How many times have you heard someone say, “That’s not fair!” Kids say it to parents to describe the size of their dessert. Workers say it to describe their perception of the treatment they receive from a manager or company. Indeed, fairness seems to be a universal feeling that people have regarding how they are treated by others.
People tend to see fairness from four perspectives. The first is the outcome of events, relating usually to rewards or sanctions. The second is equity–the fairness of what happened to one-person vis-à-vis as compared to what happened to another person. The third category focuses on appropriateness. Some people think a situation is unfair because they believe the circumstance or, especially, the roles taken by certain people were inappropriate. And the fourth category deals with morals, ethics, or the failure to adhere to a code of behavior defining what is believed to be “right.”
The Oxford English Dictionary defines fairness as the extent to which conditions are just, equitable, and impartial. Yet, in psychology, equity theory is not the same as justice, and there are quite a variety of theories and approaches to justice and fairness. In addition, the entire issue of defining employee responsibility and establishing employee accountability also must be considered.
From research I conducted with Dr. Marshall Sashkin in the1980s, we learned that the understanding people have of fairness in business actually includes ten dimensions.
1.Trust: The confidence employees feel toward management; the degree to which employees believe management will do what it says.
2.Consistency: The regularity, continuity, or predictability of management’s actions, such that employees are not surprised by unexpected management actions.
3.Truthfulness: Fidelity and sincerity show though management’s actions that have demonstrated the validity of management’s statements.
4.Integrity: Adherence of management actions to values, ethics, or an ethical code.
5.Expectations: Provision of clear statements by management as to what task activities are desired of employees and what consequences will result.
6.Equity: Demonstration though management’s actions that all employees are treated alike in terms of rewards and sanctions received for similar behaviors and results.
7.Influence: Management’s provision to employees of authority that is equal to employees’ responsibility, such that employees feel ownership of their actions and achievements.
8. Justice: Adherence to a set of standards that is perceived as appropriate and is administered with impartiality.
9.Respect: Expression by management–through its actions–of concern, consideration, and regard for employees.
10.Procedures: Following in every case a publicly stated set of rules for making fair decisions, with all concerned parties taking an active role in applying those rules.
Do your employees complain of unfairness? Finally, where would you place your organization in these ten dimensions?
How many times have you heard someone say, “That’s not fair!” Kids say it to parents to describe the size of their dessert. Workers say it to describe their perception of the treatment they receive from a manager or company. Indeed, fairness seems to be a universal feeling that people have regarding how they are treated by others.
People tend to see fairness from four perspectives. The first is the outcome of events, relating usually to rewards or sanctions. The second is equity–the fairness of what happened to one-person vis-à-vis as compared to what happened to another person. The third category focuses on appropriateness. Some people think a situation is unfair because they believe the circumstance or, especially, the roles taken by certain people were inappropriate. And the fourth category deals with morals, ethics, or the failure to adhere to a code of behavior defining what is believed to be “right.”
The Oxford English Dictionary defines fairness as the extent to which conditions are just, equitable, and impartial. Yet, in psychology, equity theory is not the same as justice, and there are quite a variety of theories and approaches to justice and fairness. In addition, the entire issue of defining employee responsibility and establishing employee accountability also must be considered.
From research I conducted with Dr. Marshall Sashkin in the1980s, we learned that the understanding people have of fairness in business actually includes ten dimensions.
1.Trust: The confidence employees feel toward management; the degree to which employees believe management will do what it says.
2.Consistency: The regularity, continuity, or predictability of management’s actions, such that employees are not surprised by unexpected management actions.
3.Truthfulness: Fidelity and sincerity show though management’s actions that have demonstrated the validity of management’s statements.
4.Integrity: Adherence of management actions to values, ethics, or an ethical code.
5.Expectations: Provision of clear statements by management as to what task activities are desired of employees and what consequences will result.
6.Equity: Demonstration though management’s actions that all employees are treated alike in terms of rewards and sanctions received for similar behaviors and results.
7.Influence: Management’s provision to employees of authority that is equal to employees’ responsibility, such that employees feel ownership of their actions and achievements.
8. Justice: Adherence to a set of standards that is perceived as appropriate and is administered with impartiality.
9.Respect: Expression by management–through its actions–of concern, consideration, and regard for employees.
10.Procedures: Following in every case a publicly stated set of rules for making fair decisions, with all concerned parties taking an active role in applying those rules.
Do your employees complain of unfairness? Finally, where would you place your organization in these ten dimensions?
Curiosity and being observant about your organizations health can quickly expose its strengths or weaknesses. When CMOE consults and works with organizations, individuals often pose the question, “How does our organization stack up against others?” The question is genuine and is often stated as a hopeful plea of verification. People working at all levels in an organization want to know how their team, department, or entire organization stacks up against others. Managers who ask this question are either
Enlightened individuals who are focused on continuous improvement.
or
Perspective leaders who see their organizations exhibiting symptoms of sickness, similar to personal health issue. They can tell that something isn’t quite right and the organization needs a checkup to make sure it’s nothing too serious.
Perspective leaders who see their organizations exhibiting symptoms of sickness, similar to personal health issue. They can tell that something isn’t quite right and the organization needs a checkup to make sure it’s nothing too serious.
Knowing the health of your organization, team, or department is critical to your staying competitive in the modern marketplace. An understanding of what your organization does well and what could be getting in the way of your success will help you make a plan for becoming a world-class organization.
Through its continuous research and development, CMOE has pinpointed 15 vital signs that indicate the overall health of your organization. These are also the vitals that indicate when there is a problem. When looking at these signs, we focus on the following core areas:
Results: Has the organization clearly defined outcomes it wants to achieve and the metrics to measure people’s progress? Does it have a history of delivering superior results for its customers, owners, and stakeholders?
Processes: Does the organization operate like a well-oiled machine? Does the organizations work flow efficiently? Does it have processes and standards that are clearly defined, and team members who consistently follow and support effective work practices?
People: Does the organization have the right people with the right skills, behaviors, and expertise, making them capable of delivering on established expectations?
Investment: Does the organization have access to the necessary financial resources? Is the organization willing to invest in the organization so its mission and future strategies can be fulfilled?
