Какво спира хората в екипите да поемат нови отговорности отвъд длъжностната характеристика? | Подкаст епизод 661
--- Обучение за мениджъри в Zoom - http://www.equinox-partners.bg/effective-communication-and-motivation-for-managers-161860.html -- 3-месечна програма за развитие на ключови мениджърски умения (по заявка на една компания с мениджъри в групи до 12 души) - http://www.equinox-partners.bg/management-development-program.html
0 Comments
"Turning speech into action is much more difficult than turning action into speech."
Maxim Gorky In most cases, the managers do not lack knowledge about what and how to do, but they lack the courage and discipline to put their knowledge into practice. This insight comes as a surprise to the sponsors of the leadership programs when we start a new project. These sponsors typically think that the managers lack the knowledge from several wagons of books and the business models that are being studied in MBA programs, etc. All this technical knowledge is essential, but it is not the most important thing. Besides, it is readily available on Google and Amazon. The lack of knowledge rarely hinders managers in their daily work. The real obstacles are derived from the lack of courage and discipline. The managers do not organize their time and priorities well. They pay attention to the noise and not to the signals. When they lack courage - they put their comfort before their growth. Comfort and growth cannot co-exist. So, it is not a question of more knowledge to improve the performance of managers. It is a question of the real use of the already gained knowledge and skills - to set ambitious goals, to give inspiring feedback, to delegate, to align the company's goals with the needs of the people, to celebrate victories, to learn lessons from failures, etc. We must address the gap between knowing and doing. The real things that stand in this gap are never material. There is no real lack of supplies and budgets. The real things that lack are courage, discipline, and adherence to one's high standards. Falling into the knowing-doing gap is inevitable. The point is rather to note that the obstacles to overcoming everyday problems are not related to the lack of new knowledge, but they are related to the lack of the use of this knowledge. For example, if you want to achieve an even workload distribution in your team, you know that you should direct the new tasks to those who are less busy now. You do not lack any special formula and knowledge of how to distribute the workload effectively. However, instead of assigning the new tasks to more available people, you choose to give assignments to those that are already busy. Why does this happen? You choose to put extra work on the shoulders of already busy people simply because you know they will do the job. For the junior managers, there is a tendency to look for entirely new solutions to the same old problems. Sometimes you just must implement well-functioning and time-tested solutions. The desire for continuous learning can be confused with the desire for constant procrastination. Learning is much more comfortable than actual work. Actual work goes hand in hand with receiving negative feedback. This might be uncomfortable. There is another manifestation of this knowing-ding gap. Managers complain that the same people ask them about the same things - for example, how to answer a common customer request, how to fix something on the computer, etc. The frustration comes from wasting managerial time on questions whose answers are clear to the people, but they, out of habit, prefer to ask again and get the same answer again from their managers. The problem here is not with the people who are asking the questions. The problem is in the managers who provide the same answers repeatedly. The ones who ask questions should also be asked - "What do you think will happen if nothing has changed since last time?", "If you were in my shoes, what would you answer?", "How can you find out this on your own?", etc. Teams are always a reflection of their managers. When there are people who do not think for themselves and do not take responsibility for their actions - managers have developed a tolerance for others who do not take responsibility. When managers do not demand responsibility - they create bad habits in their people and open the door to learned helplessness. In this way, managers turn their people into walking mailboxes, which collect problems from the different corners of the company and bring them to their manager to solve. The manager's job is not to solve the problems of his team, but to increase the capacity of people to solve their problems. Whatever these problems are. To help people improve and solve their problems, you must first improve their thinking and attitude to deal with challenges. Your outstanding work with people always starts with genuine work on yourself. "Everything is poison, everything is a medicine; both are determined by the dose."
