How To. . .

I'll tell you how. How to build individuals and teams. How to create conditions for motivation and engagement.

Here it is: If you are a manager giving an assignment, be clear about the "what"--then let your people deliver on how it will be done.

Why? Because you hired them for the how. Think about it. You looked at resumes and then hired people who had something that seemed unique or different. When you tell people how to do their jobs, you take away their identity. We all want to contribute. And that contribution is in the form of the unique way--how--we do our jobs.

Action: Define and get commitment on what you want done--then let people use their unique talents to decide how to do it. They'll grow by using their own trial-and-error process to perfect their methodologies.

You'll be seen as the manager who knows how to develop and engage your team. Suddenly, you'll find people approaching you and asking "Hey, how do you do it?"

Comments

[Mary Jo Asmus]

Steve,

Great post. And we are totally aligned on this one! I spend a fair amount of time with micromanagers helping them to understand the difference between "what" and "how". You've illuminated the difference and why it is important well.

Interestingly, even seasoned execs get caught up in explaining, ad nauseum, the "how". It's not hard to see how this can stunt the growth of their people and organizations. Yet, when a manager learns the difference between "what" and "how" and uses it appropriately in the way you've described - magic can happen.

[Steve Roesler]

Mary Jo,

I think we may get to the heart of this more than most people working on the "inside". When coaching, we start watching and diagnosing what's going on, especially when data show us that people aren't "engaged."

The "how" appears as a result of that kind of observation.

[peter vajda]

Hi Steve,

You say, "...When coaching, we start watching and diagnosing what's going on, especially when data show us that people aren't "engaged." The "how" appears as a result of that kind of observation."

And, if conscious and discerning, so does the equally, or more importantly, "why" it's not working or folks aren't engaged. Too, it's about whose "what" and "how" and "why."

[Dan Erwin]

Steve: The what and how are terrific. My clients and I, however, add why from a different perspective. When we teach delegating or coaching, the why puts the coaching into the context. We do know from research that unless the context is clear, the learning will not be as effective.

We call the delegating/coaching process, "why, before how."

[Steve Roesler]

Peter and Dan,

It's been fascinating over the years to watch people who are willing to go with the "what" and "how", but not necessarily (at least openly) want to explore the "why".

I, for one, am so darned contextual that it's virtually impossible to get to the What and How without it.

Obviously, "why" demands more soul-searching and intentional effort--as well as self-disclosure. Like you, I'm not confident in the path forward until the "why" is openly identified and discussed.

Thanks to both of you...