Teaming Up

The David Elder post:
Dr. Ray has written about micro feedback so I’ll attempt not to bore you by being redundant. I’ll just point out that workers are influenced more by their peers than by their manager or leader. Most organizations and team developers do not embrace the idea of micro/horizontal feedback. Our experience says micro feedback given by team members to each other results in an immediate change in behavior. I recently worked with a leader who was struggling with a employee disciplinary problem. After several unsuccessful attempts to “influence” the person to change and improve their work habits the leader trained the entire team in micro feedback and built an expectation that feedback be given each day… or as close to the actual behavior as possible. The leader insisted that the team only give feedback based on the team goals and instructed them to avoid feedback that was personal in nature. The employee who had been coached began to receive feedback about their work product. After three rounds of peer feedback the employee began to quickly make productive changes in behavior.

Goal driven horizontal micro-feedback is a competency that is necessary and essential to create a high performance culture. This competency will ensure a better connection between business strategy and organizational effectiveness.

The other day I heard the top administrator for NASA interviewed. He was asked if NASA has been able to change it’s culture. He responded, “I don’t think you can measure culture so I don’t know if we have changed it.” I would disagree with that statement in this way; not all aspects of culture can be measured but the most important ones can be measured. What is required is the political will inside an organization to measure and hold management accountable for the results. Measured properly, culture can be changed in 3-4 years. Assuming the change is for the better, such culture change will result in long-term returns on investment. The challenge is to determine what indicators will tell you the culture is changing and set in place the metrics. In my work, I strongly believe an organization should see measurable results in 6 months with a full return on investment from the change efforts in 12-18 months. Once this type of goal is established, and the metrics are put in place, an organization often moves rapidly to achieve that goal.

People carry maps of their world in their head. Managers in particular carry maps about managing people. Unfortunately, they often confuse their map with reality. I carry a map in my car. As I travel the country with my map I would never mistake the map of the United States for the United States. One is a map, the other is dirt, mountains, asphalt, trees, etc. A manager carries a map about people, motivation, work, performance management, etc. in his or her head. An accurate road map helps me get places efficiently. An accurate management map helps a manager achieve goals through people. Unfortunately, most managers have some highly inaccurate maps about management residing in their head. When the manager comes across a situation in their management world, they use their map to solve the problem. If the map is inaccurate, they can make the problem worse and never know it. How does that happen?

Managers (as well as everyone else) tends to confuse the map with the territory. The map is not the territory. When a person makes this mistake, they fail to see how they contribute to a given problem. For example, if my map says that people with a college degree should be able to do X job. I will tend to expect that. What happens when someone comes along with a college degree who cannot do X? The tendency will be to blame the person rather than look at my own map. Careful attention to my map might reveal that it needs fine tuning. How many times have you seen an employee wither under one manager and thrive under another. Chances are the first manager did not have a map that was sufficiently detailed enough to manage that person.

If you want to be a good manager, you must constantly update your map. The territory is always changing. A 1930s map of the U.S. would be almost useless today. The map you had about management last year may be just as out of date.

One of the best indicators that someone has an inaccurate map is when they use the word “should.” A manager says, “She shouldn’t have told the customer that!” has just revealed a hole in their own map. The reality is that she already told the customer and her own map seemed to have that behavior on it. The question now is, “What part of my map and her map do not fit the territory?” Once we figure that out, we have a better map and can solve the problem rather than blame the person. In the future, listen to yourself when you use the work “should,” then back up and look at your map. You may find a lot of new territory to map out.

Most organizations organize themselves into groups of specialist’s i.e. operations, sales and marketing, human resources, legal, etc. Usually these groups have a leader at the top that has overall accountability for adding value to the goals of the organization. Most business writers describe this structure as organizational silos. Much has been written about the impact of organizing in this manner. There are many excellent reasons for structuring the organization using this method.

