photo by keela84
ChangeThis has posted another excellent set of presentations this month. One that deeply struck a chord is Flow, Flee or Fight.
As always, it’s worth the full read, but for those leading teams and running companies there is a lot to be gleaned by reading between the lines.
- Engagement is fluid and ever-changing. People are constantly evaluating the level of effort they should exert. The outputs will typically match the inputs. When they feel appreciated and when they feel their work is valued and valuable they increase their effort level. This is not saying people are lazy. Just that they work by the Golden Rule.
- People are present, but not there. Most of your workforce shows up every day and does what is expected of them. But most have a lot more to give. Your job is to extract that available effort. To do that you have to remember that effort is like a tap and you’re not in control of when it flows. You can only make sure that everything is in place for the tap to work. One place to start is by assigning work that may be just over the head of your employee and make yourself freely available to support.
- Change and disagreement is good. Often, those who push back are actually engaged. They push because they care (not always, but give the benefit of the doubt). So be cognizant of how you handle disagreement. Create the structure that gives people the ability to push back against the status quo. It’s your job to listen and figure out what is best for the company. Sometimes it’ll be necessary to have people move on, but having the value system in place so that people can voice what isn’t working for them is crucial. As is having the system in place to end the disagreements and get back to work.
Following the golden rule never hurts. If you start to treat people as you’d like to be treated and start listening to what they say, but also for what their actions are saying then you’ll be in a better position to harness effort and channel the ‘negative’ energy into something positive.
photo by jspace3
Thanks to Lijit I can see what folks are searching for when they arrive. “What Employees Want From Their Jobs” has been hitting the top of the charts frequently lately so here goes:
It depends.
Horrible answer, but people are all working for different reasons. The best employers try to get to the bottom of what indviduals want rather than looking at their workforce as a single entity. I’d recommend you start by asking them. Ask them repeatedly and don’t accept their first few answers. Most people haven’t actually thought much about this. Press them. Then ask again.
So contrary to what I just said, I’m going to try drawing some broad generalities as a starting point.
- Control of their destiny. One needs to know what constitutes excellent performance and what it will take to get a raise, promotion or more responsibility. Further they must have the leeway to perform excellently. When politics, bureaucracy and subjectivity take the control out of their hands rewards are perceived as arbitrary. Randomness isn’t exactly inspirational.
- Trust. Be an ‘insider.’ Trust in your people to hold sensitive information close to the vest. Bring them into the fold. Being on the ‘inside’ and breaking down the ‘us vs. them’ barriers is a great way to establish allegiance. In particular, give them the information that impacts how they do their job or could fundamentally change their world. Poor communication begets poor action. It fosters resentment and ultimately makes you look bad anyway.
- Compensation fairness. It’s usually not about how much one is making as it is about the perceived fairness of what they earn relative to others. Often salaries are a function of what gets negotiated initially. And new employees are often ‘valued’ more than existing ones (3% annual raises don’t add up as quickly as job-hopping). Assume the information will leak. Admins and communal printers are quite efficient at identifying inequity.
- A challenge. More often than not, people want a chance to grow. They want to stretch themselves, learn and try new things. Find ways to give them the chance to fail but give them the support to maximize the chance they won’t.
- Important work and a chance to shine. Not everyone likes the spotlight, but everyone likes to feel like they’ve done a great job on something that really matters. Ensure people understand how what they’re working on helps the company accomplish the big goals and then find ways to get them the credit they deserve in a way that suits their personality.
A job is a lot more than a paycheck, a bowl of M&Ms and health insurance. Intrinsic rewards are far more meaningful and lasting. If you see your team as more than cogs in the wheel and want to build a sustainable business then focus on what those intrinsic rewards are for each individual.
This has been sitting in the queue for a little while, but I wanted to point to a great post by Fred Wilson on making all big decisions only after a face to face interaction.
His context is checking references, but I’d like to expand upon it further. This post was a screaming reminder of how important our physical presence is and how it changes the tenor of our conversations.
Leading teams requires face to face communication. Leadership is about more than the content of the communication. A well crafted email or IM is great. But that rarely inspires someone to go the extra mile.
photo by seite-3
Leadership is bequeathed based on how you make the other person feel. It’s far easier to show appreciation, respect and interest in another when you’re communicating with both your actions and your words.
- Walk around. Don’t underestimate the power being the one who takes the initiative. It’s a humbling move that says you respect the other person enough to make the effort to see them.
- Leave your door open. Your physical space says a lot about your approach to work. A closed door gives off the aura that you’re guarded. Information can then only flow outward when you open door. Find ways to make yourself even more accessible. Is it reasonable to sit with your team?
- Be present and interested. Approach people even when you don’t have anything business related. If you’re only around when you need something then it creates a very transactional, one-way relationship. You’re not an airline and they aren’t your customer. Care a little.
- Ask for their opinions. It’s work. You don’t have to be drinking buddies, but it’s hard to respect someone when they don’t care about what you have to say. Solicit their opinions in an informal setting - like when you’re hanging over their cube.