Paracelsus Toxic people in the office are not toxic by themselves, but rather have toxic behavior. This is an important distinction. There is a difference between the person and his behavior. We may treat them the same, but they are not. There is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy going on in the workplace. If you look at someone as a genius, egoist, innovator, victim, or any other type - the person will become such, eventually. We also know this phenomenon as the Pygmalion Effect. It became popular in modern days though the play by the same name by George Bernard Shaw. If you believe that a certain person is toxic, it will not be a surprise if at some point he becomes so with your help. This is the essence of the Pygmalion Effect. Your beliefs are fed by one simple thing. And it is called evidence. The more evidence you notice of a person's toxic behavior, the more you will solidify your beliefs. The harder it will be for you to be neutral and impartial in your observations and communication. The toxic behaviors by which you will recognize "toxic people" are all derivatives of talking behind people's backs; gossip, inappropriate sarcasm, constant negativity and comparison with others, etc. Also in this category is office drama, in which every usual event in the office is edited, directed, and released into office circulation. But the biggest drama for people with toxic behavior is the fact that they have to live with themselves. Simply because they suffer 24 hours from their compulsive behavior and thoughts. Unlike the surrounding people who see them just for a short while during the day. Once you have distinguished between a person and his toxic behavior, there comes the next step which involves looking at yourself. Toxic behaviors are impossible to exist unless the team manager "helps" them to exist. The question that can help you get out of your way is: "What in my leadership helps to have people with toxic behavior in the team?" Here you have to overcome your initial reaction: "They are toxic, it is not me.". Your team is your reflection. Negative behaviors in people simply reflect some negative behaviors in you. And it is with these behaviors you help this problem to exist. Let us look at a few ways your leadership helps you to have people with toxic behavior on the team. The first way to "help" this problem is by ignoring it. The second way is by hoping that it will disappear by itself. The third way is by communicating with these people mostly after you have received a complaint from someone else about them and you have entered some Solomonic role of dispensing justice and bringing order. This is how you "help" this problem to exist. These ways of creating this problem are used simply because they sometimes work, i.e. ignoring the problem sometimes leads to its natural elimination. Toxic behavior may have been simply a temporary condition because of personal problems, and their elimination may lead to stabilization and return to the normal work. But in most cases, ignoring and hoping for things to work out on their own will not work. The problem is not the toxic behavior of the people in the team. The real problem is the way managers react when they have such behaviors in the team. To change the situation, you must first change your attitude towards the situation. Hence, your role as a manager presupposes that you first address these people with a supportive rather than a condemning attitude. Managers usually exchange ultimatums with these people simply because they do not know how to approach them. So they go to war, from which everyone loses. A supportive attitude towards people with toxic behavior does not mean supporting and stimulating their behavior. It means reaching out to create awareness and change. Change can only happen by the people themselves. And only if they want it. And only if they are ready to go through all the usual difficulties of creating a new habit. For this change to happen, you need to have some tough quality conversations. And quality conversations do not mean accusing and condemning, but focusing on solutions. To be supportive. Even inspiring. For this to happen, you must first take care of your emotional balance. Then you must leave in your mind only a place for care and support for the person and nothing else. If there is a trace of accusation, even if only in your mind, do not have any conversations. First go into your resourceful state, in which you see the big "I" of the person, and only then have conversations. If you have conversations in which you do not accuse the person verbally of being toxic, but you hold this idea in your mind, your hypocrisy will be written on your face and 100% visible to everyone except you. Therefore, first, meditate on the removal of your demons and only then focus on the removal of others'. The next step is to make people understand what behavior is acceptable and what is not. For example, it is not acceptable to talk behind people's backs. To spread rumors with half-truths. To send sarcastic arrows between departments, and so on. People rely on their imagination when they do not have enough information. So if someone doesn't have the facts, the best strategy is to just tell them the truth - that there are no facts. Once you have clarified what is acceptable and what is not, the last step is to get a commitment from the other party to change and adhere to a common understanding of professional behavior. Commitment goes hand in hand with compliance. And its practice goes hand in hand with inspection. The supportive and encouraging check is a helping hand, not micromanagement. Even if things go well, people will easily return to old habits. Therefore, your role requires constant calibration of expectations at the behavior level. Every day. However, people with toxic behavior can dig into defense and say to themselves that their behavior is normal, non-toxic, and that they see no reason to change. This is also OK. You do not need to change anyone. Just because you cannot. Here, you may simply have people who are not suitable for your team, your values , and your understanding of professional behavior. This is also the place to invite people to leave with enthusiasm or to stay with enthusiasm under the professional norms of the organization. It is a big mistake to accept the third option, in which people stay in the organization and continue with their toxic behavior. This will be a sign that these toxic behaviors are supported by you. "Nothing has changed. I have changed, therefore, everything has changed.
