10/01/2005: Finally got board approval for the business plan for 2005. We have some severe stretch targets this year. On top of my mistake in taking the risk of introducing the new product line, it has been a tough sell for us to convince the board we know what we are doing. I guess I can't blame them.
15/02/2005: The management meeting today started out poorly. We did not seem to be making much progress on our projects and I was concerned about it impacting our ability to meet our year end targets. I voiced my concerns and asked for suggestions for getting better traction on our projects. There were a number of good ideas; we settled on getting a facilitator to challenge our prioritisation and resource allocation process.
28/02/2005: A great day all round, I think. We realised that we were actually trying to do too much at once and stretching our resources too thin. We have agreed to delay some projects which are not going to directly deliver on this year's targets.
24/04/2005: Internal audit delivered their report today. We were all stunned to find out that our process for bank reconciliation was open to fraud. We set up an emergency project team to deal with it. I asked the audit guys to stay on to help us develop the project plan.
26/05/2005: The board were not happy with the internal audit report today. I could only offer a "mea culpa" on the adverse findings and then outline what we have done with audit helping to close the issue off. The board agreed to complete a formal risk management strategy to uncover and treat other risks we are not aware of.
30/06/2005: I was interviewed unprepared by the media today. I don't know what they will make of it. I guess I won't have long to find out.
01/07/2005: The press did a good number on my ramblings. The story does not look good for us as an organisation. I will make sure I complete that Handling the Media training. I don't want to be unprepared and unable to handle an interview again.
05/07/2005: Began our planning for 2006 with a brainstorming session today. The guys are going away to flesh out a plus or minus 30% cost for the projects we dreamt up.
11/07/2005: The results at half year are still not what we need. The potential is that we will not meet our year end targets. The problem appears to be in marketing in that we are not getting enough qualified leads and those we are getting are not spending as much as planned.
I spoke to Tom, our marketing manager on how he felt about the results and marketing's contribution. He is embarrassed and feels that he needs to develop an email campaigning system to pre-qualify leads before his guys visit them, but he does not have the budget to do it.
13/07/2005: We held an emergency management meeting today and carved out a budget for Tom's email marketing system to pre-qualify leads. Tom knows that his reputation is on the line as the other guys had to give up some of their budget for this year. Tom says he can have it operating in two weeks. That gives his team four months to turn the marketing effort around.
30/08/2005: My cousin's wife applied to join the company today. My cousin wanted me to help her out. I told him that I could not help and she would have to go through the application process like everyone else.
20/09/2005: Looks like Tom's email marketing programme may be working. We asked if he needed more help. He thinks he is OK with what he has got. I made it clear that his reputation is on the line and that if he needs help he must say so.
We had a good planning session today. Some of the ideas we had were not feasible when we saw the cost benefit analysis. But we seem to be on track to delivering a plan that will work.
13/10/2005: Saw a fantastic system today. The vendors say it will make all of our data available online in real time. It is probably a good idea but it will have to wait for a review next year.
27/11/2005: The board gave us some tough top down targets today. I protested, but we have to live with the hand we are being dealt.
05/12/2005: It looks like we will not reach this year's targets, but we will only be 2% off. With the start we had during the year it has been a good effort and the result was not great but OK. I'll take the flack with the board; the team does not need to be distracted. I think Tom's new system will save us next year.
Tuesday 4 March 2008
None as blind as those who do not ask
Nothing is likely to frustrate me as much in conversation as people who assume they know what I am feeling or thinking and what I value when they do not know me or do not ask me any questions to find out.
When I observe assumptions being made in business I get just as frustrated.
Selling is a fertile field of assumption making. Two of our neighbours separately told me of a story about a farmer and his son who went to buy a car.
The car in question was a Rolls Royce. The location was the wheat farming area of northern Victoria in Australia. The father was a simple man with a simple farmer's dress sense, wearing clean working clothes when he went into "town".
The sales man, spotting the simply dressed farmer looking over the latest model Rolls Royce approached with a mind set of being polite but intending to move the loiterers on.
The farmer asked to take the car for a test drive. The salesman was a little bit uncertain what to do. He decided to go along with the request but felt he first had to make it clear to the farmer where he sat in the pecking order by asking him "Are you aware that these cars are worth 20,000 pounds?" (It was pre-decimal time).
After returning from the test drive when the sales person was less than interested in his prospect and more desirous of getting back quickly to go to lunch, the farmer asked the purchase price again. "I did say it was 20,000 pounds, Sir", the salesman said imperiously. "OK", the farmer said, turning to his son and adding, "Go out into the ute and get the briefcase" said the farmer. The salesman's jaw dropped and his imperious attitude was replaced by an empathetic, almost fawning attitude as the briefcase was retrieved and opened to reveal neat stacks of cash. After counting the money the excited salesman was disappointed to have to tell the framer that he was 2000 pounds short. To which the farmer replied, "Son, don't be so stupid. I meant the other briefcase!"
The salesman's prejudice and superior attitude, coupled with his lazy sales technique which involved asking not one question almost cost him his commission on a big sale and risked upsetting what could have been a valuable lifetime customer.
People who do not ask questions, do not listen to others views and do not work as a team also risk not unravelling the answers to questions which bedevil them.
I tell an unoriginal tale to illustrate the point.
Six blind men were discussing exactly what they believed an elephant to be, since each had heard how strange the creature was, yet none had ever seen one before. So the blind men agreed to find an elephant and discover what the animal was really like.
It didn't take the blind men long to find an elephant at a nearby market. The first blind man approached the beast and felt the animal's firm flat side. "It seems to me that the elephant is just like a wall," he said to his friends.
The second blind man reached out and touched one of the elephant's tusks. "No, this is round and smooth and sharp - the elephant is like a spear."
Intrigued, the third blind man stepped up to the elephant and touched its trunk. "Well, I can't agree with either of you; I feel a squirming writhing thing - surely, the elephant is just like a snake."
The fourth blind man was, of course, by now quite puzzled. So he reached out, and felt the elephant's leg. "You are all talking complete nonsense," he said, "because clearly the elephant is just like a tree."
Utterly confused, the fifth blind man stepped forward and grabbed one of the elephant's ears. "You must all be mad - an elephant is exactly like a fan."
Duly, the sixth man approached, and, holding the beast's tail, disagreed again. "It's nothing like any of your descriptions - the elephant is just like a rope."
And all six blind men continued to argue, based on their own particular experiences, as to what they thought an elephant was like. It was an argument that they were never able to resolve. Each of them was concerned only with their own idea. None of them had the full picture, and none could see any of the other's points of view. Each man saw the elephant as something quite different and while in part each blind man was right, none was wholly correct.
In life and in business if we do not ask questions and do not seek other perspectives we miss opportunities and remain blind to the whole of a problem and the opportunities to solve it.
When I observe assumptions being made in business I get just as frustrated.
Selling is a fertile field of assumption making. Two of our neighbours separately told me of a story about a farmer and his son who went to buy a car.
The car in question was a Rolls Royce. The location was the wheat farming area of northern Victoria in Australia. The father was a simple man with a simple farmer's dress sense, wearing clean working clothes when he went into "town".
The sales man, spotting the simply dressed farmer looking over the latest model Rolls Royce approached with a mind set of being polite but intending to move the loiterers on.
The farmer asked to take the car for a test drive. The salesman was a little bit uncertain what to do. He decided to go along with the request but felt he first had to make it clear to the farmer where he sat in the pecking order by asking him "Are you aware that these cars are worth 20,000 pounds?" (It was pre-decimal time).
