Do We Have the Right Tools?

Photo by Barn Images on Unsplash

This isn't a picture of my husband's garage, but it could be. The man has a 4-car garage in which neither of our cars can fit because of the number of tools, but it seems almost every project requires a different one. How many different screwdrivers can there be?

But I admit he takes care of all those fix-it jobs around the house that I cause. If something can be broken, I will break it. So there's a reason for all those tools (or so I am told).

In the last blog post, I talked about setting clear expectations. Obviously, people have to know what you want before they can do it. However, if they don't have the proper tools, they may still fall short. And that's on managers, not the employees.

In order for employees to perform to standards, they need a clear understanding of the performance standards and they must have the proper tools. These tools include proper training, required tools (equipment and supplies), and adequate time. If we have not provided those items, it isn't fair to chastise the employee. Yes, I have seen employees do extraordinary things with a shortage of all of these things, especially in a crisis, but it isn't reasonable to expect superior results with inferior support on a continuing basis.

Ask yourself, have I:

• Provided comprehensive training on the task I want them to accomplish?
• Given them adequate supplies and equipment to get the job done safely?
• Provided enough time to do a quality, safe job?

It's our job to provide what employees need to meet our expectations for performance. Let's not let them down.

Do They Know What You Want?

Photo by Ameer Basheer on Unsplash

Today I had a coaching session. Nothing new there, but some people are a joy to work with because they really want to make themselves better leaders and are willing to do the work necessary to make that happen. David is one of those people.

He asked for a book to read during a hiatus in our coaching schedule due to his company's workload. I recommended, It's the Manager by Gallup. He said a previous book he had read by Gallup, First Break All the Rules, was one he had found very helpful, especially two questions, "Do they know what you want?" and "Do they have what they need to do it?" I could see this was very much a part of his leadership style and had helped successfully improve the performance of his people and his section.

Our conversation reminded me of the importance of setting clear expectations. Many times we believe we have been clear. Or we may just believe we shouldn't have to spell things out because "everyone knows" about certain expectations in the workplace. I have had managers tell me they shouldn't have to tell their employees what they expect because, "No one told me. I figured it out."

And we wonder why the performance we get isn't the performance we want.

My husband and I used to play in a dart league when we were younger. You had a scoreboard and you knew exactly what you needed to hit in order to make your target (and it wasn't always the bullseye.) Once you knew what you needed, it was a matter of focus and skill to win.  You could always just throw the dart in the general direction of the board and hope for the best, but in that case, winning was a matter of luck, not focus or skill. And winning wasn't likely. You have much better success when you have a specific spot on the board you're aiming at (a clearly defined target.)

Clear expectations tell people exactly what they have to do to be successful. You may need to demonstrate or to provide examples. One of the managers I coached had a fast food restaurant and was frustrated because his people had "no work ethic." He said he would tell them to "stock the front," but when he checked their work, it wasn't done. The issue wasn't that his employees were lazy, it was that their idea of what he meant by "stock the front" and his idea, were not the same. I told him to stock the front the way he wanted it to look when he gave that instruction and then bring his employees out and show them. Explain the standard for each element of the task. Once this was done, they understood what he wanted and he had much better performance.

Give your people a clear target if you want to win.

Who's Accountable for Accountability?

By Sajib Hossain01
 Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0
 httpscommons.wikimedia.org
windex.phpcurid=74177553

How many times have you or one of your managers said, “Employees just won’t take responsibility. They don’t want to be accountable.” Well, Mr./Ms. Employer, if your employees don’t take responsibility, it’s probably, to a great degree, your fault.

Some employees are sufficiently self-motivated to do what needs to be done, regardless of the circumstances. A few will perform poorly, regardless of what you do, until you let them go. But the vast majority of your employees want to do a good job but need occasional course corrections. The truth is, the performance of most employees will sink to the level the organization will accept. Organizations tend to drag good performers down. Therefore, it is vital to pay attention to the messages we send by our daily actions.

The responsibility for creating an accountability culture belongs to the leaders in the organization. Here are some accountability basics:

•         Set standards and communicate them—clearly and often. Everyone needs to know what’s expected of them.
•          Don’t encourage the “blame game.” To have an accountability culture, you have to have open communication where people can accept responsibility and admit mistakes. If your response to mistakes is "off with his head," you can bet you won't hear about them or if you do, fingers will be pointing at others. You don’t have to accept repeated errors from someone, but we all fall short sometimes.
•          Correct poor performance. People have to be told when their performance falls short of the standard so they can improve, and there need to be consequences when they do not.
•          Reward superior performance. We tend to focus on telling people where they fall short—recognize instead where they excel. There should be a clear tie between rewards and results.
•          Don’t let excellent performance in one area provide carte blanche for an employee to disregard other standards. Too often we allow the best technician/salesperson/etc. to be a jerk or get away with violating our ethics or values in other areas.

As a leader in your organization, you are responsible for setting and enforcing standards—you should be held accountable for accountability in your organization. Accountability starts at the top.

The Feedback Sandwich--No

Photo by Victoria Shes on Unsplash

Yesterday, I was again in a training event where I was told how great the feedback sandwich is. For those who don't know what a feedback sandwich is, it is a method used to address performance issues with employees that ostensibly saves their feelings and helps performance. Basically, you tell the person something they are doing well, then tell them the thing you would like to see them do better, then end with something they are doing well.

