Employee Retention: a matter of "Who Are You?"

The Who . . . Wikipedia

“Who are you? Who, who, who, who? I really wanna know.” Lyrics from The Who, 1978

Employee Retention: a Critical Threat

First, some things remain constant. For example, younger workers, as they have always done historically, will continue to resign at a higher rate than older workers. Industries dependent on a younger workforce will continue to face turnover pressures compared to those with an older average age. However, market and societal changes have brought changes in employee behavior that will continue to present challenges in 2020.

In general, leaving a job continues to be a product of two factors: 1. Employees increasing their pay; and 2. Opportunity for growth. (See a recent CNBC Make It article)

“The reason people are quitting today is because the labor market is so competitive that the only way they can get a significant increase in income is by quitting and going to another job.” Brian Kropp, V.P. of Gartner as quoted by Abigail Hess

With the old business adage that employees ”join organizations but leave supervisors”— managerial effectiveness, developing employees, active leadership, and guiding change are critical tasks facing organizations in 2020.

While the fading “Baby Boomer” cohort may continue to demonstrate some loyalty to organizational “brand” and riding out their careers with their current employer, younger cohorts increasingly see job changes as desirable for economic or lifestyle preferences.

Those lifestyle preferences may be personal or, increasingly, corporate.

Questions to Address Retention

Three Critical Questions Leaders Can Ask Themselves

1. What kind of an organization are we?

2. Who are we likely to attract as employees”

3. How can we use this “brand” to retain employees in 3030?

Some organizations lean toward achievement, high compensation, opportunity and success. An example might be McKinsey & Company. Employees are likely motivated by compensation and prestige. Others are service oriented. Employees are more attune with the mission of the organization and their own contribution to that mission. Think an organization like The Salvation Army. Another subset, are “the best available.” Meaning that employees see the organizations as the best opportunity in their location, industry, or specific circumstances. Some are the “zany” cutting-edge, trendy, culture-focused workplaces. A local Pixar-type story.

A Single “Core Phrase” May Identify Who you Are

Think about how your brand is reflected in what is emphasized in your every day work. In my career, for example, the organizations I have worked for could have their “brand” defined by one, specific, succinct statement . . . and it was not the official mission statement! Instead, it was a common phrase heard, repeatedly, in the organization.

“Special place, special experience.”—Small college.

“Customers first.”—Gas Station

“A sense of urgency” —Federal Express

“Community safety net.”—Non-profit

“You eat what you kill.”—Private Practice

I hear similar statements from other organizations . . . often they are “tag lines” in their marketing. Only employees know if these statements truly reflect the culture of the organization.

The coffee’s always on. (Local business)

The way you treat employees is the way they’ll treat customers. (Virgin)

You’re in good hands. (Allstate)

Who You Are . . . will Determine Who you Attract

One organization I am very familiar with was great at attracting members. Their core culture was one of support and acceptance. As a result, they got a lot of “looks” and new members. Unfortunately, they didn’t keep them. Why? I believe, it was because their identity didn’t include a vision for a long-term branding. They were good at being welcoming, supportive, and created a comfortable environment but once members were a part of the organization . . . there was not a clear definition of who the organization was.

The organization constantly tried. They came up with new tag lines and mission statements with regularity. Members were told that they were going to “Hit it Out of the Park” (or a similar phrase) but what was the “It” that we were going to swing at?

Another organization had lofty goals. But the real culture was defined by the CEOs comments which often ran along the line of . . . “We’re not here to have fun,” or similar comments. Intended, I think, to emphasize the importance of the work being done (and perhaps as an excuse for not having a more culture-focused approach) it was clear to employees that the job was going to be “all work and no play” and contributed to a dour, oppressive, and depressed work force.

Among organizations trying to attract milliners it’s often understood that organizations today need to present a community focus or social responsibility element to attract employees. This may, however, rebuff other potential employees.

Being True to Who you Are is Critical for Employee Retention

Knowing how you attract employees . . . can be a key to knowing how to keep them. Why do your employees work for this organization? It’s not a simple question. Leaders often make assumptions about employee’s reasons and how they see the organization. Few really know. They don’t ask.

Engage employees. Find out what really drew them to work for this organization and not another. Use it to help define who you are and, then, lean into that identity. The only reason to not do this is that the identify is a dysfunctional one. Then the fix needs to be systemic—and beyond the focus of this particular post.

Fences . . . Make Good Employee Relations.

Wikipedia Fence

New Manager . . . and a conundrum

Ever had an employee whose motivation--and their subsequent behavior left you . . . puzzled? Have you struggled to find ways to communicate with them, encourage them, even motivate hem to succeed?  Ever given up on an employee?  At some level, most people who perform well enough to be given the responsibility of leadership expect other employees to act like they do—seek out and perform in a responsible way. When those people do not respond in this way, it can cause confusion for the new leader.

