#33-4-30-07: Managing As You Like It!
Managing As You Like It!
“It’s my comfort that’s most important!”
Posted by Steven Cerri on Monday, April 30, 2007
I have the belief that most managers either manage based on how they would like to be managed or they manage based on how they were managed early in their lives. And examples of this are everywhere. Here’s one.
I know a relatively high level manager who uses predominately, as a management style, the style he likes used on him. He manages using a relatively “hands-off” management style. He gives his direct reports a great deal of freedom. Sounds great doesn’t it. Who wouldn’t want to be managed this way?
Not so fast.
Some of his direct reports love this hands-off management style. Some don’t. Instead of getting support, guidance, critiques, input, advice, and direction, they get autonomy, freedom, and “empowerment”. Some of his direct reports feel that, in this way, they can show their true leadership capabilities. However, some of his direct reports complain that they feel as if he doesn’t care about their success, they feel abandoned.
So which is it? What should a manager do, cater to each whim of his or her direct reports?
The bottom line is that some of this manager’s direct reports are pleased that he is not heavily involved in their work. Some of his direct reports are not pleased with his hands-off approach. He, like most managers, uses the same management style regardless of the direct report and regardless of the situation.
This of course is no surprise. This is a natural tendency. Plenty, if not most of the managers use this “one size fits all” approach. Only in management we might call it,
“one management style fits every direct report and every situation”.
Now some young managers with little experience might think this is a great way to be managed. They might think, “Leave me alone and I’ll prove myself to you and the organization. Isn’t this the way managers become leaders… trial by fire.” Young managers may also believe this is the best way for them to manage their direct reports, as well.
I can guarantee you that with some experience, these young managers will change their minds.
When we think about the management style I’ve discussed above and the preferences of the direct reports, there are questions that quickly come to mind:
1. “Has the direct report asked the manager for closer supervision and more interaction?”
2. “Why is this manager so distant?”
3. “If the direct report wants more guidance, why isn’t the manager providing it?”
One of his direct reports asked why he was so hands-off in his management style. The direct report indicated that they would like more interaction with the manager.
He told this direct report that when he was a young employee and even a young manager, he didn’t want to be “micro-managed”. He didn’t like being managed too closely, and in fact, he felt most comfortable when his manager left him alone a lot. He still prefers to be managed that way by his current boss. The less interaction the better. Because he likes to have a lot of autonomy he thought that his direct reports would like that autonomy as well. In fact, he selected direct reports who would like being left alone. His management approach was to select people, place them in a position, leave them alone to do their best work, and if their best work wasn’t good enough, he’d replace them. This is the way he was treated, and and the way he wanted to be treated, and so it’s the way he decided to treat his current direct reports.
This answer is so common as to be applicable in probably 90% of management situations.
This manager also told a story that is very common among managers, it’s happened to me as well. This manager said that he once had a direct report who came to him with ideas every now and then. The manager would listen to the ideas and then give the direct report his ideas in return. He also often gave the direct report direction. This went on for some time, until one day the direct report told the manager that he didn’t like the manager giving him direction “all the time”. He didn’t like being “micro-managed”. (How many of us have heard that line?)
This was just the type of feedback necessary to reinforce the manager’s position that people should be given autonomy and not be managed too closely. And so, he was further convinced that giving people a good deal of autonomy was the best management style. He had evidence from his own direct report. There it was. He had just been told by his direct report that he was managing too closely. This sealed the manager’s choice of management style for years to come.
This is the process by which most managers develop their management styles. They have a preference; they use it; they sort for and look for those pieces of evidence that support our selection; their choice gets reinforced; and on and on it goes.
This situation is not uncommon. Most managers are faced with this situation and most managers handle it exactly the same way this manager has. They pick the management style that is most suitable and comfortable to them, to how they want to managed… and they do not take into account the preferred management style of the direct reports or the best management style for the situation.
I propose a very different solution, as follows…
“I don’t care about the preferred management style of the manager; pick the management style that is most suitable to the direct report AND the task being performed.
