The challenge in these conversations is to (1) keep your cool, (2) listen for how the employee avoids, blames others, or denies any performance shortfall, and (3) respond assertively so that you move the “monkey” of accountability over to the employee, where it belongs. The way some employees deflect responsibility can raise your ire in a heartbeat. You can easily get tangled up in their masterful manipulation which some have honed over the years with past bosses who failed to get them to do what they are paid to do.

The solution is to do dry runs of the conversation. In other words, practice.

When it comes up in a workshop I often ask the manager to engage with me in a short role play of the interaction in front of the class. He/she plays the difficult employee as realistically as possible (and they usually do a very convincing job of it). I play him/her, the manager, and we enact a typical or real situation. Then, with the help of the observing class, we analyze how successful I was avoiding the employee’s “hooks” and getting him/her to take adult accountability for the job performance in question. We may then replay the scenario with the manager playing himself/herself and me becoming the employee. Training participants and certainly the managers in the role plays frequently report that these magic moments were the high point of learning for them from the entire course.

You can do this at work. Ask a trusted peer manager or perhaps your boss to help you out. Have them play the employee and give the interaction a couple of dry runs. If the employee (actor) succeeds in turning the responsibility or blame back on you, analyze what you said (or didn’t say) that allowed this to happen. Make corrections and role play it again. Consider recording the practice rounds in audio or video to help you get a clearer picture of how you are approaching it.

One neat by-product of this methodology is that when you take on the persona of your difficult employee in a role play, you actually get a feeling of what it is like for him or her when interacting with you. It takes you to a new level of understanding of what is going on between you two and helps you be more effective dealing with the individual. I know, it’s weird but it works.

How much responsibility and risk can reasonably be shifted to employees without impeding their productivity?

And what can organizations do to equip individuals to be more self-reliant in owning and managing their own performance, career, financial security, health and well-being?

A core teaching in our management development programs at Fulcrum Associates is around how to get your employees to accept the “monkey of accountability” for their performance, career direction and job satisfaction. I am heartened to see this corroborated so clearly in this major study.

Here’s what employer organizations and their managers need to do build their overall self efficacy:

• Provide their managers with skills training in how to talk effectively with their employees about their performance (good, bad, or OK) and address their level of job satisfaction, should it falter.
• Engage employees periodically in a provocative conversation about their career prospects, what they want, what’s required of them to make this happen, and what they can start doing now to mitigate the impact of future economic downturns or a shift in job demand.
• Encourage managers to be a “pygmalion” to their employees by emphasizing the employee’s current strengths, assessing his or her potential (no matter how small) and expressing a belief in the staff member’s ability to achieve that potential.
• Make training available on personal financial management
• Promote health, fitness and wellness with initiatives such as learning programs, gym memberships, coaching in fitness and nutrition, etc.

These actions certainly fall within the core of that “significant workplace transformation” that TW referred to (see my previous Comment #1 blog entry) in their study.

I wasn’t surprised, as I encounter this as an issue for most managers. At the same time, a part of me was disappointed. How sad that so many managers out there encounter a negative outlook in the heads of their employees. Now, dear reader, we can commiserate about this fact and acknowledge that the sources of this negativity are many and complex.

Better, however, for us to direct our attention onto what a manager can do about it. So, here’s what I told the participants in my program.

Chronically negative people are blamers.

• They are continually filtering for what’s wrong and, at the drop of a hat, will let you know who is to blame for the problem. (BTW, it is never the blamer himself/herself. When is the last time you heard an employee say, “The problem around here is nobody communicates and, in fact, I am one of the worst offenders.”)
• They don’t really want solutions to their complaints. That will just jeopardize the (comfortable, thank you very much) problem-centered lens through which they view their employer organization.
• Life is simple when it’s not their fault. Add to this that wonderful feeling of being “right” and a tad superior to those who are running the place.
• These people let their “victim child” side of their personality run rampant. They refuse to allow their “adult” side to join the discussion and bring up how they might be contributing to the predicament and what responsibility they bear for working toward a solution.

Gently, with respect, throw a spanner into their thinking process.