I remember an employee I supervised when I was a young manager.  This employee perplexed me.  They were, after all, a professional, with a degree, a license, years of schooling and extensive experience. In my “armchair assessment,” I believed that they were competent in their work and, on a human level, I liked them personally. But one thing persistently was a problem with this employee. They simply could not complete their paperwork. Now this, I realize, is not an uncommon problem in health care.  In fact, I had already experienced professionals who had trouble getting their paperwork done.

I had experienced already, in my short career, employees that had been put on “improvement plans,” given warnings, or their paperwork addressed through continuous quality improvement programs. Most managers, I believe, have at least one employee they have to consistently monitor and remind about their paperwork in my profession. (Perhaps this problem is exacerbated in the helping professions where "doing paperwork" is often viewed as taking away time from "helping people.") But in this particular employee’s case, even compared to other helping professionals, it was extreme.

I sort of thought I understood what the problem was.  The paperwork that was completed, upon inspection, was done to an extreme level of detail. Where my "average" professional would give me a treatment plan with three goals each having two or three objectives each.  This professional's plans had 8-12 goals with as many as 20 objectives under each one! I would have been overwhelmed, dreaded starting such a big task, and probably lagged behind and I surmised that this individual needed some external "motivation" to help them get caught up.  My method, of course, would be to encourage, communicate, and partner with the professional to get this accomplished.

I made efforts to try and communicate and reinforce elements that could fix the problem.  We reviewed the treatment planning process and I emphasized you should have no more than 3 goals with 2-3 objectives. I tracked and reported to each and every professional what paperwork they had outstanding and when it was due. I personally met with this tardy professional and discussed the need to get the paperwork caught up. When this did not fix the problem, I mandated no more than 3 goals and 9 objectives. Nothing worked. the paperwork was not getting completed, I felt stuck.

Of course, not all managers focus on the same things. As a manager, my natural tendency is to try and create "emotional ties and warm connections" in my work groups; the focus of this style is on building consensus, providing support, and valuing openness.  It is what William Schutz (creator of the Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation Instrument or the FIRO-B) called "Affection" which he contrasted with a managerial need to express "control" or "inclusion."  Since my attempts at creating a consensual response to "getting caught up" was not working, I had to look to other ways of expressing this managerial need.

Relationships and Leading

Before telling you how developing fences or boundaries helped in this situation, I want to draw a connection to the type of leadership that might benefit the most from this construct. 

Developing strong fences, and defending those fences, is, I think, an element of expressing control. In Schutz’s definition control is not “being controlling” in the sense of bullying, dominating, or playing psychological games. Healthy control is about efficiency, stability, sustainability, predictability, and good outcomes. I leader high in wanting to express control—a good practice detailed manager—will be hands on in creating systems, procedures, and will shepard the on-going activities to keep them on track. Not my preferred managerial style. Being low in Expressed Control, I want employees to be professional—show up, do the job, and have the freedom to make the job their own—these are valuesI like to “express” in working with employees. To be clear, the best employees, to me, are those that respect boundaries without being told and but strong effort into what is best for the team. But, as leaders we need to grow or become ineffective, and this was a moment where"control was now a factor that I found myself in need of deploying—or I would let this one employee’s behavior hinder the team as a whole.

BTW: Knowing a leader's preferences and identifying what they "want" and would "like to express" as a manager (with a tool like the Firo-B) helps identify common challenges this style of leader will experience.  For leaders whose managerial orientation leads them away from a "control" stance to foster an environment of inclusion and/or affection, maintaining good boundaries--fences if you will--and seeing those fences as a beneficial tool and not simply an uncomfortable or even harmful behavior is a challenge.  But, even the most affiliative manager, if he has the courage to face it, will recognize the need for control at times.

Setting Boundaries

Ultimately, this delimma led me to a follow up meeting with the professional. The purpose of the meeting being to set a boundary (establish a fence) on the paperwork issue.  I started by stating the problem (paperwork was not timely), then we established a clear target (completing the oldest treatment plan), added a timeframe (on my desk by Friday at 5 pm) and the resources to accomplish it (you can delegate or ignore other duties as needed to complete this task this one time).

The result? . . . no treatment plan on my desk by the deadline.

What I did get was a message promising to get it done ASAP.  Not good enough.  The end result was another uncomfortable second meeting.  I clarified what we had talked about the week before, asked for an explanation of why the target was not met, explained the delimma I was facing (not doing my job if I ignored this problem), and asked for input.  The professional, after this was all laid out simply said, "I'm not sure I can do this job."  My response?  A sad (remember I think in affiliative and collaborative terms) confirmation, "I'm not sure you can either." I pointed out that we were now at a point where I would have to continue take formal action ("writing up" a formal poor performance plan) and if he could not bring his performance into line with the expectations . . . that it could result in eventual termination.  

The professional chose to resign.