Periodically watch your vital signs by creating a checklist that allows you to verify your organizations health on an ongoing basis. Make sure that this list is meaningful to you. If you don’t know where to start, you may want to download CMOE’s resource guide, How Does Your Organization Stack Up? This 15 point inspection is a good starting point for you to assess your organizations current health and will provide you with some ideas about what a very healthy – and a less healthy – organization looks like.
In an earlier discussion, we learned how supportive, feedback can reinforce a behavior you want repeated. In other words, one purpose of supportive feedback is to create behavior repetition. In some situations supportive feedback can actually correct behaviors as well, For example, a manager in one of my workshops had complained that the board of health could condemn his two teenage sons’ bedrooms. So I asked him to try an experiment by watching for any improvement in either boy’s bedroom whether it was intentional or not. When he noticed an improvement, no matter how small, he was to make a fuss with supportive feedback and then observe what happened. He agreed to the experiment and returned a month later with an interesting story.
“First, of all,” he said, “there was a little improvement in the 17 year-old’s bedroom, even though I gave several supportive comments. However, when I found some improvement in my 14 year-old’s bedroom and then made a fuss with supportive feedback, his reaction was totally opposite.”
The manager explained that after dinner one evening he mentioned to his younger son that his bedroom looked cleaner than it had the day before. Within a few minutes the boy was filling a large garbage bag with trash. Then the next evening the younger boy asked his mother if he could borrow some glass cleaner because he wanted to clean the windows in his bedroom.
Can you believe that? The boy wanted to clean the windows!
That manager then made an interesting comment. He said, “You know, I was getting converted to this way of thinking, but when I heard about the glass cleaner, 1 became a committed convert”
“Committed convert” or not, a batting average of .500 isn’t had!
So if using feedback appropriately can solve so many problems, why don’t more managers use it? There are several reasons, but the four most common are 1) managers may not believe that people need or deserve feedback; 2) managers may not have the skills necessary to deliver appropriate feedback; 3) managers may believe they don’t have enough time to deliver appropriate feedback; and, 4) the business world traditionally revolves around the profit and loss statement, not around “being nice to people” by giving appropriate feedback.
One of the most effective ways of eliminating ineffective behaviors from employees is to fill their feedback buckets. When your supportive feedback fills someone’s bucket, and makes them feel good inside, there is a much better chance that that person will act effectively and cause fewer problems in the future. A little investment of your time today will likely bring fewer problems tomorrow. And that, impacts directly to the bottom line of the profit and loss statement!
There are three common methods managers have used in an attempt to change employee behavior. The methods are telling, selling and threatening. The problem is that these commonly used methods are only marginally effective. And if they work at all, it’s only until you turn your hack. Then the person oftentimes goes right back to the same old behavior. If you doubt that, consider your reaction to being told what to do. Isn’t your first reaction to being told what, when, or how one of recoiling or standing firm against the request? And then, how do you feel about being sold on something? It makes most of us feel inferior or unqualified in some manner. Our natural defensive instincts typically kick in when someone tries to sell us something.
What’s your reaction to being threatened by being told that if you don’t change something immediately there will be a dire consequence? Now, if you believe that what you’ve done is serious, you might accept a line being drawn in the sand. But, what if you don’t ‘believe your behavior deserves a threat? How effective and long lasting is a threat then?
At this point experienced managers point out that some employees are primarily money driven and are only likely to respond, or change their behavior, when a line is drawn in the sand. To this I respond, remember, changing behavior is almost always a process, not a single event. Sometimes it can even be a very slow process. And sometimes it won’t work, despite our best efforts and intentions. But our obligation as managers is to use the best techniques we can.
It’s important to understand how feedback works for most people so that you can know when to use supportive feedback or corrective feedback. The following chart can help clarify the difference.
The reason why we need to support or correct behaviors is that behaviors drive performance, and performance drives results. When changing employee behavior, it’s very important that the employee clearly understand the connection between what you are asking him/her to do and the impact the change will have on organizational results. Without that connection, the employee is likely to get lost in the process. The process works like this. Positive behaviors tend to drive positive performance, which tends to drive positive results, which deserves supportive feedback, or the positive behavior may not be repeated. Negative behaviors tend to drive negative performance, which tend to drive negative results, which deserves corrective feedback. If supportive feedback doesn’t work, then move on to corrective feedback. If corrective feedback doesn’t work, then move on to drawing a line in the sand with an appropriate level of discipline.
In Part Two of this discussion on corrective feedback we’ll learn a practical method of transferring ownership of both the problem and its solution to the employee. By transferring problem/solution ownership to the employee, you will have a much better chance of a long lasting solution without the collateral damage that can happen when you use the traditional methods of telling, selling or threatening. In the mean time, try using supportive feedback as a tool to correct behavior; how about at home in a child’s messy bedroom?
In an earlier discussion, we learned how supportive, feedback can reinforce a behavior you want repeated. In other words, one purpose of supportive feedback is to create behavior repetition. In some situations sup
portive feedback can actually correct behaviors as well, For example, a manager in one of my workshops had complained that the board of health could condemn his two teenage sons’ bedrooms. So I asked him to try an experiment by watching for any improvement in either boy’s bedroom whether it was intentional or not. When he noticed an improvement, no matter how sm
all, he was to make a fuss with supportive feedback and then observe what happened. He agreed to the experiment and returned a month later with an interesting story.
“First, of all,” he said, “there was a little improvement in the 17 year-old’s bedroom, even though I gave several supportive comments. However, when I found some improvement in my 14 year-old’s bedroom and then made a fuss with supportive feedback, his reaction was totally opposite.”
The manager explained that after dinner one evening he mentioned to his younger son that his bedroom looked cleaner than it had the day before. Within a few minutes the boy was filling a large garbage bag with trash. Then the next evening the younger boy asked his mother if he could borrow some glass cleaner because he wanted to clean the windows in his bedroom. Can you believe that? The boy wanted to clean the windows!
That manager then made an interesting comment. He said, “You know, I was getting converted to this way of thinking, but when I heard about the glass cleaner, 1 became a committed convert”
“Committed convert” or not, a batting average of .500 isn’t bad!
