Podcast: Play in new window | Download (25.3MB)
Our managers understand and tap the knowledge, skills, and resources of everyone. They are successful with identifying the specific know-how, particular skill, or best resource for the immediate purpose, whatever the need happens to be.
Our managers distribute work and responsibilities fairly. They do not take advantage of anyone. There are obvious and not so obvious ways people are taken advantage of: for example, when an employee has more and more work piled on top of work piled on yesterday. Another version of the same kind of abuse happens when work is given to someone just because the manager is not going to get any hassle or flack. Some people have especially positive attitudes and just do not say No when asked to do something.
Two other areas of unfairness and abuse warrant a special note here. First, tolerating anyone’s not doing what is expected or doing less than is expected is unfair to others. Letting shirkers get away with it does nothing but shift the burden unfairly onto other employees. Second, assuming everyone is equally efficient is wrong. This is particularly unfair to those who are unusually efficient. The exceptional few can routinely do a two-hour job in an hour and a half. Do we then expect them to do more work in the extra half hour? Our managers do not think so. They discuss options with these employees but the choice is theirs. Our managers do not increase the load just because someone is especially efficient and hard working.
Our managers defer to others when they are more knowledgeable, skilled, or competent. They do not ignore or overlook expertise in others and especially not in employees whose knowledge, skills, and resources may increase our organization’s chances for success. Their reason for deferring to the expertise of others goes a little farther, though. They truly value differing styles and opinions. Each employee has know-how, skills, and resources unlike those of anyone else. Each has his or her special area of expertise. He or she also has his or her individual approaches, ways of thinking, and perspectives. Not to fully access these talents and knowledge is unacceptable.
Our managers deal with problems before they become emergencies. They take care of all issues as soon as they become aware of them. It is part of their Do today’s work today approach to everything.
Our managers do not react to employees or problems impulsively. They resist the temptation to just do something, do anything to make the issue or problem go away. An important benefit of their more considered approach is they have an opportunity to fit their reactions to the situation or circumstance.
Our managers are hard on problems and soft on people. They know that our employees deserve consideration; problems do not. They want our valued employees to stay, annoying problems to go away. Problems need solutions; people need support. Our employees are not the problem, problems are the problem. For these reasons, managers are ordinarily flexible and willing to compromise. A few things are not negotiable, but most are.
Our managers remember and own what they say, agree to, and do. They know that our employees think that they said what they think they said, agreed to what they think they agreed to, and did what they think they did. Therein lies our managers’ opportunity. On the one hand, managers could automatically say I never said that. Or I certainly did not agree to that. Or I did not do it. As option one, these responses have the advantage of simplicity. On the other hand, our manager could capitulate. Although I do not remember saying that, you are undoubtedly right. Or If you think I agreed to it, then we have a deal. Or If you say I did it, then I did it. As option two, this has the advantage of avoiding conflict. For our managers, however, if they said it, agreed to it, or did it, they acknowledge the fact. If they believe they did not, then they say That surprises me. I must be blocking on that one. Will you help me get focus? If you will, take me back to when you are talking about. You were there so help me into the picture. Surprisingly often, the response is Well, I wasn’t there but so-and-so told me…. Other times, the manager is reminded the employee really is right. Whatever the outcome, the manager has an opportunity to reprocess and reinterpret the event. The outcome is not necessarily better but their commitment to Management Excellence is intact. – Let me note the any reasonable interpretation standard is used here as with other issues and misunderstandings. The question for the manager is how a reasonable person with similar training and experience might have interpreted the situation, instruction, or event, not the manager’s recollection of his meaning or intent at the time.
Our managers work with people instead of merely relying on their power and control. They know relying on power and control stifles innovation, creativity, and cooperation. Further, it increases tension and apprehension while causing our employees to become anxious and fearful. Even if they are not the focus of the power and control, the effect is about the same. Just being in a power-oriented environment is unsettling and stressful. Our managers recognize these unacceptable outcomes, but their favoring working with people rests more specifically on the less obvious downside of routinely using power and control. Regularly using power and control is ineffective and counterproductive. In the long run, it does not work. Specifically, the more skilled the employee, the less effective it is; the more important the person’s participation is to the organization, the more using power and control jeopardizes the organization’s success.