The fences or boundary setting succeeded (in terms of resolving the issue) where my earlier approaches had failed.  Yes, I felt bad. In my “dream world” as a young manager, I thought I would always be able to motivate, encourage and support people to success.  In the real world, it turned out that it was not all up to me. The hardest "shift" in thinking for me was to see how these fences were actually helpful to people—unidentified problems are likely to be ignored and persist. Allowing someone’s poor performance to create resentment for them among their team members and not honestly challenging the employee is, at best dishonest, and at worst, something that is anathema to most people . . “just tell me the truth” is a common value for most people.

If you are struggling with this idea of setting boundaries and the need for control, ask yourself, "How would this have ended, if I continued to simply try to encourage and motivate this employee?"  There were many possibilities, many of which were unpleasant for one or many members of the team. The team itself could continue to become increasingly angry at the underperforming peer . . . and the supervisor. Team members could “escape” the situation and resign. The employee and/or the supervisor could face potential firing for incompetence. The agency, due to the incomplete documentation and effective controls, could lose it’s accreditation due to poor performance on audits. Community funding for the program could dry up—especially if the accreditation was lost. Maybe others as well?

Boundaries and protecting people?

How did this boundary setting protect people? Several ways, including:

• the professional avoided being fired (they resigned)

• my role as the supervisor was not placed at risk

• the team, who were aware of the deficiencies of their colleague, saw that the organization was serious about timeliness being an important aspect of providing our services to clients

• the professional was able to negotiate the terms of his leaving (although completing the paperwork was a condition that had to be met)

• the paperwork did get completed (they brought last batch in when picking up final paycheck)

• the company was protected from liability issues, losing accreditation, funding or facing fraudulent billing accusations

• the client was "best served" by the files containing all the necessary information for treatment, referral, or historical record purposes

Leaders need to step up and set appropriate boundaries. This also means that the leader, at times, will need to “be the boundary” or enforce the need for the fence being in place. It is a great irony that those who need to have boundaries set are the very people that do not get the need for the boundaries in many cases. Think of it like this, you don’t need a fence with a good neighbor; you need a fence with a neighbor who does not naturally respect their own, and your, boundaries. Remember, employees lie to themselves. People with boundary problems often shift the focus of the problem to something outside of themselves—thus perpetuating the problem unless stopped by something outside themselves.

New managers, especially those who want to express their leadership through terms of affection rather than control, are particularly at risk for trying to continue the tried-and-failed approaches to motivate employees that are underperforming . . . and there by, exacerbating the negative impacts on their team. Like a football team that needs to “establish the run” so they can open up the playbook and get their passing game into high gear, these leaders need to see setting and enforcing boundaries as tools that allow for, and preserve the ability to maintain, healthy relationships within their team. Only then, can the team function to it’s fullest capacity.

A P.S. for Family Business, Non-Profits, and Ecclesiatistical Bodies

This need to develop good "fences" is especially tricky when the organization or business has an emotional component beyond a typical business venture . . . partnerships, ecclesiastical bodies, non-profit service organizations, and family businesses struggle on other levels that a "typical" business venture does not. In these circumstances there is a critical need for help from professionals who understand human systems.

Available eBooks:

Private Practice through Contracting: Decreasing dependence on insurance.

Engaging Your Team: A framework for managing difficult people.

Family Legacy: Protecting family in family business.

Reclamation . . . Old Wood/New Wood; or Is that employee worth it?

I love the reclaimed depot wood we put on our cabinet ends. The picture doesn’t do it justice.

Leaders, like a builder, can choose to get new employees or work with the old ones. Employees with issues can be seen as disposable—out with the old and in with the new—or as valuable resources worth working toward reclamation.

A Change

I have found a new joy in reclaimed old wood. Old redwood to be precise. Redwood salvaged from a deck that provided the framework for a porch that had deteriorated over time. It surprises me a little bit—this joy of working with tis old wood—because I’ve always been favorably predisposed toward “new.” Maybe it’s my history of allergies. Maybe it’s laziness. But I always enjoyed building with new wood—from scratch if you will—rather than recycling something old . . . and often not being happy with the result. But now that’s all changed.

The destruction phase. If you look closely, you will see our Melodrama sign (to the extreme left) later in our shelving picture on the—mostly—completed porch.

The Wood

It started with a tear-down-and-rebuild project. We live in an old converted train deport. An amazing amalgam of construction. One hundred year old “bones” and newer additions make up the primary building. One of the features we loved was the “four-season porch” on the back. That porch, not in great shape when we bought the property—and poorly built originally—had deteriorated to the point that it needed to be torn off completely or rebuilt. Tear off and rebuilding . . . again not my favorite. But, it had to be done. The next couple of years, with the guidance and assistance of my contractor, consisted of working on weekends on this project, and after finishing the major work with the contractor, I am still working on the finishing touches as I write.

Redwood boards. Planed and ready to use for projects! You can see the discarded metal wagon box in the background. See the redwood wagon below!

