The Center for Organizational Design - Free Articles

Why Redesign?

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 12:26:40 +0000

Stephen Wozniak and Steve Jobs started Apple Computer Corp. in the latter’s garage, of all places, hocking personal items to capitalize their budding company. Now, the iconic organization employs over 35,000 people worldwide. Pierre Omidyar hired his first employee for what would become eBay in 1996. The company not only weathered the dot-com bust, it enjoyed remarkable profitability under Meg Whitman’s leadership. Yet, explosive growth is often messy.

As companies mature – especially those that mature quickly – unnecessary bloat often masks as necessary expansion. Some divisions metastasize. Executive titles proliferate and generate a top-heavy (often heavy-handed) corporate culture. The structure becomes unsustainable, illogical, and inefficient. Objective intervention must reverse the existential threat to your organization.

Runaway Train

Would you undertake a large construction project without a blueprint? Such a venture seems absurd but organizations often take this route. Consider IBM for example, which traces back to the late 1800s. Throughout its history, the company’s retrenchments indicate lack of planning, poor planning, or, less culpably, an agile responsiveness to economic turbulence. (see IBM’s History Page, especially the 1990s section)

An organizational plan is just that – a plan, not reality. How can leadership design their organization to be efficient amid unpredictable circumstances? Can your organizational structure handle explosive growth and contraction equally well? So my company has grown faster and larger than I ever dreamed, is that bad?

Square One?

Certainly, you can’t go back and start your company all over; tear up the foundation and begin again. Neither would you want to risk your current success if what’s working is working well enough. Any proposed improvements need to be implemented real-time and produce immediate returns. Nor would you want to immobilize the natural, organic momentum generated from sudden success and growth. You want to take that native energy and harness it into complementary structure and organization.

Organizational redesign should work real-time to maximize your company’s efficiency and minimize bloat. Realigning your vision, mission, strategy, and structure will accommodate sustainable growth. Making this investment now will also facilitate downsizing and consolidation, if necessary.

Every company can benefit from organizational design/redesign. The Center for Organizational Design offers many integrated approaches and programs (http://www.centerod.com/designing-a-high-performance-organization.html) to help you achieve these important ends in these critical times. To receive an initial consultation about how these tools can help your organization, call 303.730.0018 or email info@centerod.com.

Making Matrix Management Work

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 02:38:43 +0000

Whatever happened to the matrix organization? About thirty years ago, this form of management became very popular, with companies such as Citibank, Dow-Corning, Nestle, Xerox, IBM, HP and ABB in the forefront of its implementation. The two-boss structure that was the essence of the matrix organization was seen as addressing the challenge of balancing functional units and other organizational groupings (e.g., geography, customer groups, product groups, technology, etc.). Thus, for example, the head of Marketing for a country organization would report both to the country general manager as well as to a regional or global Marketing leader.

While it may have been a fad to some, organizations saw the matrix as a way to resolve the classic structural issue of centralization or decentralization of resources to optimize productivity. However, the matrix organization required a different way of leading and managing – and many companies simply did not lay the necessary groundwork to ensure the success of the matrix. Company after company started to abandon the matrix organization, with even management gurus like Tom Peters decrying its complexity. Other more “advanced” and more complex forms of organizing (e.g., networks) started to emerge to the point where a leading expert, Jay Galbraith, stated that the balanced matrix is becoming rare: “The disappearance of the matrix is due, in part, to the trend toward more cross-border integration … Also, newer forms are being adapted where the matrix would have been used in the past.”

Yet, in informal discussions with colleagues and from an analysis of the organizational structures of global companies today, it seems like the matrix form is alive and well in today’s organizations – albeit having evolved from its early days. Why? Perhaps there is no bigger driver for the re-emergence of the matrix than organizations’ increasing use of teams – virtual, project, cross-functional and global – to improve speed of delivery, customer responsiveness, cost concerns and productivity. A dramatic example of this is Cisco, which announced recently a different kind of re-organization. As reported in the Wall Street Journal (August 6, 2009), Cisco’s CEO, John Chambers, wants to see the company move into more than two dozen new businesses, from consumer camcorders to giant TV screens for stadiums.

In order to manage these initiatives, Chambers has replaced Cisco's top-down decision making with committees of executives from across the company. Some teams provide strategic advice and evaluate the progress of these projects. In total, Cisco now has 59 internal standing committees.

Indeed, teams in organizations today are staffed by individuals from different functional areas, different geographies, and even with individuals outside the company (e.g., vendors). Leaders of such teams may come from a business or function but they report to an executive from a different business or, in some cases, to one of the company’s top executives. In one organization, the executive committee charged a senior executive with assembling a team to address the efficiency and effectiveness of its staff functions globally. The leader of the team was a Senior Vice President who, in his role as team leader reported directly to the CEO even though functionally he reported to the CIO.

The impetus for these kinds of teams that are so pervasive in organizations today is similar to what drove many to create the matrix form in the first place – a business need to be more nimble and to move quickly, to get people with different disciplines to work effectively together, and to get around the issues of hierarchy. However, many of the issues faced by those companies that started and abandoned the matrix form are still relevant for and need to be addressed by companies today.

For those companies with teams in a matrix structure, what lessons can they learn about making matrix management work?