So if using feedback appropriately can solve so many problems, why don’t more managers use it? There are several reasons, but the four most common are 1) managers may not believe that people need or deserve feedback; 2) managers may not have the skills necessary to deliver appropriate feedback; 3) managers may believe they don’t have enough time to deliver appropriate feedback; and, 4) the business world traditionally revolves around the profit and loss statement, not around “being nice to people” by giving appropriate feedback.
One of the most effective ways of eliminating ineffective behaviors from employees is to fill their feedback buckets. When your supportive feedback fills someone’s bucket, and makes them feel good inside, there is a much better chance that that person will act effectively and cause fewer problems in the future. A little investment of your time today will likely bring fewer problems tomorrow. And that, impacts directly to the bottom line of the profit and loss statement!
There are three common methods managers have used in an attempt to change employee behavior. The methods are telling, selling and threatening. The problem is that these commonly used methods are only marginally effective. And if they work at all, it’s only until you turn your hack. Then the person oftentimes goes right back to the same old behavior. If you doubt that, consider your reaction to being told what to do. Isn’t your first reaction to being told what, when, or how one of recoiling or standing firm against the request? And then, how do you feel about being sold on something? It makes most of us feel inferior or unqualified in some manner. Our natural defensive instincts typically kick in when someone tries to sell us something.
What’s your reaction to being threatened by being told that if you don’t change something immediately there will be a dire consequence? Now, if you believe that what you’ve done is serious, you might accept a line being drawn in the sand. But, what if you don’t ‘believe your behavior deserves a threat? How effective and long lasting is a threat then?
At this point experienced managers point out that some employees are primarily money driven and are only likely to respond, or change their behavior, when a line is drawn in the sand. To this I respond, remember, changing behavior is almost always a process, not a single event. Sometimes it can even be a very slow process. And sometimes it won’t work, despite our best efforts and intentions. But our obligation as managers is to use the best techniques we can.
It’s important to understand how feedback works for most people so that you can know when to use supportive feedback or corrective feedback.
The reason why we need to support or correct behaviors is that behaviors drive performance, and performance drives results. When changing employee behavior, it’s very important that the employee clearly understand the connection between what you are asking him/her to do and the impact the change will have on organizational results. Without that connection, the employee is likely to get lost in the process. The process works like this. Positive behaviors tend to drive positive performance, which tends to drive positive results, which deserves supportive feedback, or the positive behavior may not be repeated. Negative behaviors tend to drive negative performance, which tend to drive negative results, which deserves corrective feedback. If supportive feedback doesn’t work, then move on to corrective feedback. If corrective feedback doesn’t work, then move on to drawing a line in the sand with an appropriate level of discipline.
In Part Two of this discussion on corrective feedback we’ll learn a practical method of transferring ownership of both the problem and its solution to the employee. By transferring problem/solution ownership to the employee, you will have a much better chance of a long lasting solution without the collateral damage that can happen when you use the traditional methods of telling, selling or threatening. In the mean time, try using supportive feedback as a tool to correct behavior; how about at home in a child’s messy bedroom?
In organizations, families, and indeed even our Western society, one of the reasons for failure is the inability by leadership to establish and enforce accountability. Accountability in leadership is a topic that is not frequently discussed and as a result often the cause of problems relating to compliance to procedures, following work rules, treating customers with respect, achieving results, and getting along with co-workers. Accountability is at the heart of empowering people to perform well, demonstrating initiative, and acting responsibly. When a climate of accountability exists, things work smoothly; and when it is absent procedures fail and policies are ignored.
Let me describe parental leadership first. I read a newspaper report about a father who had an emotional outburst and caused a scene in a school board meeting regarding the suspension of his son from school. His eleven-year-old son had threatened the life of another student on the playground. Following district policy, the principal had suspended the boy for three days saying, “In light of tragedies that have happened in schools around the country, we take all threats such as this very seriously. The policy requires a three-day suspension.”
The irate father emotionally pleads his case to the school board saying, “He’s a good boy and even though this is the second time this year he’s been suspended he doesn’t deserve punishment this harsh. Three days is just too much, because it’s embarrassing for him and our entire family.”
The father apparently was saying that because the suspension would be embarrassing that the punishment ought to be reduced. In other words, the consequence of the son’s behavior is trumped by the father’s desire to evade embarrassment. That is interesting in light of the father’s emotional outburst in a public school board meeting.
Now let me describe organizational leadership. A manager complained, “My employees just don’t take me seriously. She said, “Even though I tell them over and over, some employees won’t even call in to say they are sick. They just don’t show up.”
I asked what she did when an employee didn’t take the time to call in sick. She replied, “I just find somebody else to work the shift and then when they do show up I tell them to be sure to call me next time.”
I asked, “So how is this technique working?”
She said, “It’s not! That’s the problem; I can’t find good people these days.”
The situations with the irate parent and the ineffective manager are related in the absence of the leader establishing and enforcing individual accountability. When people do not feel that they are held accountable for their behavior, they often lower their performance to the lowest possible level acceptable to the leader. In other words, leader behavior regarding the establishment of accountability does a lot to determine a person’s highest level of performance. That’s what the eleven-year-old boy did on the playground. He had gotten away with inappropriate behavior before (certainly at home and possibly at school) and believed he could do it again. His previous inappropriate behaviors resulted in no undesirable consequences for him. That’s similar to what the employees were doing to the manager. They had not been held accountable when they didn’t call in sick before, so they had no belief that it was a necessary requirement to maintain job security. The manager’s failure to hold her employees accountable created an overly permissive climate where the employees could dictate their own policies and procedures.
At the foundation of establishing accountability is the principle of Behavior Must Equal Consequence. When people do not believe that their behavior will result in a consequence, they are free to choose any behavior that feels good at the moment. When people believe that their positive behaviors will result in positive feedback or even rewards, and their inappropriate behaviors will result in corrective feedback, coaching, or even discipline, they will raise their performance to the standard expected by the leader. The leader sets the standard through his or her application of feedback, coaching and discipline.