After returning from the test drive when the sales person was less than interested in his prospect and more desirous of getting back quickly to go to lunch, the farmer asked the purchase price again. "I did say it was 20,000 pounds, Sir", the salesman said imperiously. "OK", the farmer said, turning to his son and adding, "Go out into the ute and get the briefcase" said the farmer. The salesman's jaw dropped and his imperious attitude was replaced by an empathetic, almost fawning attitude as the briefcase was retrieved and opened to reveal neat stacks of cash. After counting the money the excited salesman was disappointed to have to tell the framer that he was 2000 pounds short. To which the farmer replied, "Son, don't be so stupid. I meant the other briefcase!"
The salesman's prejudice and superior attitude, coupled with his lazy sales technique which involved asking not one question almost cost him his commission on a big sale and risked upsetting what could have been a valuable lifetime customer.
People who do not ask questions, do not listen to others views and do not work as a team also risk not unravelling the answers to questions which bedevil them.
I tell an unoriginal tale to illustrate the point.
Six blind men were discussing exactly what they believed an elephant to be, since each had heard how strange the creature was, yet none had ever seen one before. So the blind men agreed to find an elephant and discover what the animal was really like.
It didn't take the blind men long to find an elephant at a nearby market. The first blind man approached the beast and felt the animal's firm flat side. "It seems to me that the elephant is just like a wall," he said to his friends.
The second blind man reached out and touched one of the elephant's tusks. "No, this is round and smooth and sharp - the elephant is like a spear."
Intrigued, the third blind man stepped up to the elephant and touched its trunk. "Well, I can't agree with either of you; I feel a squirming writhing thing - surely, the elephant is just like a snake."
The fourth blind man was, of course, by now quite puzzled. So he reached out, and felt the elephant's leg. "You are all talking complete nonsense," he said, "because clearly the elephant is just like a tree."
Utterly confused, the fifth blind man stepped forward and grabbed one of the elephant's ears. "You must all be mad - an elephant is exactly like a fan."
Duly, the sixth man approached, and, holding the beast's tail, disagreed again. "It's nothing like any of your descriptions - the elephant is just like a rope."
And all six blind men continued to argue, based on their own particular experiences, as to what they thought an elephant was like. It was an argument that they were never able to resolve. Each of them was concerned only with their own idea. None of them had the full picture, and none could see any of the other's points of view. Each man saw the elephant as something quite different and while in part each blind man was right, none was wholly correct.
In life and in business if we do not ask questions and do not seek other perspectives we miss opportunities and remain blind to the whole of a problem and the opportunities to solve it.
Great Teamwork Begins With an R
Teams form around a single common purpose. Teamwork occurs within a team only when there is respect. Great teams evolve around self respect and respect for each other.
In retrospect, all great teams reflect on the journey they have made as individuals and how they have learnt to appreciate the skills, knowledge and behaviour of their respective team-mates.
To create a great team when they are being built rather than in retrospect, individual team members must firstly have self respect.
Self esteem is not enough. Self esteem requires a positive evaluation of us against some standard, often another person. Self respect requires no such comparison. It merely requires that we like ourselves for what we are, good and bad.
When we have self respect we do not care whether we are good or not at any chosen pastime like sport or singing or painting or gardening, just that we enjoy it. When we have self esteem we judge our pastime exploits against those of other people as being good.
When we have self respect we have little need to win as an individual in a team and are more likely to play our role to the best of our ability, with humility and with good humour.
When we have self respect, we have a vastly improved capability to respect others. Not having to be better than someone else, but having due respect of our abilities, enables us to maintain and improve relationships even through conflict.
It allows us to welcome differences of opinion as a means of getting the best solution rather than avoiding them as a precursor to unpleasant conflict.
Team members who have self respect and respect others can operate with
clarity by being honest without the expectation of an emotional response.
Self respect and respect for others is learnable. It is not learnt or encouraged by putting a group of "values" on a wall plaque or on a sheet of paper. It is learnt and encouraged by the team getting to know each other and themselves well. Self respect is also encouraged by managers who mentor and coach.
A mentor generally tells others what to do in a given circumstance. They do so from an extensive background in the environment the team works in and an intimate knowledge of the person. A coach generally asks powerful questions to enable the individual to see a problem or their environment f
rom a new angle, opening up new solutions. A mentor is generally also a good coach.
Coaching and mentoring individuals builds self respect in the coach and the person being coached. Giving a team access to and encouraging the use of experienced coaches and mentors that they trust, builds great teamwork.
Respect for others can be encouraged simply by giving the team opportunities to get to know one another as human beings. Opening up Johari's Window is a must to get great teamwork.
People often unwittingly and many times wittingly hide their real self from others at work.
People who are true leaders at home and in the community may be meek followers at work. Getting those individuals to reveal more about their capabilities outside work has a great impact on the degree of respect others show them within a team.
There are many ways to get people to open up about themselves.
Playing a sport as a team is a good standby. A number of sports suit, such as team golf, driving go-karts in teams, team tennis and team ten pin bowling. Amongst all teams there will be a sport which will fit people's range of abilities which when played in teams will allow everyone to play.
Holding a function with family members invited is a great way of saying thank you to those people who support the hard working team away from work. It is also an easy opportunity for people to learn more about each other from the interaction with family members.
The most important skill to teach team members to improve respect is how to listen and ask questions, especially clarifying and enquiring questions. Teaching the team to question rather than assume builds rapport and respect quickly.
To maintain self respect and respect for others, disrespect must be counselled. Allowing individuals to show blatant disrespect is a certain precursor to the rest of the team going down the same path.
Teams build themselves around single, purposeful goals. Great outcomes arise from teams when that goal is extremely meaningful to the majority of team members. Great outcomes are achieved from great teamwork when there is respect.
In retrospect, all great teams reflect on the journey they have made as individuals and how they have learnt to appreciate the skills, knowledge and behaviour of their respective team-mates.
To create a great team when they are being built rather than in retrospect, individual team members must firstly have self respect.
Self esteem is not enough. Self esteem requires a positive evaluation of us against some standard, often another person. Self respect requires no such comparison. It merely requires that we like ourselves for what we are, good and bad.
When we have self respect we do not care whether we are good or not at any chosen pastime like sport or singing or painting or gardening, just that we enjoy it. When we have self esteem we judge our pastime exploits against those of other people as being good.
When we have self respect we have little need to win as an individual in a team and are more likely to play our role to the best of our ability, with humility and with good humour.
When we have self respect, we have a vastly improved capability to respect others. Not having to be better than someone else, but having due respect of our abilities, enables us to maintain and improve relationships even through conflict.
It allows us to welcome differences of opinion as a means of getting the best solution rather than avoiding them as a precursor to unpleasant conflict.
Team members who have self respect and respect others can operate with
clarity by being honest without the expectation of an emotional response.
Self respect and respect for others is learnable. It is not learnt or encouraged by putting a group of "values" on a wall plaque or on a sheet of paper. It is learnt and encouraged by the team getting to know each other and themselves well. Self respect is also encouraged by managers who mentor and coach.
A mentor generally tells others what to do in a given circumstance. They do so from an extensive background in the environment the team works in and an intimate knowledge of the person. A coach generally asks powerful questions to enable the individual to see a problem or their environment f
rom a new angle, opening up new solutions. A mentor is generally also a good coach. Coaching and mentoring individuals builds self respect in the coach and the person being coached. Giving a team access to and encouraging the use of experienced coaches and mentors that they trust, builds great teamwork.