- Show thanks. When a job is done well, thank them. Yes, it is their job to do their job. But showing appreciation doesn’t kill you and shows that you recognize when they put in some good thinking and effort.
Our communication patterns have changed. It’s way too easy to use email or IM out of a misguided sense of efficiency. But…
Don’t forget your shoes. They are the most important weapon in your leadership toolkit. Wear them out.
photo by The Rocketeer
It never ceases to amaze that ‘leadership’ teams continue to hoard information and attempt to keep secrets from their organizations.
The rationale is (pick one or get creative and combine a couple):
- It’s sensitive information
- If it gets out someone may get hurt
- It has the opportunity to be misconstrued
- Nothing is final, things could change
- ‘They’ don’t really need to know
- It will be disruptive, people will lose focus
Information is power and it’s human nature to try to stockpile power. But it’s also human nature to want to let others know that you are on the inside. That is often a more powerful motive. Thus, information leaks. ALWAYS. Admins talk. Executives tell their non-executive friends. They tell their friends. Before long everyone knows.
So why aren’t we more transparent?
Presumably you hired people to join your team because they were competent, responsible and had a lot of value to bring to the company. Shouldn’t you trust them?
Let’s look at the pros and cons.
Pros
- There may be some things where knowing will cause more damage (nuclear passcodes are all that is coming to mind)
Um, help me out here…
Cons
- You become a boss who is to be obeyed rather than a leader who inspires people to follow willingly
- You look like a fool and, like the boy who cried wolf, don’t get the benefit of the doubt again
- People share the valuable information even more widely because it’s taboo
- You fail to get potentially valuable inputs from people lower in the organization
- You treat people like children, they’re going to act like children
- The ‘us vs. them’ gap widens dramatically and work becomes just a job to ‘them’
- People are more hurt when you don’t show trust in them than in whatever the news holds
Your company’s goal should be to best your competition. To do that you need everyone pulling in the same direction.
Hoarding information only succeeds in creating rifts and demotivating. Often what you were trying to prevent (hurt feelings, misinformation, information finding its way out of the company, etc.) happens anyway and in a far more severe manner.
People have active imaginations and will create a situation far more dire than the one from which you were hoping to protect them. Or they’ll put their own spin on it and pass it along. Remember the game of telephone you played as a kid? Or when you don’t give people the trust and respect initially they won’t be likely to respect your desire to keep the information private once they know.
So let it out.
- You’ll ensure everyone knows the same thing
- That all the information is as accurate as it can be
- You can share the caveats that should come with the information
- You reinforce the fact that you all play for the same team
- And, shockingly, by sharing you’ll ensure that the information is more tightly controlled outside of your organization
photo by sassyart
When have you ever come out of a performance evaluation more energetic and ready to kick some serious ass for your company? Doesn’t matter if it is glowing, that one negative (because there always has to be something) will sit with you and fester.
This has been on my mind for a while. It is, after all, a multi-month process that is only this month coming to a head for many companies. After running across an old post from Bob Sutton, the head of Stanford’s d.school, where he wondered about the usefulness of performance evaluations it was time to chime in.
Performance evaluations, as most are implemented, could not be more detrimental to our organizations. Period.
Showing incredible restraint, I’ll limit my rationale to ten reasons. They,
- create internal competition amongst people who need to work together
- give manager’s an out for not giving consistent on-going feedback
- deliver ‘feedback’ that often comes completely out of the blue
- mandate we stack rank everyone on the team, even high-performing teams
- often use misaligned goals as a yardstick (or defunct goals established 12-months prior)
- are not consistent between groups under different managers
- are useless for promotions since those are often dictated by the manager who fights hardest for their employee
- often measure the interpersonal intangibles for which training and support is rarely offered
- reaffirm an ‘us vs. them’ mentality
- are highly susceptible to the failings and neuroticism of the evaluating manager
- bonus: are incredibly subject to recency biases
Not just useless, but counter-productive.
Try holding a weekly review instead. Set aside 15-minutes at the end of the week for some two-way communication and focus on the individual’s own goals and their effectiveness within the team. I’d suggest knowing and reviewing goals on both sides weekly and then answering questions that will help make your relationship more productive and keep the employee engaged.
Some starters:
- How much progress was made in helping the employee reach their stated goals
- How could you be more effective in helping the employee accomplish, learn, progress
- What opportunities would the employee like to take on
- What did you appreciate
- What went really well
- How effective was the team (team success or lack thereof is also the individual’s)
- What didn’t work for you (keep this short, provide a clear example and demonstrate why it wasn’t the most effective approach)
- What did other team member’s do that helped the employee be better
That said, if you lack sincerity, don’t come prepared to these meetings or are just looking out for number one then these will still be worthless.
Being a coach (translation: manager in today’s archaic vernacular) means prioritizing your employees and helping them reach their goals in the context of the company’s. It’s not easy. You’re serving two masters. But there aren’t too many people who can do it well so it’s a huge opportunity for us to differentiate ourselves and our companies.
Some performance evaluations may work for what they were designed to do. Regardless, I’d still suggest they be done weekly instead of annually.
