"There are no desperate situations, there are only people who get despaired in certain situations."
Tibetan proverb To a large extent, the preconceived notion with which managers approach reality also determines what they will achieve at the end of their day. There are results or stories and excuses. Failure to achieve results should not be confused with a lack of commitment. Not achieving the results may be a signal of poor resource planning or extra ad hoc demands. The ability of managers to distinguish between objective impediments and fake ones will determine both the culture and the commitment of the people in their teams to overcome obstacles and achieve results. Managers will always get more of whatever they tolerate. They do not endure poor performance. They tolerate poor performance. They do not endure a lack of resources. They tolerate the lack of resources. Getting into exhaustive stories and dramas can help Oscar nominees, but for people who want to focus on achieving certain goals, it can only lead to exhaustion and frustration. Tolerating drama will lead to a drama-heavy working environment. Tolerating productivity and high achievements will cause more success. Difficult circumstances are not reasons for failure. They are simply the environment within which we must achieve results. What is special about apologies is that there is a dose of truth in them. And the attention thrown at them has the effect of throwing gasoline on the fire. It will only ignite it. And it will lead to flames, fires, and missed opportunities. At some point, many people's energy goes to making excuses why something cannot happen, instead of focusing on how it is possible to happen within the current limitations. Here are specific examples of how managers can reformulate their questions to the team when they go wrong and start making excuses like: - We do not have enough people; -We do not have enough time; - We do not have the understanding of the client; - We are not clear on what exactly they want… etc. Questions that turn excuses into a framework for results: - Knowing that we do not have enough people, how can we achieve our goals, anyway? - Knowing that we do not have enough time, how can we still achieve our goals? - Knowing that we do not have an understanding of the client, how can we achieve our goals? - Knowing that we do not have clarity on what exactly they need, what can we do to achieve our goals? Managers may loot at the excuses as a list of potential risks. Focus on managing risks, not on drowning in a sea of excuses. The key element here is that managers should not rush to solve the problems of their people on autopilot. Rather, they should use the Socrates method and support their people to come up with solutions that are right for them. It is enough to create clarity, and a sense of urgency, and the results will come. One barrier for people to enter 100% in finding solutions and acting is their unpleasant experience with a previous manager. One who has taken stories and apologies too much into account, rather than working to increase the capacity of his team to overcome those apologies. Here, people develop a conditioned reflex and gravity to the excuses that lead them into the spiral of self-fulfilling negative prophecies. Then, as people turn every excuse into a reason for their success, they will have a greater sense of control over what is happening to them. They will become active instead of passive participants - not only in their work but also in life.
0 Comments
"Turning language into action is much more difficult than turning action into language."
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. They succumb to the difficulty at the expense of convenience. This 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 content of knowledge from several wagons of books, the competence for some models that are being studied in MBA programs, etc. All this technical knowledge is important, 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 courage and discipline. The managers are easily distracted when they do not have enough courage. They do not organize their time and priorities well. They hesitate to pay attention to the noise and not to the signals. When they lack enough courage - they put their comfort before the growth of others and the development of the company. What does this mean? For example, if managers know very well that they must address the unsatisfactory performance of a member of their team and they have to have a tough conversation, they often procrastinate. Thus hoping that things will work out on their own. But in the teams, almost nothing is fixed by itself. It is almost impossible to create order and clarity without some leadership and management. Only chaos and confusion can be created by themselves. These are the natural results when managers hesitate and procrastinate. 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 - to set ambitious goals, to give inspiring negative and positive feedback, to delegate, to align the company's goals with the needs of the people, to stimulate and celebrate small victories, to learn lessons from small and big failures, etc. In other words, we must address the gap between knowing and doing. The real things that stand in this gap are never material. There is no lack of supplies, budgets, or time. The real things are the lack of organization, courage, discipline, and adherence to one's high standards. Falling into the gap between knowledge and doing is inevitable. Simply because managers absorb a vast amount of information and new knowledge daily. The point is rather to note that the obstacles to overcoming everyday problems or crises are not related to the lack of new knowledge, but they are related to the lack of use of this knowledge. For example, if you want to achieve an even distribution of work in the team, you know very well that you should direct the new tasks to those people who are less busy now. You do not lack any special formula and knowledge of how to distribute the work effectively. However, instead of assigning the new tasks to more available people, you choose to give the tasks to those who are already very busy. Why does this happen? You choose to put extra work on already busy people, simply because you know that they will do the job. The genesis in their overloaded workload is in them. But the genesis of the uneven workload in the entire team is the manager of the team. These people quickly agree and finish the new job quickly. There is no debate about the fact that we do not train them, that we do not plan the new workload, that someone else has less work, etc. Especially with younger managers, there is a tendency to look for completely alternative solutions to the same old problems. Sometimes you just have to implement well-functioning and time-tested solutions. And not to constantly learn something new. The desire for continuous learning can be confused with the desire for constant procrastination. Learning is much more comfortable than actual work and collecting feedback from reality. But the reality is the best source of learning. Not the classroom. There is another manifestation of this gap between knowledge and doing. Managers complain that the same people on the teams 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 or simply not taking full responsibility, prefer to ask again and get the same answer again. 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 understand this on your own?”, etc. The 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 simply 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 entire company and bring them to their manager to solve. The job of the manager 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 in provoking their thinking and attitude to deal with challenges. Your proper work with people always starts with genuine work on yourself. "If you don't turn your life into a story, you just become part of someone else’s story."
