Dumping the water back in the pond

An analogy I often use when working with clients goes something like this:

“If you scoop a cup of water out of a pond and train it to babble, tell it to babble, convince it what a good idea it is to babble, and then dump the water back in the pond…don’t be surprised that it doesn’t babble.”

The underlying message is, if the underlying system or support means are not set up to facilitate a change in behavior, then chances are you spent a lot of time and energy training or coaching someone to do something that may never or very rarely ever happen.  It is not a question of chicken or egg in this case, it is more a case of make the batter? or put it in the oven? – If you want cake – you gotta do both.

Whether you are working to fix a problem behavior or develop new skills, the solution is the same.  Yes, coach and train IF they do not have the requisite skills AND look at your system and see if it supports new behavior (or old behavior).  The greatest way to inhibit change is to not support it. Not only do people do what is rewarded, they also do what they have the opportunity to do.  If they do not have opportunity to exercise new skills/abilities or are being rewarded to do it the old way, then chances are, no change will happen.

I see this most often in developmental training efforts.  People are sent, invited, voluntold, or in the rare case, seek out, training on a new or developmental skill deficiency.  They attend a potentially career changing training and are super excited to try some new stuff. They then return energized and with new skills/tools/awareness/or ideas and either no follow up happens from the manager or there is no support to do anything different. Imagine going to a photography class and then never being given the opportunity to use a camera when you got back. According to a University of Minnesota study, this is the number one reason training is seldom effective as a change method – no support from the direct supervisor to exercise new skills.

If you want change or you want training to be effective, you have to intentionally alter the bedrock upon which people are working, change the environment, give them support, and create opportunity (not just look for it, CREATE it) for them to do something different.  In BlessingWhite’s recent engagement survey, “opportunity to do more of what I am good at” is cited as a top driver for employee engagement.  Moreover, the same report cited that the number one reason people worldwide indicated they were looking to leave their current organization was “My career: I do not have opportunities to grow or advance here.”  People want to be good at what they do and increasing research is showing that not only do we want to be good at what we do, getting better is actually a motivational driver (Dan Pink, “Drive”).

If you want high performance, change, and people to do innovative things, you have to make sure your foundation supports it.  Are you building a pond that stagnates, or are you building a river to keep your organization current.

Monitoring your employees’ time is wasting yours

The truth is, managing people’s performance is hard.  Managing your own is sometimes not even that easy but in a world of varying backgrounds, experiences, knowledge levels, and styles, working with others to achieve a certain result is flat out frustrating.  Made all the more so by a lack of training or competency development when it comes to managing people.  Sadly true, the majority of managers currently in place (including many high level executives) have never received any support or training on how to be a manager.  Add to that the sense of prideful independence that precludes anyone asking for help and we end up with the Peter Principle, where one rises to their level of incompetence.  Thankfully, incompetence can be fixed.

Picking the wrong metrics

The simplest way to manage people is to pick standards that are extremely obvious and substantially objective.  Such as attendance, project tracking, policy compliance, dress code, and best practices.  Yet, managing to any of these in and of themselves does not guarantee exceptional performance.  Quite the contrary, they can actually be demotivators towards high employee engagement.  Increased control over how and when an employee does their work has proven to decrease trust, increase time-lines, and raise the cost of doing business.  Stephen M. R. Covey, author of The Speed of Trust cites numerous examples where low levels of trust impact the business efficiency and performance of companies in a number of ways.  Daniel Pink, in his book Drive, also cites Autonomy as one of the keys to personal motivation.  Asserting that people who have a sincere belief that they are in control of their own lives are more satisfied, more productive, and more engaged.

Managing anything that reduces autonomy and trust often involves managers in the struggle of not crossing the line into micromanagement.  When in reality, any attempt to control how and when your employees do their work could be considered needless (and indeed counterproductive) meddling.  When you think about when you get your best work done, has it ever been in a meeting or when a manager is telling you how to do it?  Probably not.  In fact, most employees cite the most productive times they spend are when they are working remotely or when their manager is out of town.  More than a mere coincidence.

Ultimately, any of those metrics do not have a causal relationship to actual results.  Simply being present does not mean you are productive (as indicated above, sometimes the reverse is actually true.)  Creating best practices may inhibit innovative thinking.  Designing policies may erode trust that people will use good judgment.  Dressing in a suit does not necessarily make someone professional.  So while these things are easily measured and objectively “fair”, they may not be doing anything to raise performance levels.

