A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here.

Most people don’t think of founders as being bosses, including themselves, but, of course, they are.

And as bosses they are responsible for the success of their team, as well as the company.

As well as being a boss, the vision that is the basis of the company originated with them, which frequently leads them to one or more of the behaviors that make them what Wally calls a “bossy boss.”

“Boss” has gotten a bad rap. Many people associate that term with a domineering, order-giving jerk. I think they’re confusing the term “boss” (a person responsible for the performance of a group) with “bossy.”

The Cambridge Dictionary says that: “A bossy person is always telling people what to do.” Great bosses lead productive teams with great morale. Great bosses aren’t bossy at all. They know three important things.

Being Bossy Is Crazy-Making

If you tell everybody what to do, all the time and everywhere, you’re going to wear yourself out. Great bosses know that caring for their people includes helping them develop their skills, abilities, and decision-making. They can’t do that if you’re always telling them what to do. But, if you can stand back and absorb the mistakes that go with learning, people on your team will take a lot of work right off your shoulders.

What’s the alternative? You make yourself crazy trying to do everything and know everything. Morale plummets, and so does productivity.

You Don’t Have Control Anyway

Nobody tells new managers this important truth. When you become responsible for the performance of a group, your power goes down, not up. Oh, sure, you can punish people who don’t do what you want with whatever means your organization will allow.

That’s more like revenge than like power. And, if a team member is willing to absorb the punishment, their behavior simply won’t change. Productivity and morale will plummet.

The only thing you can control is your behavior: what you say and what you do. That doesn’t seem like much, but it’s enough. Use what you say to set clear expectations and to coach, counsel, and encourage. Use what you do to reinforce what you say and set the example.

Edward Deci and Richard Ryan defined “autonomy” as one of the three key drivers of intrinsic motivation. David Burkus reviewed studies of how people respond to increased or decreased control of their life in his great book, Under New Management. He summarized them this way:

“The researchers found a significant correlation between employees’ perceptions of autonomy and their overall performance. In short, the more managers cede control over what to do and how to do it, the more employees do it well.”

People Work Better When They Have Control

Edward Deci and Richard Ryan defined “autonomy” as one of the three key drivers of intrinsic motivation. David Burkus reviewed studies of how people respond to increased or decreased control of their life in his great book, Under New Management. He summarized them this way:

“The researchers found a significant correlation between employees’ perceptions of autonomy and their overall performance. In short, the more managers cede control over what to do and how to do it, the more employees do it well.”

Bottom Line

The best bosses aren’t bossy. They know that being bossy makes them crazy, that they don’t really have control anyway, and that most people work better when they control their work.

Copyright © 2018 Wally Bock, All rights reserved.

Image credit: HikingArtist

It’s been 10 years since Joe switched from New Year resolutions to New Year goals. He recently shared the ones for 2018 and said he’s still crushing them every year.

He also said that his 15-yr-old son, “Kevin,” doesn’t believe he is “Joe” and asked me to reprint the original. OK, Joe, here it is, along with a shout out to Kevin that yes, your dad really is “Joe.”

“Joe” an executive I know, sent me his list of New Year’s resolutions and it reminded me of a cartoon I recently saw, and the written counterpart that’s been around for ages:

Person 1: “Would you like to see my New Year’s resolutions?”
Person 2: “Aren’t they the same ones you show me every year?”

He sends the list every year, as kind of an informal accountability function. He keeps it short, just a few things that he really wants to do, but, sadly, they are too often variations of the same things that were on previous lists.

Sure, we’ve all been there, but this is from a guy who is famous for hitting his goals at the 95 to 100% level.

Why do people so often miss on resolutions, yet rarely blow their goals in a similar manner? What’s the difference?

Let’s take a look at Joe’s list. He wants to

• stop micromanaging;
• communicate better;
• workout daily;
• lose 20 pounds.

Other than the first item, the list probably duplicates thousands of others. What is the problem?

Have you ever noticed that resolutions are

• phrased in an absolute manner that leaves no room for incremental improvement—an all-or-nothing approach;
• short and not quantified;
• rarely have a viable plan by which to achieve them; and
• often aren’t realistic when measured by the resources (time and/or mental/physical energy) required to accomplish them.

If you set your company or department goals this way do you believe that they would be achieved?

If they aren’t achieved, did you really fail? Not if you believe in ering, as I do.