Define roles and responsibilities up front. In a matrix, as well as with many of today’s teams, there are at least two sets of roles that are important to define: the matrix leader who is reporting to at least two bosses (one is the functional boss – the boss to whom he/she ordinarily reports to, and the other is the matrix boss), and the two bosses themselves. In some cases, the matrix leader may have a “day job” as well as being responsible for leading a matrix team. It is important to make sure that the two bosses agree on their roles and responsibilities vis-à-vis the matrix team, especially around decision-making authority. This is best done through a facilitated discussion and with the use of a RACI (Who is responsible? Who is accountable? Who should be consulted? Who will implement?) chart – a very useful tool for clarifying roles and responsibilities.
Agree on performance goals and metrics. This can be done at the beginning of the year, during the objective-setting process, or when the team is first formed, as part of its charter. The matrix team leader should draft a set of objectives and metrics and make sure that this is negotiated with and agreed to by both of his or her bosses.
Establish ground rules or operating agreements on resource allocation and communication. Who will be responsible for approving and overseeing the budget for the matrix team – the functional boss to whom the matrix leader reports or the boss of the matrix team? When additional resources are needed (financial or human), who will be responsible? What are the expectations with regard to the matrix leader’s communication with the two bosses, as well as between the two bosses? The two bosses, along with the matrix leader, should work out some agreements in advance to avoid confusion and conflicts later on.
Determine how evaluations and rewards are going to be decided. Who will evaluate the performance of the team and the leader, and how will rewards be decided? Again, the two bosses need to agree on a process and create some simple mechanisms. In another organization I worked with, the functional boss was responsible conducting the performance review with the matrix leader, but made sure that he or she sat down and got input from the matrix boss. In another organization, the actual performance review was conducted jointly by the two bosses – via video conference, since one boss was based in Europe.

An important foundational element in matrix organizations and teams today is that of trust. As Steven Covey and others have pointed out, trust is central to many organizations today. You can see that with matrix organizations and teams especially, building that sense of trust is the oil that will make this form of organization run smoothly and be successful. A careful investment of time and effort early on to build this trust through the four actions above will pay significant dividends later.

© 2009 Ray Henson, Ph.D.
Ray is an Organization and Management Consultant with over 25 years experience in Human Resources, Organization Development, Change Leadership, and Project Management.

Humans Are Not Capital

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 07:00:00 +0000

Some business owners, leaders and managers have denigrated the value of people by referring to them as expendable assets instead of contributing individuals. While the denotation of “human capital” remains innocent enough, the term’s connotation echoes master-servant ideology.

Consider how terminology referring to people in the workplace fluctuates between various levels of respect:

Worker
Servant
Slave
Employee
Associate
Human Resource
Talent
Human Capital
Laborer
Staff Member
Cog

A Survey of commercial documents spanning agricultural, industrial, and information ages might indicate progressively mechanistic, impersonal references to people within companies and organizations.

The concern extends further to instances when we refer to people by their position:

“That Project Manager”
“This Analyst”
“That Salesperson”
“The Vice-President”

Those positions are filled by people. Those people have names…and families, and friends, and feelings.

Not Mere Semantics

We often forget that people we hire usually make our company more money than we pay them. If it weren’t so then we’d never hire them. Furthermore, most people resent superior-inferior relationships.

How do leaders, managers and supervisors refer to the people who work within your organization? How do you feel when someone above you refers to you as capital? As an employee? As talent? Before we implement policies to censor such terms in any of the organization’s communications – it has been done in some companies– let’s first identify what mindset provides the seedbed for that vernacular.

Respectful references to the people within organizations come naturally from recognizing their humanness and unique contributions. Deserve their respect. Don’t demand it.

Steven Churchill specializes in designing, developing and implementing learning and communication initiatives for large organizations. Ultimately, he’s committed to helping individuals and organizations improve through learning and development. Contact him at steve@centerod.com

Leading Teams Today

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:16:45 +0000

A great deal of writing on leadership today focuses on the capabilities and behaviors formal leaders of large divisions or enterprises need to be effective. We read about such important characteristics as transparency, vision, authenticity, and optimism, and behaviors such as setting big, hairy, audacious goals (BHAGs). These are no doubt critical, but many firms have been increasingly relying on teams to help solve business problems and drive results, and leaders of these teams need other things. Teams are not a new trend. However, based on my experience working for several different Fortune 500 companies, what’s different about many teams today are the following:

Teams are led by individuals who have no formal authority over their teams; team members do not report to the leader nor are some of them even in the same business unit or division as the leader. In one organization where senior management was seeking to redesign and rationalize its staff functions globally, the majority of team members came from the line.
Team members are increasingly diverse – demographically, functionally and geographically. In their efforts to capture the best thinking globally, organizations are increasingly turning to their talented employees across the globe to participate in these teams. In many of the global teams I have led, team members have come from different regions of the world, and represent different levels of the organization. It was not uncommon, for example, to have a high potential junior team member from Germany in the same team as a Vice President of a corporate staff group.
The emergence of new networking technologies has made virtual team meetings at least in theory easier to manage.

These trends create different challenges for leaders of these types of teams. Because the team leader has no “legitimate power,” he must rely on other sources of influence to motivate and engage the team. Occasionally, the goals of the team may be in conflict with the agendas of team members. For example, team members from line organizations may see the centralization or consolidation of staff functions such as Finance, Procurement, and Human Resources as an attempt to reduce their control of resources and ability to influence these functions. In another team which I led, the members of the team were from an organization that had just been acquired by the parent company. While the goal was to accelerate the integration of the two companies, many of the team members initially perceived that the parent company was imposing its practices and management approach onto the acquired company.