Respect for others can be encouraged simply by giving the team opportunities to get to know one another as human beings. Opening up Johari's Window is a must to get great teamwork.
People often unwittingly and many times wittingly hide their real self from others at work.
People who are true leaders at home and in the community may be meek followers at work. Getting those individuals to reveal more about their capabilities outside work has a great impact on the degree of respect others show them within a team.
There are many ways to get people to open up about themselves.
Playing a sport as a team is a good standby. A number of sports suit, such as team golf, driving go-karts in teams, team tennis and team ten pin bowling. Amongst all teams there will be a sport which will fit people's range of abilities which when played in teams will allow everyone to play.
Holding a function with family members invited is a great way of saying thank you to those people who support the hard working team away from work. It is also an easy opportunity for people to learn more about each other from the interaction with family members.
The most important skill to teach team members to improve respect is how to listen and ask questions, especially clarifying and enquiring questions. Teaching the team to question rather than assume builds rapport and respect quickly.
To maintain self respect and respect for others, disrespect must be counselled. Allowing individuals to show blatant disrespect is a certain precursor to the rest of the team going down the same path.
Teams build themselves around single, purposeful goals. Great outcomes arise from teams when that goal is extremely meaningful to the majority of team members. Great outcomes are achieved from great teamwork when there is respect.
The Corporate Dinner; A Window into Corporate Culture
Over the years, I guess I've attended thousands of corporate get togethers over dinner. I have, either as an out-of-towner, or hosting out-of-towners attending a conference or workshop, observed the behaviour of individuals and teams at dinner reflects the corporate culture.
There are five corporate cultures which I have identified with behaviours at dinner.
The Alpha Male Dinner
The alpha male dinner environment is, of course, no longer exclusively male, although the behaviour is still easily identified as masculine. This is the dinner where at least some of the boys try to outdo each other. Whether it is their knowledge of wine or the selection of the most expensive menu items and restaurants or the telling of the most outrageous jokes or the heaviest drinking, this dinner is about competing.
There is no gentle discourse at this dinner. Some of the attendees are likely to be loud. Competition descends into being heard above the din of people talking over each other.
I have mostly found that this behaviour at dinner is repeated at work, even in teams I did not really know. People did not just work in silos unaware of what other teams were doing or how they affected each other. They worked in fortresses, well aware the impact they were having on each other. They would protect their turf and their ability to promote their personal cause at all costs.
The result is an organisation with multiple tactical, personal foci and no strategy.
The Home Early Dinner
Dinners where the participants talk a little about work, a little about social events, rarely about themselves or political events and finish at nine thirty. This dinner reflects teams that do not know each other well. Not only do they not know each other well, they have little interest in knowing each other well.
If they are not really a team but perhaps a group of individuals thrown together for a course then it is perhaps understandable. However, one would hope if they were from the same organisation they would have at least enough common identity to warm to each other a little.
When, however, a team which does actually work together displays this behaviour at dinner, I find them at work to be very silo based. Moreover, I find there to be almost no interest in what the other team members are doing. There is little energy in what individual departments do. The result is an organisation with no focus at all and no strategy.
The Let's Have a Blast Dinner
There are usually two objectives of the participants of this kind of dinner; laughter and intoxication. Participants all share the first objective and some share the second.
It can be a good sign for corporate culture. If, at the end of a hard year, difficult targets are met and arrangements for dinner are made ensuring noise created from what is more of a party rather than a dinner does not disturb others, it can be a good sign.
A deliberately thought out celebration of a great result brought about by teamwork usually reflects a team that works hard together and plays hard together. The implied organisational culture is not for everyone but can be a fun, energising and demanding place to work that rewards team success.
Frequent, opportunistic parties at company expense with no correlating rationale for celebration, reflects, I find, a culture of getting whatever you can out of the organisation and damn the consequences for others. The implied organisational culture can be fun, but not meaningful.
The Indigestion Dinner
Dinners where the participants talk about nothing but work can be a bore. When they do so in an unproductive way, continually analysing and re-analysing but never solving the problems of the organisation, they rate high in the boredom stakes.
When the topic has been workshopped for two days and dinner is still full of the analysis of problems and not creative or even obvious solutions, they imply an organisation paralysed by analysis.
It typifies an organisation where analysis is so shallow, that real solutions are not highlighted by the analysis and blaming internal or external "others" is the norm.
The Paper Tablecloth Dinner
My favourite kind of corporate dinner, where there is analysis of work issues but the majority of the time is spent creating, communicating and testing solutions between the team members by using the tablecloth as a brainstorming board.
Pens at the ready, ideas are swapped, added to and amended at will by anyone with a good idea for a solution whilst relaxing and dining. The creative juices are encouraged as the formalities of the office drop away.
Corporate dinners such as these indicate at least a team of people willing to work on solutions rather than problems and working as a team rather than individuals.
What kind of corporate dinners do you have? Do they change with different teams of people? What do the types of dinners you have with different teams say about the culture of your organisation?
There are five corporate cultures which I have identified with behaviours at dinner.
The Alpha Male Dinner
The alpha male dinner environment is, of course, no longer exclusively male, although the behaviour is still easily identified as masculine. This is the dinner where at least some of the boys try to outdo each other. Whether it is their knowledge of wine or the selection of the most expensive menu items and restaurants or the telling of the most outrageous jokes or the heaviest drinking, this dinner is about competing.
There is no gentle discourse at this dinner. Some of the attendees are likely to be loud. Competition descends into being heard above the din of people talking over each other.
I have mostly found that this behaviour at dinner is repeated at work, even in teams I did not really know. People did not just work in silos unaware of what other teams were doing or how they affected each other. They worked in fortresses, well aware the impact they were having on each other. They would protect their turf and their ability to promote their personal cause at all costs.
The result is an organisation with multiple tactical, personal foci and no strategy.
The Home Early Dinner
Dinners where the participants talk a little about work, a little about social events, rarely about themselves or political events and finish at nine thirty. This dinner reflects teams that do not know each other well. Not only do they not know each other well, they have little interest in knowing each other well.
If they are not really a team but perhaps a group of individuals thrown together for a course then it is perhaps understandable. However, one would hope if they were from the same organisation they would have at least enough common identity to warm to each other a little.
When, however, a team which does actually work together displays this behaviour at dinner, I find them at work to be very silo based. Moreover, I find there to be almost no interest in what the other team members are doing. There is little energy in what individual departments do. The result is an organisation with no focus at all and no strategy.
The Let's Have a Blast Dinner
There are usually two objectives of the participants of this kind of dinner; laughter and intoxication. Participants all share the first objective and some share the second.
It can be a good sign for corporate culture. If, at the end of a hard year, difficult targets are met and arrangements for dinner are made ensuring noise created from what is more of a party rather than a dinner does not disturb others, it can be a good sign.
A deliberately thought out celebration of a great result brought about by teamwork usually reflects a team that works hard together and plays hard together. The implied organisational culture is not for everyone but can be a fun, energising and demanding place to work that rewards team success.
Frequent, opportunistic parties at company expense with no correlating rationale for celebration, reflects, I find, a culture of getting whatever you can out of the organisation and damn the consequences for others. The implied organisational culture can be fun, but not meaningful.
The Indigestion Dinner
Dinners where the participants talk about nothing but work can be a bore. When they do so in an unproductive way, continually analysing and re-analysing but never solving the problems of the organisation, they rate high in the boredom stakes.