This year, why not do what Joe’s finally doing? Learn about ering (use the link!), reformulate your resolutions as goals, do a reality test on them to see if they hold up, and show them to someone (feel free to send them to me) for both support and a few accountability nudges during the year.

Do this and see how far you can really go, as well as the difference it makes to your esteem and peace of mind.

My best wishes to Joe, Kevin and all my visitors. May crushing your 2018 New Year goals this coming year be as sweet as the deserts you indulged in during your 2017 Christmas.

Image credit: Lenabem-Anna J.

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here.

Did you start this year with a promise to yourself to be a better boss?

If you didn’t you should have , because no matter how good you are you can always improve — but that’s true for everything.

In December I gave you 56 words that would change your life and at the start of the year three steps to being a better boss.

Today I’m providing five questions to ask yourself.

1. How well do you delegate, AKA letting go/loss of control.
2. Is your self esteem tied to your Klout score or your team’s accomplishments?
3. Are you so tied to your vision that you’re blind to your market’s response?
4. Do you practice culture by design or by accident?
5. Do you want to get things done or just done your way.

Next, query five trusted colleagues for objective, outside input.

Compare the responses.

Depending on you’re your goals, adjust your attitudes and actions accordingly.

Image credit: HikingArtist

It’s amazing to me, but looking back over the last decade of writing I find posts that still impress, with information that is as useful now as when it was written. Golden Oldies is a collection of what I consider some of the best posts during that time.

The value of the “good” in “good management” has always been hard to measure. Although there are some hard metrics, “good” has always been subject to a strong, subjective view. Now, new research from Harvard Business School provides solid, quantitative metrics that prove the value and ROI of “good.”  Read other Golden Oldies here.

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.

Flickr image credit: Kayce L.

Last Thursday we looked at the importance of using your culture as a screening tool to be sure the people hired are, at the least, synergistic with it.

Note that being culturally synergistic has nothing to do with either age or gender.

Friday warned against confusing perks with culture.

But with culture, what you see may not be what you get.

More important than the company’s overall culture is the culture that develops under any given manager, based on individual MAP, and the individual’s management approach.

To ensure a successful hire the culture and management style described must actually exist as opposed to an idealized or misleading version created for interviews.

Strange as it sounds, managers often describe their style more as it ought to be, i.e., what they think it is or what they think the candidate wants to hear.

Obviously, managers aren’t about to tell candidates that they micromanage or don’t believe in helping their people grow, because they might leave.

But today’s workforce is the savviest in history.

Mix that savvy with the uncontrolled and unfiltered information provided by social media and you have a situation that demands authenticity and honesty.

At the least, it requires sins of omission.

Lies, AKA, sins of commission, such as describing the opposite — a boss who encourages growth, provides complete information, then gets out of the way, etc. — as reality pretty much guarantees a turned-down offer or fast turnover — in other words, an unsuccessful hire.

And in case you’ve forgotten exactly what a successful hire is, it’s hiring the right person into the right position at the right time and for the right reasons.

Flickr image credit: Susanne Nilsson

Talk to any boss looking to turn around a company or just one team and you’ll probably hear a reference to Steve Jobs.

Using the same reference, Nicholas Carlson traces What Happened When Marissa Mayer Tried to Be Steve Jobs and as most people know it didn’t turn out well.

It’s a fascinating article and well worth the time to read it, whether for enlightenment or as a cautionary tale.

It’s a story of expectations, ego, bad judgment insensitivity, and excessive micromanagement.

In some ways Mayer reminds me of Robert Nardelli, who came out of GE and fell on his face (more than once).

Both made their mark in other companies (Google and GE), but success didn’t travel well.

You see it happen over and over when people start believing in their wunderkind status and media hype.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now for great tips on good leadership check out this month’s Leadership Development Carnival.

Image credit: Susanne Nilsson

In addition to online media, videos and podcasts, there are literally miles of books detailing how best to lead and manage.

Many provide excellent information, while some are pure bulls**t.

One simple fact provides good guidance to bosses at all levels.

If you are an intelligent, talented, aggressive, competent boss, then manage others as you want to be managed.

This typically means well-defined goals, complete information, the authority necessary to successfully complete the work and clear, open communication,

However, the instant the boss moves towards less communication the result is usually more oversight.

Continue down that path and you’ll find yourself in the land of micromanagement.

Enter at your own risk and with a willingness to spend more time hiring.