Another challenge has to do with the level of commitment of the team members. While it is motivating for a team member in, say Latin America, to be invited to participate in a global team that might have significant impact on business results, that member has a “day job” and may have day-to-day pressures that will drive out any good intentions to contribute to the team. More importantly, the team members’ bonuses may be based on achieving business results for their area of responsibility versus contributing to the team’s success.

Finally, while some new technologies are elegant, they also may potentially reduce the opportunities for social bonding and therefore make it more difficult to establish trust among the team. With audio conferences, for example, it is difficult to make sure that everyone is equally engaged and is paying full attention to the conversation. Even with video conferencing, it can be difficult to replicate the give-and-take that can take place in a face-to-face meeting. Team leaders therefore need to make sure that they implement these four focused strategic actions:

Create the conditions to ensure team success, especially around sponsorship, resources and rewards. Are the members, and especially you the leader, clear on who is sponsoring the project? Are you clear on what the expectations of the sponsor of the project are? Do you have the right resources for the team to succeed? Have you secured sufficient IT support to ensure you can use the technologies available and the appropriate training for your team? Have you worked with the team members’ managers and negotiated with them on time commitments, as well as how to recognize members for their contribution to the team? Have you worked with HR to design rewards to ensure it is worth it for members to be in the team?
Engage and excite the team with a shared vision. This does not have to be some lofty abstract ideal but has to be something that challenges and inspires, that taps into a business issue that members all agree is important for the organization to address, and that may lead to some “breakthroughs.” How can you link the business impact of your project to the organization’s success? How can you engage the team so members become committed to participating in the team and doing the work?
Leverage new technologies but face-to-face is always best. Have you given enough time for members to try out and become comfortable with the new technologies? Have you built into your budget expenses for face-to-face meetings and laid out a plan on how often these meetings should be held? In one team I was involved with, we worked closely with IT to make sure that virtual members, many of whom were in different countries, had the infrastructure in their locations to be able to participate effectively long-distance.
Work on one-on-one relationships and team processes. Pay close attention to the cues on whether members are becoming less engaged; spend time individually with members to get to know them and understand their concerns and motivations. Also pay close attention to the way the team is functioning. If there are emerging conflicts, then determine the best way to resolve them and act swiftly. Goleman and Boyatzis have written about “socially intelligent” leaders. It is essential that team leaders have social intelligence, and senior managers selecting team leaders would do well to use this as an important criterion.

Team leaders are the cornerstone of today’s organizations. Being a team leader is a challenging assignment but it also carries great rewards, not only from a professional standpoint but also because it can personally be very fulfilling.

© 2009 Ray Henson, Ph.D.
Ray is an Organization and Management Consultant with over 25 years experience in Human Resources, Organization Development, Change Leadership, and Project Management.

Your Company's Stimulus Plan

Sat, 30 May 2009 17:17:28 +0000

Infusions of cash and capital will come as consumer/investor confidence recovers, but what measures will you take to revitalize morale and an environment of trust within your company? The economy’s damage to your bottom line seems obvious enough. What about the damage to employees’ relationships with their leaders and coworkers?

Did the last few years replace cooperation and initiative with indifference? How can you put the trauma behind you and ensure the company and your team generate optimistic momentum?

Three Things You Can Do to Rebuild Morale Within Your Company

Call Out Individual Contributions
Many people within your company made many sacrifices – acknowledge and reward them publicly. Some of your people shouldered the workload of two or three positions amid layoffs and hiring freezes. Others relinquished hoped-for promotions and raises to remain in their positions and serve effectively. You know their names. Be sure everyone else does too.

Reestablish Your Vision
The mantra of simple financial survival displaced lofty mission statements. Reengage your employees with the idea that money comes as a byproduct of delivering worthwhile information, products and services to those who need them. Employees hunger for optimism and renewed purpose.

Get Back to Work
As a leader or manager, redoubling your efforts to achieve goals for the company (improving sales revenue, increasing production, etc.) will communicate your optimism for the future. Many people have allowed their work ethics to wane because of perceived futility. Shatter that misperception with commitment to better quality and quantity of results. When your team sees you invest renewed energy pursuing the company’s goals, they’ll know you intend to ride the leading edge of the economic upturn.

The Promise

Investing the time and energy to do these things will return tangible results for your organization. Nothing’s “soft” about a well-designed organization captained by effective leaders and operated by engaged employees.

Picking Up the Pieces: Emerge as a Redesigned Organization

Thu, 21 May 2009 00:25:20 +0000

When world economies rebound from this recessionary beating, will your company be positioned to set full-sail into the upturn’s prosperous winds? On world, national, and enterprise levels, financial medics have repeatedly defibrillated the sources of lifeblood for economic health. As consumers and investors express progressive confidence in these measures and contraction turns to expansion, we’ll all take stock to see which companies made the cut.