A manager need not cater to the whims of his or her direct reports. Neither should a manager stick with one management style regardless of the circumstances. A manager should be flexible enough to select the best management style based on the situation, the context.
I call this adjustment to the situation or the context, “Contextual Definition©”. Contextual Definition allows the manager to select the best and most effective management style based on the situation and the employee not on the manager’s comfort. It is a much more effective and efficient approach. More on Contextual Definition© in future blogs.
Be well,
Steven Cerri
Posted by Steven Cerri on 04/30 at 09:30 AM (0) Comments • Permalink
#32-4-23-07: Hired for technology & fired for fit
Hired for technology & fired for lack of fit
“Technolgy or Fit; which is it?”
Posted by Steven Cerri on Monday, April 23, 2007
Here is another case study of the adage… people are hired for their abilities and fired for their lack of fit. This applies to technical people and non-technical people as well.
I have a client and friend who manages a group of people. He has had two assistants over the past two plus years. The responsibilities of the assistants is to support him and the department and to interact with personnel from other departments. This is a pretty typical situation found in most corporations and organizations. An executive has an executive assistant who takes care of a lot of the departmental and interdepartmental details for the executive.
His first assistant was very smart, very efficient, and very knowledgeable… and very difficult. This assistant seemed cold, rude, and difficult to deal with. This assistant’s people skills were, to a very large degree, what we might call, missing. Things got done very quickly, but the conflict that was ultimately involved by having to deal with this person actually made the task take longer, with lingering issues. Most of the people who had to work with this assistant complained that this person is difficult.
His new assistant is perhaps not as efficient, perhaps not as experienced in the department’s functions… and very pleasant. This assistant seems warm, helpful, and easy to deal with. This assistant’s people skills are, to a very large degree, what we might call, excellent. The actual tasks take a little longer to get done when compared to the first assistant, but when they are done they are done, and the process is smooth, and there are no lingering issues, except those of “it was easy working with that person, I look forward to it again”. Most of the people who work with this person smile and say that the assistant is a pleasure to work with.
The bottom line is that the first assistant got very low marks even though that person was efficient. Ultimately the first assistant got pushed out because no one wanted to work with that person. The second assistant was hired as a replacement and everyone wants the new assistant to stay.
Once again it comes down to: “People are hired for their abilities and are fired for their lack of fit.”
This is how it went for the assistant to a department head. It is how it goes for a technologist. It is how it goes for a technical manager. Your technical abilities are no guarantee of success, they are merely necessary but not sufficient for success.
But was is “fit”? How do you know whether you fit?
Fit is a broad term for how human beings interact. If they interact in a way that meets with everyone’s usually unspoken consensus, (or at least most of the people in the group) then the fit is high. If the interaction is not “comfortable” for most of the group then the fit is low.
Notice that this definition means that there is no “absolute” measure of fit. We can say, “This is how you should fit into your organization”? Although there are people, managers, consultants, and trainers who will tell you different, they are wrong. Just look at the business news, or read some of my past blogs. You’ll find plenty of evidence that organizations have different ways of defining “fit”.
Lets look at some examples. Oracle has a different definition of fit than say Intuit ... or...
Home Depot under Robert Nardelli had a different definition of fit than say Boeing under MnNerney ... or ...
Chrysler has a different definition of fit than say Wal-Mart … as evidenced by Julie Rohm.
So fit isn’t an absolute parameter, it’s a relative parameter.
Now having said that, there are certainly fit-definitions that many people generally aspire to. For example, we could say that most people want to be respected, feel heard, and generally be treated in a positive way. (Remember my assistant story at the beginning of this blog?)
However, when you join a company, remember that you are joining a culture that already exists. Will you be able to “fit” there? It’s generally impossible to know when you join a company exactly how fit will be defined for certain and what you’ll have to do to make a fit. It’s very much like the beginning of a new romantic relationship. Everyone is on their best behavior.
In an attempt to know how fit you will be in the company and how fit the company will be with you, many companies have a 90-day probationary period for new employees. This period is an attempt to determine if the “fit” is right. You are on your best behavior and so it often seems that everything is working just fine.
