Twilight Zone - Inverse Training

by Don Harkey

I was sitting in a class last week and we were discussing how sometimes training just doesn't land well with its audience. Managers bring in experts to discuss various topics and employees are expected to absorb the message... yet sometimes they don't.

Why is that?

Quality of the presentation aside, the class discussed a major reason for not getting the message is the credibility of the message itself. For example, if a manager trains employees on ethics in the workplace and yet accepts favors from suppliers on regular basis, the actions overwhelm the message.

The other concept we discussed was the fact that employees may not understand why they need to know what they are supposed to be learning. It is very common for management to train employees. In many cases, however, the training is not successfully tied to the development of the company. Management is trying to communicate what is important to them, often without successfully linking it with what is important to the employee. This is a case of "I have the microphone and you don't!".

Then it hit me.

What makes management so smart? Why do we always assume that management knows everything? I have seen several management training seminars where managers present information that they likely don't know much more about than their employees. Its a little like a game show host acting smart even though they have the luxery of having the answers.

So here is my Twilight Zone thought for the week. Why not give employees the opportunity to provide some training for their management? Give them a budget and the time they need to decide what to put together and see what they come up with. Think about it. How valuable would it be to know what the employees think management should learn? In fact, how valuable would it be to give employees some control over developing the skills of their leaders?

This idea is in its infancy, but the more I think about it, the more I like it. It gets employees involved in the vision of the organization and gives them the opportunity to help develop their management. Besides... aren't leaders supposed to listen and learn?

I'd love some feedback on this idea! Good idea or Twilight Zone episode?

Great Scott! A Case Study in Accidental Management

by Don Harkey

I love "The Office", a sitcom currently airing on NBC. There are not many shows that I follow, but this one is funny, well-written, and hits close to home on a topic I love... management.

If you don't watch the series, I will give you a short backdrop. The show is about a branch of a mid-sized paper company and the happenings around the (you guessed it) office. The branch manager, Michael Scott, is played brilliantly by Steve Carell as an insecure, self-centered, politically incorrect, bumbling, and yet very likeable manager who likes his company, loves his people, and somehow manages to make his way through life. The program style like a continuous documentary with unseen cameramen following the characters around.

In the show, the company is struggling and is shutting down some of its branches. In a recent episode, Michael Scott is invited to the corporate office by the CFO to talk about "the big picture" (a phrase which Michael admits to having never heard before). Believing he is in some sort of trouble (because he usually is), he is surprised when the CFO reports that Michael's branch is the only branch that is actually successful. The CFO asks him, "what is the secret to your success?".

Michael enters into a passionate, yet incoherent monologue using catch phrases and absolutes. The CFO listens patiently, quietly amazed that Michael has been so successful. There are 2 key points here. First of all, Michael is successful. Second of all, he has no clue why he is successful.

While the show presents a caricature of corporate life, this drives in a major point. I believe one of the biggest causes of management mistakes is caused by misinterpreting the true causes of success (or failure).

This can be seen in the field of coaching all of the time. Larry Brown was one of the most successful coaches in the history of basketball. Yet when he was given the opportunity to coach the "Dream Team" in the Olympics, his team failed miserably.

There are many other examples in the world. Not too many years ago, General Electric CEO Jack Welsh was considered by many to be the greatest CEO of all time. Today, many people question whether he was successful or destructive. Harry Truman left office as one of the most unpopular Presidents in U.S. History and yet today he is consistently ranked as one of the best.

Sometimes the true factors that lead to success are not understood, even while they are accidentally being applied. A supervisor might implement a recognition program one week that is an incredible success and then try to duplicate the program in another department and fail miserably.

The key to overcoming this is to constantly evaluate and look for patterns in success. Times when success (or failure) is expected but not observed are opportunities to refine "the laws of success". The formula can be complex, but you can learn a lot from your experiences and even more from the experiences of others!

Here is a sample of wisdom from Michael Scott...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVVsDIv98TA

Accountability

by Don Harkey

"They just won't do what I tell them to do!"

I recently heard someone say that the role of management is to set expectations and then hold people accountable to them. This gives a poor picture as to the complete role of management.

It is true that setting an expectation is important and that people do need to be held accountable. However, this approach misses one of the best "tricks" of the management trade. Your goal as a manager should be to minimize how many expectations you set and also to minimize how much you need to "hold" people accountable. Let me explain.

Manager #1 decides to set clear expectations for their employees and makes sure to hold their people very accountable. She sits down with each employee on a quarterly basis and lists their expectations. At the same meeting, she also reviews the previous expectations with the employee and determines whether or not they were met. The employee's pay is tied directly to their performance to the expectations.