Perhaps the System is Broken

The converse of micromanaging requires a few key skills that most managers have not been coached on how to develop; namely: establishing and articulating a clear vision, providing feedback, and encouraging trust. In a recent study done by Development Dimensions International (www.ddiworld.com) most mangers over-estimate how they are doing in these areas. In fact, while 87% of managers rated themselves positively, nearly the same amount (89%) had at least 1 or more areas where they had significant deficiencies they were unaware of. The same study indicates that only 11% of the 1,130 managers were promoted through a formal development program, nearly over half (54%) took the promotion simply to make more money.  So the inevitable result is a number of managers who did not really want to be managers and a large majority who were never trained to be managers.

Getting it Right

One of the first questions in any performance analysis tool is “Are the expectations clear?” And while many managers will say they clearly articulate the expectations, the reality that most of them will acknowledge is that most of their employees could not explain it in the same way – a signal of miscommunication.  Bertrand Russel was once quoted as saying “the biggest problem with communication is the illusion that is has taken place.”  So while most managers think they have been clear, most employees leave scratching their heads.  And the reality of it is, most managers aren’t sure what they are looking for either.  They are going from their best guess which is often by how they got promoted…namely being good at the job.  This is where new managers struggle with letting go or holding very tightly to “my way”  mentality, because, after all their way got the promoted.  So it not for lack of trying, it is for a lack of differentiation.  When was the last time you looked back and really thought about what qualities in a certain responsibility you are looking for in order to judge successful completion?  If you are like most of the managers in my classes, seldom if ever you thought in these terms.

And while every activity might not be quantifiable, it is certainly qualifiable.  Take for example “collaboration” as something I expect from my employees.  Many managers would struggled to tell you what this might mean to them in terms of behavior without generalizing into terms like “team player” or “cooperative”.  I am not saying I disagree with those but they are not behaviors, they are judgements created by observing behaviors.  So if I were to try to capture what I would be looking from someone who is being collaborative here are some behaviors I am looking for: listens to coworkers concerns and incorporates alternative ideas into projects, discusses project issues with coworkers, asks questions about others experience, informs coworkers of prior experiences with current situations, shares new ideas with coworkers, offers to work alongside coworkers to finish team projects, asks if others need help, informs coworkers if projects are behind schedule, tells others if inter-dependencies that would affect other parties, etc.  Far from an exhaustive list this is at least a start.  I can now very clearly outline expectations I have of someone’s behavior regarding collaboration.  Simply saying be nice and show up on time is not going to get me the same results as those behaviors will.

Stop following the sheep of ambiguous measures

Being vague or picking vague and ambiguous performance measures wastes your time and damages the trust between your employees and you.  Stop accepting the measures of your predecessors and make sure they actually mean something.  If you are not sure how a measure has a direct correlation to performance (and not an assumed one) then question why you are measuring it, trust me, your employees are.  And if neither of you have a good answer it is probably doing more harm than good.  Be clear about what your outcomes are, what behaviors you expect to help get you there, and then clarify when necessary, you might save yourself a lot of time and increase performance in the process.

Empowerment is just a buzzword

Empowerment is great…if you do it.  But most people don’t.  We give employees ownership but no control or resources.  That is not empowerment as there is no transferral or granting of power.  Managers seems to thrive on control which is a result of a misunderstanding.  Being responsible for something getting does not always mean you have to do it or even control it.  If you truly want to empower your employees you will have to give them power.

Will Schutz, a noted behavioral psychologist, developed a behavior theory that helps explain how and why we behave the way we do, especially with others.  His Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO) Theory espouses that the degree to which we prefer to have control speaks volumes about our fears of being incompetent.  If I can control everything, then I feel there is less a chance anything will go wrong and I will not be seen as incompetent.  Or the reverse can be true; if I relinquish all control then I had nothing to do with why it failed so that keeps me from feeling incompetent as well.  I think this says a lot about why many managers or leaders are afraid of giving up any control.  It might make them feel as though they have failed in some way at either developing their employees, providing good expectations, or coaching for better performance.  If I were competent as a manager then my employees would be great and could do it all perfectly, right?