Marcel Proust Flour, yeast, water, and all the other ingredients of a loaf of bread will never be eatable we hire unless someone to mix them in the right proportions, make the dough and bake it. If good bread is a metaphor for a good team, then the ingredients of the bread, by themselves, are not a piece of bread. Thus, the components of a team, by themselves, are not a team, unless there is kneading, fitting, and what many managers are afraid of - baking. There is no way to get good bread without baking, and there is no way to get a good team if its ingredients are not exposed to higher temperatures, stress, and difficulties. Both inside and outside the team. Stress at work is inevitable for people who want to develop. Similarly, a talented team has its ingredients - first and foremost - people. Then the processes, then the goals, then the culture, the infrastructure, the relationships with customers, partners, and suppliers. Even if you have the perfect people, with clear goals, organized processes, and good relationships, they will not become an excellent team if there is no one to unite them. Someone to knead them into a nice dough. What does it mean to knead the dough? Simply put, connect the components. Let people understand the goals. Adapt processes to ambitious goals. Not the other way around. If you follow this path - to change your goals, because of some internal processes - at some point, you will find yourself with a team composed of many doers and few thinkers. Once the kneading is done - people already know each other, are aware of the goals and priorities, have a feeling that they belong to a whole, to a dough. When the kneading has already been done, the fermentation follows. During leavening, the microorganisms in the yeast convert the sugars into carbon dioxide, which swells the dough. For the dough to rise well, it must be provided with a suitable temperature. The right temperature is a metaphor for the care you need to provide to your people. They should feel comfortable, have clarity, good relationships, and know their zodiac signs. The latter, of course, is not mandatory. But it helps. In the rising stage, your role as a manager may require some withdrawal. Let the yeast microorganisms do their work on their own. This means leaving people's natural interests and inclinations to achieve their goals to be left to develop and synchronize with each other. It may be better to leave the kitchen and leave your people to fend for themselves. Trust the natural processes. Of course, here you risk getting to where your dough rolls - it swells bubbles appear on the surface and it smells strong. Bread made from leavened dough is not dangerous, but it is of poorer quality and not very pleasant. So is the overworked team. It is still a team, but of poor quality. At some point, because of over-care by managers, people on teams may behave like children in kindergarten. Or to invent fictitious problems that don't exist but help them use their intelligence and working hours in a way that is fun for them. The last stage is baking. It comes a little closer to rising in that your intervention is not particularly needed. But only if you knead the dough well. And if you get the right degrees. If you knead it well, you do not let it roll. In the baking stage, the dough will just do its job and turn into bread. But you have to take care of the right baking temperature. It is a metaphor for the difficulties your team will go through. If your team can only deal with difficulties up to 220 degrees, more degrees can only lead to more damage. Not to more or better bread. You cannot make wonderful bread without baking. Nor can a wonderful team be created if it does not go through some difficulties and does not deal with them. If you balance kneading and baking well, you can finally have a piece of excellent bread. In other words - an excellent team. "The nobleman lays claim to himself, the average person to others." Confucius If managers are delegating responsibilities using too many words, such as: "call him", "write this", "check that", etc., instead of talking about outcomes, then probably they are micromanaging. As opposed to managing. Giving people freedom, instead of micromanaging them, leads to at least three things: 1) Opportunity for the people to find the best way for them to achieve the results. The same results will be achieved differently by different people, following common rules, procedures, and principles. 2) Opportunity for the people to fall and get up on their own. To build muscles to get up and deal with mistakes. Not muscles to automatically escalate to their managers. Too many escalations turn the people into walking mailboxes that only carry escalating problems from one part of the company to another. 