By Robert Bacal

When change is imposed (as in downsizing scenarios), clearly the most important determinant of “getting through the swamp”, is the ability of leadership to…well, lead. The literature on the subject indicates that the nature of the change is secondary to the perceptions that employees have regarding the ability, competence, and credibility of senior and middle management.

If you are to manage change effectively, you need to be aware that there are three distinct times zones where leadership is important. We can call these Preparing For the Journey, Slogging Through The Swamp, and After Arrival. We will look more carefully at each of these.

The Role of Leadership

In an organization where there is faith in the abilities of formal leaders, employees will look towards the leaders for a number of things. During drastic change times, employees will expect effective and sensible planning, confident and effective decision-making, and regular, complete communication that is timely. Also during these times of change, employees will perceive leadership as supportive, concerned and committed to their welfare, while at the same time recognizing that tough decisions need to be made. The best way to summarize is that there is a climate of trust between leader and the rest of the team. The existence of this trust, brings hope for better times in the future, and that makes coping with drastic change much easier.

In organizations characterized by poor leadership, employees expect nothing positive. In a climate of distrust, employees learn that leaders will act in indecipherable ways and in ways that do not seem to be in anyone’s best interests. Poor leadership means an absence of hope, which, if allowed to go on for too long, results in an organization becoming completely nonfunctioning. The organization must deal with the practical impact of unpleasant change, but more importantly, must labor under the weight of employees who have given up, have no faith in the system or in the ability of leaders to turn the organization around.

Leadership before, during and after change implementation is THE key to getting through the swamp. Unfortunately, if haven’t established a track record of effective leadership, by the time you have to deal with difficult changes, it may be too late.

Preparing For The Journey

It would be a mistake to assume that preparing for the journey takes place only after the destination has been defined or chosen. When we talk about preparing for the change journey, we are talking about leading in a way that lays the foundation or groundwork for ANY changes that may occur in the future. Preparing is about building resources, by building healthy organizations in the first place. Much like healthy people, who are better able to cope with infection or disease than unhealthy people, organization that are healthy in the first place are better able to deal with change.

As a leader you need to establish credibility and a track record of effective decision making, so that there is trust in your ability to figure out what is necessary to bring the organization through.

Slogging Through The Swamp

Leaders play a critical role during change implementation, the period from the announcement of change through the installation of the change. During this middle period the organization is the most unstable, characterized by confusion, fear, loss of direction, reduced productivity, and lack of clarity about direction and mandate. It can be a period of emotionalism, with employees grieving for what is lost, and initially unable to look to the future.

During this period, effective leaders need to focus on two things. First, the feelings and confusion of employees must be acknowledged and validated. Second, the leader must work with employees to begin creating a new vision of the altered workplace, and helping employees to understand the direction of the future. Focusing only on feelings, may result in wallowing. That is why it is necessary to begin the movement into the new ways or situations. Focusing only on the new vision may result in the perception that the leader is out of touch, cold and uncaring. A key part of leadership in this phase is knowing when to focus on the pain, and when to focus on building and moving into the future.

After Arrival

In a sense you never completely arrive, but here we are talking about the period where the initial instability of massive change has been reduced. People have become less emotional, and more stable, and with effective leadership during the previous phases, are now more open to locking in to the new directions, mandate and ways of doing things.

This is an ideal time for leaders to introduce positive new change, such as examination of unwieldy procedures or Total Quality Management. The critical thing here is that leaders must now offer hope that the organization is working towards being better, by solving problems and improving the quality of work life. While the new vision of the organization may have begun while people were slogging through the swamp, this is the time to complete the process, and make sure that people buy into it, and understand their roles in this new organization.

Conclusion

Playing a leadership role in the three phases is not easy. Not only do you have a responsibility to lead, but as an employee yourself, you have to deal with your own reactions to the change, and your role in it. However, if you are ineffective in leading change, you will bear a very heavy personal load. Since you are accountable for the performance of your unit, you will have to deal with the ongoing loss of productivity that can result from poorly managed change, not to mention the potential impact on your own enjoyment of your job.

by Gerard M Blair

In the management of a small team, the human factor is crucial to success. This article considers possible motivators and a simple framework for dealing with people.

When you are struggling with a deadline or dealing with delicate decisions, the last thing you want to deal with is “people”. When the fight is really on and the battle is undecided, you want your team to act co-operatively, quickly, rationally; you do not want a disgruntled employee bitching about life, you do not want a worker who avoids work, you do not want your key engineer being tired all day because the baby cries all night. But this is what happens, and as a manager you have to deal with it. Few “people problems” can be solved quickly, some are totally beyond your control and can only be contained; but you do have influence over many factors which affect your people and so it is your responsibility to ensure that your influence is a positive one.