It is a fallacy that many managers struggle with and quite honestly they are not entirely to blame.  Rarely do they get the training they need to become better managers.  Often the promotions look and sound like “okay, congratulations you are a manager now…let me know if you need anything” and then they leave offering no specific support.  So what else are they to do?  They do what they know and have been rewarded for in the past…and that is doing the task instead of actually handing control over to the employees they now manage.

If you want to empower you employees ask yourself how much control they have over how they do the task, how they manage their schedule, what resources they use, and whether or not they could do it without you.  If the answers are less than you would desire in your position, then you need to seriously look at why you feel the need to control so much of it.  If it truly is because you have incompetent employees, you need to start coaching them or navigating them out the door.

Effective leaders set a clear vision of where you are trying to go (expectations) and give the necessary resources for others to get there (training, authority, control, tools, etc.)  If you want to empower your employees, look at the level of control they have as well as the level of responsibility, if they are not equal then work to balance them out for better results.

Succession planning is bigger than you give it credit

I was chatting with the EVP of People Resources at a large company recently and it was refreshing to speak to someone who gets that succession planning is not a task or an event or development program or workforce planning.  It is all those things and then-some.  Developing internal talent takes time and recruiting talent is expensive, changing culture is extensive and re-branding may only be window-dressing.  All these things by themselves are usually only minimally effective.  Succession planning is a strategic initiative that requires a systems perspective.  Myopic solutions will have limited impact and may not satisfy your corporate strategy.

The Traditional Approaches

The typical view of succession planning can be classified into three categories: emergency planning, succession planning, and leadership pool development.  Emergency planning (also called replacement planning) identifies key positions within the organization and designates individuals that could, in an unexpected situation, take over with a marginal impact.  Envision the organizational equivalent to the U.S. Presidential succession (if the President died while in office, the VP takes over, and so on).  This is typically only a temporary fix and the understanding is the assignment would be on an interim basis until a permanent replacement could be found.  Surprisingly, there are many organizations which have not done even this fairly rudimentary type of planning and they may be leaving themselves in dangerous territory should something happen (ie, medical issues, family needs, fortunate windfall, etc.) to a key executive or employee.  The organizations that do attempt some form of succession planning typically stop at emergency planning.

The next level of succession planning is probably most similar to career pathing.  This form of succession planning takes identified individuals and develops a plan to groom them to replace the person above them.  While similar in some ways to emergency planning in that employees are targeted to fill a specific position, it is different in one very large way.  With this form of succession planning, it is assumed that the individual will need development before being able to move into the role.  With emergency replacement planning the identified replacement is assumed to need very little, if any, training.  With the talent shortage getting more and more perceptible some companies (albeit a minority) are starting to make attempts at targeted development for succession reasons.

The most obscure and least practiced form of succession planning is leadership pool development.  This aims to raise the general level of internal leadership.  Unlike the other forms of succession planning, there is no specific role or next step for participants in this type of development.  Yet, what many organizations lose sight of is that is should still be targeted.  Simply because it is not aiming to fill a specific role does not mean it should not be focused.  While general leadership development is good, the most effective leadership pool development programs work from identified competencies that tie back to organizational strategy.  Regardless of the position, most companies have certain qualities they value in leadership that align with the strategy.  Whether they are implicit or expressed, they should clearly drive leadership development.

Where these approaches miss the mark

Programs or activities tend to be fixed in time and have a beginning and an end.  If succession planning is seen as a program or initiative or even, at a smaller scale, an event then it too will have a fixed time effect.  If you approach succession planning in this way you may end up with a succession plan that gets you through the next year or maybe even two but ultimately the results become obsolete and you find yourself back to square one.

The alternative is closer to a strategic plan or cultural integration, where the timeframe is much longer and sometimes indefinite.  Developing leaders within your company takes a pervasive attitude and a culture integration – something never achieved by a program or an event.  It needs to be a part of your compensation, review, and training efforts.  It needs to be a question in your interviews to determine how prospective employees view development and who is responsible.  In truth, both the employee and the employer is responsible.  In reality we put most of the ownership on the employee, even if managers are talking to their employees about it, the conversations can be lopsided simply because no one ever trained the manager on how to coach, develop training plans, or create stretch assignments.  Employers need to do a better job of not just telling managers they “should” develop talent but giving them the tools, skills, and resources to actually do it, then reinforce and reward it.  If managers are not getting recognized for either doing or not doing the activity, then you can likely bet it will end up on the bottom of the to do list.

I know that I should do it, I know how to do it, I do it, I live it.