When we see which organizations stayed sufficiently solvent – in nonprofit, public and private sectors alike – we’ll ask, “How did these organizations survive? What did they do differently? What’s to stop them now from becoming the powerful leaders of their industries?” At the Center for Organizational Design, we predict that these “survivors-of-the-fittest” companies will have developed the following characteristics:

A clear, compelling sense of purpose and mission

Ambiguity has destroyed many companies in the last few years. Emergent organizations know exactly why they exist. For example, one of the most specific, empowering senses of corporate mission we’ve seen comes from the Volvo car corporation. The company has set a goal for no one to die in any of their cars by 2020. (See this link and this link) The list of recessionary victors will prove that companies who have aims higher than mere survival will effectively weather the storms.

Innovative and ethical leadership

Have many boards of directors used temporary agencies to select executive leadership in the last few years? As quickly as high-level leaders turnover in certain sectors, it’s easy to think so. The challenges facing organizations right now have no precedent. Leaders can’t rely on outdated models and philosophies to guide their decisions. The successful leaders of the last few years have demonstrated their ability to innovate new solutions for unprecedented problems. Some of them will show great measures of bravado by identifying and pursuing opportunities presented by the crisis. These leaders will not compromise on principles of integrity to accomplish all this.

A committed and versatile workforce

The companies that survive and succeed in spite of the recession will figure out how to hire and retain talented employees when compensation budgets are stretched thin. Employees are not naïve to the difficulties facing their employers; companies will build high levels of trust by being transparent and honest with them throughout the crisis. When promotions are not available, successful companies permit their workforce to make lateral moves and diversify their skill sets. One high level HR manager conceded that the leadership of a large retail corporation is observing who the real performers are while operating on slimmed-down teams. Did that HR manager consider that all those employees are also observing how their company treats them during the crucible? How committed will those employees be to the company once the economy improves and there’s more career mobility? When budgets won’t permit merit increases and promotions, the successful companies will better employee compensation with increased trust and respect.

Incomparably lean and efficient operations

After an organization asks which aspects of its work are non-essential and then makes the appropriate cuts, it will ask again, which aspects of its work are non-essential and then make more appropriate cuts. As we noted in a recent article, the economic crisis won’t permit curious forays into possible markets and product lines. Organizations should ask repeatedly what divisions and which people bring true value to the business. Decisions about what aspects of the business to focus on are made quickly and effectively.

A sense of humor

The world will not end. Effective leaders won't permit the strain of circumstances to degrade trust and rapport that seem to flourish much easier in prosperous times. Companies that emerge well-positioned in the next year will have recognized and taken advantage of unique opportunities to build teams and a general sense of esprit du corps.

We Can Help

Redesigning your organization to succeed in the coming economic upturn must be done now to realize short-lived opportunities. Visit www.centerod.com for information about how our services and programs can help your organization develop these “survival” skills. Several articles on the site contain valuable information about how to assess your organization, refine your organizational strategy, and further develop your leadership teams.

Resistance to Change

Wed, 20 May 2009 07:00:00 +0000

Do people resist change, and if so, why? There are those (e.g., Tom Peters, “Liberation Management”) who argue that change is actually easy and that people do it all the time. There are many others (e.g., Alan Deutschman, “Change or Die”), who argue that change is difficult and that even when faced with the prospect of death, many people will not give up their unhealthy habits. And in organizations, many of us have experienced the difficulties that organizational leaders have in dealing with resistance.

So when we talk about resistance to change, what exactly is this phenomenon and how to explain it? Recently, an organization that I was working in decided to implement a cost reduction initiative. The Procurement and IT functions identified the use of printers as a potential opportunity. In this company, many employees had their own individual printers connected to their computers in their offices. Procurement and IT came up with the idea of setting up networked printers that were to be located in convenient locations. Employees could then connect their computers wirelessly to these networked printers. Savings were estimated at over $2 million annually. The proposal was approved by senior management; networked printers were ordered, and communication to employees explaining the benefits of this new process was issued.

Within a few weeks, the IT staffs started to remove the individual printers from employees’ offices. The hue and cry was overwhelming. Even though the networked printers were designed to be located no more than a few yards from each employee who needed to print something, the vast majority of employees said that this was a great inconvenience. Some also objected that confidential documents would be compromised since anyone could go over to the printer and view documents as they were being printed. There was so much resistance that senior management decided to phase in the program over two years rather than implement it quickly, thus losing significant opportunity costs.

This example illustrates why many efforts to implement change do not work and how resistance works. We are creatures of habit and when we get into a routine, we don’t necessarily want to change for the sake of change – especially when something is taken away from us that we are used to.

So when we are faced with the prospect of change, we instinctively ask why. From our standpoint, the status quo was working for us, and we were comfortable with it. Why change, especially when the pain of changing is greater than the pain of staying in place.

Managers have to keep in mind four important factors in dealing with resistance to change and helping employees deal with change more effectively.

First, communicate clearly and in a straightforward manner with employees the need for change, while at the same time acknowledging their concerns. Some call this the “burning platform” message but it does not have to be that dramatic a picture. Employees need to see and be reassured that their leaders have thought through the situation, considered other alternatives and have made a decision that is in the best interests of the organization. Employees also need to feel acknowledged, and they need to be heard. So ideally this communication should be interactive. In large organizations, this might be difficult but can be done using interactive technologies and by getting managers and supervisors involved in communicating with their subordinates. While individuals will first react on the basis of “what’s in it for me,” most employees, when asked to help their company, will do so – especially when they see the benefits to the organization. Many employees are willing to make some sacrifices, especially if they feel they have been treated fairly and have been communicated to candidly. The literature on persuasion and influence strongly supports this.