3) Clearing the calendar of some operational tasks and focusing on more strategic goals; Managers find themselves in situations where they give freedom, then at the first difficulty, they rush to intervene, correct and help, i.e. take away the freedom of their people to cope on their own and to find a solution. Things that stop managers from giving people more freedom have nothing to do with other people. They have a lot to do with their insecurities. Lack of trust in others. And unresolved fears. Even if they think that they cannot give complete freedom because others are not completely ready, they do not give it because they are not ready. They are not ready to trust completely. They are not ready to part with their painful perfectionism. No one has an automatic sensor for the right dose of perfectionism. However, managers who find a way to self-regulate and trust people more inevitably take a step outside their comfort zone. In this area, they should leave themselves for a while in the discomfort of not knowing exactly how someone else will cope. To afford to suffer small losses. Because: Small losses turn into big wins. But to allow this to happen, managers must be comfortable with their discomfort of not having complete control over the result when delegating. The discomfort comes from the fact that: They do not have full control, but they have full responsibility. This discomfort causes this confusing pendulum movement when delegating: from complete freedom to zero freedom. Managers give freedom when they plan and have comfort. They take it away when they sweat from the discomfort and when the likelihood of impending failure becomes greater than the belief, that others will cope on their own. And now back to the beginning of the topic. If you are still using too many verbs like "call," "find," "send," etc., when delegating, you're probably trying to delegate from a place you don't fully trust your people. And the process. You can easily notice this if you get the impression that you are bombarding your people with too detailed information about exactly what to do, step by step. At some point, all the energy and attention of the people on the team will be focused on following your instructions step by step, instead of looking at the result and find their best steps. These steps will not be infinitely different from yours, but they will be theirs. Overcoming this problem of speaking with too many verbs can be done by focusing on outlining the ultimate results of the delegation. Instead of giving detailed instructions on how to get from Sofia to Varna, turn by turn, tell your people to just get to Varna in the fastest way. A typical mistake, however, that occurs when managers delegate with a description of the final results, rather than too much detail, is to reach the point of complete abdication and loss of contact with their people after delegating responsibilities. It comes down to a situation where team members say, "Some days I'd like to tell my manager to jump right out the window, but I'm afraid that he will delegate this to me."
"Everything is poison, everything is a medicine; both are determined by the dose." Paracelsus Toxic people in the office are not toxic by themselves, but rather have toxic behavior. This is an important distinction from the very beginning. There is a difference between the person and his behaviors. We may treat them the same, but they are not the same. There is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy going on in the workplace. If you look at someone as a genius, egoist, innovator, victim, or any other type - the person will become such, eventually. We also know this phenomenon as the Pygmalion Effect. It became popular in modern days though the play by the same name by George Bernard Shaw. If you believe that a certain person is toxic, it will not be a surprise if at some point he becomes so with your help. This is the essence of the Pygmalion Effect. Your beliefs are fed by one basic thing. And it is called evidence. The more evidence you notice of a person's toxic behavior, the more you will solidify your beliefs, and the harder it will be for you to be neutral and impartial in your observations and communication. The toxic behaviors by which you will recognize "toxic people" are all derivatives of talking behind people's backs; gossip, inappropriate sarcasm, constant negativity and comparison with others, etc. Also in this category is office drama, in which every usual event in the office is edited, directed, and released into office circulation with the length of a new film. But, frankly, the biggest drama for people with toxic behavior is the fact that they have to live with themselves. Simply because they suffer 24 hours from their compulsive behavior and thoughts, unlike the surrounding people who see them just for a short while during the day. Once you have distinguished between a man and his toxic behavior, there comes the next step which involves looking at yourself. Toxic behaviors are impossible to exist unless the team manager "helps" them to exist. The question that can help you get out of your way is: "What in my leadership helps to have people with toxic behavior in the team?" Here you have to overcome your initial reaction: "They are toxic, it is not me." Your team is your reflection. Negative behaviors in people simply reflect some negative behaviors in you. And it is with these behaviors you help this problem to exist. Let us look at a few ways your leadership helps you have people with toxic behavior on the team. The first way to "help" this problem is to ignore it. The second way is by hoping that it will disappear by itself. The third way is to communicate with these people mostly after you have received a complaint from someone else about them and you have entered some Solomonic role of dispensing justice and bringing order. This is how you "help" this problem to exist. These ways of creating this problem are used simply because they sometimes work, i.e. ignoring the problem sometimes leads to its natural elimination. Toxic behavior may have been simply a temporary condition because of personal problems, and their elimination may lead to stabilization and return to the normal work environment. But in most cases, ignoring and hoping things will work out on their own will not work. The real problem is not the toxic behavior of the people in the teams. The real problem is the way managers react when they have such behaviors in the office. To change the situation, you must first change your attitude towards the situation. Hence, your role as a manager presupposes that you first address these people with a supportive rather than a condemning or ultimate attitude. Managers usually exchange ultimatums with these people simply because they do not know how to approach them. So they go to war, from which everyone loses. A supportive attitude towards people with toxic behavior does not mean supporting and stimulating their behavior, but reaching out for awareness and change. Change can only happen by the people themselves. And only if they want it. And only if they are ready to go through all the usual difficulties of creating a new habit. To turn sarcasm and blaming into curiosity and support. For this change to happen, you need to address behaviors with quality conversations. And quality conversations do not mean accusing and condemning, but focusing on solutions. To be supportive. Even inspiring. For this to happen, you must first take care of your emotional focus. Then you have to leave in your mind only a place for care and support for the person and nothing else. If there is a trace of accusation and condemnation, even if only in your mind, do not have any conversations. First go into your resourceful state, in which you see the big "I" of the person, and only then have conversations. If you have conversations in which you do not formally accuse the person of being toxic, but you hold this idea in your mind, your hypocrisy will be written on your face and 100% visible to everyone except you. Therefore, first, meditate on the removal of your demons and only then focus on the removal of others'. The next step is to make people clear about what behavior is acceptable and what is not. For example, it is not acceptable to talk behind people's backs, to spread rumors with half-truths, to send sarcastic arrows between departments, and so on. People rely on their imagination when they do not have enough information. So if someone doesn't have the facts, the best strategy is to just tell the truth - that there are no facts. Once you have clarified what is acceptable and what is not, the last step is to get a commitment from the other party to change and adhere to a common understanding of professional behavior. Commitment goes hand in hand with compliance. And its observance goes hand in hand with the inspection. The supportive and encouraging check is an outstretched hand for support, not micromanagement. Even if things go well, people will easily return to old habits. Therefore, your role requires constant calibration of expectations at the behavior level. Every day. However, people with toxic behavior can dig into defense and say to themselves that their behavior is normal, non-toxic, and that they see no reason to change. This is also OK. You do not need to change anyone. Just because you cannot. Here, you may simply have people who are not suitable for your team, your values , and your understanding of professional behavior. This is also the place to invite people to leave with enthusiasm or to stay with enthusiasm under the professional norms of the organization. It is a big mistake to accept the third option, in which people stay in the organization and continue with their toxic behavior. This will be a signal that these toxic behaviors are established and supported by you.
"People lack not strength but will." Victor Hugo One of the common frustrating factors for managers is working with the so-called. "Slippery departments". Such departments, in whose answers every third word is "it depends". The managers in these departments that find it difficult to take a firm stand. And when they take it, they often change it. Even before the day is over. But of course, the real problem is not the existence of such slippery departments. The real problem is the skill level of the different managers to work with such slippery departments. I ask in the training rooms managers how they "help" this problem to exist. Some answers are: - We "help" by not escalating to the highest possible level; - We "help" by doing the work that another department has to do; - We "help" by avoiding direct debate; - We "help" by accepting the non-taking of a firm position by other departments; - We "help" by hoping that things will get better when the manager of the other department gets transfired. Transfired = Transferred + Fired This so-called "Slipperiness" can exist for a variety of reasons. But it cannot last long without the "cooperation" of the people who complain about it. The point is to turn complaints into a desire to solve problems, not into vicious circles that result in learned helplessness. "Two monologues do not make a dialogue."