Although there are times when the feedback sandwich may be a useful tool, over time I have become convinced it is a tool for a lazy supervisor.

Look at the hotdogs on the left. I am not a hot dog fan. I don't eat them often, but when I do, I load them up with a lot of other ingredients (more than you see here) so I don't taste the hotdog. That's really what happens with a feedback sandwich. The good things surrounding the area for improvement, which is usually why we are having the conversation to start with, cover up the "meat" of the feedback. Consequently, our employee doesn't get the true flavor of the sandwich.

But you say, "The sandwich helps keep a person from feeling bad and ensures they know I see all of the good things they are doing as well as the bad." In truth, if you have a person that has a lot of angst over negative feedback, they will generally ferret out the negative, regardless of how small, and fret over it anyway. Most other people will focus on the first and last and treat the middle as a minor issue if they hear it at all.

We all want our people to perform at an optimum level. We all want our employees to be motivated. And no one likes to be an ogre. So how do we give feedback correctly?

First, we work hard to create feedback culture. Much of the reason people freak out over negative feedback is because they don't get much feedback at all. The feedback we give them isn't done correctly.

I don't want to make this post too long so I will not go into details on how to deliver feedback; I'll just say we need to give a lot more of it, most of it positive. We look at feedback as a negative thing. Instead, as leaders we should look at feedback as a critical leadership tool. A person cannot improve without feedback. Failing to give frequent feedback, both good and bad, is cheating our employees. We are holding them back from reaching their potential.

Regular, honest feedback, good and bad, helps people grow and to perform better. The more feedback people get, the more they look at feedback as part of the work culture and expect it. If feedback is done properly, it doesn't feel like a personal attack, it feels helpful, because it is.

Philosophizing

Photo: NIOSH, Public Domain,
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=39802192

This week more than most, I have had time to talk to companies about their philosophy toward employees and the role of HR. So I thought I would take a minute to share the basics of my own.

• Our employees are potentially the single greatest competitive advantage we have. If that isn't true in your workplace, it's on the company's leadership.
• Most employees want to do a good job; many want to do a great job. Only the very rare individual stays up nights thinking of ways to make your life miserable.
• Respect, civility, and fun make any workplace better.
• Employees model their leadership, so choose your models wisely.
• Maximum transparency is best. What employees don't know about the employer's motivations and actions, they make up. What they imagine is never good for the employer.
• Honesty truly is the best policy. But if you make a habit of shooting the messenger, you won't get it.
• HR's job is to help the organization take advantage of the enormous talent of the workforce in order to achieve the organization's goals. Not to be the compliance Nazi or party central. Compliance and fun are important, in small doses. They should comprise a very small slice of HR's time.

HR Metrics Are Meaningless

Photo by William Iven on Unsplash

I came across another article this week on HR metrics. Based on the title, "Which HR Metrics Will Matter in 2019?", I thought, "Great!" But once again, I was severely disappointed.

But first, what is a metric? If you look it up in the dictionary, it will tell you it relates to the metric system of measurement. However, as used in business, a metric translates data into some chart or graph that helps with decisionmaking. What were the Big 3 metrics cited in the article? Labor turnover (voluntary resignations), Absence rate, and Number of employees per HR staff member. ARRGGH!! The other measures mentioned in the article as useful are also not where we should be focusing our attention (although there are some good reasons to look at them on occasion.)

Most of the metrics I see in HR departments are busyness metrics--how much of something was done. Other metrics are efficiency metrics--how fast or how cheaply is a process done. I am not saying there is not some value in those, but the value is limited, and truly, the only people who should care are the people in HR. We should be concerned with reducing workload and being efficient with our resources. But from a company leadership viewpoint, I want to know impact. If the results aren't there, then I don't care how efficient the process is. If the results aren't there, I don't care how busy you are.

The problem with HR metrics is that it is very difficult to measure the impact of HR processes and generally, HR policies and practices do not operate in a vacuum, so it is tricky to try to isolate the impact of specific HR programs.

Fundamentally, HR is there to help the workforce be more productive and to leverage the talents of the people in the organization to help the organization achieve its objectives. Wouldn't you agree?

I can see a reason to track turnover. But the value in turnover is not the overall number. Personally, I like to see both voluntary and involuntary turnover. Voluntary turnover can indicate cultural, management, and compensation issues. But more importantly, who is leaving? Critical skill turnover is more important to me than turnover as a whole. When are people leaving? If shortly after hire, we need to look at our hiring and onboarding processes. Is there some other timeframe that seems to have a higher percentage of people leaving? Why? Involuntary turnover in good economic times can indicate poor hiring practices.

But I don't really care about the other two measures cited in the article. What might I look at instead? Every organization is different so I would expect the measures to be different. However, two that should be considered are Revenue Per Employee (this varies hugely by industry) and Employee Engagement. I look at revenue versus profit because although employees have a big impact on the revenue brought into the company, management determines how much of that revenue turns into profit. I would track employee engagement because study after study has shown higher engagement means higher returns.

There are other possibilities, but they should be based upon each business's unique niche and business objectives.