Second, provide reinforcers and support. William Bridges has written extensively about the transitions individuals face during change. When a change comes, individuals need some time to absorb what this means for them. Since some employees may get into a negative spiral, it is important for the organization to provide resources and support for employees. This might take the form of informal sessions with senior management to enable employees to have their concerns addressed, or training sessions for employees to learn the new skills that will be needed as a result of the change.

Third, reinforce the positive by recognizing those individuals and groups who are embracing change, and set them up as role models. In one organization that was closing several plants, those plant managers who demonstrated outstanding leadership during the closing phase were recognized and eventually promoted to more responsible positions.

Fourth, make sure you have established measures of success and communicated these, at the beginning of the change and throughout the change process. What will success look like when the change is fully implemented? This will help employees to see that the organization is indeed benefiting from the change.

In the printer example above, senior management learned that they had to increase their communication efforts. Demonstration sessions were initiated, employees saw physically the benefits of the networked printers (all of which were faster than the printers they currently had), and employee suggestions for ensuring confidentiality of documents were put in place. Actual cost savings were communicated monthly so employees could see the progress of the change.

© 2009 Ray Henson, Ph.D.
Ray is an Organization and Management Consultant with over 25 years experience in Human Resources, Organization Development, Change Leadership, and Project Management.

Empower Your Employees by Involving Them in Decisions

Thu, 16 Apr 2009 01:54:31 +0000

I learned about the importance of involving people in making decisions (as well as teamwork) many years ago when managing a group of 13 HR specialists in a 2000 person electronics company. The welcome I received after being hired as HR director was not exactly warm. The staff was upset their previous boss was gone and that a new, young manager was brought in to replace him. One who didn’t have HR experience to boot.

They were right. I had no HR background and, frankly, did not want to run the department. (How I ended up in the position is another story.) But after a short time on the job, I concluded that if I were to succeed I had to do something to gain the trust of the members of my department.

So, I decided to engage the department in an exercise to define our mission, values, and goals (with the help and encouragement of a good friend and team expert, Dan Turner). To a person, the staff thought this would be a dorky exercise. But, when they saw that I was serious and provided them a template and process for accomplishing this work, they gradually warmed up. The experience turned out to be fun and powerful. We came up with a great mission statement—far better than I could have developed on my own—and one in which each member of the staff took ownership and pride.

A short time later it was time to do the annual budget and I opened the last year’s budget categories and numbers to my staff (with the exception of confidential personnel information, of course). They were dumbfounded. Never had anyone shared information with them nor invited them to make decisions about how to spend our discretionary money. The enthusiasm over the next few meetings was palpable as we made decisions, together, about how to allocate our budget. By now I knew I could trust them to be part of the process since we’d created a mission, values and goals. We all knew what we were about and where we were headed as a department.

I got into the habit of going to the staff. “We have a problem. Let’s talk about what we can do.” Many of “my problems” or even “company problems” became “our problems” and I learned to involve the staff in open discussions of what was going on and steps we could take to address it.

One example was an upcoming reduction in force. Three or four staff members took ownership of the problem and immersed themselves in serious research, going back about five years, regarding the costs of layoffs as well as rehiring when demand picked back up. The report they produced was astounding and revealed that the practice was more costly than keeping extra people. We then developed a nine step plan for managing reductions in force which was implemented company wide and not only saved the company money but built incredible goodwill with the workforce. Something neither I nor upper management would have been able to do if not for the efforts of member of the HR department.

I learned a lot from this and similar experiences. People are capable. (Not all the intelligence resides at the top.) People want to succeed. They want to contribute and be meaningfully involved in their work. They put out when they know their efforts make a difference.

The challenge for leaders (in large companies or a small office staff) is to harness the goodwill and creativity of their employees and engage them in ways that make a difference. Doing so isn’t difficult. But it does take a new way of seeing and thinking about the business and willingness to make new assumptions about employees and their intent and capability.

Roger K. Allen, Ph.D. is an expert in leadership, team development, and personal and organizational change. The tools and methods Dr. Allen offers have helped hundreds of companies, and tens of thousands of people, transform the ways they work and live. To learn more about his consulting and training services, visit http://www.centerod.com. To order a copy of his new book The Hero’s Choice, go to amazon.com or any local bookstore.

The Supervisor Who Blew It

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:47:48 +0000

Carlos has recently been appointed as a new supervisor of production. His feelings about his new job are mixed. He loved working on the floor and had a good relationship with his co-workers. He wasn’t sure he wanted all the responsibility and hassles of being a supervisor and how it might change his relationship with his former peers. Carlos was pleased that the transition seemed to go pretty smoothly, initially. Except for a little good-natured teasing, his co-workers had wished him well and for the first few weeks they’d been cooperative and even helpful as he adjusted to his new role.

Then late on a Friday afternoon of Carlos’s second week in his new job, a disturbing incident took place. He stopped by the lunch room and found a couple of his old buddies, Mike and Bobbie, sitting at a table ready to go home for the day.

“Hey, you guys. You shouldn’t be in here this soon. It’s at least another 15 minutes until quitting time,” said Carlos. “Get back on the floor and I’ll forget I saw you here.”