Terry Pratchett This "Not my job" syndrome automatically disappears from the vocabulary of the managers right at the moment they realize that no matter where and for whom they work—they first and foremost work for themselves. And for their development. However, this “Not my job” syndrome is widely spread and may increase even more if it is not adequately tackled by team managers. And adequately means this - before jumping to conclusions, just have a frank conversation about this syndrome with the people in your team. This way it does not go unnoticed. But it also creates a safe space to have an honest conversation about what we can change. There is absolutely no reason for this "Not my job" syndrome to exist in a well-performing team. Especially when there is no clarity of who should be responsible for some additional work that needs to be done in the team. The person who might take on the responsibility might be the person who is the least busy right now. It might be the person who has the most experience. No matter what the principle is for determining whose job it is to do something extra, it is more important for the team to have the right attitude that there is no such thing as "Not my job" when it's my team's job. People usually want to do a good job. If the "Not my job" syndrome appears, it could be a signal that people are overloaded. But it could be also a tool for revenge by someone who has previously wanted support to get their job done, but nobody helped. If everyone in your team only does the work that is written in their job description, it is like having a room full of solo entrepreneurs. Everyone looks at his agenda, there is no sense of belonging. There is no teamwork. This “Not my job” syndrome can be a signal that there are too many changing priorities in the company. It can signal that people feel that there is no fair distribution of the current workload. But it can also mean that people react emotionally to triggers outside their work environment. Anyway, when you notice the "Not my job" syndrome in the daily meetings, the last thing you want to do is to blame your people. Before they understand you, you must understand them. You must consider what causes this syndrome. It may be a protective reaction. Just inertia. Or a combination of all this and something else. But it is also possible that it is a red flag that will take you to the maze of office stalkers and procrastinators. These are the people who say they are busy, but they spend most of their time spreading rumors and retelling half-understood stories from other colleagues. These people contact new colleagues and give a quick impromptu presentation of "who's who" in the office. They also spend 75% of their time in non-productive work–gossiping, stalking, etc. That is why these people constantly postpone the projects they have to complete. That is why no one relies on them to deliver something of value. However, these people also have a positive role - they have the function of social glue in the office. Sometimes this feature is more of a hindrance than a help when combined with the inevitable effect of a broken phone, which is generated by almost every new story they tell. Analyzing the "Not my work" syndrome can lead you to those office characters or others you do not even know exist. However, they exist, and they even have internal company labels created years ago by already retired employees. They outline the internal subcultures in different departments. No matter how large the constellation of office characters that contribute to the existence of the "Not my job" syndrome, the job of the managers is to create an environment in which people are proactive and eager to embark on new projects. Of course, one of the best ways to do this is to ask yourself: How do I "help" this - to have the "Not my job" syndrome in my team? The first way you "help" this problem to exist is by role modeling it. You say "this is not my job" often. Either verbally or just mentally. The people in your team listen with their eyes. It does not matter what you say. It is what you do. The second way you "help" this problem to exist is by ignoring it. Even if you think that it is not acceptable for any activities to end up in a vacuum of responsibility and clarity, you leave them that way. You just sit in this vacuum. So, at some point, the little snowball of "Not my job" turns into an unpleasant avalanche, in which the line "Not my job" sticks to almost anything new that needs to be done. The third way you "help" this problem to exist is by not encouraging people to take responsibility for things from this "Not my job" avalanche. They take risks, sometimes successfully, sometimes not, but the act of taking responsibility itself deserves to be acknowledged and recognized as a behavior that you value and encourage. The fourth way in which you "help" this problem to exist is by publicly punishing all the mistakes that have been made while taking on new tasks. You probably do it with good intentions - to make a point, to set high standards, etc., but you do it in the worst possible way—by pointing fingers in public. In every way of how you "help" this problem exists is a solution to the problem. But only if you take action against your own "helping." On the other hand, if you hear "Not my job" in some of your team meetings, it could be also a good signal. It could mean that the people in your team are not afraid to express their opinions. They are not afraid of conflict, and they are ready to have thoughtful disagreements. “Blaming someone else for your misfortunes is a sign that you need some training.
Once you blame yourself, then your training has begun. When you stop blaming yourself and others, then your training is complete.” Epictetus If you have any recurring problem in your team, it means only one thing. It means that you are the problem. This is it. This is also the effect of a cold shower. At first, it is painful and stressful. After a while, it becomes relaxing. The real and metaphorical cold shower has a lot of benefits: - improve blood circulation; - decrease stress; - create a good mood; - improve the immune system; - make you a better manager; Not a single problem in your team can exist chronically without your “help". For example, you may think that you have people who are not proactive enough and shy away from taking on additional responsibilities. But there is only one reason for this, and it is not related to the people themselves. It is related only to the manager of these people, i.e. with you. You, as a team manager, are also running away from responsibility. Your team is your mirror. If you want to change something in the mirror's image, you need to change the image that is standing in front of the mirror. Only then the reflection will change. Many managers try in vain to change the reflection without changing the original image. It is impossible. Both physically and metaphysically. Let's look at the example above with people who are not proactive and autonomous enough. There are a few reasons how you “help” this problem to exist. For example: - you set goals with a broad brush and when the results appear not as expected, you blur out “I didn't imagine it that way"; - you blame others of not understanding you correctly while you have not explained thoroughly; - you confuse accountability with throwing people under the bus; - you confuse being supportive with micromanaging people; - delegate in the format “step by step" (“do this", “check that", “call him", etc.); - you take every success for granted and you rarely acknowledge your people for a job well done; - you hyperbolize minor mistakes and place them on the wall of shame; - you confuse sarcasm towards others with a sense of humor. #bookcoldshowerformanagers www.equinox-partners.bg |
Архиви
March 2024
|