I frequently hear from managers in nonprofits that it’s frustrating that so much of the management information available can’t really be implemented in their specialized environment.
I was dumfounded the first time I heard that and asked why not; I’ve ask the same question every time since (a lot of times) and get similar answers.
These usually fall in one of two broad categories
they are focused on “doing good” unlike “business;” and/or
they are staffed by volunteers.
I have an accounting friend who hears similar reactions when he insists on good accounting practices and financial controls.
Many say that they are more comfortable with leadership advice, since communicating a vision is part of their job description, but setting standards, developing and implementing accountability and then holding people to them feels too “corporate.”
When this happens I usually refer them to take a look at the path blazed by the Robin Hood Foundation and, more recently, read the interview with Tachi Yamada, M.D., president of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s Global Health Program
These five random comments from Yamada are no different than what you’ll hear from any manager skilled in driving innovation, productivity and finding solutions through his people.
I think the most difficult transition for anybody from being a worker bee to a manager is this issue of delegation. What do you give up? How can you have the team do what you would do yourself without you doing it?
That probably was the most important lesson I learned — that what’s out there is more important than what you already know, and that you’d better go out and learn what it is out there that you don’t know.
So what I learned from him is that when you actually are with somebody, you’ve got to make that person feel like nobody else in the world matters. (no cell no blackberry)
One of the things I’ve learned is that you can’t go into an organization, fire everybody and bring in everybody you want. You have to work with the people you have. … Everybody has their good points. Everybody has their bad points. If you can bring out the best in everybody, then you can have a great organization.
Read the interview and understand that what he talks about applies equally well to small, local non-profits as it does to the multibillion dollar organization he runs—not to mention for-profit businesses of any size.
One reason I love the NY Times is that it runs great articles on new research about what makes us humans tick.
Most of us are aware that there are different forms of communications. Verbal, i.e., words, is the most common, but nonverbal, tone of voice and facial expressions, are often more potent.
In research with infants, it was shown that gently massaging premature infants three times per day for 15 minutes helped them gain weight, be more alert, and cry less. These infants were released from the hospital sooner than infants who were not massaged.
The latest research confirms the same positive response in adults.
Momentary touches, they say — whether an exuberant high five, a warm hand on the shoulder, or a creepy touch to the arm — can communicate an even wider range of emotion than gestures or expressions, and sometimes do so more quickly and accurately than words.
Two attitudes make this work.
Sincerity; people will know if your actions are manipulative as opposed to authentic.
Appropriateness; to avoid a negative reaction from anyone use your observational skills and common sense; high fives and similar expressions are the safest, while hugs are the most dangerous. An employee who avoids physical contact with her team is unlikely to appreciate being touched by her boss.
There are many ways to inspire and show you care just as there are many clubs in a golf bag; and just as it is a fallacy to play the whole course with just one club, using only one form of communication to motivate your people is to shortchange them—and you.
“What’s more important to you, being right or winning?”
That is what I asked a caller today.
“Frank” has been sequestered on jury duty for several weeks and when he returned to work he found that right after he left his team was assigned a new project and they were just finishing.
Frank said that the project had gone well, was on time and in budget, but he was upset that they had used a different approach from the one he preferred.
That’s when I asked, “What’s more important to you, being right or winning?”
You’d think that was an easy answer, but I was met first with silence and then with multiple reasons proving his approach was better.
He agreed that on time/in budget was a win, but still felt they should have done it his way.
So I ask you, “What’s more important, being right or winning?”
Did you watch the new reality show Undercover Boss on CBS Sunday after the Super Bowl?
The opening episode starred Larry O’Donnell, President and C.O.O. of Waste Management.
O’Donnell plays ‘Randy’, a new worker being filmed for training purposes. At one location he jams the trash line by not removing large cardboard; he is fired, for the first time in his life, for not being able to efficiently collect blowing trash at a landfill—unlike the worker he is with who has done the job for 19 years while spending three days a week in dialysis; he cleans porta-potties with a guy who’s attitude is every manager’s best dream; and he rides with a female trash hauler where he learns that to stay on schedule women drivers use cans from the trash as pee-pots.
