I often do work around my house, fixing, redoing and maintaining stuff, as do most of us.

When I moved and bought this house in March 2003 I found that every time it rained water ran under the garage door. Typically, I’m a jerry-rigger, especially fixing stuff around my home, but I thought I would do it “right” this time.

Over the next few years I spent over a thousand dollars on drywells, barriers, etc., but was still getting water under the door.

Having run out of affordable do-it-right options, I went back to jerry-rigging and usd a clear, vinyl shower curtain, tape, and a few bricks—no water under the door since then and I just check the plastic each fall.

This got me thinking, how much is too much?

How “right” does a fix need to be?

How “fixed” does a challenge/problem need to be to count as solved?

Every day we all face a myriad of challenges, any number of which may upgrade (downgrade?) to the status of problem in the blink of an eye, so this isn’t a casual question.

What do you do?

Managers, like the rest of us, have their own routine for evaluating and deciding on solutions, corrections and fixes.

I’m not saying you should change yours, but I am suggesting that you give thought to what end results you really need in order to avoid overkill in your decisions.

In other words: Does it need to be “right” on some cosmic yardstick—or does it just need to work.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: TheMuuj on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Recently Dan McCarthy asked if there was a leadership crisis or is it a branding issue and I’ve been stewing ever since. (Please take a moment to read the post and the discussion.)

I’ve been stewing not so much because I disagree with Dan’s individual points, but because I disagree with the whole leadership-for-the-chosen-few attitude prevalent since the end of WWII.More than that, I am vehemently against the leader-as-a-silver-bullet school of thought.

The extent of this attitude has become glaringly apparent and the Presidential election is the highest profile example.

Yes, I voted for Obama, but not with any expectation that he could take office and resolve the global economic crisis, provide an abundance of high-paying jobs and reverse outsourcing, end our involvement in the wars and provide universal healthcare during his first year—or even his first four years.

There is no human being on the planet who could have accomplished any one, let alone all, of those goals.Hero-leaders, god-like leaders, God-as-leader—none are going to lead us anywhere because none is universally acceptable.

And it is time to stop looking to others to clean up our messes.

Real change starts as a grass roots effort, not as the vision of a larger-than-life figure with a title that is more like a target.

But we love to have a scapegoat; someone to shoulder the responsibility and take the blame for an effort doesn’t work—and that we can laud in the event that it does.

Remember when financial writers talked about share prices and compared 2005 prices to their pre dot bomb highs?

I think that comparing leaders/managers who functioned brilliantly during an up economy to those are performing now is just as ridiculous—there is no similarity between running a company in 1999 or 2006 and now.

Just as importantly, I believe we have a crisis in ‘followers’, both the actions and the brand.

Initiative is expected in the select ‘high potential’ few, but if you aren’t in that group initiative is often shot down. So, by de facto definition, followers are lower; a lesser breed from which to expect little more than compliance.

When high potential is identified early “late bloomers” are often nipped in the bud—or leave to flower somewhere else.

Developing and rewarding initiative, no matter the source, helps build leadership into a core competency throughout the organization.

That, in turn, builds strong, thinking followers and positions the company to thrive no matter what.

Your comments—priceless Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit:  ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

“Clint” used the ‘Chat with Miki” box in the right-hand frame to ask me this question.

Have you ever heard this?  “People usually won’t change until the pain of NOT changing exceeds the pain of changing.”

Since this is a pretty common idea I thought I’d share my ideas with everybody.

I’ve heard this and many variations of it over the years, especially when applied to the workplace where it becomes a form of management by threat

For example, if your company or boss decides on a change and people’s jobs hinge on that change, they will change.

The problem is that they will also disengage at some level, maybe a little, but sometimes a lot. Not always obviously, but over time it will show in lower productivity, less creativity and, eventually, higher turnover.

Clint then asked if I thought that vested self-interest could be used instead of increasing the pain.

The answer is absolutely.

VSI is the perfect opposite to increased pain.