I don’t know all of the details about the parent and his son, the schoolyard bully, but it is a safe bet that the son had not been held accountable for his behaviors in the past. The reason he threatened another classmate’s life is because he didn’t believe that his behavior would have any undesirable consequences. He thought he could get away with it. And, the reason why the manager’s employees didn’t call in sick, and didn’t even apologize for not doing so was because they also thought they could get away with it. The two examples are related because in each case the leader failed to establish personal accountability by practicing the principle of Behavior Must Equal Consequence.
Effective leaders believe in and practice the principle of Behavior Must Equal Consequence. When an employee performs well and/or adheres to organizational rules, an effective manager will notice and provide the employee with appropriate feedback to reinforce the good performance. Likewise, when an employee does not perform well and/or does not follow the rules, an effective manager will notice and provide the employee with corrective feedback, or coaching to change the performance. Exactly the same thing is true when raising children. Behavior Must Equal Consequence, both positive and negative, must be a guiding principle to raise responsible children who as a consequence act responsibly.
Personal accountability is a climate that is created when a leader consistently practices Behavior Must Equal Consequence. The word “consistently” often bothers managers, because they think it means “every time.” Clearly, a manager cannot provide supportive or corrective feedback every time an employee does something. That obviously is not possible. But a manager can do what is necessary to become more aware of an employee’s performance and then provide appropriate feedback as often as is practical. Simply, if employees feel and act as though they are accountable, then the leader is practicing consistent feedback. If employees do not feel and act accountable, then the leader is not consistent with his or her feedback.
Consistency not only involves the frequency of feedback in that it must be frequent enough to create a climate of accountability, but it also includes the appropriateness of the feedback. In the principle of Behavior Must Equal Consequence, good performance must result is supportive feedback, and poor performance must result in corrective feedback. If a manager, due to stress, anger, lack of understanding, failure to take time, or habit gives negative feedback for good performance, positive feedback for poor performance, or no feedback for any performance, then the employees will sense a lack of consistency and conclude that they are not accountable for their actions. Thus they are free to act any way they want.
So the secret to creating a climate of accountability is to become more aware of performance levels, take the time to give the correct type of feedback or coaching, give feedback as often as practical, and do so as consistently as conditions permit. Done over time with the proper administration of rewards when deserved and discipline or sanctionswhen appropriate, a manager can create a climate of accountability and become more effective.
In organizations, families, and indeed even our Western society, one of the reasons for failure is the inability by leadership to establish and enforce accountability. Accountability in leadership is a topic that is not frequently discussed and as a result often the cause of problems relating to compliance to procedures, following work rules, treating customers with respect, achieving results, and getting along with co-workers. Accountability is at the heart of empowering people to perform well, demonstrating initiative, and acting responsibly. When a climate of accountability exists, things work smoothly; and when it is absent procedures fail and policies are ignored.
Let me describe parental leadership first. I read a newspaper report about a father who had an emotional outburst and caused a scene in a school board meeting regarding the suspension of his son from school. His eleven-year-old son had threatened the life of another student on the playground. Following district policy, the principal had suspended the boy for three days saying, “In light of tragedies that have happened in schools around the country, we take all threats such as this very seriously. The policy requires a three-day suspension.”
The irate father emotionally pleads his case to the school board saying, “He’s a good boy and even though this is the second time this year he’s been suspended he doesn’t deserve punishment this harsh. Three days is just too much, because it’s embarrassing for him and our entire family.”
The father apparently was saying that because the suspension would be embarrassing that the punishment ought to be reduced. In other words, the consequence of the son’s behavior is trumped by the father’s desire to evade embarrassment. That is interesting in light of the father’s emotional outburst in a public school board meeting.
Now let me describe organizational leadership. A manager complained, “My employees just don’t take me seriously. She said, “Even though I tell them over and over, some employees won’t even call in to say they are sick. They just don’t show up.”
I asked what she did when an employee didn’t take the time to call in sick. She replied, “I just find somebody else to work the shift and then when they do show up I tell them to be sure to call me next time.”
I asked, “So how is this technique working?”
She said, “It’s not! That’s the problem; I can’t find good people these days.”
The situations with the irate parent and the ineffective manager are related in the absence of the leader establishing and enforcing individual accountability. When people do not feel that they are held accountable for their behavior, they often lower their performance to the lowest possible level acceptable to the leader. In other words, leader behavior regarding the establishment of accountability does a lot to determine a person’s highest level of performance. That’s what the eleven-year-old boy did on the playground. He had gotten away with inappropriate behavior before (certainly at home and possibly at school) and believed he could do it again. His previous inappropriate behaviors resulted in no undesirable consequences for him. That’s similar to what the employees were doing to the manager. They had not been held accountable when they didn’t call in sick before, so they had no belief that it was a necessary requirement to maintain job security. The manager’s failure to hold her employees accountable created an overly permissive climate where the employees could dictate their own policies and procedures.
At the foundation of establishing accountability is the principle of Behavior Must Equal Consequence. When people do not believe that their behavior will result in a consequence, they are free to choose any behavior that feels good at the moment. When people believe that their positive behaviors will result in positive feedback or even rewards, and their inappropriate behaviors will result in corrective feedback, coaching, or even discipline, they will raise their performance to the standard expected by the leader. The leader sets the standard through his or her application of feedback, coaching and discipline.
I don’t know all of the details about the parent and his son, the schoolyard bully, but it is a safe bet that the son had not been held accountable for his behaviors in the past. The reason he threatened another classmate’s life is because he didn’t believe that his behavior would have any undesirable consequences. He thought he could get away with it. And, the reason why the manager’s employees didn’t call in sick, and didn’t even apologize for not doing so was because they also thought they could get away with it. The two examples are related because in each case the leader failed to establish personal accountability by practicing the principle of Behavior Must Equal Consequence.
Effective leaders believe in and practice the principle of Behavior Must Equal Consequence. When an employee performs well and/or adheres to organizational rules, an effective manager will notice and provide the employee with appropriate feedback to reinforce the good performance. Likewise, when an employee does not perform well and/or does not follow the rules, an effective manager will notice and provide the employee with corrective feedback, or coaching to change the performance. Exactly the same thing is true when raising children. Behavior Must Equal Consequence, both positive and negative, must be a guiding principle to raise responsible children who as a consequence act responsibly.