Right now, companies are only educating managers on the “shoulds” of leadership development.  Unless succession planning is a strategic line item for each employee’s development, it will never truly satisfy the larger organizational needs and you will find yourself in a continuous talent shortage and watch top talent head out the door.  In order for succession planning to create a sustainable organization, development and workforce planning needs to be a philosophy that is integrated into the culture.  Each manager, regardless of level, needs to see employee development as a necessary part of their function.  And remember, employee development is whatever the employee says it is so be careful to not look at succession planning as career pathing, they are not always synonymous.

Performance Management v Development

I think there is a drastic difference between performance management and performance development. They each serve different purposes and originate from a different philosophy of how employees show up in the work place. One comes from a place of trust and the other comes from a place of distrust.

A Paradigm Shift
A performance management approach tends to a result in an effort to minimize loss instead of capitalize on opportunity. To borrow a philosophy from Marcus Buckingham (Now Discover Your Strengths; First, Break all the Rules), “you ‘manage’ your weaknesses, and you ‘develop’ your strengths.” Buckingham also cites the work of excellent Olympic coaches that focus not on what needs to be corrected but what opportunities can be nurtured. His general philosophy is that your weaknesses will never be your greatest asset so why spend all you time trying to make them great, the better use of your energy is to develop your strengths, that is where greatness can be found.

Performance management of the same vein tends to manage employees weaknesses and therefore will most often not lead to greatness. People get managed to the level of “acceptable”, never to greatness. Another common use of the performance management system is to “manage” people out the door. Again, hardly a model for excellence. Now, I am not saying that occasionally performance management philosophy is not applicable, I simply invite the possibility that it is not an effective mentality if you are looking to maximize your workforce, at best your workforce will be “adequate.”

Development is a key Engagement tool
Another way to look at this is through the lens of employee engagement. BlessingWhite’s 2008 Engagement survey (www.blessingwhite.com) indicated that in North America only 29% of employee were truly engaged and 19% of employees were actually disengaged. But what of that middle group, the people who are capable or energetic, yet can’t seem to get to the next plateau? By BlessingWhite’s definitions it was split among the “Almost Engaged” (27%), “Honeymooners and Hamsters” (12%), and the “Crash and Burners” (13%). According to their analysis, all three of these middle groups crave development. Across all groups, “achievement and development” are key factors in engagement. So while performance management might be an effective strategy for helping those employees who have quit but have not left yet (the “Disengaged”) exit the organization, it will not help the other 81% of your employees get any better.

Incorporating Development
Performance management should be a process not a program or a system. A process for managing poor performance out the door. If you are truly invested in retaining employees, improving productivity, and moving your company to the next level, then invest in a performance development strategy. Performance development strategy is more about providing resources and removing roadblocks to performance than correcting undesired behavior. Sometimes it means training, sometimes it means a mentor, sometimes it means starting or involving them in stretch projects. Development is whatever your employee wants it to be. Your job is to 1)help them get the resources they need to improve, and 2) make sure those developmental goals are congruent within the larger context of the organization. Think big picture as well as microstrategy here.  What benefits the organization and the employee, not just me as the supervisor? And career path is not always the same as career development, some employees don’t want to move to the next rung of the company ladder, but they do want development (see “Career Path, Talent Pipeline, and other cliches that miss”)

The Outcome
Imagine if you will, what would happen if you could engage or reengage even part of that middle population at your workforce.  The biggest difference I see in this whole outlook is whether you see employees as a dispensable commodity or as a valuable investment.  From a financial perspective the goal is to manage your losses and develop your assets.  If your employees truly are an asset, then stop managing them like you would a liability (protecting yourself from the worst case scenario) and start investing in their development.  I guarantee the return far outweighs the investment.

Career Path, Talent Pipeline, and other cliches that miss

As the economy begins chugging back to life and the “jobless recovery” starts to give way to employment growth, leaders are faced with some daunting statistics.  According to recent information from the Center for Creative Leadership 95% of high potentials say they are committed to their organization, 21% also say they are actively looking elsewhere.  That’s a fifth of your top people looking to leave people!  The war for talent is not only being fought externally but internally as well.

Several studies indicate increased engagement for those that feel they are regularly challenged and receive continual development during their employment.  Some companies are still blind to these indicators and continue to focus outwards for top talent, negating the human capital they may already possess and most likely at their own peril.

