HOW
SHOULD WE MANAGE
PEOPLE ?
IS
THERE A CHOICE
?
Managing
people would seem to be just another discipline, just another area in which a
body of knowledge, including theory, has been accumulated. This knowledge should form the basis for a
set of discrete, definable procedures which if followed should yield the
desired results. But "should"
never occurs on any day of the week. If
it had, there would be no need for my book.
If
you want to become a mechanical engineer and are willing to invest 4 years and
$100,000, there are a host of universities and colleges that will eagerly
commit themselves to the task. I would
say your chances of emerging with useful knowledge, assuming you graduate, are
as high as 80 percent. After
graduation, if I line up ten of you and direct you to analyze a machine with a
problem, at least 6 or 7 will agree on the problem. If I make you all agree on the problem and ask for the fix, I may
even get six of you to agree on the same fix.
The
above can be done in many disciplines like accounting and nuclear physics.
Don't try it in management of people.
From what I have seen, the chance of getting even two of ten bosses
to agree on the problem or on the fix is low.
The
reason for this inability to agree is that management styles vary considerably
and we are encouraged to pick one that suits ourselves, our personality or
whatever. But who would recommend that
a boss’ personality or style be taken down to a machine and used to determine
what to do with that machine. "Hey
stupid, don't pull that stunt. Just get yourself down there and try like hell
to determine the problem using these specific tests and then determine the
solutions based on this set of defined knowledge. It has nothing to do with you personally." But somehow when it comes to dealing with
people, we want to superimpose our style and our personality, our likes and
dislikes on the process. You dislike
Phillips head screwdrivers, but you like flat head screwdrivers. I am certain that those feelings will not
help you when you try to turn a Phillips head screw with a flat head
screwdriver. The same is true for
managing people.
The
people management arena is strewn with hundreds of these EXCUSES, such as
"I don't like to ---" or "I can't bear to ---". We have all heard them. The actions evaded range from not being able
to get up in front of a group to not wanting to counsel an employee, from not
wanting to terminate to not being able to provide succor in a time of
need. The Excuses to justify these
evasions range from personality to "I don't want to hurt someone" to
"the moon was blue last night".
There are also many people who would like to blame the sociologists,
psychologists, psychiatrists, religious, consultants and others for their own
management errors. Excuses will always
be available to anyone who is looking for them, especially to those who enjoy
the permissiveness of the "doing your own thing" vogue. But recognize
that all of these Excuses are INVALID.
As
with machines, Excuses will always limit your success with people, if not cause
outright failure. Listen to yourself
using them (we all do) and get as far away in the other direction as possible.
You
must not decide what a person should be given based on what you have to give,
only on what that person needs.
Throw away your excuses and your management style. Use your common sense and the same
logical, methodical approach required to solve technical issues.
THE
NATURAL LAW
Believe it or not, the SCIENCE OF MANAGING PEOPLE IS THE SCIENCE OF LEADERSHIP, pure and simple, no more, no less. Whether or not the CEO or boss wants to admit it, the SHIP IS ITS CAPTAIN. This is what actually happens and the boss (CEO or lower) has no control over this. He/she can't stop it, modify it, wish or order it away. It is a natural LAW that operates inexorably and without regard for the human beings involved. The process that results WAITS FOR NO ONE. It just happens day in and day out.
Therefore,
no matter what the actions are, the words, facial expressions, body language,
verbal or written orders or policies, support for subordinates, habits,
personality traits, inactions through silence, or other boss behavior, these
are FOLLOWED by most juniors simply because the great majority of them are
Followers. The subordinates become
what the boss projects. If the boss
works hard, they tend to work hard. If
the boss has little knowledge of certain things, they have little knowledge of
them. If the boss encourages, they will
be encouraged. If the boss cannot bring
him/herself to do certain things, they will not either. Followers clearly discern the implied Value
Standards and set out to use them in their everyday routine. This sequence is a natural LAW, one that
makes the boss either the subordinates' biggest ally or their greatest enemy or
something somewhere in between.
The
boss by virtue of appointment becomes the LEADER, whether great and fearless or
tyrannical and unsupportive or whatever.