By rethinking a desired action, such as change, and presenting it in terms of its value to employees you can trip the VSI switch—but not if it’s a con.

As I’ve said a million times, people are not stupid; if the desired action is not really in their best interests there is nothing you can do that will convince them. VSI will still kick in, but the result will be resume polishing, lots of LinkedIn action and conversations with recruiters.

Clint decided that by using vested self-interest he could reduce the pain of changing. He plans to connect his organization’s goals to his people’s goals, which will effectively reduce the pain and increase the likelihood that they will do what he needs them to do—painlessly.

Handy little item my chat box. Try it, I’m usually here.

Image credit: nkzs on sxc.hu

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

I received the following email from “Terry” who just started his first job.

“Hi Miki, Basically with my new job, they are really giving their employees the shaft.  Peoples’ contracts aren’t being renewed so they can bring in cheaper labor (like me). My manager often says “Hey man!  It’s cool!  You have a job!  The economy is crap!” as though the position with them is the only one that I could get.  It’s really infuriating sometimes because I know that when they use an attitude like that, it’s like they feel they can abuse their power.  It’s like saying “Hey, you’re worthless, you’re SO lucky you have us… right?  Do you feel fortunate that we take you under our roof?  Good, because no one else will – now get to work or we’ll kill you!”  I don’t feel they see it like that, but I am trying to decipher their motives.  What do you think is going on?”

Hi Terry,

There are several obvious things that come to mind; your manager

• is nervous;
• is trying a poor joke to reduce the stress of layoffs;
• doesn’t think and has no idea of the effect of his words;
• actually believes what he is saying.

However, there is a not so obvious thought for you to explore.

Perhaps your manager is projecting—voicing his own feelings based on the way he is being treated.

Rather than guessing there are things you can do over the next few months to achieve a much better handle on why he acts this way, mainly through close, objective observation.

I say objective because you need to suspend judgment, scrub the emotional side and dispassionately study what he says and does.

I can almost hear you say ‘why bother’ when it’s much easier to shrug and write it off to his being a jerk or a lousy culture.

The reason it’s worth the effort is that it will give you an edge when working with and for him. It will help you to understand where he’s really coming from and how best to interact with him.

And it will keep you from doing the same things when you become a manager.

I love when readers write or call, so feel free to contact me if you think I can help; contact information is in the right column. I hope to hear from you soon.

Image credit: HikingArtist.com on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

First came the New Your Times interview with Carol Smith, senior vice president and chief brand officer for the Elle Group, in which she categorically stated that women were better managers than men.

A few days later an NYT editorial asked Do Women Make Better Bosses?

Among the reader response was one that said it all for me.

“While I am sure that there are effective women bosses out there, I am equally sure that mine isn’t one of them. She is terribly emotional, paranoid, and an absolute dictator. She is also incredibly inefficient and stubborn, and as a result our entire group is far less productive than similar groups in our organization.

But I do not think this is a gender issue at all. I’m sure there are some really stupid male bosses out there (again, one of the male bosses from work quickly comes to mind). — Grunt2″

ABC is asking for reader input and stories on the subject (click over and share your story, you might even be interviewed).

I’ve read a lot of these stories, especially since the meltdown, including the ones that say if women had been in charge it wouldn’t have happened.

While I agree that there are differences between the sexes, but to say that those differences are uniform or guarantee a certain action is ridiculous.

The whole argument is parallel with similar comments, such as blacks can dance better than whites and women are better at parenting.

Some are, but it’s not a given.

I believe that race and gender will always take a backseat to MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™), which is what really drives and guides people.

What do you think?

Image credit: erwinbacik on sxc.hu

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Vote in comments for your favorite manager and I’ll send him/her a great business book.

Click to see a common attitude for all generations

Image credit: cliff1066 on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Do you work for a company or a manger? Phil Gerbyshak over at Slacker manager did a great post on the fact that people quit managers, not companies—great because it is so true.

If you ask most people who they work for they’ll name a company, but if you ask them why they love or hate it, stay or leave they’ll usually mention a manager, the people or the culture, which is a projection of the manager and the people.