Personal accountability is a climate that is created when a leader consistently practices Behavior Must Equal Consequence. The word “consistently” often bothers managers, because they think it means “every time.” Clearly, a manager cannot provide supportive or corrective feedback every time an employee does something. That obviously is not possible. But a manager can do what is necessary to become more aware of an employee’s performance and then provide appropriate feedback as often as is practical. Simply, if employees feel and act as though they are accountable, then the leader is practicing consistent feedback. If employees do not feel and act accountable, then the leader is not consistent with his or her feedback.
Consistency not only involves the frequency of feedback in that it must be frequent enough to create a climate of accountability, but it also includes the appropriateness of the feedback. In the principle of Behavior Must Equal Consequence, good performance must result is supportive feedback, and poor performance must result in corrective feedback. If a manager, due to stress, anger, lack of understanding, failure to take time, or habit gives negative feedback for good performance, positive feedback for poor performance, or no feedback for any performance, then the employees will sense a lack of consistency and conclude that they are not accountable for their actions. Thus they are free to act any way they want.
So the secret to creating a climate of accountability is to become more aware of performance levels, take the time to give the correct type of feedback or coaching, give feedback as often as practical, and do so as consistently as conditions permit. Done over time with the proper administration of rewards when deserved and discipline or sanctions when appropriate, a manager can create a climate of accountability and become more effective.
CMOE is announcing our $500 Visualizing Leadership scholarship. This is an opportunity to for high school (grade 9-12), college, or graduate student receive some financial aid for the upcoming school year. This scholarship will be offered to the student who creates the most visually compelling infographic that helps convey a concept or idea around Leadership, Teamwork, Strategy, or Coaching. The winning infographic will have the opportunity to be used in our workshops, training programs, or our consulting services.
Not only is this a great opportunity to receive financial help for education, we also believe this is a great opportunity to help and strengthen student skills, as well as help shape strong leadership skills for the future. It will give students an opportunity to explore industry concepts that may be of interest to them, as well as explore other topics that are vital in the workplace.
John Quincy Adams said, “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” This scholarship will allow these students this opportunity, as well as allowing them to become leaders through helping others.
Each entry will be judged and given a score based on its relevance to the following 4 categories:
-Creativity
-Relevance to our industry
-Professionalism
-Image quality
CMOE is excited to display the winning infographic and its author on our blog on or before September 15, 2011. To view all criteria and deadlines please visit www.cmoe.com/scholarship.htm for more information.
CMOE is announcing our $500 Visualizing Leadership scholarship. This is an opportunity to for high school (grade 9-12), college, or graduate student receive som
e financial aid for the upcoming school year. This scholarship will be offered to the student who creates the
most visually compelling infographic that helps convey a concept or idea around Leadership, Teamwork, Strategy, or Coaching. The winning infographic will have the opportunity to be used in our workshops, training programs, or our consulting services.
Not only is this a great opportunity to receive financial help for education, we also believe this is a great opportunity to help and strengthen student skills, as well as help shape strong leadership skills for the future. It will give students an opportunity to explore industry concepts that may be of interest to them, as well as explore other topics that are vital in the workplace.
John Quincy Adams said, “If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.” This scholarship will allow these students this opportunity, as well as allowing them to become leaders through helping others.
Each entry will be judged and given a score based on its relevance to the following 4 categories:
-Creativity
-Relevance to our industry
-Professionalism
-Image quality
CMOE is excited to display the winning infographic and its author on our blog on or before September 15, 2011. To view all criteria and deadlines please visit www.cmoe.com/scholarship.htm for more information.
I’ve noticed something strange in the last five years or so: people seem to have forgotten how to think, and nowhere is that troubling fact more obvious than in the workforce. This lack is not limited to common sense. It is not limited to emotional intelligence. It seems that the sheer capacity to question, to wonder, and to contribute something new to our collective human consciousness has been almost entirely snuffed out by self-satisfied complacency and attention spans so short they would make you average four-year-old blush. There may be some other reasons, too.
Admittedly, questioning authority (and the status quo) isn’t always easy, and it isn’t always safe. Depending on the reigning style of management at a given organization, sometimes offering an opinion too loudly or promoting an alternative too forcefully or rocking the boat too vigorously can be a quick way to enter the ranks of the unemployed. We need to be careful about how we broach certain subjects. Battle cries for new world orders clearly need to be tempered with some tact. But the thing that no one needs is another lemming following its brainless predecessors off a cliff.
As a species, we have been given the gift of reason, the capacity to think for ourselves. Yet, too often, we default to the opinions of “experts”; we bow to the expertise of our “superiors”; we get swept away by the torrent of groupthink just because it’s there. We have gotten comfortable and become lazy; we are content to let others do the thinking for us. We have forgotten how to think critically, failing to question the decisions being made all around us with neither our input nor our consent. We have been trained to get along by going along. The newest generation of employees has not been rewarded for being innovative. They have been downsized, outsourced, and laid off. This is partially their fault and partially not. They try to go unnoticed so that they can keep their jobs. For many, it’s purely a case of self-preservation. Keeping their heads down has made them invisible, entirely unremarkable, and kept them under the radar. The unfortunate fallout is that it has also made them drones. What a waste.
Some of the most influential people in our history have also been the most cantankerous. Galileo Galilei, widely known as the father of modern science, refused to let go of the notion that the earth is not, in fact, the center of the universe. For that, he was tried by the Inquisition and found guilty of heresy. He spent the remainder of his life under house arrest because he refused to denounce what he held to be right and true, despite popular pressure. Where was that defiant spirit when Enron was busy cooking its books and stealing billions of dollars from its shareholders? Enron didn’t employ stupid people. For all intents and purposes, it wasn’t that they lacked ethics or character, either. What was missing was the ability to question authority, and the courage to draw a line in the sand.
I’ve noticed something strange in the last five years or so: people seem to have forgotten how to think, and nowhere is that troubling fact more obvious than in the workforce. This lack is not limited to common sense. It is not limited to emotional intelligence. It seems that the sheer capacity to question, to wonder, and to contribute something new to our collective human consciousness has been almost entirely snuffed out by self-satisfied complacency and attention spans so short they would make you average four-year-old blush. There may be some other reasons, too.