Organization silos help leaders set goals, measure performance, and recognize development needs of their group. Being grouped with others who have similar skills is reassuring to new hires and gives employees an opportunity to see a distinct career path. Organizations grouped into silos also have some unintended consequences.

I teach in a graduate school of business. When MBA students are asked about the consequences of this structure they report poor communication and competitiveness between silos. They also say conflict is a by product. Much of the conflict seems to emerge because of different priorities and expectations between groups. Who hasn’t heard sales organizations complaining about production groups who fail to meet a deadline for an order a sales person has committed to a customer? Likewise, who hasn’t experienced the technology group creating scope creep when asked to do a project? But why?

We have concluded through observation that the silos often don’t feel a sense of accountability to one another. Some organizations declare “the customer comes first”. But we see little evidence of that expectation being extended to internal customers. We label this as a lack of horizontal accountability (HA). Through our work in developing high performance teams we have observed the incredible upturn in productivity when team members feel accountability to one another as well as other teams. Possible between silos? Absolutely!
Darrell and I recently wrote an article about HA and have it posted on our website.

David Elder

Horizontal accountability is an approach that teaches team members to take proactive responsibility for goals and performance. In sports, teams do a lot of evaluation and coaching during actual play. The best teams develop constant performance feedback between players that supplements the coach’s efforts.

A vast amount of information can be found in the observations of peers in sports or business, but the information must be put into a useful and non-threatening format. In an organization with strong horizontal accountability, the manager still evaluates performance but day-to-day performance information comes directly and systematically from peers in the form of micro-evaluation.

A great deal of energy is locked up in conflict and manager focused behavior in many organizations. Release this energy by teaching team members to critique performance non-defensively, tying micro-evaluation directly to goals. Conflict is eliminated and customer and goal focused behavior increases dramatically.

Horizontal Accountability is an untapped source of information and energy in most organizations. Email me to receive our full article on HA™

The hallmark of horizontal accountability is effective and timely performance feedback from peers. Timely and constructive feedback has an immediate impact on behavior. Most organizations using 360 feedback programs are often disappointed in the lack of changed behavior in most leaders. Many organizations using 360 performance feedback systems report that people tend to give little or no improvement feedback. Often the feedback is only done once or at most two times per year. Everyone evaluates everyone else as excellent. In this kind of conflict avoidant environment horizontal accountability isn’t effective. If people do not know how to give improvement feedback changed behavior lasts only for a short time. At the same time, this puts the burden of performance feedback back on the overworked manager who is interacting with the employee at maximum 6.5% of the time! How can this work!

In a performance culture, horizontal accountability is the woven into the very fabric of the organization. Every individual at every level and every position receives direct and open performance feedback on a regular basis. In our work with organizations we recommend a specific approach to developing this valuable process. An approach that rapidly shifts the onus for feedback from the manager to the team. That is not to say that the manager is not involved, they still play an important role, but the focus is on creating a flow of communication and accountability between people at a given level with less need for management gate keeping

Teams that can give open and honest performance feedback to one another in real time produce high performance outcomes Timely feedback is the foundation for horizontal accountability and greatly reduces the need for management supervision. Developing these skills in all employees releases management resources for more important activities. Instead of dealing with petty conflicts and minor performance issues, the manager can focus on planning and high level direction.

see our new video on results in manufacturing.

Occasionally I hear people complaining about political correctness in the workplace and world in general. The way they talk is as if PC is a new thing. Political correctness has always been around it just changes based on current power and political structures. For example, it was politically incorrect to swear or smoke in front of women in 1900. It was politically incorrect for a Black man to look a white man in the eye in 1850 in the US. It was politically incorrect to call a social superior by their first name in any setting in 1900. In England you spoke to your social superiors with the pronouns Thee and Thou and to your social inferiors with “you.”

In the 1920’s it was politically incorrect for a Black man to approach a White woman in any way except with the most careful of manners. Until the 1960’s it was politically correct for Whites to refer in the most ugly terms to other minorities even in their presence. Until the 1960’s it was politically correct for Blacks to sit at the back of the bus.