“Come off it, Carlos,” said Mike. “You used to slip up here yourself on Fridays. Just because you’ve got a little rank now, don’t think you can get tough with us.”

Carlos replied, “Things are different now. Both of you get back on the job.” Mike and Bobbie said nothing more and they both returned to the floor.

From that time on, Carlos began to have problems as a supervisor. Mike and Bobbie gave him the silent treatment. The operators seemed to forget how to do the simplest things. Every few minutes there was a machine shutdown. By the end of the month, Carlos’s department was showing its poorest record ever for production.

Carlos is facing a key moment, which I define as a situation or event that presents a challenge and demands a response. And how Carlos handles this key moment will greatly influence his success as a supervisor and the productivity of his entire department.

Unfortunately, our natural tendency when facing a challenging key moment is to react in one of three ways, each of which is harmful in the long-run. We tend to dominate, accommodate or avoid.

Dominators

Dominators impose their will on people and try to get them to do what they want with little regard for other’s thoughts, needs or feelings. Dominating behaviors include: lecturing, arguing, defending, belittling, controlling, labeling, attacking, blaming, pointing fingers, shaking fists, refusing to listen, being sarcastic, taking over, being bossy, etc. Dominators don’t like to be wrong and they don’t like to lose. Their strategy is to convince, control or even coerce other people into thinking, doing or believing what they want. They tend to say things like:

“You must (should, ought to, better)”
“My way or the highway”
“You always/never”
“That’s dumb”
“Why don’t you”
“You ought to know better than that”

Dominators communicate the message that “if you don’t do what I want, I will intimidate, coerce, or overpower you until you do.” At the extreme, dominators go on the offensive and attack other people, trying to win through intimidation, power, and control. They tend to be action-oriented, direct, demanding, opinionated, critical, and appear to be self-assured.

If Carlos is a dominator, he’ll handle his key moment by being aggressive with his employees and letting them know that he won’t tolerate their poor performance. He might become more vigilant and seek to find out who those people are that are causing problems and tell them that he is willing to fire someone if things don’t improve.

Accommodators

Accommodators put the opinions, needs and feelings of others ahead of their own. Such behaviors include: deferring to others, being silent, giving-in, appeasing, harmonizing, taking the blame, placating, pleading, apologizing, etc. Whereas dominators don’t like to lose, accommodators don’t like to be disliked or rejected. What other people think about them is more important than what they think about themselves. So they get wrapped up in always being nice. They try to get others to change using indirect tactics. They say things like:

“Whatever you want”
“I want you to feel good about this”
“It doesn’t matter to me”
“I may be wrong, but”
“Is that okay with you?”
“Let’s try to get along”
“I just can’t seem to”
“What do you need?”

Accommodators don’t want to offend. They hope that by being nice they can not only avoid rejection and criticism, but that others will see how nice they are and eventually come around. Over time, accommodators may also feel and act like martyrs, pout, get sick, be depressed, or act out their feelings in passive-aggressive kinds of ways. They tend to be polite, easy to get along with, non-judgmental, passive, and self-aware.

If Carlos is an accommodator, he would likely withdraw, fret and worry about what is happening within his department. He may apologize to Mike and Bobbie (not a bad thing) and take the blame for what is happening. He may also bend over backwards to make his employees happy and, in the process, undermine his own authority.

Avoiders

Avoiders disengage from key moments by minimizing the concerns of both others and themselves. Avoiding behaviors include: denying the seriousness of a situation, suppressing their feelings, leaving, minimizing, being apathetic, rationalizing, acting as if it’s “business as usual,” using humor, distracting, dismissing, escaping, etc. Avoiders don’t like conflict and, in particular, the strong emotions conflict brings, so they try to pretend that everything is okay. Their strategy is to leave issues alone and hope that they will go away. They tend to say things like:

“It’s no biggie”
“Let’s not make a mountain out of a mole-hill”
“What problem?”
“You’re cute when you’re mad”
“I said I was sorry”
“Let’s be logical about this”

Avoiders communicate the message “Let’s pretend that everything is okay.” They don’t want to make waves and hope that by glossing over a situation it will go away. Because they have a hard time dealing with emotional issues, their relationships aren’t as deep. They don’t disclose their true selves to other people but seek to play it safe. Avoiders tend to be easy going, independent, rational, and detached.

If Carlos is an avoider, he’s likely to minimize what is happening and hope that things will improve over time. He would rationalize the decrease in production by telling himself that this is part of the natural transition to supervision.

Unfortunately, the long-term consequences of each of these three communication styles are harmful. They diminish trust and set up an unsafe and adversarial atmosphere of “me versus you” and “us versus them.” They impact self esteem and how people feel about themselves on the job. Organizational performance suffers. Problems go unsolved. Employees are unproductive and unhappy.

Collaborators

Of course, dominating, accommodating and avoiding are not the only choices available during a key moment. A fourth and better alternative is collaboration. Collaborators are tough on two dimensions of behavior. They care about outcomes and they care about people. These leaders recognize their own authority and don’t let pleasing others override their opinions. Yet they are also optimistic about people’s capabilities and motives and so willing to go to them directly to work things out. They step up to difficult conversations when differences of opinion exist, but they do so seeking win-win outcomes rather than imposing their own will on others.

Their communication is grounded in three core skills, which are the hallmark of a healthy leader-employee relationship. They continually “shift gears” between these three core skills depending upon the needs and flow of the conversation. Being aware of the skills allows them to read what is happening and plan where to go next.

