reward in their paycheck or benefits package.

• Employees want more respect from employers.

• Employees want more communication in the form of being invited to provide feedback on issues.

Will Employers Act on This?

I've read and conducted surveys and studies dating back to the early 1980s. Those studies consistently reflected this: people want more from work than money.

A popular management development exercise emerged following a study of thousands of workers and managers by the American Psychological Association. The results:

1. Managers predicted the most important motivational aspect of work for people would be money.

2. Workers actually said that personal time and attention from the supervisor was most rewarding.

In a recent Workforce  article, "The Ten Ironies of Motivation," Bob Nelson  notes, "More than anything else, employees want to be valued for a job well done by those they hold in high esteem." People want to be treated as if they are adult human beings.

This is about retention. Nearly 2/3 of today's workforce state clearly that an ongoing job search is in progress.

Will the data be used to benefit organizations and the people who make them go?

Coming up next on All Things Workplace: The Cost of Misunderstanding Maslow

Like this article? Subscribe to my RSS feed.