Admittedly, questioning authority (and the status quo) isn’t always easy, and it isn’t always safe. Depending on the reigning style of management at a given organization, sometimes offering an opinion too loudly or promoting an alternative too forcefully or rocking the boat too vigorously can be a quick way to enter the ranks of the unemployed. We need to be careful about how we broach certain subjects. Battle cries for new world orders clearly need to be tempered with some tact. But the thing that no one needs is another lemming following its brainless predecessors off a cliff.
As a species, we have been given the gift of reason, the capacity to think for ourselves. Yet, too often, we default to the opinions of “experts”; we bow to the expertise of our “superiors”; we get swept away by the torrent of groupthink just because it’s there. We have gotten comfortable and become lazy; we are content to let others do the thinking for us. We have forgotten how to think critically, failing to question the decisions being made all around us with neither our input nor our consent. We have been trained to get along by going along. The newest generation of employees has not been rewarded for being innovative. They have been downsized, outsourced, and laid off. This is partially their fault and partially not. They try to go unnoticed so that they can keep their jobs. For many, it’s purely a case of self-preservation. Keeping their heads down has made them invisible, entirely unremarkable, and kept them under the radar. The unfortunate fallout is that it has also made them drones. What a waste.
Some of the most influential people in our history have also been the most cantankerous. Galileo Galilei, widely known as the father of modern science, refused to let go of the notion that the earth is not, in fact, the center of the universe. For that, he was tried by the Inquisition and found guilty of heresy. He spent the remainder of his life under house arrest because he refused to denounce what he held to be right and true, despite popular pressure. Where was that defiant spirit when Enron was busy cooking its books and stealing billions of dollars from its shareholders? Enron didn’t employ stupid people. For all intents and purposes, it wasn’t that they lacked ethics or character, either. What was missing was the ability to question authority, and the courage to draw a line in the sand.
If you have observed a referee in any sport, you can relate to the subtle similarities between successful officiating and organizational leadership.
The referee experience is a high speed microcosm of the leadership experience in the workplace. As an official, the price of entry is similar to that of successful leadership.
Basics of officiating include the following:
•Thorough knowledge and consistent application of the laws of the game and rules of competition.
•Being in position to best see the play and make the call.
•Mastering the art of influencing the behavior of others by demonstrating your understanding that the game is for the players, coaches, and spectators.
As a former player, and as both an official and an administrator of a large corps of officials, I have seen many different styles of officiating work well. The same is true in the workplace. However there are core competencies that make up great officials and great leaders in the workplace.
•Strength in conviction grounded in the goals and expectations of the organization.
•Your presence and contribution are felt, but are not perceived, as overbearing.
•You are able to offer direction, guidance, and a balanced perspective.
•You have the courage to make the right call, even if it is unpopular.
•You gain the respect of others by your actions.
•You hold people accountable for their actions and “call out” undesirable behaviors when necessary
Being “In Position To Make The Call”
When the official is not close enough to see the play and therefore make the right call, his/her perceived position of authority can be damaged.
At the same time, the official must “stay out of the passing lanes” and not overly interfere. You have to be “close to play” but not take the game from the players. As Peter Drucker said “productivity depends on an acknowledgement that the person doing the job knows the job better than the person overseeing it.” What is important about Drucker’s observation is that when you show respect for and include the person closest to the job (or to the customer), you not only get their buy in and ownership, but increased productivity as well. Increased productivity, whether it’s quantity, quality, or engagement, is the engine of growth, customer satisfaction, and profitability.
Thorough Knowledge and Consistent Application of the Laws of the Game
You must be proficient in your skills. We’ve all been to a sporting event where the official was not consistent in applying in the laws of the game or misinterpreted the rules. Very quickly, the experience is no longer about the joy of the game for the players, coaches and spectators, and the outcome is compromised. Knowledge of the skills you require your employees to have is necessary to building rapport as a leader.
Mastering the Art of Influencing Others.
As an official, you have been empowered with both real and perceived authority to manage the efforts of others to a successful outcome. You are given a “whistle” to control the behavior, enforce the rules and boundaries and, more subtly, preserve the objectives and spirit of the game. As an organizational leader, your position and authority have very much the same basis. The result of wielding the ‘whistle’ you are given as your primary means of influence will yield the same results as an official that is overly officious.
Great leaders consider the goals and objectives of the players in concert with those of the organization. Their efforts take into account the flow of the game and the needs of all stakeholders. There are times when leaders must stand tall and “make the call,” but the real basis of their authority and credibility is grounded in their leadership behavior, over time.
If you have observed a referee in any sport, you can relate to the subtle similarities between successful officiating and organizational leadership.
The referee experience is a high speed microcosm of the leadership experience in the workplace. As an official, the price of entry is similar to that of successful leadership.
Basics of officiating include the following:
Thorough knowledge and consistent application of the laws of the game and rules of competition.
Being in position to best see the play and make the call.
Mastering the art of influencing the behavior of others by demonstrating your understanding that the game is for the players, coaches, and spectators.
As a former player, and as both an official and an administrator of a large corps of officials, I have seen many different styles of officiating work well. The same is true in the workplace. However there are core competencies that make up great officials and great leaders in the workplace.
Strength in conviction grounded in the goals and expectations of the organization.
Your presence and contribution are felt, but are not perceived, as overbearing.
You are able to offer direction, guidance, and a balanced perspective.
You have the courage to make the right call, even if it is unpopular.
You gain the respect of others by your actions.
You hold people accountable for their actions and “call out” undesirable behaviors when necessary
Being “In Position To Make The Call”
When the official is not close enough to see the play and therefore make the right call, his/her perceived position of authority can be damaged.
At the same time, the official must “stay out of the passing lanes” and not overly interfere. You have to be “close to play” but not take the game from the players. As Peter Drucker said “productivity depends on an acknowledgement that the person doing the job knows the job better than the person overseeing it.” What is important about Drucker’s observation is that when you show respect for and include the person closest to the job (or to the customer), you not only get their buy in and ownership, but increased productivity as well. Increased productivity, whether it’s quantity, quality, or engagement, is the engine of growth, customer satisfaction, and profitability.