Political correctness is a function of who respects whom, who is socially or politically superior or thinks they are. Today’s political correctness shows the leveling of the field. It emphasizes the dignity of all people regardless of social standing, birth, race, religion, etc.
I prefer not to think of it as political correctness but to think of it as a new emphasis on respect and manners in human relationships.

I certainly would not want to go back to the old definitions of PC that were around in 1700’s or even 1950. The old forms of PC were a social demonstration of power and social standing with the purpose of maintaining social classes and keeping minorities and those seen as socially inferior out of the main stream.

The next time you feel constricted by today’s political correctness, ask yourself if you would prefer to have the old style of political correctness.

I recently received a Power Point Show that puts a huge perspective on the economic realities of our emerging world. Here are some points that struck me:

The most intelligent top 25% of China is greater than the entire population of the US.
The most intelligent top 28% of India is greater than the US population.
China will soon be the largest English speaking country in the world.

I would be glad to send the presentation to you if you simply email a request to this address:

drdray@teaming-up.com

Put: “Request Power Point Show” in the subject line.

All to often we see the world from an extremely narrow view. In our daily lives we don’t see the big picuture or feel the changes that are slowly reshaping our world. Seeing the big picture occasionally can give perspective and understanding. While we are a long way from China or India, as a consultant working with international companies, I see the impact of these countries. One of my clients says that they will soon be selling more product in India than they sell in the US! As a result they are shifting a lot of their engineering and manufacturing processes to India. This creates an outcry among some who do not understand or refuse to see the internationalization of commerce. It is the same dynamic that motivates Toyota to build auto and truck factories in Ohio and Texas.

We can learn to live with this new world or pretend it doesn’t exist till the day it overwhelms us. Small countries like Singapore, Finland and Thailand have had to deal with the reality of living in a world of giants for decades. We will soon have that reality thrust upon us. We have been the giant for a century but it may not be much longer and we will have to live with other giants that are even larger than ourselves.

I am having a good time reading Richard Farson’s, Management of the Absurd. My friend Bob Jacobi gave it to me recently after I spoke at his management class. It is an irreverant look at management. An almost Zen appeal. He has a healthy skepticism about management as “technique” which I fully appreciate. In my work with Emotional Intelligence, it is clear to me that those who are most effective as leaders are not those with the best techniques and management tricks. They are the people who are good at listening and understanding people.

There is a paradox on management that if you “manage people,” that is manipulate them into doing what you want, you, the manager lose respect for them. They in turn sense this loss or lack of respect and become less manageable.

One observation he makes is profound and well worth understanding. Listening to people changes them far more than talking to them. When people feel heard, they can move to new conclusions. When they are talked at, they simply withdraw to their defensive positions.

These observations are as true for managers as for parents. Parents might want to understand that all the parenting books on earth are of little value if a child feels manipulated and poorly understood. Getting away from techniques is generally difficult for Americans. We seem to be quite attached to the idea that technology can save us and that techniques can make us good managers, parents, therapists, leaders, etc.

Insecurity is present in every human being. It is a part of who we are. At the same time insecurities are not genetically programmed in us, we learn them along the way, often in childhood. I have learned to eagerly examine my insecurities as a spotlight on my own weaknesses. Insecurity is not a condition, it is a symptom of something you need to examine and deal with. Treating insecurities as a symptom gives you the opportunity to do something constructive and growth enhancing. Treating insecurity as a disease you are born with, leads to helplessness and failure to learn and grow.

If you are insecure about a relationship, treat this as a gift. The gift is telling you to bring this insecurity to the surface, talk openly about it with your partner and let the cards fall where they may. Relationship insecurity is an opportunity to practice and learn new communication skills. If you let the fear of losing the relationship paralyze you from effectively communicating, you have already lost the relationship and more.

Insecurity is inside you, not in your spouse, your boss or children, etc. It is an indicator of unfinished business. If you deal with an insecurity, you learn tremendous things about yourself. You also set yourself up for dealing with other insecurities as they present themselves in your life.