• The next time your frequent complainer expresses a negative, unfocused criticism, respond with something like:
  • “How would you like things to be instead?”
  • “What would it look like if this problem were fixed?”
  • “What’s missing for you that, if present, would make this not a problem anymore?”
• When an employee complains to you about another employee, respond with:
  • “What would  you prefer that they do instead?”
  • “Are they aware of what they are doing?”
  • “Furthermore, do they realize how much it is bugging you?”
  • “Have you told them what you want from them?”

Be persistent and unwavering with these responses and before you know it they will stop being negative, at least with you.

By using approaches like these, you invite them to shift their focus from the problem to possible solutions for the problem. You are asking them to take accountability for getting their needs met. After all, that’s what adults do.

1. Precontemplation (not yet acknowledging a need for changed behavior)
2. Contemplation (acknowledging the need but not yet willing to proceed with the change)
3. Preparation/Determination (ready to make the change and gearing up for it)
4. Action (engaging in the new behavior)
5. Maintanence (sustaining the new behavior over the long term, hopefully permanently)
6. Relapse (returning to the old ways)

What intrigues me here, in the context of executive coaching, are Stages 1 & 2.

Obviously, no successful growth to more effective leadership behaviors will happen if the individual doesn’t:

• see a problem with how he or she is operating currently, or
• have a genuine desire to become better as a manager.

Coaching is an investment made mostly in current relatively senior managers or individuals identified as high potential future leaders. So, as you look at potential candidates in which to invest your limited development resources, the first question is to clarify is to what extent they are at the Precontemplation or Contemplation stages.

If not, here are several ways to move them through to stage 3:

• Express your belief that they have potential to rise to a senior leadership role in the organization (This is by no means a promise. You are just informing them of your perception of them.)
• Administer a 360º feedback process for them, to give them a reality check on how they are currently being experienced by others.
• Challenge them as to what are their own goals and aspirations for their career.
• And, for less-than-acceptable performers, give them clear, tough feedback about their current poor performance and the consequences if they don’t turn this around.

These strategies will raise the individual’s conscious awareness that there is a problem or an untapped potential. The final step before you decide to invest in him or her is to solicit to what extent he/she is willing to do the tough personal and professional developmental work in order to make a shift to greater effectiveness.

Absent that genuine willingness, don’t waste you money on coaching.

The day soldiers stop bringing you their problems is the day you have stopped leading them. They have either lost confidence that you can help them or concluded that you do not care. Either case is a failure of leadership.

As John mentions, sometimes leaders foster a culture that asking your boss for help is a sign of weakness or failure. This can have really negative consequences for the organization because employees will not tap into the experience and wisdom of their boss when it is appropriate. In the end they risk making poor decisions that can cost a lot.

But the real issue here involves, as is so often the case with the art of management, a paradox:

• On the one hand you want your people to take full accountability for their job, including making decisions and taking action without always running to you to solve their problems or provide cover by endorsing decisions they are about to make.
• On the other hand, you want your staff to come to you when they are truly stymied, the cost of a bad decision is too high, or they need information that is understandably beyond their reach.

The “art” here is, when an employee brings a problem to your doorstep, to be able to differentiate between a problem that they should be able to handle on their own and one on which it is appropriate to consult with you.

Make a point of clarifying with each of your direct employees what sorts of issues or situations should trigger their talking with you first. You can do this as part of a larger conversation about the performance expected from them. Part of their performance, after all, is bringing their independent judgment to bear in their job. These guidelines, of course, may need to be adjusted as you go forward, so be sure to revisit them periodically, as needed.

Finally, having done such a good job clarifying decision boundaries, resist the ever-present temptation to break these guidelines by taking the “monkey” and solving a problem that clearly belongs to them.

]]> http://buildbestbosses.com/2010/02/22/the-paradox-of-who-makes-the-decisions/feed/ 0 http://buildbestbosses.com/2010/01/07/why-managers-too-often-solve-it-themselves/ http://buildbestbosses.com/2010/01/07/why-managers-too-often-solve-it-themselves/#comments Thu, 07 Jan 2010 12:00:05 +0000 Ian Cook http://buildbestbosses.com/?p=1298 How often do you jump in and solve your employees’ problems for them? Probably more often than you would like and, if you are like most other bosses, more frequently than you should. Whether your employee brings you a problem/question or you are addressing a performance shortfall on his or her part, it is really, really tempting just to give him/her the answer and get on with life.