Thorough Knowledge and Consistent Application of the Laws of the Game
You must be proficient in your skills. We’ve all been to a sporting event where the official was not consistent in applying in the laws of the game or misinterpreted the rules. Very quickly, the experience is no longer about the joy of the game for the players, coaches and spectators, and the outcome is compromised. Knowledge of the skills you require your employees to have is necessary to building rapport as a leader.
Mastering the Art of Influencing Others.
As an official, you have been empowered with both real and perceived authority to manage the efforts of others to a successful outcome. You are given a “whistle” to control the behavior, enforce the rules and boundaries and, more subtly, preserve the objectives and spirit of the game. As an organizational leader, your position and authority have very much the same basis. The result of wielding the ‘whistle’ you are given as your primary means of influence will yield the same results as an official that is overly officious.
Great leaders consider the goals and objectives of the players in concert with those of the organization. Their efforts take into account the flow of the game and the needs of all stakeholders. There are times when leaders must stand tall and “make the call,” but the real basis of their authority and credibility is grounded in their leadership behavior, over time.
Michael Jordan’s “Failure” commercial for Nike takes an interesting look at how negative experiences, or experiences that don’t turn out exactly the way we planned can become game-changing experience through hard work. In this commercial, Michael explains through this commercial he missed more than 9,000 shots in his career; he has lost almost 300 games; he has failed 26 times when trusted to take the game winning shot. If people are accountable for their failures and handle them correctly, failure can be a tool for greatness. “Accountability” refers to a person’s taking ownership and acting in a responsible way, despite personal feelings, potential outcomes, or even possible consequences of his or her actions.
Being accountable for one’s failures can be frightening for many individuals, but sometimes we have to realize that recognizing our failures, and learning from them, can actually help us become more successful in the long run. If we are able to change up our game we will become more effective and produce results that will benefit us along with our organization.
As seen in Michael Jordan’s commercial, a positive mindset turns failure into feedback. Scorekeeping can really help in turning failure into success, allowing us to receive visual feedback by tracking our performance on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis. Even though our performance may initially seem like a failure, if we use this information to our advantage. If we are able to better master these tasks, we can produce bottom-line results. In Michael Jordan’s situation, he learned to make the free throws, he learned how to lose, he learned to work hard, and after improving upon and harnessing his talents he was able to become legendary. If we can take the disappointments and failures and view them with a positive attitude, we can become successful and reach our bottom-line goals.
Scorekeeping allows us to visually understand how successful we are being in our work. By being able to see where we currently fall on our “Goal” Line, we can tweak the way we are performing and allow these changes to make us successful. Change is a process, and in order for our scorecards to really speak to us, we will need to make more than one tweak before we are perfect contributors to the bottom line. Michael Jordan understands this. He failed over and over again. Failure doesn’t make us successful, but taking that failure and allowing it to speak to you so that you can change for the better, is what brings true success.
A friend of mine is a decent person but a terrible manager. I know this because I have been both his friend and his employee in the fifteen years I have known him, and his influence was the primary reason I left a previous job after working for the organization for nearly twelve years. I am a very human example of an idea that nearly every leader has heard at one time or another: when employees leave companies, they don’t leave companies; they leave managers.
I like to think of myself as a “good” employee, as ambiguous a term as that may be. I am bright and dedicated. My work ethic is strong. I am honest and committed and willing to happily tow the company line. I haven’t called in sick to a job, any job, for over five years. I always meet my deadlines. I seek out new things to learn. I am loyal to a fault. I need very little in terms of supervision, because I believe that the work I produce is a direct reflection on my character, and I work very hard to make sure that reflection is an accurate one.
My demands are meager, and they are few. But what I do require, now and then, is a little pat on the head. An occasional “good job” or a “we’re glad you’re here” or a “you really went the extra mile on that one.” I’ll take feedback, good or bad, thin or robust, over a silent, perfunctory pay raise any day. Although at my previous employer, I couldn’t even rely on that. Of the twelve years I worked in my job, I received one major promotion and no increases in pay, as I happened to be unlucky enough to work for someone who believed neither in annual raises nor in merit-based ones. There was literally zero external incentive to do anything more than a passable job. And yet I kept showing up.
I worked for a business that had experienced unprecedented growth and jaw-dropping success almost since its inception. Because it was so successful early on, the management team became complacent, arrogant about the approach they felt was the right one to take in running the business. The industry environment began to change, slowly eroding the company’s share of the market year by year. It was almost imperceptible—a long, slow death. Because I had been with this company from the very beginning, watching this slow, internal rot was like watching a dear old friend die of bone cancer. And as the company’s illness spread, people who do poorly with power were given positions in which they held it, and the longstanding employees among us, those who felt the grief most strongly, bore the brunt of management’s fury.
The general manager, my friend, had inherited a sickly giant, which was not entirely his fault. But what was his fault was digging himself in; betting his life, his livelihood, and the safety and stability and overall wellbeing of his family on the success of this business. And when he began to realize that he had made a bad choice as a person, he lashed out as a manager. The atmosphere inside the building grew more and more oppressive as the months, and then years, passed. The staff rarely smiled. Every person in every division, except for the very new among us, began to tread lightly around management, knowing that the slightest misstep would result in, at best, public humiliation. The business held on, but barely, in the same way that a person who has fallen off a cliff grasps desperately at the face of the sheer rock wall.
I loved my job, and so I worked under these conditions for seven years. For the last two, just the thought of going to work made me feel kind of sick. But I was afraid to leave. I had given so much of myself to that company. I feared that the tempestuous job market wouldn’t sustain the change I wanted to make, and I was terrified that I might never find work that I truly loved ever again. Silly and pessimistic, I know, but the pull of an abusive relationship is equally as seductive as it is poisonous. I finally resigned myself to the facts of the situation: I loved my job, but I simply couldn’t continue to work under the conditions that my manager had created. I couldn’t suffer a culture that would allow these abuses to take place. I couldn’t bear the idea of sacrificing what remained of my respect for my friend in the interest of supporting his actions as a manager. So I left.