You can only underestimate the impact which you personally have upon the habits and effectiveness of your group. As the leader of a team, you have the authority to sanction, encourage or restrict most aspects of their working day, and this places you in a position of power - and responsibility. This article looks briefly at your behaviour and at what motivates people, because by understanding these you can adapt yourself and the work environment so that your team and the company are both enriched. Since human psychology is a vast and complex subject, we do not even pretend to explain it. Instead, the article then outlines a simple model of behaviour and a systematic approach to analysing how you can exert your influence to help your team to work.

Behaviour

Consider your behaviour. Consider the effect you would have if every morning after coffee you walked over to Jimmy’s desk and told him what he was doing wrong. Would Jimmy feel pleased at your attention? Would he look forward to these little chats and prepare simple questions to clarify aspects of his work? Or would he develop a Pavlovian hatred for coffee and be busy elsewhere whenever you pass by? Of course you would never be so destructive - provided you thought about it. And you must; for many seemingly simple habits can have a huge impact upon your rapport with your team.

Take another example: suppose (as a good supportive manager) you often give public praise for independence and initiative displayed by your team, and suppose (as a busy manager) you respond brusquely to questions and interruptions; think about it, what will happen?

Probably your team will leave you alone. They will not raise problems (you will be left in the dark), they will not question your instructions (ambiguities will remain), they will struggle on bravely (and feel unsupported). Your simple behaviour may result in a quagmire of errors, mis-directed activity and utter frustration. So if you do want to hear about problems, tell the team so and react positively when you hear of problems in-time rather than too-late.

Motivation

When thinking about motivation it is important to take the long-term view. What you need is a sustainable approach to maintain enthusiasm and commitment from your team. This is not easy; but it is essential to your effectiveness.

Classic work on motivation was undertaken by F. Herzberg in the 1950’s when he formulated the “Motivation-Hygiene” theory. Herzberg identified several factors, such as salary levels, working conditions and company policy, which demotivated (by being poor) rather that motivated (by being good). For example, once a fair level of pay is established, money ceases to be a significant motivator for long term performance. Herzberg called these the “Hygiene” factors to apply the analogy that if the washrooms are kept clean, no one cares if they are scrubbed even harder. The point is that you can not enhance your team’s performance through these Hygiene factors - which is fortunate since few team leaders have creative control over company organization or remuneration packages. What you can influence is the local environment and particularly the way in which you interact with your team.

The positive motivators identified by Herzberg are: achievement, recognition, the work itself, responsibility, and advancement. These are what your team needs; loads-o-money is nice but not nearly as good as being valued and trusted.

Achievement
As the manager, you set the targets - and in selecting these targets, you have a dramatic effect upon your team’s sense of achievement. If you make them too hard, the team will feel failure; if too easy, the team feels little. Ideally, you should provide a series of targets which are easily recognised as stages towards the ultimate completion of the task. Thus progress is punctuated and celebrated with small but marked achievements. If you stretch your staff, they know you know they can meet that challenge.

Recognition
Recognition is about feeling appreciated. It is knowing that what you do is seen and noted, and preferably by the whole team as well as by you, the manager. In opposite terms, if people do something well and then feel it is ignored - they will not bother to do it so well next time (because “no one cares”).

The feedback you give your team about their work is fundamental to their motivation. They should know what they do well (be positive), what needs improving (be constructive) and what is expected of them in the future (something to aim at). And while this is common sense, ask yourself how many on your team know these things, right now? Perhaps more importantly, for which of your team could you write these down now (try it)?

Your staff need to know where they stand, and how they are performing against your (reasonable) expectations. You can achieve this through a structured review system, but such systems often become banal formalities with little or no communication. The best time to give feedback is when the event occurs. Since it can impact greatly, the feedback should be honest, simple, and always constructive. If in doubt, follow the simple formula of:

1. highlight something good
2. point out what needs improving
3. suggest how to improve

You must always look for something positive to say, if only to offer some recognition of the effort which has been put into the work. When talking about improvements, be specific: this is what is wrong, this is what I want/need, this is how you should work towards it. Never say anything as unhelpful or uninformative as “do better” or “shape up” - if you cannot be specific and say how, then keep quiet. While your team will soon realize that this IS a formula, they will still enjoy the benefits of the information (and training). You must not stint in praising good work. If you do not acknowledge it, it may not be repeated simply because no one knew you approved.