The porch was built on top of a redwood deck. Well, it was partially built on a redwood deck. The builders had cobbled together a porch stoop (by the door to the right) and a deck (covering the rest of the porch)—which allowed the whole structure to settle unevenly—there was even a metal stand probing up one part!—and helped the general deterioration. We tore out the whole underlying structure, including the redwood, as part of our rebuild.

Now, if you aren’t into wood, you should know that it is expensive to buy redwood today. When I started building shelving from this wood, I priced new redwood to see how much it would cost to build one of the shelves and found that the wood, alone, would cost me close to $500 to buy new. Now that gets a guy’s attention and makes him look at the reclaimed wood in a totally new light!!

Here are some of the shelves and other Christmas projects—vase stand, and guitar neck rests. Notice the same sign in the background that was in the earlier tear-off picture. No floor yet. Finishing the walls first.

From the salvaged redwood I have built a few sets of shelves, a child’s wagon, a dozen or so guitar head rests (for changing strings), a bunch of guitar picks, one flower-vase frame, and a conductor’s baton case. Mostly these are for gifts, partly for fun. I could show you lots of pictures . . . but I’ll limit myself to one more, that should make the point.

Some of the smaller projects. Mostly the redwood. Some ebony, maple, too.

Leaders and People

All this . . . chaos? . . . effort? . . . history? . . . came to mind recently when a business owner, who was told about our process of helping organizations with their “people issues",” asked, “Why don’t they just fire them?” This sentiment, “just fire them,” sounded eerily like my attitude about wood. Just buy new wood! It’s easier. There are no problems to deal with . . . like there are with old wood. Old wood is too much trouble.

Some leaders see the world in much the same way. They would rather start over with a new employee than struggle to find a solution to their managerial problem. They minimize issues within their culture, system, or leadership that contribute to the problem. The propose superficial fixes and ultimately blame the employee for not changing. These decisions reveal the leader’s true values.

Yes, every leader has to face the fact that sometimes the only choice is to let someone go or do harm to the team or organization. But, as a leader, are you eager to adopt an “out with the old and in with the new” attitude?

I have worked with a few leaders who, a review of history or observation, revealed a pattern of employees passing through a “constant revolving door.” Rarely do these leaders see these decision as driven by their own ego or their behavior and that of the organization as the constant in this pattern. They don’t understand how lies that effect employees and leaders. Communication suffers along the way. They may struggle to see the value of mistakes in creating strong teams. They believe that failure is always bad. Other leaders see value in preserving the value of seasoned employees. They recognize that an investment in these employees may provide a superior long-term benefit.

Yes, working with the “old wood” means you have to engage with the wood in a more rigorous manner . . . trim some damaged wood away. You have to pull nails out of the boards so you don’t ruin a set of planing knives. You will make more cuts to find the solid, usable part of the boards and to reveal the pretty original grain. Finally, you will also have more cut-offs to discard.

Seven Reasons Leaders Should Focus on Retaining Employees

But there are good reasons not to start over with new wood . . . or a new employee.

1. New wood isn’t the same as old wood. Anyone who has been building for more than 20 years knows that the wood you buy today at the big box stores isn’t the same quality as old wood. Fast-growth, sap-wood, poorly dried, cheap lumber dominate the industry. Old wood has dimensional stability, strong grain, color, hardness, and character.

   In most circumstances, employees also gain value over time. They have institutional knowledge, they have experience with the trials and errors of the past. They have awareness of what it was like before the product was available. They have relationships with coworkers, vendors, and customers. Finally, successfully “reclaimed” employees can become the biggest champions of the organization and leadership.

2. There is a cost . . .to buying new. My father-in-law continues to “whittle-away” at a big block of Desert Ironwood from Mexico that he bought years ago for a little over $100. That one log has been part of projects for more than 20 years. Today, a 3/8" thick, 1.75" wide, 5" large stick will cost $12-15 plus shipping . . . if you can get it at all. A log like my father-in-law’s would run close to $1,000.

   Those who study business also talk about the high cost of employee turnover in organizations. The impact on “onboarding,” training, and other “real costs” may be secondary to the impact on the culture, morale, leadership trust, and other “soft factors” that, while critical to success, are less frequently measured. The big problem is, most leaders don’t have an easy cost comparison when deciding if firing an employee is in the best interests of the organization and many minimize the impact on the culture of the team—especially if this is perceived to be a pattern of the management.

3. The old wood has a unique attractiveness —because it’s old wood. Part of the beauty of working with this old wood is the blemishes . . . the nail-holes, checked areas, and uneven coloring. It leeks “used,” but when the wood is cleaned up, trimmed, planed, sanded, and finished, it is more beautiful that a more “perfect” new board.