However, even during these difficult economic times, many companies see the long term benefit in developing their employees and are doing so in earnest.  To the rest, it might be a good idea to look 5 years ahead and plan for who will be leading the company since most of the Baby Boomers who hung in there for the past few years to let their IRAs and 401ks recover will be retiring by then.  Then you will be back to paying though the nose for the talent you could have had in your backyard if you had just developed them into the leaders you will need.

But even some of the forward thinking companies are getting it wrong.  I become skeptical when employers tell me they are developing a career path or talent pipeline.  And the reason for my skepticism is both these terms operate under a fundamental assumption that may not be entirely true for all your top talent.  A career path and talent pipeline all suggest funneling talent in specified direction, usually vertical promotions from one position to the next higher position.  While not inherently bad, it assumes development for every employee means promotions, and that is not always the case.

Perhaps you know of an employee like this; one that is very happy doing the job they have and has no desire to get promoted.  If your company is under the career path mentality, then what do you do to develop this person?  She does not want to be on your specified career path so participating in developmental activities that only serve to direct her into a place she does not want to go is seen by her as a waste of effort.  And sadly, in this model this otherwise good worker is treated as a defective employee that is not ambitious.  When in truth, her ambition simply is in a direction your career path does not does not take her.

Talent Pipeline has a similar connotation and perhaps even a more pernicious paradigm attached to it.  When I think of pipelines I think of gas, water, oil, corn, and other commodities.  By the definition of a commodity, this places humans as a good with no qualitative differentiation.  And this I think is a dangerous view of human capital.  If there is value in intellectual capital such that we create “non-compete” agreements to protect it, then human capital most certainly has individuated value.  And it should be treated as such, not as undifferentiated cattle that are herded into the appropriate pipeline.

In a world that is increasingly complex, these old views of developing talent do not fit.  A career path and a talent pipeline both hold a similar fault in this new global economy and that is: they both assume a predictable future for the company and the skills that will ensure success.  As we look to the education industry, more than half the degrees offered today did not exist 20 years ago.  Some did not exist 5 years ago and many others are being explored as the educational needs of the world expand.  The workplace is just as unpredictable which is why career pathing for most companies, does not stem the tide of exited talent.

What needs to be embraced is the idea that whether or not an employee is being developed is entirely up to them.  Similar to being a “good communicator”, being good at “developing employees” is a judgment to be made by the receiving party.  This entails managers and employees talking openly about development options without any preconceived agenda.  If you want more engaged employees then development in a way that serves them also serves the company, even if the benefit seems indirect.  Happier employees work harder, accomplish more, and stay longer than unhappy people.  If they feel they are getting developed in a way that benefits them, chances of them being happier with their career go up.  If the development is direct relation to their current position, then you have double benefit.

In his book The Dream Manager, Matthew Kelly asserts that people go to work to become better versions of themselves.  Sometimes that is as simple as buying a new house, or putting their kids through college.  In any event, it opens up the idea that professional development does not always mean professional promotions.  Abraham Maslow and his often accredited “Hierarchy of Needs” also support this basic psychological principle that people have a strong desire to “self-actualize”; which can best be described as the desire to see what else we are capable of.  Here is where some companies make the error in thinking that an employee who may be intrinsically asking “what next for me” is synonymous with “what is the next level of management for me.”

By creating a career path or talent pipeline you may be alienating many of your great employees who are not looking to get promoted but still want to develop.  I actually left a company because they wanted to promote me and would not entertain my desire to transfer laterally to a department I was more keenly interested in (and incidentally have since made my career).

As employers we can get locked into a performance inhibiting pattern known as “functional fixedness” where we only see something for what is was designed to do rather than what it is capable of.  This can have tragically limiting effects on generating solutions to problems.  The same can be true of how we view our employees.  If we only see them as a [insert title here] it is hard to imagine what else they may be capable of.  By opening up our views beyond titles and designed vertical paths, we can have a greater impact on employee development, engagement, and increased capability.  All of this while lowering talent acquisition costs, reducing workplace conflicts (due to unhappy people), and decreasing the intellectual drain some companies may soon experience.