I touched upon this phenomenon in my last post. Here now are four reasons for managers’ tendency to adopt a directive style in these situations. See if you can relate to any of these in yourself and perhaps in other managers where you work.

1. Managers have previously developed the “take action” habit. Most of them are promoted from the ranks of individual contributors where they worked in a technical, professional, administrative or blue collar activity. Here success came from organizing and controlling inanimate “things,” such as reports, data, concepts, materials, and so forth. Their job was to take some kind of action or make some decisions around these items. They come to management having already developed a “default,” action-oriented response to their work.
2. A manager’s key success factor is his or her ability to identify and solve problems. Managers are constantly being presented with urgent issues. When they solve one they feel good, feel like they have added value to the operation. So, it’s not surprising that when an employee brings forward a problem the manager’s default response is either to solve it himself/herself or tell the employee how to solve it.
3. They most likely already know the solution. Managers typically have been around longer than many of their employees and have learned a lot about working effectively. Furthermore, if they came up from the ranks, they understand the front line work from personal experience. Often the solution is a no brainer to them. Without duct tape to cover their mouth, it is hard to keep from blurting out the answer.
4. Managers are busy people. It is simply quicker to give the answer, check it off mentally as another problem solved, and send the employee on his/her way. Any other response, such as coaching the staffer to come up with a good solution, will take more of the manager’s limited time.

If you can see one or more of these forces operating within you, you have reached the first step toward changing your default behavior to one of coaching and getting your employees do the mental heavy lifting around problems they encounter in their work.

More to come about this in my next post.

You can’t “lead” things. You can’t lead inventories, cash flow and costs. You can’t lead information, time structures, processes, facilities and tools. You have to manage them.

Why? Because things don’t have the freedom to choose. Only people do.

So, you lead (empower) people. You manage and control things. The problem is, the organizational legacy we’ve all inherited says you do need to manage and control people.

Now, isn’t this simply the nub of it all?

To start with, it’s in our psychological DNA, as humans, to want to control–manage–our immediate environment. That includes the people with whom we come into contact. Add to this the expectation of companies that managers control their departments. That includes their employees. Add to this that most managers started their careers in a professional, technical or hands-on capacity where it was their job to manage “things” (e.g. deliveries, numbers, data processed, hamburgers flipped).

Our biggest obstacle to being their “best boss ever” is our default need to control our employees–what they do, how they do it, the attitude they bring into the workplace, and their level of job satisfaction. Until we let go of this need and realize that we can’t make them do anything or feel any particular way or be satisfied and keen  we will never ascend to that level of effectiveness that we read about in all those best seller leadership books. For some managers, letting this go becomes a life-long journey and some never succeed in it.

A large focus of our management and leadership programs is teaching participating managers how to engage, challenge and inspire their employees, rather than how to “get” staff to perform and feel positive about their job and the organization.

Are you still clutching on to the need–and responsibility–to control your people? Consider, if you will, gradually relaxing your grip and opening up to a way of leading that really gets results.

Are you looking for new ways to help your employees boost their level of engagement and motivation in their work? Here’s a new process (and accompanying tool) you may want to check out. It’s called “Job Crafting.” What it enables your employees to do is take a fresh look at their job duties and priorities and better align them with their:

• Motives – outcomes they would like to obtain (for them and for others) from their work
• Strengths – their natural skills, attributes, talents, etc.
• Passions – activities and areas of their job that they most enjoy or find the most interesting

Information on the Job Crafting methodology is available at the University of Michigan’s Center for Positive Organizational Scholarship. You can even download a preview copy of the exercise. It was reported in a recent issue of Time Magazine.

What I like about this approach (and others like it) is:

1. It empowers the employee to take accountability for rendering his or her job more satisfying.
2. The outcome will usually lead to greater job motivation for that employee, simply as a result of looking at his/her job in a new light.
3. The manager can play a coaching role helping the employee work through the process.

Most managers with whom I work feel challenged to come up with new ways to make work more engaging and motivating for their staff, ways that don’t require spending more money.

If you are in this group, take a look at Job Crafting.