   “Reclaimed” employees can have this save value. When we do interviews in an organization we typically take a plant tour. We request a guide—an employee who is not a “company ‘Yes!’ person” but who is also not the company critic. When leaders guide us to the right employee for this guidance . . . often someone with a reclamation story about the company . . . other employees’ trust in that individual helps us get very honest information about whatever issues we are seeking. The “stability” of this employee (see below) promotes trust and creates the opportunity for an open dialogue that is priceless to the organization. Other employees see the value in this employee and trust their reliability, know their past history, and see the openness about the organizations past challenges . . . and their faith in the leadership.

4. Old wood has known attributes where new wood has unknowns. Once again, old wood is far from perfect. But, you do know what you are likely to encounter in working with the wood. That’s worth something. New wood may have a high moisture content and tend to cup, warp, or crack. Old wood, once reclaimed will remain true to form, stable, and increase its value. New wood is an unknown. It may age and become cherished old wood or it may warp, crack, or fail.

   As we noted above, a reclaimed employee, in the same way is a “known” commodity. Other employees develop a respect for the employee that has come through challenges to remain a part of the organization. They trust someone who they know has not always “had it together” and see themselves in the real story of that employee. They note the optimism and faith the employee chooses to place in leadership despite the past. A new employee may have those traits, but it is an unknown risk at the time they are hired.

5. There is a unique satisfaction to reclaiming old wood. Sustainabllity, history, value, reduction of waste, or character and beauty . . . there are many reasons that reclaiming old wood is satisfying. In the same way, there is nothing like developing, challenging, and supporting employees to be their very best . . . and then seeing that benefit the team or organization.

   Many leaders are, in fact, very open to the idea of trying to “reclaim” employees. There are several challenges however that can make this fail. This, in itself, could be it’s own post, for our purposes, suffice it to say that a poor understanding of human behavior, a weak commitment to reclamation, a lack of consistent attention over time, fear that it will fail, poor communication or planning . . . these are but a few reasons that it may not succeed without a clearly implemented and monitored plan.

6. Developing a love of old wood opens up new possibilities. Living in an old Depot was daunting at first. The prospect of reclaiming a structure that had been turned into apartments—with it’s three kitchens and six bathrooms—did not sound like fun. But, tearing out the old porch, finding the redwood, and beginning to use this resource has created possibilities where none existed before. The cabinet ends pictured at the top for example. These boards were, in my estimation, a merely a nuisance, piled up in the attic . . . old, dusty brown boards that I was going to have to deal with at some point. Now, after several layers have been stripped, the boards planed down into quarter inch panels, the rotten parts cut away . . . they are a real center point of our remodel.

   In the same way, I have seen leaders that were burned out, dreading coming to work, contemplating leaving their position, who after working through a process of reclamation, were, once again, energized, excited about the next challenge, feeling more optimistic about their role and the organization. As the saying goes, “Success breeds success.”

7. Working with old wood changes the woodworker. Maybe it’s obvious. The old wood/new wood dichotomy is not new. What has changed is me. Once the woodworker opens him or herself up to using old wood, the world begins to change. Board piles are interesting, seeking out businesses that reclaim wood becomes a passion, helping to tear-down old properties becomes a treasure-field to explore. One sees the cheap woods of modern building. There rekindles a joy in the old, the weathered, the sturdy.

   One of the best reasons to be inclined, first, toward reclamation when it comes to employees is that it changes the leader. (A good reason to try and “reclaim” leaders as well! Because they can be more valuable.) No, a desire to focus on reclamation will never preclude firing a bad employee. We have mentioned several times that not all the old wood was kept . . . the bad parts of the board were cut off and discarded . . . the point here is that by taking a positive view toward reclaiming the old many boards can be salvaged, materials have a longer sustainable life, and the leader becomes a more functional, well-rounded, and energized leader.

They put the wagon to immediate use! But it’s not about the wagon, is it? People . . . that’s what it is all about!

Employee engagement? The problem isn't employees the problem is . . . there's no plan.

Photo by Conor Luddy on Unsplash

Employees get a lot of blame for their lack of engagement. Leadership initiatives to improve engagement often focus on techniques and programs to increase organizational engagement . . . by focusing on what to do to, or with, the employees. For the leaders themselves, the focus is on how to create the right environment or push the right "levers." Few leaders really know what they should focus on in their own leadership style. Below, we will give you 3 attributes to "set your sites on" to increase the likelihood to modeling engagement as a leader and increasing the odds that employees will follow your example.

Engagement

If you read leadership material, a lot of the "talk" around employee engagement is about how to get the employees to be engaged. That is, how to get them to voluntarily be connected to the organization and be willing to use their discretionary effort to reach it's goals.

Many authors note that this engagement is more than a list of actions or behaviors, it is a relationship as well, but they then, despite noting the reciprocal nature of engagement, focus on the employees . . . and ignore the leadership side of the equation. This leaves the impression often that engagement is something leaders get employees to do. Transformative leaders focus on becoming . . . and helping others become . . . aligned with the values of engagement.