It is the boss who decides how subordinates will act by Choosing his/her
own actions. The boss can, of course,
decide NOT TO DECIDE, the "what they see is what they get" or the
"I was the one promoted so I must be OK the way I am" approach. The first quote represents a "to hell
with the subordinates" tack, while the second is the height of
arrogance. I don't mean to seem
judgmental about this, but my true desire is to make crystal clear that each
boss chooses what their subordinates will be led to do, consciously or
unconsciously. That they will Follow
the boss' lead has been preordained!!!
So!
Do we really have a Choice on how we manage people? Do we get to choose a management style of our own? The answer is, the LAW dictates that we have
no Choice. We can only choose how we
make use of the LAW and this is a Choice of the Value Standards toward which we
lead.
LEADERSHIP
???
If
we walk into a race track and the horses are in the middle of the race, I am
certain we will all be able to agree on which horse is in the lead. It will always be the horse "in
front" of the other horses, the "leader". The other horses are "following"
the "leader". So leading
implies being in a position Followers will try to attain. Two questions emerge.
1. In what does the boss (CEO or supervisor) lead?
2. What do subordinates look to Follow in a
workplace?
Fortunately
for us, these two questions are merely different sides of the same coin. The name of the coin is
"Values". From the boss' view
it is his/her leadership, while from the subordinates view it is what they
Follow. It makes no difference which we
analyze.
FOLLOWING
OR LEADING
To
start the discussion, recall that ninety percent or more of all subordinates
are Followers, people looking to produce their behavior through copying that of
others. This copying process is applied
to Values as well as to actions. In the
workplace, people want to find out as quickly as possible what is expected of
them so they can meet those Standards and thus keep down the hassle, avert
possible censure and keep the paychecks coming to feed themselves and their
families. Conforming to peer pressure is also a part of this process. None of these are surprising revelations.
Remaining
with the subordinates, how do they find out what's expected of them, what the
Standards are for the different Values?
The process is the same one used during childhood, the one which absorbs
everything around them. After soaking
up everything which is available, the brain's computer is used to sort out the
"Do as I Say Not as I Do" events, consequences presented by
management or peers, and other nuances.
Through
this process, new employees can very quickly get to act like all the other
employees. They check what is happening
to others and what is happening on-the-job in terms of normal Values: attitude,
cleanliness, industriousness, honesty, integrity, admission of error,
knowledge, perseverance, fairness and all of the other ones. Their brain automatically performs
computations and suddenly they know what the Standards are for each. They have, in effect, translated actual
conditions into Value Standards.
So
equipped, they begin to use these Standards to perform their work, STANDARDS
for precisely the same VALUES all of us have.
This is the Natural LAW. Followers
do not use their own Value Standards to produce behavior in the
workplace. Only non-followers do
that and our goal is to make everyone into non-followers!!!
So,
employees detect the workplace Value Standards and use them to decide how to
carry out their work. If these
Standards are high, we fly with the eagles, beat the competition most of the
time and love our workplace. If these
Standards are low or toward Bad Values, we walk with the turkeys, lose to the
competition and generally dislike coming to work. Can the boss afford to leave this situation to the whims of
chance? Can the boss take a chance on
which Good or Bad Values and their Standards are utilized in the conduct of
work?
The
leader's only recourse is to commit to frequently and clearly communicating
only very high Value Standards through the normal management actions
of supporting, directing and developing. Actions speak far louder than words
and the real truth is no one listens to words!! As children we didn’t understand the language of words and could
only learn through the language of action, through what people do and their
tone of voice and body language. This
develops into a habit and is carried into adult life. Communicating Values is thus an action oriented process in
which each boss must be proficient.
The
boss’ actions range from one-on-one discussions to group meetings, from
providing tools to training and benefits, from discipline to promotions and
rewards, and from action or inaction when it's the employee’s day in the barrel
to termination for cause. Both actions
and inactions transmit Value Standards, the latter often being the
loudest. On a scale of 1 to 10, 10
being best, these actions and inactions must repeatedly reflect 8-10 Standards
for all Good Values if we expect to have EXCELLENCE in the workplace.