But then the after the 90-day probationary period, the “bloom is off the rose” so to speak. People get comfortable. Their real personalities begin to show. Times get stressful. The company is having some challenges or you are having some personal or professional challenges. Whatever it is, the situation shifts and the organization is different and it expects something different from you. Now your question is, “are you going to adjust” or stay as you have up until now? This is the question.
Those who don’t adjust… ultimately get fired or moved aside. Those who do adjust, stay, usually.
There is no right or wrong here. There is only what is comfortable for you and what works. If you don’t want to adjust, then don’t. Start looking for another job. If you can and want to adjust, then do.
And when you are hiring people, just keep in mind that you will probably hire them because they have the abilities you want and they “seem” to be a fit for your organization. Downstream, if you lay them off or fire them, it will probably be because they really didn’t fit. That’s one the big lessons of management and leadership.
In my coaching practice I have coached many people who were very close to being fired, let go, or laid off. In every case, I was brought in by the manager of the person at risk of termination. In every case, the manager valued the employees technical abilities and they wanted to keep the person. But the lack of fit, the lack of people skills, had placed the manager in a position where they were forced to lay the employee off. Other people didn’t want to work with this employee. Program managers didn’t want them on their teams. For their manager, it was their last resort. “Can you help this person work better with his or her colleagues, because if not, I’m going to have to lay them off”, were the words from their managers.
In every case, these people became either the next generation of managers in their companies or the star technical people in their organizations.
Fit can be adjusted. The fist step is to understand what it is and then how to adjust it.
Be well,
Steven Cerri
Posted by Steven Cerri on 04/23 at 09:47 AM (0) Comments • Permalink
#31-4-16-07: It’s all about them!
It’s all about them!
“Influence is...”
Posted by Steven Cerri on Monday, April 16, 2007
I recently read a question in April 23, 2007 BusinessWeek magazine (the Analyze This article of the UpFront section.) Part of the question was the following: “We have an employee who turns every interaction ---work-related or not---into a conversation about her. She’s otherwise good at her job, but folks are beginning to avoid meetings with her or task forces on which she serves. “She sucks the air out of the room,” a co-worker complained. Is there a polite way to stifle this behavior?”
There you have it. A situation we have all been in at one time or another. Maybe it’s even us who are constantly turning the conversation into one about us. We are after all the most interesting people we know.
The official person responding to this question answered as follows:
“Since the current strategy, avoidance, doesn’t seem to be helping, you’re going to have to confront her about this. That doesn’t mean merely hinting.... someone, preferably her supervisor or a colleague who has enough of a relationship with her so that constructive observations aren’t rejected out of hand--- should talk to her privately. Politely but firmly, tell her that her work is valued but that she may not realize how much she turns the subject to herself. .... You’ll need to keep her contempt in check. Otherwise, she may make that the subject of your talk, once again hijacking the discussion to meet her needs.”
There you have it. The official answer from BusinessWeek. My response is that the recommendation… won’t work.
BusinessWeek’s response contains a seed of truth in it… in the sentence “...someone, preferably her supervisor or a colleague who has enough of a relationship with her...” All purposeful influence requires that a positive relationship exist first. You can have accidental influence without it, but if you want to intentionally move someone in a direction, you must first have a relationship. And I do mean “first”. If you don’t have a positive relationship first, you can count on your message getting either ignored, rejected, or misinterpreted. That’s pretty much the only part of the BusinessWeek response I agree with.
So let’s start at the beginning. We all know someone who takes the whole conversation over making it about them. It may be us sometimes. It may be others. It may be our boss. It could be technical colleagues or non-technical colleagues. It could be customers. It may occur some of the time, it may occur only when relating to certain subjects, or it may occur all the time. If you are a technical manager or even a member of a technical team, how do you either control this situation or at the very least help influence it in the right direction… the direction of full participation by everyone?
You see, I don’t see this situation much different than the person who never talks and never contributes their ideas. The person who constantly turns the conversation into one about them is just the opposite end of the spectrum compared to the person who never says anything. So as a technical manager or a technologist who wants to influence this situation, what should you do?