So, here are a few, brief, thoughts to help focus on leadership's role in developing an engaged workforce.

Another term for engagement is "betrothal" which is defined as a "formal agreement to get married." (Seen in this light--leaders and employers are in a marriage-like relationship--is it surprising that there are so many challenges. Note that this engagement includes, a decision to enter an agreement or contract and, that contract is aimed at creating a more permanent relationship between two parties.

Leaders who want to have engaged employees need to model engagement behaviors themselves. This doesn't mean "preaching" about engagement or creating incentive to engagement behavior. Carrots and sticks only work in the short-term and ultimately disencentivze employees.

Remember, it's about a relationship . . . and no one prefers to be in a manipulative, coercive, or unsupportive relationship. Yes, unhealthy relationships exist and even persevere . . . as long as there is no better option. When another option becomes possible the relationship ends. 

While leaders often acknowledge both sides to this engagement relationship, i.e" "we want the best for our employees"; very few have thought through what it takes for a leader to engage with their employees on a deep level.  

But leaders don't have time to a deep in-depth study of what it takes to become an engagement exercise. So let's boil it down to it's roots. What does it take to model healthy engaged behaviors?  Here's what I think it takes . . . 3 primary attributes of an engaged leader . . . plus 2 for good measure!

1. Being Present

We hear a lot about "dead-beat Dads" or Mother's who "abandon" their children. We understand that to have a healthy relationship you must be present. Employees know when a leader is only "putting in the time" and not really "there for them."

2. absence can present itself  in terms of a burned-out leader, an overly committed leader, traumatic events, or other factors. A leader who is not physically, emotionally, or behaviorally present will not have an engaged workforce--or if they do, it will be inspire of the leader and due to informal leadership within the work team itself.

2. A Non-Anxious Presence

Once of the biggest killers of engagement comes through leaders that cannot operate as a "non-anxious presence." They react. They drive. They create an uncertain, anxious, fearful, environment where some employees feel threatened and cannot predict what the leader will do. Thus they engage in a lot of unhealthy coping strategies . . . lying, avoiding, playing-it-safe.  

3. High-level Communication

People think they communicate well. They don't. If you are trained and experienced in communication you know this. Within just two or three sentences, a trained expert can't identify elements that will make communication difficult, if not all-together, misleading. At it's worst it is corrosive or volitile. We do team training on communication utilizing a simple "disarm the bomb" electronic program. The teams are always terrible in the beginning. How can it be difficult to describe the color of wires or the buttons to push and in what sequence? Well, it is difficult. Imagine what happens to communication when their are emotions real consequences on people's lives in the mix.

Yet, like it or not, people are judged through the patterns of communication they employ.  This includes both verbal and non-verbal communication. It is impacted by the tendencies and trends over time but can be undone by one or more single events during high stress moments (see non-anxious presence above).

4. A Desire to Improve . . . that is stronger than a desire to protect one's since or "self!"

One of the biggest problems in working with executives or their teams is that they give "lip service" to wanting to improve but act like they are protecting their fragile egos. To date, I have never had a senior executive admit to me that they are afraid to get honest feedback, fear the challenges of changing to help their team's success, or say they are satisfied with their level of competence. I have had them resist taking negative feedback, being defensive, blaming others, or avoiding. After all, they are human, despite being accomplished and successful. This is a "blind spot" they need to get over. They need a hunger to improve that will keep them engaged when it is tough.

5. Commitment

In some form, every accomplishment is done for a reason. But reasons are not all alike in their ability to sustain effort. A reason that has deep meaning to the leader can sustains them through the difficult times . . . and keep them from "leaping ships" when experiencing quick success. The leader needs a deep commitment to something to risk engaging fully in the success of his organization. Without it employees will likely not engage deeply either. So, ask yourself this, "Why should I, as a leader, want to be present, non-anxious, and communicative?  Why strive to continue to improve?  Without good answers to these questions, your commitment, and your employees, is likely to wane with time.

All the best!

Leaders . . . Trust and Control

Photo by Jenn Evelyn-Ann on Unsplash

Leaders . . . Trust and Control

Leaders, like other employees, want to feel trusted. Too often, leaders see relationships, both between employees and between employees and the leaders, in a dichotomy of trust vs mistrust. This duality, masks that a certain amount of mistrust is healthy and the viewpoint promotes behavior--when faced with the fact or fear of losing trust--that often turns a workable breach-of-trust into a struggle for control. Who will be blamed for the loss of trust? What will be the fall out? Will it be swept under the rug?

Nan S. Russell, in a 2011 Psychology Today article about trust in the workplace, wrote that the opposite of trust isn't mistrust . . . it's control. She's right. Or, partly right. When trust fails, many leaders, as Russell notes, fall back on control. These leaders don't see grabbing control in these situations as, what they often are, self-defeating behaviors. They focus on their good intentions . . . of protecting the workplace, correcting wrong viewpoints, or introducing reason into emotional interactions. It never seems to occur to these leaders that if employees have lost trust, they may no longer accept good intensions as the defacto position of the leader. 