The work itself
The work itself should be interesting and challenging. Interesting because this makes your staff actually engage their attention; challenging because this maintains the interest and provides a sense of personal achievement when the job is done. But few managers have only interesting, challenging work to distribute: there is always the boring and mundane to be done. This is a management problem for you to solve. You must actually consider how interesting are the tasks you assign and how to deal with the boring ones. Here are two suggestions.

Firstly, make sure that everyone (including yourself) has a share of the interesting and of the dull. This is helped by the fact that what is dull to some might be new and fascinating to others - so match tasks to people, and possibly share the worst tasks around. For instance, taking minutes in meetings is dull on a weekly basis but quite interesting/educational once every six weeks (and also heightens a sense of responsibility). Secondly, if the task is dull perhaps the method can be changed - by the person given the task. This turns dull into challenging, adds responsibility, and might even improve the efficiency of the team.

Responsibility
Of all of Herzberg’s positive motivators, responsibility is the most lasting. One reason is that gaining responsibility is itself seen as an advancement which gives rise to a sense of achievement and can also improve the work itself: a multiple motivation! Assigning responsibility is a difficult judgement since if the person is not confident and capable enough, you will be held responsible for the resulting failure. Indeed, delegating responsibility deserves another article in itself (see the article on Delegation).

Advancement
There are two types of advancement: the long-term issues of promotion, salary rises, job prospects; and the short-term issues (which you control) of increased responsibility, the acquisition of new skills, broader experience. Your team members will be looking for the former, you have to provide the latter and convince them that these are necessary (and possibly sufficient) steps for the eventual advancement they seek. As a manager, you must design the work assignment so that each member of the team feels: “I’m learning, I’m getting on”.

Problems

We are going to look at a simple system for addressing people-problems. It is a step-by-step procedure which avoids complex psychological models (which few managers can/should handle) and which focuses upon tangible (and so controllable) quantities.

One work of warning: this technique is often referred to as Behavioural Modification (BM) and many balk at the connotations of management-directed mind control. Do not worry. We are simply recognising that staff behaviour IS modified by the work environment and by your influence upon it. The technique is merely a method for analysing that influence to ensure that it is positive and to focus it to best use.

In any group of people there are bound to be problems - as a manager, you have to solve or at least contain them. You ignore them at your peril. Such problems are usually described in terms like: “Alex is just lazy” or “Brenda is a bad-tempered old has-been”. On the one hand, such people can poison the working environment; the other hand, these descriptions are totally unhelpful.

The underlying philosophy of BM is that you should concentrate upon specific, tangible actions over which you have influence. For instance “Alex is lazy” should be transformed into “Alex is normally late with his weekly report and achieves less than Alice does in any one week”. Thus we have a starting point and something which can be measured. No generalities; only specific, observable behaviour.

Before proceeding, it is worth checking that the problem is real - some “problems” are more appearance than substance, some are not worth you time and effort. So, stage 1 is to monitor the identified problem to check that it is real and to seek simple explanations. For instance Alex might still be helping someone with his old job.

Stage 2 is often missed - ask Alex for his solution. This sort of interview can be quite difficult because you run the danger of making personal criticism. Now you may feel that Alex deserves criticism, but does it actually help? Your objective is to get Alex to work well, not to indulge in personal tyranny. If you make it personal, Alex will be defensive. He will either deny the problem, blame someone else, blame the weather, tell you that he knows best or some combination of the above. If, on the other hand, you present the situation in terms of the specific events, you can focus upon Alex’s own view of the problem (why is this happening?) and Alex’s own solution (what can Alex do about it - can you help?).

Stage 2 will sometimes be sufficient. If Alex had not realised there was a problem, he might act quickly to solve it. If he had thought his behaviour would pass unnoticed, he now knows differently. By giving Alex the responsibility for solving his own problem, you can actually motivate him beyond the specific problem: he may suggest on improved reporting system, or a short training course to deal with a technical short-coming. Finally, the demonstration alone that you are interested in Alex’s work may be enough to make him improve. Never assume that you know better, always ask first - then if no solution is forthcoming, proceed to …

Stage 3 is the analysis stage and is based upon a simple model of behaviour: every action is preceded by a trigger, and is followed by a consequence or payoff. Thus baby is hungry (trigger), baby wails (action), baby gets fed (payoff); or the report is due today (trigger), Alex goes for coffee break “to think about it” (action), Alex has a relaxing afternoon (payoff).

Sometimes, good behaviour is blocked by negative payoffs. For instance, if every time Clive informs his boss Diane about a schedule change (action), Diane vents her annoyance on Clive (payoff), then Clive will be less inclined to approach Diane with information in the future. One of the problems with communication in Ancient Greece was that the bearer of bad news was often executed.