Flickr image credit: maurice.heuts

A Friday series exploring Startups and the people who make them go. Read all If the Shoe Fits posts here

Two questions:

1. Are you working to build a culture of innovation in your startup?
2. Do you live the startup mindset of 100 hour weeks, all night hackathons, 24/7 availability and no time for vacations?

If you answered ‘yes’ to both you’re in trouble, because a yes to the second sooner or later will nullify the first.

According to Marc Barros, co-founder and former CEO of Contour, there are five actions you can take to avoid killing off your golden egg, i.e., your culture of innovation.

Here they are, with my caveats (follow the link to read the originals).

1. Offer Unlimited Vacation: while this isn’t always possible, and may not even work, making sure your people, including founders, take real vacations, which means no email, texts or emergencies. They should last a minimum of three days, but a week is much better. And if having you/them gone for that time will really crash and burn the company you have bigger problems than you realize.
2. Let Employees Work Remotely: in addition to working remotely physically whenever possible be sure to provide an environment that promotes mental remoteness. In other words, they don’t have to think/work/act like you to achieve the desired results.
3. Ditch the Meetings: make sure that those you do have are short and productive.
4. Nix Department Goals: goals at all levels—department, team, personal, should always focus on what needs to happen to achieve specific, major, annual company goals (never more than three).
5. Give Plenty of Feedback: just don’t make giving constant feedback an excuse or cover for micromanaging.

One of the biggest actions that Barros doesn’t mention, but is implicit in what he does, is trust.

If bosses don’t believe that their people really do care that the company succeeds and trusts them to make it happen then they will be unable to implement any of this.

In the comments section, Mick Thornton, who worked at Safeco Insurance (definitely large and definitely old-line), talks about the success of the team he was on.

The biggest keys to success for our team was a manager that understood broad goals saying things like “Here’s what we want the end to look like, now go figure it out. Let me know if things start to slide or go south, otherwise work how you want to meet the deliverable.”

Image credit: HikingArtist

Helicopter parents are a serious problem that cripples kids and doesn’t seem to end when they enter the workforce; plus it can have a detrimental effect on good managers.

The helicopter mindset is spreading, so that people who are inclined that way are also hovering over spouses, friends and colleagues in the name of helping.

New research shows that it isn’t a good thing.

It seems that certain forms of help can dilute recipients’ sense of accountability for their own success.

When managers helicopter most people feel it’s a form of micromanaging, but when the source is a parent, spouse, friend or colleague people are more open to it.

Unfortunately, the results are the same.

People end up with less confidence in their abilities, take less responsibility for their own actions and question their own competence more.

How do you help without either helicoptering or micromanaging?

The answer, research suggests, is that our help has to be responsive to the recipient’s circumstances: it must balance their need for support with their need for competence. We should restrain our urge to help unless the recipient truly needs it, and even then, we should calibrate it to complement rather than substitute for the recipient’s efforts.

Which, in turn, means shutting up and really listening to your child/spouse/friend/colleague to determine the minimum of what is really needed.

Finally, it takes enough self-discipline to allow them to fail and then pick themselves up.

That’s how everyone learns and grows.

Flickr image credit: Keith Laverack

Grrrr. I hate it when bad human traits are excused based on career choice, position, etc.

A group of experienced small biz owners ranging from late thirties to late fifties described themselves thus, impatient, short on focus, easily frustrated, likely to jump in and solve a problem rather than count on the employee to do it; traits that have no place in good management (or leadership, if you prefer).

The more accurate analysis is captured in a comment citing similarities in the corporate world,

The top managers do delegate (maybe that’s how they get to the top) but the rest stick their noses into everything just like small business owners. Guess it is just human nature and the reason most people are not very good managers.

Before becoming an entrepreneur, manager, worker, parent, whatever, you were you. You possessed a certain MAP (mindset, attitude, philosophy™) and embodied certain traits and you took those with you into your career and wider life.

Extreme examples make this glaringly clear, although even these examples are changing,

• Cops who intimidate were bullies on the playground and sought a career in which bully MAP could flourish.
• Pedophile priests were pedophiles long before they became priests and gravitated to a profession with both access and protection.

Careers don’t create traits, although they often magnify them.

“That’s who I am” carries a second, unspoken thought, “so deal with it.”

But “who I am” is your choice, not mine, and there is no good reason why I have to deal with it.

Image credit