But here's where I might differ from Russell's assessment. Not all leaders, I'm not sure Russell is assuming this, grab for control. Some leaders, in my experience, don't step in with control; instead, they will "flee the field"--hiding in their office, avoiding issues and/or the people . . . in one case, an executive began scheduling himself "out of the office" daily for meetings, but the board eventually found out that he was leaving to "go to the boats" and gamble. Perhaps this in control in the sense that the leader is choosing to avoid, but it certainly does not feel like control to the employees. It's more like avoidance, or abandonment.

When leaders lose trust, they need to admit their mistakes, face the consequences of their actions, and lead their employees to a new plane of transparency, openness, and daily effort to make right what was wrong. Anything less is emotional or cognitive cowardice and not leadership.

Available eBooks:

Private Practice through Contracting: Decreasing dependence on insurance.

Engaging Your Team: A framework for managing difficult people.

Family Legacy: Protecting family in family business.

The Right Tools

For 18 months I have been working with a contractor remodeling a large three-season porch and kitchen in our home. We live in our town's old train depot--remodeled and moved to the country--where very little in the original construction conforms to your standard "balloon-frame" modern homes I am used to working on. The challenges encountered in the remodel have been multi-varied and . . . interesting. 

I say "multi-varied and interesting" because our discoveries, and the resulting discussions, go something like this . . . "Remember. the guy who moved the depot was a train engineer, used to working on motors, so he reversed the white and black wires." Did you know that wiring color--one "hot" and one "common"--in motors are the reverse of the colors used in standard house wiring? I didn't.  

Another one was, "What they did here was combine a patio, a small porch and a deck to make this three-season porch floor. Then they shored it up with extra posts." What?  Or another, "The floor boards here are planks instead of finished boards because this was the baggage area." How do you finish a floor with half-inch gaps between the boards? (Answer: You nail in strips of boards and spend $300 on wood putty.) "You see the ceiling here used to go all the way to the roof . . . you can see where they boarded up the windows and put in trusses to create a lower ceiling." Oh, that's why I have to duck under that 5 foot ceiling in the attic!

I mean it when I say "multi varied . . . and interesting!" 

But that doesn't preclude other words . . . frustrating, confusing, even maddening.

Suffice it to say that each change in the remodeling process has resulted in head-scratching and sometimes finding "out-of-the-box" ways to solve each new challenge. Some of these challenges would have stumped my limited ability and knowledge, were I on my own, to find a solution . . . thank goodness for a contractor who has the skills, knowledge, and tools to find a solution. But there is a "down side" . . . I find myself wanting, and buying, many of the tools we've used. Maybe its and "up side?"

One of these tools is a Kreg Jig. Do you know what a Kreg Jig is? Well, that's a "Kreg" as we call it in the picture at the top of the post. A Kreg jig helps you build cabinets, shelves and other projects where having tight, well fitting joints is important. What does it do? It simple helps you get the right angle and depth for your fastener (a screw) so that you have a strong joint. That's it.  A $100 tool to make sure you put your screw at the best angle and don't drill too deep. Now that's a specialty tool. I've been building for years and making do with the "eye-ball-it method" of setting my screws at an angle and drilling carefully. But, the results are not always what I hope for. The Kreg takes all the guess work out of it and produces a superior outcome.

It reminds me of consulting.

Organizational leaders can ask questions, conduct interviews, run focus groups . . . but the results are not the same. Consultants bring an expertise, technique, and the tools of the trade to the task. This enables them to help leaders come out with a better product.  These tools include consulting methods, business knowledge, business experience and a host of other features.  But consultants are more than just "tool providers" they themselves are "tools" leaders use to impact their work teams. As "outsiders" consultants contributions are different than the leaders contributions even if they are doing the same activity! 

As I said earlier, I have built shelves and cabinets which you can do without a "special" tool like the Kreg Jig. After all, the only thing this does is help you put screws in at an angle to make a strong joint. I can do that on my own can't I? The answer is "Yes," however the results speak for themselves.  Leaders do well when they consider, "Do I need a consultant for this job?" And if the answer is "yes," to further consider "which consultant is the right one to use?" In this consideration, the core discipline of the consultant, should be considered as well.  Do I need legal expertise, business knowledge, an understanding of the human dynamics? Focus on the consultant's core expertise as you ask . . . is this the right "tool" for this job?

Here are the cabinets and the plank flooring. . . the right tool is worth the cost!

Cabinets and plank floor. Floor sanding and finishing is pending. The stove?  It's called a "Flair" made by General Motors!

 Free ebook Engaging Your Team: A framework for leading "difficult" people.

When a leader needs help . . .

Leaders have problems. Others in the organization have to figure out how to help them. It can be difficult. Do they need more training? Perhaps a referral to the Employee Assistance Program (EAP)? Is this simply a disciplinary issue? Or perhaps a complex personality trait? Maybe it's none of the above, it is simply a business problem.