He meets a 29 year old single mother who overcame five kinds of cancer by age 25, has taken in her brother’s family and her dad, is about to lose her home in foreclosure and is doing three jobs post layoffs for the same money she was getting before, but is still upbeat and even invites the new guy to dinner.
O’Donnell is surprised by the physical and mental exhaustion he experiences his first day, amazed by the people he meets, outraged by what he learns and shocked at the implementation of a policy he personally conceived to raise productivity by which workers were docked 2 minutes for every 1 minute they were late.
At the start of the show when O’Donnell tells his executive team that he is going undercover the reactions vary from surprise to incredulity.
When he meets with them at the end and talks about what he learned and changes he believes are needed and how he plans to use his new knowledge the look on guy’s face said it all—he might as well have rolled his eyes.
Sadly, that is often the reaction from senior leadership regarding intel that comes from front-line, bottom-of-the-heap workers.
The smartest managers listen to their all their people—not just the ones in suits.
The final scene includes and overlay update on what happened to each of the people who worked with O’Donell and changes, both made and ongoing, as a result.
I don’t watch reality shows; I’ve read that many are scripted, but I do believe that there are bosses of large companies who don’t have egos the size of Texas and are capable of learning from unfiltered feedback from the lowest rank and file.
Plus, it seems that changes were actually made.
As big a believer as I am in bosses talking to the troops, there is no way O’Donnell would get this kind of feedback from this level of employee if they knew who he was.
Go ahead and call me naïve, but in spite of everything I’d rather be a chump than a cynic.
And in case you missed Undercover Boss you can watch it here.
A client called and during the conversation he complained about his receptionist. He said he was close to firing her, but would prefer a different outcome; he thought a third party could help resolve the problems.
When I asked “Jack” what the problem was he said that “Judy” was disrupting the culture and refused to do her work as expected. For example, she insisted on having two pencil cups on her desk; he preferred organizing his desk based on Feng Shui principles and that two cups were nothing but clutter. He had explained this to Judy to no avail.
This is an extreme example of the puppetmaster mentality, but not counting the micromanager who really believes her’s is the only way, I’m willing to bet you have been on the giving or receiving end of this attitude, if not both, at some point—most of us have.
Whether you consider yourself a leader, a manager or leadager, yours is not the only way—or even the best.
There are many ways to approach a task or goal. Some may seem more efficient, but, in fact, will lower productivity if they are counter-intuitive for a particular worker.
As long as the task is done or the goal achieved ethically, on time and in budget the route to accomplishment doesn’t matter.
Forcing your approach on your team forces them to become puppets.
Then, like Christopher below, they are dependent on you for all creativity, innovation and productivity—at least until they resign.
It is reality that bloggers, coaches, academics, and other gurus write about how to engage the workforce, build cultures, develop leaders, motivate, and increase retention; companies pay substantial amounts to coaches and consultants to develop and implement programs; management agonizes on how to increase productivity through better use of its human resources.
It is reality that many companies are moving to “just in time” workforces; using temps and contractors at all levels with no health insurance, no vacation, no benefits—hire when you need them and dump when the project is done.
Business Week offers a comprehensive overview of this trend in a cover story entitled The Disposable Worker.
The forecast for the next five to 10 years: more of the same, with paltry pay gains, worsening working conditions, and little job security. Right on up to the C-suite, more jobs will be freelance and temporary, and even seemingly permanent positions will be at greater risk.
Obviously, there are people, especially at more senior levels, who have no problem with this approach; they relish the movement, change and challenge.
But they are the minority.
Everything described in the first paragraph is geared for companies that actually hire their workforce.
Typically, it’s a different set of experts who advise companies on outsourcing and temp workforces.
I ask you:
What will motivate workers to contribute at the level needed in today’s competitive global enviornment when they have nothing vested in the company?
Why should people who may not be there tomorrow put forth the initiative that underlays all leadership today?
How do you engage people when they have no idea how long they’ll be around?
In short, how do you get people to care when they know without a doubt that the company doesn’t care about them?
I think if I read one more op-ed piece saying the path to improving US education is paved with better teachers I’ll scream.
I’m not saying that good teachers aren’t important, but I don’t believe that teachers are the root of the problems.