People quitting is expensive and bad for team morale, but, as Phil pointed out, they can quit and not leave, which, from a management perspective, is the worst thing that can happen.

Think about it, who do you manage? And How?

Adequate managers manage employees.

Good managers manage people.

Great managers manage persons.

Yes, persons. Individuals, because you can’t manage (or lead) everyone the same way.

The same words often mean something different to different people, so you need to say what’s necessary in whatever words will ensure that each individual hears and understands your message.

I’m not saying that it’s easy, but you aren’t paid for easy—you’re paid for results.

And knowing how to manage persons is the best way to ensure that your people won’t quit.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: ZedBee|Zoë Power on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

See how Calvin explains the economy

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: Combined Media on flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Last Monday I laid out a do-it-yourself plan for mangers to juice growth among their people. Beth Miller asked why I didn’t include coaching; I responded that I believed that line managers needed to take responsibility for professional development, especially in the current economic climate.

Beth asked,“So what holds back managers from coaching?”

My response is what I want to focus on today.

“I think it’s partly language. I know a number of managers who have implemented what I described in the post, do a terrific job developing their people, but don’t consider any of it coaching or even mentoring. One even scoffs at “coaching,” yet he’s known for building his people.

In working with my MAP coaching I’ve found that what holds many managers back is terminology. If they relate to the descriptive terms there’s no problem, but if they don’t relate they can’t implement what they’ve learned. I change the language and bingo, they take off like a rocket.”

People are far more word-sensitive than most realize. They’re more aware of it in politics, religion and advertising, but less so in general business, even less when talking to their team and it’s almost non-existent when it comes to their own ‘hearing’.

The nice thing, as I said, is that it’s an easy fix once you notice. Noticing is easy, too. Just keep an eye out for a blank look when you’re talking. It’s that look of incomprehension that is the key to repeating, but in different words. There’s nothing that drives people nuts faster than having the same thing repeated over and over; if it wasn’t understood the first time repeating it or saying louder isn’t going to help.

And don’t start the change with ‘what I mean is…’, because many people will tune out at that point focusing on figuring out what you already said.

Instead, wait a bit (depending on context) and then present your thought from a different angle or change the phrasing of the thought that accompanied the blank look.

This isn’t about dumbing down what you say (or write); it’s about presenting it in a wholy different way; a way that the other person can hear.

The manager mentioned above detested the word ‘coach’ as some touch-feely new-age notion, nor was he enthralled with the term ‘mentor’.

To him, he was just doing what any manager worth a damn did—make sure that his people developed new skills and used the ones they had fully to the benefit of both the company and themselves.

As he once said to me, “developing people is part of a manager’s job, not something extra“—and his employer paid him to manage.

Gee, if I could bottle his MAP I could probably retire.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: YOdesigner on sxc.hu

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Did you know that you can’t lead if you’re a lousy manager? No matter how many leadership classes you take, books you read and seminars you attend if you don’t build good management skills you won’t lead anyone anywhere.

(By the same token, and I’ve said this many times, if you don’t practice so-called leadership skills you’ll have a tough time managing today’s workforce.)

Steve Wyrostek, in a guest post at Brilliant Leadership, has a list of actions so you can figure out if you’re a bad boss or a good one. He says “that a managerial jerk can never achieve good, sustainable results.”

True, although bad managers are known for bringing lots of fresh blood into their area—and then spilling it.

The trouble is that you can be a lousy manager without being terrible, a jerk or downright evil.

Call it lousy by benign neglect.

These are the ones who leave their people alone to find their own way with little guidance and less feedback.

Rather than manage they often focus on the big picture, providing their people with a detailed vision of what the future holds, but no operational map of how to get there, how far they’ve come or how far is left to go.

Leadership skills are important, but they can’t come at the expense of good management.

Your comments—priceless

Don’t miss a post, subscribe via RSS or EMAIL

Image credit: flickr

Your comments-priceless

Don’t miss a post! Subscribe via RSS or EMAIL