It is not uncommon for leaders to wrestle with "what to do" when one of their managers or senior leaders is struggling. Below is a decision chart designed to help clarify your thinking and give you a direction to pursue. (You can download the file off our resources page.) I hope you find it helpful.

Please note: Every situation is unique and the chart is meant only to help you with your thought process. It should not be used as a final determinant as each individual person deserves a fair and thoughtful consideration of their unique situation.

Available eBooks:

Private Practice through Contracting: Decreasing dependence on insurance.

Engaging Your Team: A framework for managing difficult people.

Family Legacy: Protecting family in family business.

When you mess up my order . . . .

I have a son whose nickname is "Mac." I found this in New Zealand.

When you mess up my order . . . and you will . . . here is what I expect.

This rant starts with a meal I recently ordered in an airport --fast food for myself and my son. Our order was not difficult.  Two hamburgers. One with ketchup and pickles for my son.  One with ketchup, mustard, lettuce and onions for me.  What we got instead was one hamburger with ketchup and mustard, no pickles, and one cheeseburger with tomatoes, ketchup, mustard, lettuce, and mayo. Not the worst "muck up" I've ever experienced but still decidedly wrong . . . and far too common. If you, like I do, engage in patronizing these places, then I ask you, "Have you noticed the slippage in the ability of employees to get orders right?"  It seems to have changed remarkably in the past couple of decades.  (Are we having more receptive language issues? Is this a case of English as a second language? Or, am I just becoming a grumpy old man?) But what surprises me even more is the response . . . or more correctly, the lack of response, to being informed that they have messed up your order!

Not long ago I was eating at a fast food place that really does seem to take customer service seriously. But, as we all know, everybody makes mistakes and they got something wrong in my order. What surprised me, and then surprised me that I was surprised, was that when I informed them of the error the person actually seemed to feel a sense of shame or guilt (unintended on my part), made me feel like she really was sorry and cared that it wasn't correct, then brought me something extra for my trouble.  I realized how different this was from my typical experience.

What is the typical experience?  Maybe a shrug. Taking the bag and dropping it into the trash. Informing the cook, flatly or sarcastically of the mistake, and then . . . silence.  Maybe a muttered "sorry" when the correct food comes but it certainly does NOT feel like the apology is heartfelt or that errors are considered "bad" and intent is to make them infrequent for that matter. The predominant feeling I think is one of indifference . . . if not out right irritation (at me, the coworker, their life?). Maybe its a new business model . . . waste is a cost of doing business . . . but I doubt most owners or upper managers look at it that way.

What do you expect when someone messes up?

In order to be clear about what I expect let me, first, tell you what I do not expect in my service providers. After that I will list what I do expect and then after presenting these bullet lists I will finish with what I think is the perfect story to illustrate the point I have been trying to make.

Here are things I don't expect:

• You to really care (acting like it is good enough)
• To perform without errors
• Heart-felt shame or guilt
• Defending your misunderstanding, communication, processes, etc.
• Something free for my "inconvenience" (I mean really how inconvenient is it to wait two minutes to get the food ordered to your perfect expectations. If you still think this is a big deal . . . do some research on the third world as a reality check.)
• Any preferential treatment in the future

Here's what I do expect:

• Look me in the eyes and apologize first
• Take the time to understand what was incorrect so there is not a "third time" to get it right
• Do not be sarcastic, demeaning, or critical of your coworkers even if it was their mistake (you see if you are nice to me as a customer and mean to a co-worker I no longer trust that you really care about me . . . you are just putting up a front to get my business)
• Let me go sit down and bring me the correct replacement
• Apologize again when you bring the correct item, thank me for my patience (I try to always be patient), and ask if there is anything else you can do

Hey, well, there are the lists.  Now for the disappointment . . . or so I image it will be a disappointment.  There is no story.  You see, I messed up.  Although in my case it was intentional. I want to illustrate the idea of failing to meet expectations. Yes, the promise of the story was simply a writer's trick. The truth is there is, and never was, a story. I do feel bad about playing this little trick on you, my readers, and I promise not to do it again. Notice how your expectations play a role in how you react to my little ruse . . . and how I should respond.

As always, I would love to hear any comments you have or any suggestions for topics you would like me to address.  Once again, sorry about the lame ending.

Thanks for reading and especially for those who take the time to respond!

Available eBooks:

Private Practice through Contracting: Decreasing dependence on insurance.

Engaging Your Team: A framework for managing difficult people.

Family Legacy: Protecting family in family business.

Engagement Infographic

Want to get a quick picture of engagement?  Check out our newest infographic!

Available eBooks:

Private Practice through Contracting: Decreasing dependence on insurance.

Engaging Your Team: A framework for managing difficult people.

Family Legacy: Protecting family in family business.