Jeff Daly The title of this topic may seem a bit anti-intuitive to managers who are constantly in a hurry and want to be understood. They hurry with the best of intentions - just to get the job done. To feel the adrenaline of speed and achievement. But 100% of the results in your teams only happen through people. There is no other way. Nothing happens by itself. And these people, before giving in to their work, must first feel accepted, heard, seen, and be aware of the goals and priorities. Only then can they focus their attention and energy on achieving the goals. A good metaphor for this topic is when you squat before jumping. Before you jump, there is a moment of stabilization, squatting and only then bouncing. This jump stabilization is equal to your understanding of the people on the team with whom you are about to accomplish your goals. And only then, their understanding of your vision. To build a bridge between your vision and its fulfillment, you will inevitably need a team to help you. Not a team to bother you. Sometimes teams naturally hinder and sabotage their manager. This is a normal reaction when people feel they are used and that we see them as consumables. This does not mean that managers view them as easily replaceable parts. But that may be the feeling in the people, and that feeling depends only on them. We must make some change if this feeling of consumables proves to be chronic. It is up to the manager not to ignore this sabotage by the team, hoping it will work out on its own. It is just a symptom of something that needs to be fixed. It can be a broken process that frustrates people. It can be the increasing pressure to do more with less. Or it could just be that people are not in the right places anymore and need job rotation. The state in which you have the right people in the right places is always temporary. It is only a matter of time before there is a change in the external environment, in the people on the team, or yourself. In other words, to have the right people in the right places, you will also need to have the right expectation that this configuration will be rearranged. To get this configuration - to have the right people in the right places, you must first be in the mode of listening, exploring, and getting to know each other. In short - in mode to understand them. And only then do they understand you. Once people move towards their goals, the fuel for their movement is in them. Unlike gas station fuel, the fuel that drives most of the people on the teams is free. This, of course, does not mean that they work for free or for small salaries. That means something else. The fuel that usually drives and energizes the people in the teams for a long time is free because it takes the form of: - Feeling that someone else cares about people as people, not just as positions; - Having a sense of belonging; - Taking pride in the work; - Having clear priorities; All the above are completely free. They give energy and meaning to the people in the teams. In this list, the emotional elements are a little more than the rational ones. And they are in this sequence. When discussing engagement and motivation, managers switch mainly to a rational mindset - how to evaluate and compare performance, what the bonus system is, and so on. But people are driven much more by emotional than by rational factors. And all these things that form the free fuel (feeling that someone else cares, pride in work, etc.) will not appear by themselves. They will emerge from people's communication with their managers. If these managers have the attitude to understand first, things happen very easily and naturally. The speed will appear by itself. Refueling with this free fuel, however, is not a onetime exercise. This charge also does not coincide with the monthly and quarterly job and career conversations. These second conversations may go according to plan, but refueling requires a different daily effort. No one fills their car at the gas station until they run out of fuel. But that's exactly what managers do with their teams. They think of them as people, not positions, only after they run out of fuel. Only when they are already on the verge of burnout. If you think that with monthly meetings or with such meetings in two weeks you can have and manage a team, you soon realize that you do not have a team. You just have people who report to you. But in reality - you don't have a team. Simply because you cannot know your people well if you don't keep up with them regularly for the operational and strategic goals. "If you have the determination to do something, it's done."
Confucius Imagine teaching a child how to ride a bike. The child will hesitate, sway, and probably will fall many times over. However, you will never him he would never learn how to bike. You will accept his temporary failures, but you will not give up teaching him. Acceptance means that you follow the pace of the child and accept his speed of learning and development. And again - without giving up and without resigning from teaching him. You do not resign, simply because temporary failures are just that - temporary. Grit, perseverance, and discipline will help the child learn how to ride a bike. Just like any other adult has learned. But what happens in teams when people go through their temporary setbacks? Often their managers do not accept them. They do not accept failures; they do not accept people with temporary failures. One reason that this happens is that managers confuse acceptance with giving up. And acceptance is the ground on which new skills and confidence grow. If there is no acceptance, it is like planting wheat in an asphalt parking lot and waiting for something to sprout. What happens when there is no acceptance? When there is no acceptance, there are accusations, condemnation, and abdication. From the ground of accusations and condemnation raise fears, insecurities, and a desire to escape. No reasonable manager wants to develop these feelings in his people. However, they are emerging precisely because of managers who do not find the right way to create the right ground. One important addition - acceptance, as a manager, you do it for yourself, not for someone else. You need this healthy selfishness so you do not take on the role of the martyr who helps, supports, and accepts everyone to feel good and sufficient. No. The direct and recent benefits of acceptance are for the other party - it receives encouragement, experience, and confidence. But the indirect and long-term benefits are for the accepting managers who do not give up. |
Архиви
July 2024
|