We’ve got to take one more step back for a moment before answering that important question. And the step back is this. I believe that people behave in ways that they have found useful. People do not knowingly behave in ways that hurt them. They behave in ways that they believe will help them to succeed. So the person who is constantly turning the conversation into one that is about them has found that very useful in the past, just as the person who says nothing has found that behavior to be useful in their past. Perhaps it has to do with safety or with success or with visibility. Frankly, I don’t care about the “why” reason. I only am concerned to notice behavior and to understand that that behavior has been useful for that person in the past and they continue to think that it will be useful; that’s why it is still showing up.
Now notice, that as soon as I take the position that the behavior is useful in some situation, my attitude toward what to do begins to change. It’s not so much a problem. It’s more a situation where I, as the person who wants to influence this behavior in another person, must provide an alternative so that the person will find a new behavior more acceptable to their outcome than the current one. One of the best ways to do this is to determine if the person is “moving towards” something or is “moving away from” something. If they are moving toward something, then I must give them a better way to achieve it. If they are moving away from something then I have to give them a better way to avoid it. (The article didn’t even mention this. The article’s answer was essentially to threaten the employee...."shape up or else!")
So the first step is to determine if the employee is either moving toward or moving away from and this can be done with some casual conversation. Once you know which it is the next step is to build non-verbal rapport with the person. This can be achieved over the phone or in person. In either case, the goal is to build a comfortable relationship that allows the employee to feel comfortable with the conversation. Contrary to many impressions, building rapport can take a couple of minutes, no more.
Once rapport is built the influential conversation can go something like this for both cases:
Moving Towards (For this example, I’ll assume the person wants to be heard..)
“Sue, I understand that you want to be heard because you have many good ideas. And I also know you want to be influential as a team member and have your ideas integrated into those of the whole team. Most of what we accomplish now days can’t be accomplished by one person, nor by one person’s ideas. Our accomplishments are really due to all of us contributing our ideas. You would be more effective and more completely heard if you would question and pull ideas from your colleagues and once all the ideas are on the table, you can help us integrate all the ideas, including yours into a coherent whole.”
This is the first conversation to have with Sue and it is the conversation that must be on-going. It must be said in various ways and when it seems appropriate. In this way, Sue will find other and better ways to achieve her outcome while helping the team and you, the manager, achieve the team outcome.
Moving Away From (For this example, I’ll assume the person is attempting to avoid criticism or avoid embarrassment.)
“Sue, I know sometimes our meetings can get pretty intense and sometimes even contentious. I know that sometimes technologists want to avoid all that conflict and tension. Sometimes I do to. And yet, some people who avoid speaking can have the best ideas. We need those ideas. We need all the ideas in order to do the best job we can. There are some good ideas and there are some not-so-good ideas. If we put all the ideas on the table, regardless of who put them there, we can all look at them and I’m convinced that the best ideas will be obvious to everyone. It’s like cream rising to the top of the milk. Everyone is part of the team.”
This is what I would say to Sue if she didn’t speak up often. However, in this case, I can’t leave it with this. I have to couple what I’ve said to Sue with something I have to say to the whole team at the next meeting. Whenever possible I have to start saying the following at every meeting that Sue attends; “I want you all to understand that everyone’s ideas are important. My approach is to put all ideas on the table and as we look at all those ideas, the best ideas will become evident to all of us. We’ll see it, modify it if necessary and move on from there. So everyone’s ideas are necessary for this process to work and I expect all of you to participate.”
This sends a message to the team that all ideas are to be heard and respected and it sends another message to Sue that you expect her to contribute and that the team knows all ideas are welcome.
The process I’ve outlined obviously needs some practice, but it works. It has worked for me and it works for those who have taken my classes and those whom I’ve coached. It’s not simple, but people often aren’t. Situations like this don’t lend themselves to 100 word responses, but I can guarantee you that the approach I’ve outlined here works, and that guarantee is based on experience.
Be well,
Steven Cerri
Posted by Steven Cerri on 04/16 at 07:37 PM (0) Comments • Permalink