Before I went, I tried to muster up the courage to explain, in detail, why I had decided to leave. Instead of being honest about my feelings—my hurt, my disappointment, and my disgust—I made vague statements about how it was “just time to move on.” Maybe that makes me a coward. Maybe it makes me an enabler. But if my experience had taught me anything, it was that even the most benevolent of criticisms would be met with excuses, and defensiveness, and cruelty, and I decided that it just wasn’t worth my breath.
I said it was time to move on, and it was. But the push I needed was working for a really awful manager and finally getting fed up. I moved on, and none of the things I’d feared so tangibly came to pass. I suppose that this individual ultimately did me a favor, but these aren’t the stories that you want your employees—either current or former—to tell about you when you’re not around. Failing to provide others with appropriate, useful, and timely feedback is a leadership failure, but it is also a personal one. Knowing of the deficit and refusing to do anything about it is simply irresponsible. These failings can be overcome. These skills can be learned. Don’t underestimate the power that feedback, or lack thereof, has over your effectiveness as a leader, the morale of your employees, the culture of your business, and your organization’s ultimate success. If you see yourself in my words, let me give you some well-worn advice: take matters into your own capable hands and do something about it.
Achieving business success in any economic scenario can be a daunting task. The task becomes a little easier when each activity, function, and team is aligned with the long-term business strategy. When conducting our research projects and seminars, we operate under a simple premise: each manager has to think and act like a CEO for his or her piece of the organization’s value chain. We refer to this concept as “managing the business within the business.” In short, we believe that every manager at every level must be thinking about their strategic contribution to the business. They must also be accountable for creating a strategic direction that links to and supports the organization as it evolves. Preparing each function and activity for the future is how managers can contribute to and align with the firm’s overarching plan to win in the marketplace. Firms create a powerful competitive advantage when all of the business’ activities and functions fit, link, and align with the larger business. The alternative is both ineffective and harmful to the firm: a bundle of silos, individual business activities that are not galvanized into one unified body marching toward the goals and changes that lie ahead.
Think of it this way: if the parent corporation has a strategy, and each business unit has a strategy, and if the marketing department has a strategy for products being offered, then why shouldn’t each function, team, or project be responsible for producing a proactive strategy as well? Having individual strategies working in concert throughout the business adds significant value to the business, helping it grow, innovate, become more internally efficient, deal with competitive threats, or serve the customer better than the competition. For 25 years, the academic experts have been saying that highly successful businesses must either have differentiated product/service offerings or they must perform the same operational activities, processes, and tasks differently than their competitors. This means that each functional area must constantly be searching for both best practices and next practices in order to create a compelling value proposition and build sustainable competitive advantage. This strategic edge will come not only from senior management but from middle management and individual contributors on the front lines where the competitive war is being waged.
We think strategy should move fluidly in both directions, filtering down from the top as well as up from the bottom. In essence, strategy is everyone’s job. Everyone has to understand the business strategy, contribute new ideas, and actually formulate and execute strategy in a practical way at the functional level. When all of the strategy pieces come together, a firm can create a different experience or a more cost-effective solution for the customer, thus enabling the firm to invest in research and development, reward shareholders and employees, or charge less for the same product or service being offered by its competitors.
Watching people create and execute strategy at the very heart of the business is actually pretty exciting. As people use their strategic thinking skills, they become more engaged in the roles they perform and understand in a deeper way how what they do matters to the business.
How many times have you heard someone say, “That’s not fair!” Kids say it to parents to describe the size of their dessert. Workers say it to describe their perception of the treatment they receive from a manager or company. Indeed, fairness seems to be a universal feeling that people have regarding how they are treated by others.
Perspective leaders who see their organizations exhibiting symptoms of sickness, similar to personal health issue. They can tell that something isn’t quite right and the organization needs a checkup to make sure it’s nothing too serious.
when appropriate, a manager can create a climate of accountability and become more effective.
CMOE is announcing our $500 Visualizing Leadership scholarship. This is an opportunity to for high school (grade 9-12), college, or graduate student receive som
I’ve noticed something strange in the last five years or so: people seem to have forgotten how to think, and nowhere is that troubling fact more obvious than in the workforce. This lack is not limited to common sense. It is not limited to emotional intelligence. It seems that the sheer capacity to question, to wonder, and to contribute something new to our collective human consciousness has been almost entirely snuffed out by self-satisfied complacency and attention spans so short they would make you average four-year-old blush. There may be some other reasons, too.
If you have observed a referee in any sport, you can relate to the subtle similarities between successful officiating and organizational leadership.
Michael Jordan’s “Failure” commercial for Nike takes an interesting look at how negative experiences, or experiences that don’t turn out exactly the way we planned can become game-changing experience through hard work. In this commercial, Michael explains through this commercial he missed more than 9,000 shots in his career; he has lost almost 300 games; he has failed 26 times when trusted to take the game winning shot. If people are accountable for their failures and handle them correctly, failure can be a tool for greatness. “Accountability” refers to a person’s taking ownership and acting in a responsible way, despite personal feelings, potential outcomes, or even possible consequences of his or her actions.
I like to think of myself as a “good” employee, as ambiguous a term as that may be. I am bright and dedicated. My work ethic is strong. I am honest and committed and willing to happily tow the company line. I haven’t called in sick to a job, any job, for over five years. I always meet my deadlines. I seek out new things to learn. I am loyal to a fault. I need very little in terms of supervision, because I believe that the work I produce is a direct reflection on my character, and I work very hard to make sure that reflection is an accurate one.
Think of it this way: if the parent corporation has a strategy, and each business unit has a strategy, and if the marketing department has a strategy for products being offered, then why shouldn’t each function, team, or project be responsible for producing a proactive strategy as well? Having individual strategies working in concert throughout the business adds significant value to the business, helping it grow, innovate, become more internally efficient, deal with competitive threats, or serve the customer better than the competition. For 25 years, the academic experts have been saying that highly successful businesses must either have differentiated product/service offerings or they must perform the same operational activities, processes, and tasks differently than their competitors. This means that each functional area must constantly be searching for both best practices and next practices in order to create a compelling value proposition and build sustainable competitive advantage. This strategic edge will come not only from senior management but from middle management and individual contributors on the front lines where the competitive war is being waged.