When the topic has been workshopped for two days and dinner is still full of the analysis of problems and not creative or even obvious solutions, they imply an organisation paralysed by analysis.
It typifies an organisation where analysis is so shallow, that real solutions are not highlighted by the analysis and blaming internal or external "others" is the norm.
The Paper Tablecloth Dinner
My favourite kind of corporate dinner, where there is analysis of work issues but the majority of the time is spent creating, communicating and testing solutions between the team members by using the tablecloth as a brainstorming board.
Pens at the ready, ideas are swapped, added to and amended at will by anyone with a good idea for a solution whilst relaxing and dining. The creative juices are encouraged as the formalities of the office drop away.
Corporate dinners such as these indicate at least a team of people willing to work on solutions rather than problems and working as a team rather than individuals.
What kind of corporate dinners do you have? Do they change with different teams of people? What do the types of dinners you have with different teams say about the culture of your organisation?
In My Own Image
People of all ages in business make the mistake of seeing the whole of their world in a mirror image of their own reflection. In all cases this level of ego has more disadvantages than it has advantages. They disrupt teams or prevent teams from forming. A brief description of my top five observations of people exhibiting this characteristic are:
The Sales Gun
This is the sales person in retail or commercial sales who has a successful method that works for them. They regularly win sales awards. They regularly exceed target. They are great rapport builders and/or great closers of a sale. Their methods at times may sail close to the limit of what the organisation wants to represent their values. However, they get the sale.
They don't know too much about the organisation's products. They have been tried as a sales manager but it was not for them. They have tried to coach junior sales people but only those people who think like them seem to be able to learn from them.
The sales gun as described above has a narrow focus around what has always worked for them. New ideas are to be treated in a satirical fashion or ignored.
Their inability to assimilate new ideas may be acceptable if life is not changing. They resist change. In any organisation undergoing significant change, the sales gun described as above is usually a casualty. That is because they are afraid to move out of their comfort zone.
The Autocratic Manager
What they say goes. To the point of what they say but not necessarily what they do. If it is a marketing campaign we are testing the only opinion that counts is their opinion. It does not matter that they are not typical of the target market. They will determine what advertising will work.
If they are an operational manager, only their experiences of people count. Only their experience of technology counts, even if it is outdated. Only their experiences of distributor characteristics and behaviour count. Only their experiences of the market count.
Managers like these can be successful for a period of time. However, life and the business, at some stage, pass them by. But not before they frustrate the talent coming through the organisation into leaving for another division or another organisation. Not before they reduce the initiative shown by individuals to rubble. Not before they make errors forwhich they typically assign responsibility to someone else.
Everybody's Friend
Their key, and perhaps only, skill is to build rapport. They influence other people to see their point of view. They see rapport building as more important than critical reasoning and understanding their target markets. They see rapport building as more important than understanding the cost and success drivers of the organisation.
Their success is built around being liked. Their field of view is that limited by a mirror. When they are not liked they see that as a failure. Even in positions of power when they have the ability to push through an unpopular initiative that is right for the time, they refrain from doing so because of the impact on their relationships.
They are accommodators and manipulators. They are good for the social fabric of the organisation but not for its longevity.
The Poor Questioner and Listener
They hear the first two to three sentences before beginning to formulate a statement about the topic of conversation. The statement may be a personal anecdote. Or it may be a reinforcement of the first few sentences uttered by the speaker. The statement may be a rebuttal. The words forming in their mind may be one of many kinds of statements but is never a question.
Never is an open question asked to elicit information. Nor even a closed question to seek confirmation of what they heard.
They, therefore, go off on a tangent, interpreting the words they did manage to hear using only their mental dictionary. What they do hear they filter based on their upbringing, mood and thinking styles. However, they are not deterred by not actually knowing what was said in getting their own view across.
The liking for the sound of their own voice knows no bounds. These characters have not only a detrimental impact on the relationship with the individuals they deal with, but a detrimental impact on productivity. For example, projects are subject to the meandering of poor communication skills, becoming inefficient and ineffective.
The Perpetual Joker
Everything that can be said or written is subject to a satirical or ironic line. Not a few one liners to break up a serious meeting, but a string of one-liners during the whole meeting. Every announcement is a comedy subject. Every training session is a time to giggle.
These disrupting, attention seeking misfits are better off trying for a stand up spot at the local comedy club than a professional role in an organisation. The issue is not that they use humour. It is that they always use humour, with everything that is done or said fair game for a comment. So much so that one wonders if they have ever had time to think about a subject.
People who prevent teams from forming or disrupt existing teams are a large mitigator of productivity and morale. They should be given ultimatums to change their behaviour or leave.
The Sales Gun
This is the sales person in retail or commercial sales who has a successful method that works for them. They regularly win sales awards. They regularly exceed target. They are great rapport builders and/or great closers of a sale. Their methods at times may sail close to the limit of what the organisation wants to represent their values. However, they get the sale.
They don't know too much about the organisation's products. They have been tried as a sales manager but it was not for them. They have tried to coach junior sales people but only those people who think like them seem to be able to learn from them.
The sales gun as described above has a narrow focus around what has always worked for them. New ideas are to be treated in a satirical fashion or ignored.
Their inability to assimilate new ideas may be acceptable if life is not changing. They resist change. In any organisation undergoing significant change, the sales gun described as above is usually a casualty. That is because they are afraid to move out of their comfort zone.
The Autocratic Manager
What they say goes. To the point of what they say but not necessarily what they do. If it is a marketing campaign we are testing the only opinion that counts is their opinion. It does not matter that they are not typical of the target market. They will determine what advertising will work.
If they are an operational manager, only their experiences of people count. Only their experience of technology counts, even if it is outdated. Only their experiences of distributor characteristics and behaviour count. Only their experiences of the market count.
Managers like these can be successful for a period of time. However, life and the business, at some stage, pass them by. But not before they frustrate the talent coming through the organisation into leaving for another division or another organisation. Not before they reduce the initiative shown by individuals to rubble. Not before they make errors forwhich they typically assign responsibility to someone else.
Everybody's Friend
Their key, and perhaps only, skill is to build rapport. They influence other people to see their point of view. They see rapport building as more important than critical reasoning and understanding their target markets. They see rapport building as more important than understanding the cost and success drivers of the organisation.
Their success is built around being liked. Their field of view is that limited by a mirror. When they are not liked they see that as a failure. Even in positions of power when they have the ability to push through an unpopular initiative that is right for the time, they refrain from doing so because of the impact on their relationships.
They are accommodators and manipulators. They are good for the social fabric of the organisation but not for its longevity.
The Poor Questioner and Listener
They hear the first two to three sentences before beginning to formulate a statement about the topic of conversation. The statement may be a personal anecdote. Or it may be a reinforcement of the first few sentences uttered by the speaker. The statement may be a rebuttal. The words forming in their mind may be one of many kinds of statements but is never a question.
Never is an open question asked to elicit information. Nor even a closed question to seek confirmation of what they heard.
They, therefore, go off on a tangent, interpreting the words they did manage to hear using only their mental dictionary. What they do hear they filter based on their upbringing, mood and thinking styles. However, they are not deterred by not actually knowing what was said in getting their own view across.
The liking for the sound of their own voice knows no bounds. These characters have not only a detrimental impact on the relationship with the individuals they deal with, but a detrimental impact on productivity. For example, projects are subject to the meandering of poor communication skills, becoming inefficient and ineffective.