Once you have analysed the problem, stage 4 is to find a solution. With most people-problems at work, you will find that the “bad” behaviour is reinforced by a payoff which that person finds attractive. There are two solutions: 1) modify the payoff either by blocking it, or by adding another consequence which is negative, or 2) create a positive payoff for the alternative, desired “good” behaviour. In the long term, the latter is preferable since it is better for motivation to offer encouragement rather than reprimand; optimally you should implement both.

This is where you have to be creative. BM provides a manageable focus and a framework for analysis; you, as manager, must provide the solution. It is best to work on one problem at a time because this simplifies the analysis. Further, by addressing one, other related problems are often affected also. Let us consider “late reporting”. Firstly, add a negative consequence to Alex’s current behaviour. State explicitly that you need the report by 3.30 on Friday (so that you can prepare your weekly schedule update) - and, if this does not happen, summon Alex at four o’clock to demand the report before he leaves for the weekend. This will probably ruin his “hour before the weekend” and he will wish to avoid it. Secondly, if Alex does get the report in by 3.30 make a habit of responding to it on Monday morning: if there is an issue raised, help Alex to solve it; if there is a schedule change, talk it over - but make it clear (say it) that you are only able to do this because you had time on Friday to read over his report. Thus Alex learns that he will receive help and support IF he gets the report in on time.

Stage 5 is necessary because such plans do not always work. You must continue to monitor the problem and after a trial period, review your progress. If the plan is working, continue; if the plan has failed, devise a new one; if the plan has worked, look for a new problem to solve.

Where to Seek Solutions

The range of problems is so large, that it is impossible to offer more than generalities as advise. Each person is different, each situation is different, so each solution must be carefully crafted. This being said, here are a few ideas.

Look for aspects of motivation - any problem which stems from lack of commitment or interest can only successfully be addressed by providing motivation, and any of the motivators described earlier can be applied.

Be flexible with regards to personal problems. No parent is immune to the “joys” of a new born baby, no one is uneffected by bereavement. When circumstances and the human factor impinge upon your ordered plans, adapt; since you cannot change it, work with it. Focus upon the problem (say, schedule slippage) and deal with that in the existing situation. For instance if you sanction half a day’s “sick-leave” to see a solicitor, you might save a week’s worry and distraction.

On a larger scale, look carefully at the “systems” which exist in your team, at those work practices which you and they follow through habit. Some of these can work against you, and the team. For instance, the way you hold team meetings may suppress contributions (at 4 o’clock on a Friday, say); the way you reward the exceptional may demotivate those responsible for the mundane.

Take a long term view. Constant pressure will eventually destroy your team members. If you acknowledge that a relaxed yet engaged workforce is (say) 10% more efficient than one which is over-stressed and fretful, then you should realize that this amounts to half-a-day per week. So why not devote half-a-day to: peer-group teaching, brainstorming on enhanced efficiency, visits to customers (internal and external), guest lectures on work tools, or all four on a four-weekly cycle. You lose nothing if you gain a skilled, committed, enthusiastic team.

Finally, look carefully at how you behave and whether the current situation is due to your previous inattention to the human factor: you might be the problem, and the solution.

By Lyndsay Swinton

What is ethical? Decision making can be hard enough but when we have to consider ethics and decision making we can tie ourselves up so tight we stop making decisions entirely. Here is a short guide to help you through the ethics maze and make effective decisions.

Consider this - is it ethical that CEO’s get paid salaries hundreds of times greater than their most junior employees? You could argue a CEO contributes more to the overall wealth and health of the company and should be appropriately rewarded, however, others may say it is an unfair, indefensible abuse of power. I guess your answer depends how far up the management food chain you are!

Ethical decision making affects more than our working life. What are you wearing today? Do you know the working conditions of the person who made it? Are you happy with that? And that cup of coffee you had at breakfast - who made the biggest buck from your purchase?

Here is a short guide to help you think through ethical issues and make effective decisions.

1. Is it an ethical issue?

Being ethical does not always mean following the law. And just because something is possible doesn’t mean it is ethical, hence the global debates about bio-technology advances such as cloning. And ethics and religion do not always concur.

This is perhaps the trickiest stage in ethical decision making, as sometimes the subtleties of the issue are above and beyond our knowledge and experience. Listen to your instincts - if it feels uncomfortable making the decision on your own, get others involved and use their collective knowledge and experience to make a more considered decision.

2. Get the facts

What do you know, and just as importantly, what don’t you know? Who are the people affected by your decision? Have they been consulted? What are your options? Have you reviewed your options with someone you respect?

3. Evaluate alternative actions

There are different ethical approaches which may help you make the most ethical decision.