If you are intimidated and insecure with your boss, that says something inside you is responding to him/her in a way that does not help you deal effectively and assertively with the boss. Look inside yourself and learn the skills needed to behave assertively and confidently with him/her. If you are afraid of getting fired, there is a fear to deal with. If you are afraid they won’t like you, there is another one. The list goes on and on. These are just mental viruses that replicate as fast as you let them.

Toyota announced today that it will build a new plant in Mississippi with the expectation of making a profit, yet American manufacturers are closing plants right and left? (Read here) What is it with American auto manufacturers who have had 30 plus years to figure out how to compete with the likes of Toyota and Honda. Why is it that American workers can work productively in Toyota plants but not American plants? Don’t give me the old union and pension answers. Where there is a will a way will be created. Look at what American Airlines is doing in its Kansas City and Tulsa repair facilities (read here). Union and management are creating a high performance organization second to none.

In my work with manufacturing plants, I have seen over and again how well designed and managed human systems can create high performance in union and non-union organizations. The failure is in management creativity and will. Toyota has a proven method for ensuring it hires well-motivated and qualified people and that its managers involve people in their work. It is not difficult, it just takes the will power of leadership to ensure management knows how to perform their human duties and systems that support that goal.

“Happiness” can be seen as a touchy feely topic. It isn’t, if it hits the bottom line. Just this week, the Conference Board (the Consumer Confidence Index people) released the results of their national employee satisfaction survey. The results show that worker satisfaction is the lowest in 20 years. See the article here (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17348695/)

Twenty years ago 61% felt satisfied with their work. Today it is 45%! A huge drop. What is going on? The article doesn’t give any reasons but I can see certain trends in my own work.
From my perspective, it appears that companies are taking their eye off employee satisfaction issues and focusing far more on hard core business numbers. New manager training has fallen off dramatically. The skills of new managers are the lowest I have seen in my two decades. Many with freshly minted MBA’s have no better people skills than managers with only a BA degree.

Most important, companies have downsized their management ranks at the same time as they are reducing management training. They are asking managers to do more with fewer skills. This is leading to a lot of frustration not only with managers but with the people they manage.

How much does a poor manager cost your organization? How much does a manager who doesn’t know they are making mistakes cost your organization? Sooner or later, unhappy people start costing the company. Lower skills in managers inevitably lead to unhappier people.

People spend a lifetime pursuing happiness. The pursuit of happiness was even written into the US Declaration of Independence. You can pursue happiness, but when do you arrive? Are people happier when they win the Lottery? Yes, for a while. After about a year, Lottery winners tend to revert to the level of happiness before they won. Some become decidedly less happy? It turns out that happiness is not achieved by getting something for nothing. It also turns out that happiness is not any stronger in people who were born into wealth than those who have far less.

Happiness research shows that once you earn a salary that is reasonably above poverty but well below wealthy, you tend to achieve your natural level of happiness. It seems that people have a natural tendency towards a certain level of happiness and surrounding circumstances may have little to do with it. Think of the rich scrooge. With immense wealth, he is quite unhappy. At the same time, retired person, barely getting along on social security and a small pension can be ecstatic over their volunteer work for the Red Cross.

In most people, they experience happiness when they feel they are accomplishing something through their own effort. In fact it seems that emotional and mental health depend on a sense of achieving through you own effort. The person who inherits wealth from their rich aunt or uncle, often goes on a happiness binge spending the money in ways that undermine their own health or wellbeing. On the other hand, I know a woman who inherited $10,000 from an aunt and decided to do something with the money that would please her aunt. She started buying coats for people who came through the clinic where she worked. When she saw a mother or child without a good coat, she got their size and surprised them by delivering a new coat. She actually put a lot of work into this project, but she felt she accomplished something with her aunt’s money rather than spending it on herself.

Register for our skill development workshop: Coaching for High Performance

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)