The Perpetual Joker
Everything that can be said or written is subject to a satirical or ironic line. Not a few one liners to break up a serious meeting, but a string of one-liners during the whole meeting. Every announcement is a comedy subject. Every training session is a time to giggle.
These disrupting, attention seeking misfits are better off trying for a stand up spot at the local comedy club than a professional role in an organisation. The issue is not that they use humour. It is that they always use humour, with everything that is done or said fair game for a comment. So much so that one wonders if they have ever had time to think about a subject.
People who prevent teams from forming or disrupt existing teams are a large mitigator of productivity and morale. They should be given ultimatums to change their behaviour or leave.
Trust and Productivity
When two people trust each other, their relationship is productive. When two organisations have trusting relationships and interactions their relationship is productive. When trust is violated, relationships are unproductive and organisations and individuals suffer.
The definition of trust does not include any element of good or bad. Two criminals may trust each other. It does not have any element of right or wrong. Two people with diametrically opposing views believing each is wrong may trust each other.
Trust is a personal issue. It indicates a willingness to become vulnerable to another person or organisation based on positive expectations of their conduct.
In their article posted on beyondintractibility.org, Lewicki and Tomlinson describe two types of trust; Calculus-Based Trust (CBT) and Identification-Based Trust (IBT).
The former is the style of trust which builds early in a relationship. CBT is the trust calculated as a result of the impact of incentives to stay in or leave the relationship.
IBT is the trust developed later in a relationship. IBT is the trust developed when individuals have a deeper understanding of each other through repeated interactions.
When Identification-based trust is developed, goals and values become shared. Meetings are required less frequently. Audits of processes become a shared and welcome responsibility. Developing and adhering to specifications becomes a less time consuming task. Differences in opinion created by low levels of understanding of corporate philosophy and culture are reduced substantially.
Procurement practises in the better managed auto-manufacturers is an example of building trust and improving productivity.
Calculus-based trust developed between manufacturers and suppliers as manufacturers shared their plans with suppliers and asked suppliers to open their books and accept a declared return on investment or percentage margin in return.
Many suppliers were unwilling to open their books and take advantage of the planning certainty being offered. They did not trust the auto-manufacturer enough to open their books.
Many auto-manufacturers were not willing to commit to their plans, placing the risk on the supplier and therefore losing the trust of the suppliers.
The few manufacturers and suppliers who got past this early calculus-based trust development were able to go further. Suppliers were invited by the auto-manufacturers to be directly involved in research and development, not only in car/parts design, but also in manufacturing processes at the auto-manufacturer and the supplier.
Those suppliers and auto-manufacturers that were able to move through the calculus-based trust on to the identification-based trust were able to increase productivity dramatically by sharing not only common goals but common values.
The resultant integration of supplier's strategies and tactics into the auto-manufacturer's strategies and tactics brought increased productivity, lower costs, improved flexibility and increased profits to those organisations that could establish the required level of trust.
Trust, however, is not static. Trust is destroyed when the positive expectations of conduct which underpin the willingness to open oneself to vulnerability are not forthcoming.
In the early stages of building trust, small deviations from the expected positive conduct can destroy trust. In established identification-based trust, repeated infringements or a severe break in delivery against expectation is required to destroy trust.
Trust is personal. It is between two people. When organisations "trust" each other it is a result of trust between individuals in the organisation. Hence, trust and its benefits in productivity are destroyed when the expectations of an individual in an organisation is not met by an individual in another organisation.
When new individuals enter an established relationship is when the risk of destroying trust is the highest. Unfortunately, not many people recognise the benefits of trust and consequently, do not rate the impact of trust being destroyed as being high.
Therefore, to maintain the benefits of trust between organisations it is incumbent upon the individuals currently involved in the relationship to bring the new person into the fold, building their trust and their belief that trust has economic benefits.
Organisations that recognise the value of trust and actively discourage activities which would destroy trust, whilst actively encouraging activities and a culture which values trust, reap a significant competitive advantage.
The definition of trust does not include any element of good or bad. Two criminals may trust each other. It does not have any element of right or wrong. Two people with diametrically opposing views believing each is wrong may trust each other.
Trust is a personal issue. It indicates a willingness to become vulnerable to another person or organisation based on positive expectations of their conduct.
In their article posted on beyondintractibility.org, Lewicki and Tomlinson describe two types of trust; Calculus-Based Trust (CBT) and Identification-Based Trust (IBT).
The former is the style of trust which builds early in a relationship. CBT is the trust calculated as a result of the impact of incentives to stay in or leave the relationship.
IBT is the trust developed later in a relationship. IBT is the trust developed when individuals have a deeper understanding of each other through repeated interactions.
When Identification-based trust is developed, goals and values become shared. Meetings are required less frequently. Audits of processes become a shared and welcome responsibility. Developing and adhering to specifications becomes a less time consuming task. Differences in opinion created by low levels of understanding of corporate philosophy and culture are reduced substantially.
Procurement practises in the better managed auto-manufacturers is an example of building trust and improving productivity.
Calculus-based trust developed between manufacturers and suppliers as manufacturers shared their plans with suppliers and asked suppliers to open their books and accept a declared return on investment or percentage margin in return.
Many suppliers were unwilling to open their books and take advantage of the planning certainty being offered. They did not trust the auto-manufacturer enough to open their books.
Many auto-manufacturers were not willing to commit to their plans, placing the risk on the supplier and therefore losing the trust of the suppliers.
The few manufacturers and suppliers who got past this early calculus-based trust development were able to go further. Suppliers were invited by the auto-manufacturers to be directly involved in research and development, not only in car/parts design, but also in manufacturing processes at the auto-manufacturer and the supplier.
Those suppliers and auto-manufacturers that were able to move through the calculus-based trust on to the identification-based trust were able to increase productivity dramatically by sharing not only common goals but common values.
The resultant integration of supplier's strategies and tactics into the auto-manufacturer's strategies and tactics brought increased productivity, lower costs, improved flexibility and increased profits to those organisations that could establish the required level of trust.
Trust, however, is not static. Trust is destroyed when the positive expectations of conduct which underpin the willingness to open oneself to vulnerability are not forthcoming.
In the early stages of building trust, small deviations from the expected positive conduct can destroy trust. In established identification-based trust, repeated infringements or a severe break in delivery against expectation is required to destroy trust.
Trust is personal. It is between two people. When organisations "trust" each other it is a result of trust between individuals in the organisation. Hence, trust and its benefits in productivity are destroyed when the expectations of an individual in an organisation is not met by an individual in another organisation.
When new individuals enter an established relationship is when the risk of destroying trust is the highest. Unfortunately, not many people recognise the benefits of trust and consequently, do not rate the impact of trust being destroyed as being high.
Therefore, to maintain the benefits of trust between organisations it is incumbent upon the individuals currently involved in the relationship to bring the new person into the fold, building their trust and their belief that trust has economic benefits.
Organisations that recognise the value of trust and actively discourage activities which would destroy trust, whilst actively encouraging activities and a culture which values trust, reap a significant competitive advantage.
Great Teams; The Three Building Blocks
Google team building. On the day of writing this article I got the response, "302,000,000 for team building. (0.08 seconds)". Over 300 million web pages and articles devoted to team building.
My observation is that the more pages Google gives you, the more complex is a topic. Many more people have different ideas and hence they publish them.
Is it really that complex? I have no doubt that the execution of building a team is complex as it involves the gamut of human emotions. What I do not see as complex though are the building blocks.