1. Utilitarian Approach - which action results in the most good and least harm?
2. Rights Based Approach - which action respects the rights of everyone involved?
3. Fairness or Justice Approach- which action treats people fairly?
4. Common Good Approach - which action contributes most to the quality of life of the people affected?
5. Virtue Approach - which action embodies the character strengths you value?

4. Test your decision

Could you comfortably explain your decision to your mother? To the man in the street? On television? If not, you may have to re-think your decision before you take action.

5. Just Do It - but what did you learn?

Once you’ve made the decision, then don’t waste time in implementing it. Set a date to review your decision and make adjustments if necessary. Often decisions are made with the best information to hand at the time, but things change, and your decision making needs to be flexible enough to change too. Even a complete about face may be the most appropriate action further down the track.

Ethical decision making is a tricky business, but you can make more palatable, workable decisions if you follow these 5 simple steps.

By Bob Goshen

While there is no shortage of books and articles on how to become a better leader and build the ideal organization, there are few that address the management approaches that can slow and ultimately destroy the growth of people and organizations. There are three traps that must be identified and avoided, three threats that will ultimately lead to failure.

1. Centralization of Power. When power is centralized, all decisions are made from the top down; a few “elite” people in leadership positions offer very little or no opposition to suggestions from the president/CEO. This type of leadership has been used by communist organizations and is known as “Command and Control.” It is often found in organizations where the president or CEO has created an advisory circle of friends who offer no resistance to the ideas and suggestions he or she brings to the table.

This leadership model is extremely dangerous because all decisions are made without the knowledge or vital input of the people the decision will affect. This is especially critical because those people are generally the producers within the organization. The majority of organizations owe their continued growth to a few key leaders who have proven their success by contributing ideas, suggestions, and improvements while actually performing in the day to day activity; but when power is centralized, the personal observations and experience of those key contributors are overlooked and overpowered behind closed doors.

Centralization of power without considering the people who create the majority of production and success will in a short time take the heart out of those producers, and they will seek an organization that values their ability to produce.

2. Redistribution of Income. Income redistribution arises out of the desire to spread more money to the masses so that more people will benefit. The idea evolves as the leader observes there are those in the organization who are making a lot of money, too much money in his or her estimation. The head of the organization will determine that those who are making the most money (based upon their personal production) should have their income decreased and reworked in order to spread the wealth to others, very often to others who have yet to prove their value as producers.

Those in leadership retire to the boardroom, often surrounded by non-producers, and as a group they will begin to methodically restructure and redistribute the income by taking away the existing payouts of proven producers. This can be done in a variety of ways: increasing a territory while reducing commissions, eliminating financial incentives such as profit sharing, or by restructuring stock incentives.
The impact of these decisions is disastrous as it actually punishes the people who produce profits and intellectual equity. Most importantly, it violates trust; the change sends a message to those who have been loyal and who have proven their ability to succeed that they can no longer trust those in control. Once this trust is violated, it is virtually impossible to reestablish. Remove the “fire” from the producers, and the organization begins a descent down the slippery slope of negative growth.

3. Imbalance of Authority. The number one complaint voiced in leadership seminars is “How do I relate to a superior who doesn’t have a clue about what he/she is doing?” Many organizations and corporations move people into positions of power based on “‘relationships rather than résumé.” A family member or an old college friend is placed into a key position of responsibility.

The leaders who fall into this trap fail to recognize the key ability they must cultivate, the ability to create respect. They fail to understand that the best way to create respect is by doing what they ask their followers to do. People are not impressed with “text book experience,” especially in those who have been chosen to lead a veteran leadership team.

Favoritism should never be the rule for placing people in leadership positions; how one feels about a person’s potential performance should yield to what one knows about people and what they have already proven. When making appointments, the president or CEO should always ask, “How will this affect my existing team?”

Organizations will restructure unwittingly utilizing these three tactics without understanding how they negatively impact performance. Often this is done out of ignorance, but at times there are leaders who have risen to a degree of arrogance that overrules their intelligence. They will never accept the fact that by implementing these ideas they have destroyed the growth and expansion of their enterprise. Instead of seeing how their actions have created negative reactions, they begin the process of “finger pointing,” believing those who once were key producers have just become “lazy.” They begin building their organization’s future based upon the competition rather than upon competence. Not realizing what they have done or not admitting what they have created, they spend hours looking at “numbers” on spreadsheets instead of observing those who create the numbers. Sometimes, rare as it may be, they wake up to the realization that when producers are punished, production stops.

Examine the negative impact when corporations, organizations, and even governments operate from these three positions.