Have a conversation with your employees and ask what they would like to do if qualifications and current status was not an obstacle.  Don’t ask them where they want to be in 5 years, as chances are, they do not know or cannot see the steps it will take to get them there.  Ask instead about areas they are interested in, things they would like to become, and what they think it would take to get them there.  And here is the important part; even if their career development goals do not directly benefit you, listen and help them get more of what they want.  If your employees are getting more of what they need from you, chances are you will get more of what you need from them as well.

Undermining Trust with your Attendance Policy?

Trust is one of those things in life that is similar to air, once it is gone, it is all you can think about. Each of us build it and give it in different ways and there are tons of articles and books out there that discuss how to develop it, maintain it, and rebuild it.  I’m not going to spend time on all that today.  This is just a short entry based on something I heard on the way to work earlier this week and it really stood out to me.  It led me to one inescapable fact, most attendance or vacation policies undermine the degree of trust in the workplace.  Let me explain.

As I drove in one morning the radio station I was listening to awarded a caller concert tickets, backstage passes, and the full VIP treatment for a major concert event that was happening the next day starting at 2p.  They asked if she could get the day off and the caller responded simply, “I will have to figure something out.”  To which the DJ replied “you’re gonna have to call in sick is what you’re gonna do!”  And I started thinking, why?  Why do we run first to a complete lie?  She is not sick, she has no plans of being sick, and even if she did feel a little feverish that is not why she wasn’t going to work.  Is it not acceptable to use a granted day off for whatever we need?  And I started thinking back to a recent employer I worked for.

While I worked there I had vacation days and sick days.  Now, I did not quite understand the difference other than from a payroll perspective: one set of days was accrued each week and the other set was granted at the start of each year of my employment.  I was very explicitly explained however, that vacation days had to be planned at least two weeks in advance and sick days could only be used if I called the morning of my expected absence.  This made absolutely no sense to me.  What if something came up on Monday that I knew was going to prevent me from working on Thursday?  I would not be granted a vacation day since it was within the two week period, and I could not tell people I would be “sick” on Thursday so we could plan around it.  Instead, the policy was enforced such that anytime that happened, it caused a great deal of stress amongst my team members because it totally screwed up the schedule for the day I was absent with no notice.  This just seemed ridiculous and if I was honest and said, “hey, I have a free nights stay at Vail for Wednesday night so I am going to stay and ski on Thursday.”  I was told that was not an acceptable absence and I would not be paid.  WTH?!  So instead, I lied and called from the Vail ski lift and had to pretend I was sick – “[cough, cough], ugh…I don’t feel well and I don’t think I can make it.”  And I just prayed someone on the ski lift did not talk about the snow conditions loud enough to alert my boss.

What made this even more ridiculous was I had to lie on Friday, too.  I had to tell them how I felt much better and it must have just been a 24 hour thing.  I mean, really, how often does your cold only last 24 hours and then you are fine? Nevermind the sunburn you happen to have on the day you return.  So not only was the policy designed to make me lie, it encouraged me to keep lying!  I even went so far once to bring in a walking stick for a week because I made up that I sprained my ankle so badly I could not drive in one day (I think my wife and I decided to have a Spring picnic that day.)

As I have matured and learned more about employee engagement, honesty, and truly supportive cultures (and the benefits of all those) it simply baffles me that we start this dishonesty with the whole concept of “sick” days.  As if the only acceptable reason you can miss work is if you are ill.  We will pay you if you are sick and doing nothing but not if you are out enjoying your life.  It’s as if we only want to compensate people for being miserable instead of happy.

My invitation to you is to look at some of your policies of how you “police”, “babysit”, and “parent” your employees.  Are they creating an environment of honesty and trust, or do employees get rewarded for being dishonest?  What kind of culture do you want?  If it is trust, then model that.  If you are getting the results you want, then who cares where they are.  Your responsibility as a manager and leader is to encourage results, not be a “home room teacher” granting hall passes.

Eliminate Presenteeism

So here is the quick answer to destroying the presenteeism problem:  stop focusing on it.  What I mean by that is, stop paying attention to whether your people are there or not.  Employee presence is not an indicator of performance unless the employee is a human mannequin for a shop window.  Please, continue reading…it will make sense in a minute.

Stop Watching the Clock

There is an old adage that states, “What gets recognized is what gets done.”  Here is where we mess up.  We are recognizing people for simply showing up when we focus on the schedule.  What we should be focusing on is results.  And we know it, but why do we still chastise people for coming in “late” or leaving “early”?  Because it is the easiest piece of feedback we can possibly give, that’s why.  Someone’s attendance or tardiness is not personal so it is very easy to approach, and the expectations are clear.  “Come in at 8 – leave at 5.”  That is pretty crystal, not a whole lot of gray area there.