My observation is that there are only three major building blocks.
Common Goal:
Teams develop around a common goal. They do not grow because we want them to. We cannot instruct a team to form and expect it to be so. Groups of people, who individually pursue their own agendas whilst paying lip service to the declared goal, do not form teams.
If the goal is prescribed for a group of people and they neither were part of its development, nor understand their part in delivering it, they will not form a team. The forcefulness of their leader may still deliver the goal but less efficiently and less effectively than if the group of people believed it was their goal.
Respect for Difference:
Teams develop as people get to know one another and develop respect for their differences. The best way to develop the respect for differences is to experience a journey together. The obvious journey to use is the one required to reach a challenging goal.
However, at times, it is necessary to short cut the journey to build a team early in the timeline to reach the goal. Team building activities such as outward-bound programmes, hiking the Kokoda trail, week-long mental and physical team challenges can and do work in helping to build a team. Properly constructed, they not only discover the differences between people but also the value that the different characteristics bring.
What also works in short circuiting the team building cycle are assessments that help us understand our differences. I do not mean assessments such as Myers Briggs which people tend to use to pigeon hole themselves and others. I mean assessments, such as thinking styles, which help understand how others think and why that may be valuable to us. Or some EQ profiles which help us understand how people interact with others without putting a label upon them.
What I find rarely works, even on the surface, are team building activities which last for a day or so. One type of these include low level introspection which discover issues but rarely give enough time for people to work through them and learn. Another type include "fun" activities which give a short term lift to morale which then disappears within two days of being back at work.
In either case, the team building effort has to eventually centre on the component parts of achieving the goal. Otherwise, the team building activity becomes a distraction from which myths and stories are told, reinforcing personal rather than team agendas.
Respecting difference is, in my experience, the strongest correlation with a strong team. People who cannot respect difference should be removed from groups of people that need to develop into a team. This is true even if they bring great technical expertise to the group.
Competence, Information and Authority
Groups of people with a common goal and respect for difference can become great teams. However, without the proper tools, they are still likely to fail due to unnecessary frustrations being put in their way of achieving the goal.
Any single person needs the right level of behaviour skills and knowledge (competence), the right information and the right authority to execute their job well. So do teams.
If a group does not have required collective competence they will fail to form a team. They will not respect the difference of a group member who is assigned tasks but not competent to do them, even when no-one in the team is competent to do the task and, therefore, could not do any better.
For example, putting a group together and affixing the title of project manager to one of them without providing them the appropriate training to manage a project will restrict the development of a team and is just downright dumb. In many cases, training is not enough. It is experience that is required, even from an external source.
Having insufficient information to make decisions holds back all but the best teams, as too many people are not comfortable working in ambiguity. Information may be insufficient in many ways. One that is often overlooked however is that whilst copious amounts of data is available, it is without context. In those situations whilst data is available, information is sadly lacking. Group members will add their own context and thereby create unnecessary difference of opinion.
Groups of people without authority to act to reach the goal, even if it is a common goal, will struggle to form a team. Not having the necessary authority to act to reach a goal is no different in its impact on people than not having a common goal in the first place. Goals must be real and achievable by the team. They must have the necessary authority.
Team building exercises which concentrate on fun and frivolity are just that, frivolous. They do not build teams. They may raise morale for a moment but they do not build teams. Spend your money on building competence, creating a common goal and building respect for people's differences.
My observation is that the more pages Google gives you, the more complex is a topic. Many more people have different ideas and hence they publish them.
Is it really that complex? I have no doubt that the execution of building a team is complex as it involves the gamut of human emotions. What I do not see as complex though are the building blocks.
My observation is that there are only three major building blocks.
Common Goal:
Teams develop around a common goal. They do not grow because we want them to. We cannot instruct a team to form and expect it to be so. Groups of people, who individually pursue their own agendas whilst paying lip service to the declared goal, do not form teams.
If the goal is prescribed for a group of people and they neither were part of its development, nor understand their part in delivering it, they will not form a team. The forcefulness of their leader may still deliver the goal but less efficiently and less effectively than if the group of people believed it was their goal.
Respect for Difference:
Teams develop as people get to know one another and develop respect for their differences. The best way to develop the respect for differences is to experience a journey together. The obvious journey to use is the one required to reach a challenging goal.
However, at times, it is necessary to short cut the journey to build a team early in the timeline to reach the goal. Team building activities such as outward-bound programmes, hiking the Kokoda trail, week-long mental and physical team challenges can and do work in helping to build a team. Properly constructed, they not only discover the differences between people but also the value that the different characteristics bring.
What also works in short circuiting the team building cycle are assessments that help us understand our differences. I do not mean assessments such as Myers Briggs which people tend to use to pigeon hole themselves and others. I mean assessments, such as thinking styles, which help understand how others think and why that may be valuable to us. Or some EQ profiles which help us understand how people interact with others without putting a label upon them.
What I find rarely works, even on the surface, are team building activities which last for a day or so. One type of these include low level introspection which discover issues but rarely give enough time for people to work through them and learn. Another type include "fun" activities which give a short term lift to morale which then disappears within two days of being back at work.
In either case, the team building effort has to eventually centre on the component parts of achieving the goal. Otherwise, the team building activity becomes a distraction from which myths and stories are told, reinforcing personal rather than team agendas.
Respecting difference is, in my experience, the strongest correlation with a strong team. People who cannot respect difference should be removed from groups of people that need to develop into a team. This is true even if they bring great technical expertise to the group.
Competence, Information and Authority
Groups of people with a common goal and respect for difference can become great teams. However, without the proper tools, they are still likely to fail due to unnecessary frustrations being put in their way of achieving the goal.
Any single person needs the right level of behaviour skills and knowledge (competence), the right information and the right authority to execute their job well. So do teams.
If a group does not have required collective competence they will fail to form a team. They will not respect the difference of a group member who is assigned tasks but not competent to do them, even when no-one in the team is competent to do the task and, therefore, could not do any better.
For example, putting a group together and affixing the title of project manager to one of them without providing them the appropriate training to manage a project will restrict the development of a team and is just downright dumb. In many cases, training is not enough. It is experience that is required, even from an external source.
Having insufficient information to make decisions holds back all but the best teams, as too many people are not comfortable working in ambiguity. Information may be insufficient in many ways. One that is often overlooked however is that whilst copious amounts of data is available, it is without context. In those situations whilst data is available, information is sadly lacking. Group members will add their own context and thereby create unnecessary difference of opinion.
Groups of people without authority to act to reach the goal, even if it is a common goal, will struggle to form a team. Not having the necessary authority to act to reach a goal is no different in its impact on people than not having a common goal in the first place. Goals must be real and achievable by the team. They must have the necessary authority.
Team building exercises which concentrate on fun and frivolity are just that, frivolous. They do not build teams. They may raise morale for a moment but they do not build teams. Spend your money on building competence, creating a common goal and building respect for people's differences.
How to Get the Best out of Working for a Bad Boss
"I cannot believe that man! He is an idiot. I do not understand why he is still employed here."
The bad boss; we have all had them. If we are still of working age and not running our own company, we will get them again. Even if we are running our own company we will probably get them as a client.
In a study by the College of Business at Florida State University 700 people working in a variety of jobs were surveyed about how their bosses treat them.
The results were:
39 percent of workers said their supervisor failed to keep promises.
37 percent said their supervisor failed to give credit when due.
31 percent said their supervisor gave them the "silent treatment" in the past year.