Carefully
note the wide range of actions from which Followers extract Value Standards to
use in performing their work. For high
level bosses, what they personally say and do may constitute a very small part
of a subordinate's sources. The
leadership Value messages received by a person consists not only of the
personal actions of their immediate boss, but also of what other people do to
this person. "Others"
includes staff, other bosses, peers and the rumor mill. Over the past few days, an employee may have
received 200 messages on fairness, 100 on quality, 50 on industriousness and
only 2 on humility, very few of which came directly from an immediate or more
senior boss. The employee computes a
new Standard for fairness using past data combined with the latest 200 messages
and repeats this for each Value. If
these Standards are low or reflect Bad Values, the bosses are in real trouble.
The
Boss’ Only Choices
So
the boss is the leader and leads in Value Standards, whether he/she wants to or
not. Once appointed boss, he/she is the leader who will be followed and
that’s the Law. The boss’ Choices are
extremely limited. He/she can Choose
the direction in which to lead, whether toward the Good or the Bad Value, for
example whether toward humility or arrogance.
The boss can also Choose the Standard for that Good or Bad Value from 1
to 10. Making the wrong Choice or
Choosing not to make a conscious Choice is to Choose mediocrity or even anarchy
with all of its attendant problems.
Leadership
is simple. Unfortunately, it has been revered and placed on a high pedestal,
out of reach to most of us common folk.
If it was ever knowable, it has become less so over the years. There is some belief that it belongs to a
previous heroic age and is incompatible with participative management. Some people also question whether concepts
such as democracy and equality are compatible with leadership. Although I did for years share these
concerns, they all disappeared as I developed and practiced the Whats, Whys and
Hows of my book.
Changing
Workplace Performance
Unfortunately,
bosses tend to believe their job is mainly one of giving orders. This consists of Choosing the goals and the
visions, directing actions by their employees to get there and then checking
for the results. Bad results simply
call for some form of re-direction.
But
from the boss' "leadership", their employees have already computed a
set of Value Standards which they are using every day in the execution of their
tasks. Let's call these the “HOW TO’S”
of doing the job and admit that they will determine the success or failure of
the employee's endeavors and that they emanate from the boss, not from the
subordinate. “HOW TO’S” are how
industriously, compliantly to rules, cooperatively, neatly, cleanly,
creatively, safely, independently, resourcefully, confidently, qualitatively,
compassionately, enthusiastically and the like.
So
if the boss is unhappy with the results which subordinates are achieving,
he/she must change the support and direct management functions so as to
communicate higher Good Value Standards.
Only after these changes lead subordinates to use higher Standards can
the boss expect performance improvement.
In effect, subordinates are always waiting for the boss to change before
they themselves can change. An example
may shed some light.
Transmitting
Values
Bill
joins the work force and soon is told by a foreman that the work cannot proceed
because he must wait for a part. So
Bill puts his hands in his pockets or sits down to WAIT. The foreman says nothing more. The next day it's waiting for a welder and
so on. Soon, Bill gets the message that
doing nothing is OK as long as there is a good Excuse. No matter that he could do something else or
could figure out what's missing before starting a job and thus go to one that
requires no waiting.
Bill
probably didn’t believe he would be paid to stand around doing nothing. Likewise, Bill would not pay a plumber to
fix his own sink if that plumber Chose to stand around doing nothing in Bill's
house. But Bill as a Follower easily
falls into becoming unproductive. What
if Bill was a non-follower and used his own Value Standards to decide his
actions? Would be doing a better job?
There may be a multitude of similar
bad influences or low Value Standards being transmitted in the workplace. Bosses must be able to detect these problems
and provide workable solutions to use in changing each and thereby improve the
Standard being transmitted for each Value.
Fortunately, a very simple and easy to execute detection procedure is
available.
END OF ARTICLE
This article is based on the book “Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed” by Bennet Simonton. Ben managed people for over 30 years effecting four successful turnarounds including a nuclear-powered cruiser and a 1300 person unionized group in New York City. Ben now provides leadership coaching and training for executives, managers and supervisors. His book is available at http://www.bensimonton.com/