Supporting others is the foundation of good communication. It is interacting with employees in ways that promote trust, respect, goodwill, openness, and exploration. It includes the ability to listen deeply as well as show respect and give praise to others.

Confronting others is a willingness to be honest and tell the truth. It includes being real and vulnerable about our own experience as well as caring enough about others to not let them act in harmful or mediocre ways. It is communication which we use to address poor performance, resolve conflicts, or address sensitive topics that effect work.

Empowering others is instilling responsibility and authority in them. It is helping them set goals or define actions to move forward as well as holding them accountable for what they say they’ll do. It also includes expanding the scope of what people do by establishing boundary conditions and providing them with resources, information, and training to succeed.

Let’s watch Carlos in action as he addresses the problems going on in his department as a collaborator, as someone who uses these three core skills to improve the situation with Mike and Bobbie.

Carlos decides his first step is to approach Mike and Bobbie and explore what happened. Late one afternoon he invites them to go with him to the cafeteria. After buying them a drink, they all sit down at a table to talk.

Carlos: “I want to talk to the two of you about what happened a couple of weeks back when I confronted you here in the cafeteria and told you to get back to work. I’d like to know how my message affected you and how you’ve felt since then. I’d also like to be able to talk more about some of my feelings and concerns as a new supervisor. Would that be okay?”

Mike and Bobbie look at each other and are quiet for a moment. Carlos doesn’t break the silence.

Bobbie finally speaks up: “Sure, why not.”

Carlos: “Let’s start with your point of view. It seems that my approach upset you. Is that right?”

Mike: “You better believe it. You came down pretty hard and we didn’t appreciate it. We don’t deserve to be treated like that. I had just put in a very productive day and was feeling pretty good. I don’t like your new attitude of being the big boss.”

Carlos: “So you felt I treated you really poorly. You saw me as using my new authority in an uppity, destructive way.”

Mike: “Yup.”

Carlos: “Bobbie, how about you?”

Bobbie: “I agree with Mike. And it’s not like you didn’t do the same thing yourself before your promotion. It seems pretty ridiculous to me that everything changed all of a sudden.”

Carlos: “So you felt mistreated as well. And it doesn’t make sense to you that I would change the rules so suddenly when I used to do the same thing myself.”

Bobbie: “That’s right.”

Carlos: “I know things have not gone well between us since that day and I recognize that the two of you have felt pretty ticked and disappointed in me.”

Mike: “You’ve got that right. We thought you had more class than that. We don’t appreciate you being on your high horse.”

Carlos: “Are there other things I’m doing since that day that send that message to you—that I’m the boss and you’d better do what I say?”

Bobbie: “Well, yes. It’s your whole attitude.”

Carlos: “What, specifically, are you seeing about my attitude that is bothering you?”

Mike: “You’ve been changing things like our procedures for data entry. We don’t get it. It seemed that things were working well in the past. Why all the changes? And, you don’t even talk to us about them. You just announce them and expect us to like them.”

Carlos: “So you don’t understand why I’m making changes in our procedures and, if I’m hearing you correctly, it bothers you even more that I’m not asking for your input or involving you in the changes.”

Bobbie: “That’s right. We’re getting the message that we’re just a bunch of peons. You’re the only guy with a brain.”

Carlos: “Wow. I can see that you would really resent me for taking that approach. Is there more that I’m doing that is bothering you?”

Bobbie: “Everything is so serious. Our staff meetings are right to the point and we can’t get off topic or laugh and joke with each other for even a few minutes without you steering us back on task. We know you have high expectations but it’s making the rest of us feel like imbeciles.”

Carlos: “So the way I’m running our staff meetings and my focus on productivity and getting results all the time is really getting to you. It’s keeping you from enjoying your work and making you feel like dummies.”

Mike: “That’s right.”

Carlos: “Well, I think I’m hearing you. You’re telling me some things that I didn’t know. It is beginning to make sense why our overall productivity is down in the department. To tell you the truth it has been baffling to me. But now I’m beginning to understand. I appreciate your honesty. I think I’ve got a lot to learn as a new supervisor.” Carlos pauses. “Could I share my point of view?”

Mike and Bobbie: “Go ahead.”

Carlos: “Frankly, this job has felt pretty overwhelming to me. I wasn’t sure I wanted it. I was really uncomfortable with the idea of supervising people who had been my co-workers and even friends. Somewhere along the way, I decided that if you guys were going to accept me as your new supervisor and if I was going to make the transition, then I’d have to act the part. I couldn’t be your peer. I had to be your boss. But maybe I overdid it.”

Bobbie: “I’ll say.”

Carlos: “I had no idea you were feeling the way you are about the new procedures. I thought they would help everyone be more productive. But I can see that, instead, they are making people feel left out, maybe even stupid.”

“And I also thought a way to earn respect was to run a tight ship. Like our staff meetings. I’ve always thought they were pretty loosey-goosey and unproductive. To tell you the truth, I thought people would respect me for bringing more discipline to them.”

“I’m not saying by this that my point of view is right. In fact, I can see how we have been seeing things in very different ways. I’m realizing that I need to do more listening to understand your point of view.”

Mike: “That would be good.”