27 percent said their supervisor made negative comments about them to other employees or managers.
24 percent said their supervisor invaded their privacy.
23 percent said their supervisor blamed others to cover up mistakes or to minimize embarrassment.
What is a bad boss? I categorise them into five distinct groups.
The Micro-Manager
"Jason, how is that proposal going? Let me see what you have done."
"But, boss it's nowhere near ready for you to look at. I will have it in shape for you to look at tomorrow."
"Let me have a look anyway."
"Oh, Jason, you have still got a lot of work to do on this proposal. The formatting is all over the shop. Have you run spellchecker?"
"No, I do that at the end."
"Let me show you a good way of formatting these proposals."
Ever had a conversation with your boss where the help they offer is at the wrong time and a level of detail that is too low for you to learn anything? You are being micro-managed.
The Faux Big Thinker
The big thinker is generally the opposite of the micro-manager. With little left brain thinking they are great at big picture thinking. They usually are smart enough to know that they are not good at the detail, finding it difficult to concentrate for long times on small scale logic and order. The smart ones, therefore, surround themselves with a team that can think through the detail.
The Faux Big Thinker gets their big thoughts from the dust jacket of books written by real big thinkers. They repeat sound-bites off the dust jacket as thought it was original thought. Popular causes they champion will include "Best Practice", "Coaching Environment", "Vision, Mission and Values", "Customer Centricity" or, of late, "Lean Processes."
The Faux Big Thinker cannot articulate below the catch phrase what it means for their processes, their customers, their employees and their external stakeholders. They usually do not surround themselves with people who can.
The Populist
The populist wants to be noticed. They want to be popular with their staff or their bosses or both.
They take on work from their bosses that, perhaps, their department cannot cope with. They tolerate staff who are performing poorly or behaving poorly, alienating those who work hard, are reliable and care about the outcomes they achieve. What is most important is that everybody likes them. They appear to be everything to everyone. In doing so, they find it difficult to keep the promises they make.
The Politician
The calculated view about what outcome will progress my career in the short or long term is always taken with every decision.
Bosses of this type can range from amiable to driven. Their membership of the political grouping only becomes apparent when decisions are being made that may have an impact on how they are perceived by people they believe can influence their career.
Decisions which they believe have little influence are made through what is for them and their team, normal business principles. Decisions which they believe will have an impact on their career will be made through the principles of least harm to their current career goal.
Compromise them and you may well get the silent treatment as part of serving time in the doghouse.
The Committee Chairman
Under the guise of empowerment, the Committee Chairman encourages committee based decisions. They form working groups and committees regularly and discourage unilateral decision making even when it is justified, based on skill sets, data availability and financial authority.
They do this in most cases to avoid blame. They generally do not like confrontation and avoid it by sharing the accountability for making decisions. Life under a Committee Chairman boss is slow and the strategy and tactics used to achieve the corporate goal are diffused and often contradictory.
How to get the best out of working for a bad boss
The first step in working out how to survive or even prosper with a bad boss is to work out what is important to you.
If working in the organisation is really important to you because of relationships you have there or the money you earn or the skills you are acquiring or you like the way it looks on your CV then it is wise to try to find a way to work with a bad boss. Think of it as a challenge to your management skills to manage upwards.
If working in the organisation is unimportant to you then you may consider leaving. However, you may well find that you go from the proverbial frying pan into the fire.
If you decide the job is important for whatever reason, then the second thing you must do is to stop whingeing and whining about having a bad boss. A release of frustration with friends and colleagues away from work about the trying idiosyncrasies is justified. Just do not let it engulf your working day.
Having decided that you wish to stay in the job, there are two principles to follow to help you work better with a bad boss.
Principle One - Know Them
All people have good attributes. All people have bad attributes. Get to know your boss and seek out their good attributes. This may mean getting to know them personally. Get to know what they are like at home, with family and friends if they will let you. If they like to keep personal stuff personal, invite them out, ask them questions and open up you own experiences. People will often open up to someone who is open to them.
Getting to know them will tell you something of their thinking style and what motivates them.
Opening up Johari's Window between you and your bad boss has several benefits.
It is probable that a better rapport between you and your boss will develop. It is not that you will like them all of a sudden, just that you acknowledge how they are different and understand a little about why they are different. You may become less judgemental and begin to understand better how to manage them.
Knowing that the micro-manager is a control freak afraid of letting go at home as well at least lets you know that it is not personal. Knowing that the Committee Chairman is afraid of making mistakes in their personal life will allow you to think about how you can build contingencies into decision options. Alternately, knowing that the Committee Chairman is really someone who wants to be inclusive but lacks confidence in saying "No", allows you to think about how to develop criteria for decision making through the "Committee" approach rather than the decision.
Trust also grows from rapport. Trust decreases the tendency to micro-manage or manage by committee and allows for more robust communication. More robust communication may allow you to get more detail in the mix with the Faux Big Thinker, or reduce the need to be a Populist.
Principle Two - Help Them
If you can get to know what makes them tick, where it does not compromise your principles, help them.
Start by helping them achieve the end state they want. It may be control or absence of personal risk or being seen to do a good job by their superiors. Even in the latter example, it is quite possible to give the boss credit by talking up the team which they lead.
Once they know you are "on-side" it is likely that further trust will develop.
If you can gain their trust, you will then be able to point out what they are good at and not good at and offer to help them improve. Alternatively, you may for example, help the Faux Big Thinker with the detail of their big idea. Offer to write a quick position paper on their big idea, perhaps including a SWOT analysis and a risk analysis. This presumes, of course, that you understand or can quickly research and assimilate the detail. If you can't, then offer to find someone who can.
Helping your bad boss to achieve the futures state they are after, in small ways at first, will allow you, in many cases, to manage your boss's impact on you.
Principle Three - Be Assertive
In getting the best of a bad boss, do not be passive and allow poor behaviour to roll over you. Being passive will ensure you get more of the same behaviour.
Do not be aggressive. Being aggressive with someone in a higher position than yourself, unless you are the master politician, is likely to result in either naked aggressive behaviour or, worse, passive aggressive behaviour.
Of the six basic techniques, the ones most likely to succeed are:
Basic Assertion
I haven't thought about that before, I'd like more time to think about your idea.
Empathetic Assertion
I know you are busy at the moment, John, but I'd like to make a request of you.
Discrepancy Assertion
"As I understand it, we agreed that project A was top priority. Now you ask me to give more time to project B. I'd like to clarify which is now the priority."
Negative Feelings Assertion
When you leave it this late to ask me to amend the report (objective description of other's behaviour) ….it involves my working over the weekend. (specific effects of that behaviour on you).
By being assertive, you will remain focused on what you can control. If you cannot develop an understanding of what makes your bad boss tick and they refuse help, then this is your key defence against becoming bitter about the relationship with your boss.
Principle Four - Know When to Fold Them
If you are feeling bitter about your bad boss and it is clear with the emphasis on clear, that there is no way you can influence who you think is a bad boss, you have lost control of your response and there is no chance of the situation changing, what for you and your goal, is a long time, then go. Look for another role in the organisation or another organisation all together.
When your daily responses are driven by your reaction to a bad boss rather than your own internal goal and controls, you become as much of the problem as your bad boss. It is time to move on.
The bad boss; we have all had them. If we are still of working age and not running our own company, we will get them again. Even if we are running our own company we will probably get them as a client.
In a study by the College of Business at Florida State University 700 people working in a variety of jobs were surveyed about how their bosses treat them.