By focusing so much on the clock and giving feedback around it, we set an expectation of being present, which we already know does not necessarily mean they are contributing towards the job.  If you stop managing people’s time and making sure they are there from X to X and focus on results they produce, you might actually find they get it done faster.

Set Clearer Expectations

People generally do not want to come to work and say “gee, I hope I suck today.”  Now, I am not denying that some people come to work and say that, I am saying they do not WANT to do that.   People want to be successful – they want to fulfill expectations.  Think about it personally for a second, have you ever hoped you disappointed someone on a constant basis? My bet is no.  By not setting clear expectations for our employees, we set them up to disappoint us everyday.  The reverse is true if we can be clear about what results we expect to see.

Get out of the way

Here is the hard part.  This is all about letting go of control.  This is how you stop being a parent or babysitter for your employees (one of the biggest complaints most supervisors echo – “I hate being a babysitter”.)  Tell them what you expect, make sure they have access to the resources they need, then get out of the way.  You have just given them control over their own success.  Now your role becomes that of a facilitator, your job is to make it easy for them to get their job done.  Most of the time, that involves getting out of the way.  Have you ever thought to yourself “man, I seem to get a lot more done when my boss is gone”?  That is because the constant checking in, interruptions, meetings, etc. simply get in the way of you getting your job done.

Trust It Will Happen

This too is hard, VERY hard, especially if we have seen the employee as “unreliable” in the past.  This is where employees either sink or swim but eliminates the need for you to hold them above water.  The employee now gets a choice, either fulfill the expectation or risk the performance management process.  Short term, this may cause some stress, but long-term, you, your employees, and your organization will be stronger.

Give Quality Feedback

If you set clear expectations, this step should be easy.  If they are not meeting the expectation ask them what is getting in the way.  And here is the important part – LISTEN.  Sometimes what they are facing is a real obstacle.  And whether or not you accept the reason for the breakdown, it does not change the expectation.  So now it becomes a strategic problem solving discussion that fixes the problem instead of “you suck – do better.”  What will they do if they run into another obstacle and do they know, regardless of the obstacle, the expectation is still the same?

Reward the Results – Not the Activity

This is where you are looking at pure output.  Regardless of time spent.  If the result is the same, then ultimately it is up to the employee how much stress it caused or how much effort it took.   This actually encourages employees to streamline processes, especially if it gives them their time back.  If I know I can leave when I am finished with something, I will finish it faster.

Focus People on Results

This is a process and ultimately a cultural shift from decades of broken thinking that encourages distrust in the workplace.  If someone makes a comment about so and so leaving or not being there, ask what they need.  Refocus people on the results not just the presence of someone.  If they are producing and getting people the information they need, then where they are at any given time has nothing to do with their performance.  When people begin to talk about “late”, “early”, or even just being plain absent, ask them if the work is getting done.

Be patient

You are working against a pervasive mindset when it comes to presenteeism.  People play the game, go to the right meetings, and simply provide face time as a way of succeeding in their careers.  If you want real results, less frustration, and higher employee engagement – give them their time back.  After all, you are paying them for their results, not their time.

For more information visit http://www.gorowe.com

Presenteeism is costing your company

I heard something interesting the other day from an HR Manager.  When posed the question “what do you think of someone who finishes their work sooner than their colleagues?”  His reply was “well, that person obviously doesn’t have enough work to do then.”  This got me thinking.  If I were that employee what incentive would I have to work, smarter, harder, and more efficient?  Or to find better ways to do something with less effort?  Answer: NONE, zip, zilch, nada.

In this management philosophy, the result of me doing working faster is only rewarded with more work.  I don’t get off early, I don’t gain any time for myself, and chances are I am not getting paid per widget I produce.  So what does this screwed up system of work/reward (if you can call it that) produce?  I think it produces two things:  liars and slower workers.

Now, before I get too deep into this, let me describe what presenteeism is.  Presenteeism is simply the act of being present.  You are not actually doing anything, you are just there.  And this is EVERYWHERE in the work place; in meetings, at your desk, on phone conferences.  And it comes from this antiquated notion that if you are there, you must be doing work and if you are not, then you obviously aren’t.  The mere fact that I am sitting at my desk proves I must be working, which is nonsense.