Manager #2 works continuously to make sure that the employee feels related or connected with their work. Their employees understand the common vision of the company and set their own expectations to align with that of the organization. They feel extreme pride in their successes and work quickly to repair their failures because they feel like they are a part of something important. Manager #2 is free to look to the future and provide more resources to her employees working hard on their common goal.

My point is this. You can threaten someone with their job and make them do something or you can convince the person that it is in their best interest to do something. A good example is safety training at a manufacturing facility. I can threaten employees with disciplinary action if they fail to wear their safety glasses (which I should do), but I will be much more effective if I can convince them that wearing the glasses are in their best interest (it might save their vision!).

Threats and coercions don't stick. Relatedness to a common vision builds an internal motivation within your employee and frees up management to do their real job of planning, envisioning the future, and providing resources to their employees.

Data Uncertainty Principle

by Don Harkey

I'm going to "geek out" on you for a minute, but bare with me because I think it will be worth it!

In advanced physics, there is a principle known as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The principle states (oversimplified) that you cannot perfectly know both a particle's position and velocity. The problem is that by simply observing the particle, you are impacting either its position or its velocity.

In management, I would like to submit another theory called the Data Uncertainty Principle. This principle states that any data destined to be used for a predetermined purpose will become unreliable.

In other words, say you decide to use your inventory dollars as a critical measurement on your "dashboard". You set a target of keeping inventory under $100,000 and establish a bonus structure around either succeeding or failing to reach the target. In other words, you will pay your people more to hit the target. The theory states that your metric, inventory dollars, will become manipulated or unreliable.

Anyone who has been around management for awhile has probably seen this phenomena. Just before the measurement is scheduled to be taken (usually at the end of the fiscal year) the inventory drops. Production is modified, items are shipped early, or sometimes materials are even stored off-site. The point here is that because the inventory metric was emphasized and a reward system was created around it, the inventory metric became a poor indicator of performance. Nothing really improved.

Look at any company that has quarterly sales targets. If you were to plot the day to day sales by quarter, you would see a pattern emerge. When the end of a quarter comes, the sales person makes one of two decisions. If the person is going to hit their sales goals for the quarter, they will choose to delay sales near the end of the quarter for a few days or even weeks to help with the next quarter. If they are short, they will go out and try to close a bunch of sales quickly at the end of the quarter, even if some of the sales fall through later or even if the pricing is not as good as could be. Working as an engineer purchasing equipment, I have seen this phenomena many times where a company offers a discount if I purchase the item by the end of the month.

Does this really improve the process? Does this really add value to the customer? Think about the Data Uncertainty Principle and how it applies to your organization!

Personal Current

by Don Harkey



Have you ever gone swimming in a river? It is amazing how even a slow moving current can impact swimming. If you try to swim against the current, you will find yourself tired very quickly. However, if you are willing to go with the current a little, you can get around in the river without getting too tired.

Strengths are a little like that. We have all been given certain strengths and weaknesses. In our culture, we are often told that we need to work on our weaknesses. However, this can be like swimming against a current. Imagine a person who struggles in math trying to become an accountant or a person who isn't good with their hands trying to become a carpenter. It is possible, but it will be a struggle.

Instead, imagine focusing on your strengths. The math wiz becomes the accountant. The hands-on person becomes a carpenter. This frees up the person to truly become great at their job. This is important because competence is one of the 3 key factors to motivation.

But how do you find out exactly what your strengths are? Sure, you might know that you are good at Wii Bowling (which I am not) or can play a mean bass guitar, but unless you hit the video game circuit or decide to go on tour, what good will that do you?

There are many different studies out there that give people ways to discover their strengths. One of the most famous is the Myers-Briggs test which shows people, for example, whether they are a "thinker" or a "feeler". The problem with this test is that it is difficult to get specific on what to work on.

A good test which I have used is the result of a study by Gallup called Strengthsfinder. If you Google Strengthsfinder 2.0, you will find a book available for purchase online from many different bookstores. The book contains a code that can be used to take an online 45 minute test. This test will tell you what your top 5 strengths are. (note: make sure not to buy a used book as the code is only good once)

I took the test and found out that my top strength is that I am strategic. I approach almost everything from a strategic perspective. How will this move impact the next? I am also an "activator", which means I am likely to make quick decisions and am anxious to act. What is the value of this information?

These 5 strengths give you insight to your "personal current". By knowing this, you can gear everything in your life toward swimming with your current. For example, my second biggest strength is that I am a "learner". This means that any career I choose and even my leisure activities should involve learning. That is why I enjoy reading and visiting museums. However, I must remember that I am also an activator, so I should always be looking for ways to apply my learned knowledge. My experience is that this is when I am the happiest.

Where does your personal current lead? I recommend that you find out!