The results were:
39 percent of workers said their supervisor failed to keep promises.
37 percent said their supervisor failed to give credit when due.
31 percent said their supervisor gave them the "silent treatment" in the past year.
27 percent said their supervisor made negative comments about them to other employees or managers.
24 percent said their supervisor invaded their privacy.
23 percent said their supervisor blamed others to cover up mistakes or to minimize embarrassment.
What is a bad boss? I categorise them into five distinct groups.
The Micro-Manager
"Jason, how is that proposal going? Let me see what you have done."
"But, boss it's nowhere near ready for you to look at. I will have it in shape for you to look at tomorrow."
"Let me have a look anyway."
"Oh, Jason, you have still got a lot of work to do on this proposal. The formatting is all over the shop. Have you run spellchecker?"
"No, I do that at the end."
"Let me show you a good way of formatting these proposals."
Ever had a conversation with your boss where the help they offer is at the wrong time and a level of detail that is too low for you to learn anything? You are being micro-managed.
The Faux Big Thinker
The big thinker is generally the opposite of the micro-manager. With little left brain thinking they are great at big picture thinking. They usually are smart enough to know that they are not good at the detail, finding it difficult to concentrate for long times on small scale logic and order. The smart ones, therefore, surround themselves with a team that can think through the detail.
The Faux Big Thinker gets their big thoughts from the dust jacket of books written by real big thinkers. They repeat sound-bites off the dust jacket as thought it was original thought. Popular causes they champion will include "Best Practice", "Coaching Environment", "Vision, Mission and Values", "Customer Centricity" or, of late, "Lean Processes."
The Faux Big Thinker cannot articulate below the catch phrase what it means for their processes, their customers, their employees and their external stakeholders. They usually do not surround themselves with people who can.
The Populist
The populist wants to be noticed. They want to be popular with their staff or their bosses or both.
They take on work from their bosses that, perhaps, their department cannot cope with. They tolerate staff who are performing poorly or behaving poorly, alienating those who work hard, are reliable and care about the outcomes they achieve. What is most important is that everybody likes them. They appear to be everything to everyone. In doing so, they find it difficult to keep the promises they make.
The Politician
The calculated view about what outcome will progress my career in the short or long term is always taken with every decision.
Bosses of this type can range from amiable to driven. Their membership of the political grouping only becomes apparent when decisions are being made that may have an impact on how they are perceived by people they believe can influence their career.
Decisions which they believe have little influence are made through what is for them and their team, normal business principles. Decisions which they believe will have an impact on their career will be made through the principles of least harm to their current career goal.
Compromise them and you may well get the silent treatment as part of serving time in the doghouse.
The Committee Chairman
Under the guise of empowerment, the Committee Chairman encourages committee based decisions. They form working groups and committees regularly and discourage unilateral decision making even when it is justified, based on skill sets, data availability and financial authority.
They do this in most cases to avoid blame. They generally do not like confrontation and avoid it by sharing the accountability for making decisions. Life under a Committee Chairman boss is slow and the strategy and tactics used to achieve the corporate goal are diffused and often contradictory.
How to get the best out of working for a bad boss
The first step in working out how to survive or even prosper with a bad boss is to work out what is important to you.
If working in the organisation is really important to you because of relationships you have there or the money you earn or the skills you are acquiring or you like the way it looks on your CV then it is wise to try to find a way to work with a bad boss. Think of it as a challenge to your management skills to manage upwards.
If working in the organisation is unimportant to you then you may consider leaving. However, you may well find that you go from the proverbial frying pan into the fire.
If you decide the job is important for whatever reason, then the second thing you must do is to stop whingeing and whining about having a bad boss. A release of frustration with friends and colleagues away from work about the trying idiosyncrasies is justified. Just do not let it engulf your working day.
Having decided that you wish to stay in the job, there are two principles to follow to help you work better with a bad boss.
Principle One - Know Them
All people have good attributes. All people have bad attributes. Get to know your boss and seek out their good attributes. This may mean getting to know them personally. Get to know what they are like at home, with family and friends if they will let you. If they like to keep personal stuff personal, invite them out, ask them questions and open up you own experiences. People will often open up to someone who is open to them.
Getting to know them will tell you something of their thinking style and what motivates them.
Opening up Johari's Window between you and your bad boss has several benefits.
It is probable that a better rapport between you and your boss will develop. It is not that you will like them all of a sudden, just that you acknowledge how they are different and understand a little about why they are different. You may become less judgemental and begin to understand better how to manage them.
Knowing that the micro-manager is a control freak afraid of letting go at home as well at least lets you know that it is not personal. Knowing that the Committee Chairman is afraid of making mistakes in their personal life will allow you to think about how you can build contingencies into decision options. Alternately, knowing that the Committee Chairman is really someone who wants to be inclusive but lacks confidence in saying "No", allows you to think about how to develop criteria for decision making through the "Committee" approach rather than the decision.
Trust also grows from rapport. Trust decreases the tendency to micro-manage or manage by committee and allows for more robust communication. More robust communication may allow you to get more detail in the mix with the Faux Big Thinker, or reduce the need to be a Populist.
Principle Two - Help Them
If you can get to know what makes them tick, where it does not compromise your principles, help them.
Start by helping them achieve the end state they want. It may be control or absence of personal risk or being seen to do a good job by their superiors. Even in the latter example, it is quite possible to give the boss credit by talking up the team which they lead.
Once they know you are "on-side" it is likely that further trust will develop.
If you can gain their trust, you will then be able to point out what they are good at and not good at and offer to help them improve. Alternatively, you may for example, help the Faux Big Thinker with the detail of their big idea. Offer to write a quick position paper on their big idea, perhaps including a SWOT analysis and a risk analysis. This presumes, of course, that you understand or can quickly research and assimilate the detail. If you can't, then offer to find someone who can.
Helping your bad boss to achieve the futures state they are after, in small ways at first, will allow you, in many cases, to manage your boss's impact on you.
Principle Three - Be Assertive
In getting the best of a bad boss, do not be passive and allow poor behaviour to roll over you. Being passive will ensure you get more of the same behaviour.
Do not be aggressive. Being aggressive with someone in a higher position than yourself, unless you are the master politician, is likely to result in either naked aggressive behaviour or, worse, passive aggressive behaviour.
Of the six basic techniques, the ones most likely to succeed are:
Basic Assertion
I haven't thought about that before, I'd like more time to think about your idea.
Empathetic Assertion
I know you are busy at the moment, John, but I'd like to make a request of you.
Discrepancy Assertion
"As I understand it, we agreed that project A was top priority. Now you ask me to give more time to project B. I'd like to clarify which is now the priority."
Negative Feelings Assertion
When you leave it this late to ask me to amend the report (objective description of other's behaviour) ….it involves my working over the weekend. (specific effects of that behaviour on you).
By being assertive, you will remain focused on what you can control. If you cannot develop an understanding of what makes your bad boss tick and they refuse help, then this is your key defence against becoming bitter about the relationship with your boss.
Principle Four - Know When to Fold Them
If you are feeling bitter about your bad boss and it is clear with the emphasis on clear, that there is no way you can influence who you think is a bad boss, you have lost control of your response and there is no chance of the situation changing, what for you and your goal, is a long time, then go. Look for another role in the organisation or another organisation all together.
When your daily responses are driven by your reaction to a bad boss rather than your own internal goal and controls, you become as much of the problem as your bad boss. It is time to move on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)