I remember when I first started my current job and in the first few weeks there was not a lot expected of me in terms of production.  My job as I understood it was to get a lay of the land, meet some people, and do some reading.  Yet, every time my boss or a colleague passed my office, I frantically started moving my mouse around and typing just to give the mere impression that I was doing something.  In reality I wasn’t doing anything, I was just practicing the art of presenteeism, I was just there.

My behavior was hold over of the political game of my previous employer who frowned on people who left early.  Now, I typically got there at 7 in the morning and I was done with my workload by 3.  The first few times I just asked if anyone else needed anything and when they said “no” I left, which was great!  I could spend 2-3 hours of the afternoon taking care of errands, going on a hike, whatever.  After a couple weeks my boss came and told me I needed to stay until 5 as some of the other team members “had noticed” I was leaving earlier than them.  Nevermind the fact that one of them did not show up until 10 or 10:30.  When I asked what I should do if I get my work done and no one needed help, she actually replied with “I don’t really care, I just need you to stay until 5.”  So, I did what any logical person with a computer would do when they have free time and I surfed the internet for 2 hours each day after I got my work done.  Again, another feedback conversation happened where I was told that was not an appropriate use of company resources.  At that point, even though it was against my nature, I slowed down everything I did, I went to people’s desk and had casual conversations that were meant very specifically to kill time between jobs.  I came in at 8 and left at 5.  There, everyone happy now?  Not me!

I was angry, demotivated, and most of all, totally cynical about my job.  I no longer cared about how much I got done or how quickly I turned around projects.  Nothing was met with any sense of urgency.  I did not care to look at my production numbers and instead of doing more, I did less.  And worst of all, all those side conversations I was having with others…I was soaking up 30 minutes of their time too.  So between the two of us we just spent an hour doing nothing to help the company.  And for what: the mere appearance of working – a.k.a. presenteeism.

And here is the kicker, my colleague who came in at 10am but did not leave each day until 6:00 was lauded for her work ethic even if she produced less than me.  She was getting less done and charging overtime to the company than I was in 7 hours of work.  Starting to see how ridiculous this whole thing starts to become.

This starts early in our careers.  “You got time to lean, you got time to clean” was a favorite saying of my first boss in high school.  So, instead I spent my day walking around the store as if I had a purpose.  If my boss ever asked me what I was doing, I made something up.  I became a liar.  And to be honest, being a liar was better than telling the truth.   Had I said “nothing”, then I would have looked lazy.  And is not that I was lazy or didn’t want to clean, I just did not want to clean something that was not dirty.  It just seemed like a waste of my time and not was I was really getting paid to do.

In my first account my reaction to getting judged simply on my presence and finding that working efficiently simply got me more work was to work slower.  I became lazy.   I worked just hard enough to not get talked to.  Heck, I would even go to bathroom and read for an hour so I could fill the day.  And since the willingness to work overtime was seen as a “good work ethic” I would work even slower so it took me longer than 8 hours to do what initially was 6 hours of work for me.

And let’s keep in mind, this is NOT what I wanted to do, this behavior was caused by my boss’s desire for me to simply be present.  And the cultural norm that overtime meant you were working hard.  So I lied about what I was doing so I sounded busier, and I worked slower on projects so I worked 30 minutes overtime each day.  Sounding dumber by the minute, eh?

In a mobile, 24/7, global, and knowledge based economy the whole idea of the 8-5 workday and 40 hour workweek just doesn’t make sense anymore, at least not as a rule.  Sure, there may be scenarios when you need to be there at a certain time or for a certain length but that should be guided by what work needs to be done, not this weird rule of even if you are not doing anything, you need to be here.  I was more productive and engaged in my work when I could manage my schedule and I think you will find your employees would be too.

Read more next week on what to do to eliminate presenteeism and raise engagement!

Be prepared to be wrong – innovation depends on it

“If you are not prepared to be wrong, you will never come up with anything original” – Sir Ken Robinson

This video is from a 2006 TED (Technology, Education, Design) conference in which Sir Ken Robinson talks about the destructive nature our current education system has on creativity.  If you are curious why some new employees coming out of college might not have the capacity to creatively solve problems, is it because they are so worried to be wrong that that have lost the ability to think creatively?  How can you make it safe for them again?

It is 20 minutes and well worth your time.