Bobbie: “I can see what’s happening. We know, Carlos, that you want to do a good job. You just have to remember that we’re all in this. You’ve been acting like it’s a one man show.”

Carlos: “Wow. I can see that now. That’s not what I intended. I just wanted to earn your credibility as your supervisor. I wanted you to recognize that I know what I’m doing.”

Bobbie: “I can see that. We do believe you know what you’re doing. You just need to treat us better. We like to think you believe in us too.”

Carlos: “You’re right. And I can see some changes that I need to make. I want to do a better job of listening. I need to involve you more in changes. Will these things help?”

Mike: “Yes, you’re beginning to sound like the old Carlos.”

Carlos: “I’m glad. But I do need you to know that I still have some pretty serious concerns. As we talked about in our last staff meeting, our numbers are the lowest they have ever been. I’m really feeling the heat. I would like us to talk about what we can do to solve that problem. I recognize it is not one I can solve on my own. Like you have said we’re a team. What suggestions do you both have?”

Mike: “Well, for starters, I would suggest we have this conversation with the whole department. It’s not just Bobbie and I that are the problem. We’re all a part of this one. If you could approach the whole team like you have been talking to us, I think we can get things back on track.”

Carlos: “I think you’re right. Let’s do it in the next staff meeting.”

Collaborators address sensitive issues directly. And they communicate with people in ways that strengthen them—that help them grow, feel good about themselves, and motivate them to perform at their best. It’s not easy. It’s a different way of talking. But it’s also a much better alternative than dominating, accommodating, or avoiding. An alternative that will get the best from your most important resource—your people.

The Stories We Tell

Thu, 09 Apr 2009 01:44:26 +0000

One of my happiest memories from my childhood was climbing up onto the lap of a parent or grandparent and reading a story. Reading childhood stories was a way I bonded with my loved ones. It was entertaining. And it was a way I learned valuable lessons of life. One of my favorite stories was “The Little Engine Who Could.” Just recently I was climbing a “Fourteener” in Colorado. The day was hot. The route to the steepest part of the ascent had been long and I was panting hard as I tried to make my way up an unmarked trail over a steep field of boulders. I recall settling into a steady rhythm with a familiar cadence playing in the back of my mind. “I think I can. I think I can.”

One of my children’s favorite stories was “How to be Perfect in Just Three Days.” It is a fun and humorous story about a little boy who learned that he couldn’t and, even more importantly, didn’t need to be perfect.

Stories such as these play an important role in our lives. Not only do they entertain, but their lessons help shape how we think and feel about life.

And I’ve noticed that we don’t stop story-telling because we grow up. In fact, we tell ourselves stories every day. And the most important stories we tell are about our own lives. There is a monologue going on almost continually in the backs of our minds about the events that happen to us on a day-to-day basis. We not only go through event after event but we talk to ourselves about the meaning of these events.

Perhaps the most critical time we tell ourselves stories is during a challenge. And the most important stories we tell ourselves determine how we make it through those challenges. Unfortunately, lots of people tell themselves stories based on fear and insecurity. “Nothing ever goes right” stories. Life is one set of problems after another. They don’t see the blessings and abundance of life but their antennae is attuned to the bad.

Others tell themselves “victim stories.” They insist that circumstances and other people are the cause of their problems. They magnify the actions of others while minimizing their own responsibility for what happens.

Others get caught up in “I might lose” stories. These stories are told by people who are afraid to dream or who put off their visions in order to find security and avoid the fears of failure, rejection or discomfort. As a result, they minimize growth and joy as well as potential losses.

Lots of folks tell themselves “I’m not good enough” stories. They put the brakes on their potential because they feel undeserving of success and happiness as they focus on their weaknesses, real or perceived, as well as guilt about the past.

Others tell “I can’t win” stories. These stories assume that either choices or one’s ability to exercise those choices are limited. “I can’t help it.” “People don’t support me.” “I don’t have the authority.” People who buy into these stories believe they are powerless (not inadequate) to have what they want in life.

What stories do you tell yourself? Especially when things don’t go the way you want? When you get negative feedback? When you fail to get the promotion you wanted? When you’re laid off? When you are sick? Or you see someone who lives in a bigger house? When you get up and go to work every day?

These stories are powerful influencers of our moods, attitudes and behavior. Life is like a movie projector. We project our stories (our core beliefs) onto the world around us and they come back in the form of our experience. And the truth is you can build a case for whatever you tell yourself. You can find plenty of reasons to tell yourself negative stories or positive stories. The origin of your experience in life is not “out there.” It is “in here.”

I remember a story of young boy who asked his mother to come and watch him hit a ball. He tossed it up and swung, missing the ball. He tossed it up again, swung and missed. After tossing it in the air and missing a number of times, he looked at his mother and said, “I sure am a good pitcher.”

The good news is that, once you become aware that you are the one telling the stories, you have a choice. It isn’t always an easy choice. Especially if you’ve been telling yourself negative stories for a long time.

Most everyone who “makes it” in life tell themselves positive stories. People get through incredible adversity because they tell themselves stories that are positive and empowering. Likewise, people achieve incredible success because they tell themselves stories that are positive and empowering.

What is your dream? What do you really want from life? What stories do you need to tell yourself to live that dream? Say it out loud. Again. Write it down. Practice telling that story over and over until it becomes who you are. And, like a little child, discover the joy that can come into your life through the stories you tell.