Before I start with examples, let me ask you this: how well would you perform if you were
terminated for insisting that projects not only be done, but done on time;
poorly compensated in comparison to most people with similar education and experience, but in other industries;
subject to pressure, tirades, insults and having people constantly go over your head to change your decisions; and
shown little respect by your direct reports, indirect reports and management.
Does that sound like an environment that would encourage you to do your utmost? I actually find it surprising that there are as many good, dedicated teachers as there are.
Staying with the current analogy, direct reports = students, indirect reports = parents and management = administrators.
Teaching is like any other form of work—it thrives in a good culture, sags, wilts and gives up in a bad one.
The Dallas Independent School System is a good example of what is happening. DISD is where the teacher was fired at the instigation of parents for being too tough and giving homework—the fact that the kids scored well on tests didn’t count.
It’s DISD that hired new teachers in 2007 with no way to pay them leading to a $64,000,000 budget shortfall that grew to about $84,000,000 in 2008. Their solution was to layoff the teachers—no damage to the administration idiots—maybe they all took math from teachers who passed them rather than lose their jobs.
Her rise in DISD in a span of three years has been frowned upon by some observers. She was making $87,000 as a division manager in 2006 and ended her career grossing around $140,000.
Some DISD trustees had questioned an organizational chart change that left her husband overseeing the department that she worked in. Her boss was reporting to her husband.
Ya think?
And then there is the saga of Taylor Pugh, AKA Tater Tot, who was growing his hair so he could donate it to a charity that makes wigs for cancer patients—but his suburban Dallas school saw it as reason for in-school suspension for violating the district dress code.
<
Back to our analogy. How engaged, productive and innovative would you be working for a company where management performed similarly?
Dallas isn’t alone; it has plenty of company across the country.
So before ranting and blaming the dismal state of US education on teachers, check out your district and state administrations—and then look in the mirror.
Do you have the courage to hire people with quirks? Those who are unconventional or have unconventional experience for the position? Will you hire someone who is flawed in some way?
Would you hire a ‘cracked pot’ for your team?
An elderly Chinese woman had two large pots, each hung on the ends of a pole which she carried across her neck.
One of the pots had a crack in it while the other pot was perfect and always delivered a full portion of water.
At the end of the long walks from the stream to the house, the cracked pot arrived only half full.
For a full two years this went on daily, with the woman bringing home only one and a half pots of water.
Of course, the perfect pot was proud of its accomplishments.
But the poor cracked pot was ashamed of its own imperfection, and miserable that it could only do half of what it had been made to do.
After two years of what it perceived to be bitter failure, it spoke to the woman one day by the stream.
“I am ashamed of myself, because this crack in my side causes water to leak out all the way back to your house”‘
The old woman smiled, “Did you notice that there are flowers on your side of the path, but not on the other pot’s side?”
“That’s because I have always known about your flaw, so I planted flower seeds on your side of the path, and every day while we walk back, you water them.
For two years I have been able to pick these beautiful flowers to decorate the table.
Without you being just the way you are, there would not be this beauty to grace the house.”
Managed correctly, appreciated instead of tolerated or, worse, homogenized, the idiosyncrasies of your team, the unusual backgrounds, your cracked pots, are what push productivity, juice creativity and drive innovation across the board.
And often it’s another’s management failure that gives you the opportunity to increase the strength of your team.
So cherish the pots you already have and never hesitate to hire another.
I frequently hear from managers in nonprofits that it’s frustrating that so much of the management information available can’t really be implemented in their specialized environment.
One reason I love the NY Times is that it runs great articles on new research about what makes us humans tick.
“What’s more important to you, being right or winning?”
Did you watch the new reality show Undercover Boss on CBS Sunday after the Super Bowl?
(or small ones)
It is reality that bloggers, coaches, academics, and other gurus write about how to engage the workforce, build cultures, develop leaders, motivate, and increase retention; companies pay substantial amounts to coaches and consultants to develop and implement programs; management agonizes on how to increase productivity through better use of its human resources.
Do you have the courage to hire people with quirks? Those who are unconventional or have unconventional experience for the position? Will you hire someone who is flawed in some way?
Subscribe to MAPping Company Success 