Carrots and Sticks

Photo by Dan Burton on Unsplash

 I hear many employers complain about the "everybody gets a trophy" mindset of "young people today." Our younger employees (and really, the Millennials many complain about are not that young anymore) want many of the same things we do, they are just more willing to ask for it. Everyone wants to be recognized for doing a good job.

Some of you have probably heard the expression, "The absence of pain is its own reward." In other words, if no one is yelling at you, life is good. You have probably also heard, "What gets measured, gets done." The stick aligns with the first statement. The stick tells an employee the minimum bar. If I go below this, I'll get yelled at. So the goal is to stay above that line. However, the stick doesn't tell me what you really want, just what you don't want.

This brings us to the carrot. We tend to think of the carrot as money, but the carrot is recognition. Yes, money can be a carrot, but truthfully, it isn't the most effective carrot over the long term. The carrot is feedback to show what gets measured, gets done. In other words, I know what you want, so I can give it to you. Carrots allow us to raise performance, not just get it to exceed the minimum required.

We Boomers may have grown up in the era of the stick, but we liked the carrots too and we worked at our best for those who served them to us. Some methods are more effective than others, especially if you are trying to change behaviors or raise performance to higher levels. You need to tell people exactly what they did that you are pleased with and why it's important. If I know what you are happy about, I will likely repeat that behavior again.

Regular servings of carrots will get you more than regular beatings with sticks.

High Potential or Right Potential?

Photo by Chris Chow on Unsplash

I hear a lot about high potential employees. I also hear many references to A, B and C players. The first is about the future and the other is about current performance. Personally, I am not much in favor of categorizing people in either system, although I understand what the proponents are trying to do.

Both systems are based upon subjective opinions and often, unclear criteria. They are also judgments made at a specific point in time. I have seen people move between the categories depending upon the organization, job, manager and life circumstances at that time.

But the issue that causes me the most concern is the focus on individual contribution. I am not saying individual contributions are not important, because they are. However, most companies state teamwork is important to them. The best individual contributors are not necessarily the best in a team environment (although they can be). You have only to look at various team sports to see how a high-performing star performer can disrupt the performance of the overall team.

Yes, if the job we have is largely independent, then a star performer may be the best option. However, in a team environment, I am more interested in bench strength and complementary talents. I want the right potential for the position I want them to play--both now and in the future. Once I place a person in a position, I need to constantly evaluate if they may be more effective to the team in another role. That may change over time.

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.

Mediocrity vs. High Performance

I came across the title of an article today that was contrary to what I seem to teach in my leadership courses, 'Collaboration' Creates Mediocrity, Not Excellence, Says Science. So of course, I had to read it.

Photo by rawpixel.com on Unsplash

As it turns out, the article isn't disagreeing with what I am telling people, but it focuses on the negative aspects of team collaboration instead of providing a solution.

The average team isn't very effective. According to Dr. Eunice Parisi-Cerew, 60% of teams fail to accomplish their objectives. If Johnny brought home a report card with this sort of grade, we would be very unhappy, and we'd be sitting on him until results improved. In the workplace, we tend to tolerate mediocrity. That's what I see as the most important underlying theme of the article, and it is barely mentioned at all.

We do tend to allow people to get by in the workplace. If they are doing satisfactory work, we allow it. Instead of merely looking for the trappings of team collaboration, we should be shooting for high performance results. Yes, in many of the average teams, high performers tend to carry others. Eventually, the person doing the carrying is going to get mad and go somewhere else--and the effort collapses.

Collaboration is merely working together to produce or create something--there is nothing in the definition that indicates the quality or value of what is created. When we focus merely on collaboration, we are focusing on form over substance. Instead of collaboration being the end result, collaboration should be a tool to achieve the result.

High performance teams are different. They focus on results--not just mediocre results, but outstanding results. They hold one another accountable. They are not afraid to communicate expectations and to push one another.

I am not a believer in having all A players on a team. They bring their own problems. But I am a big believer in developing balanced teams of high potential players--may be they're B's now, but they are willing to work hard and work together toward outstanding results. I have seen a group of B players achieve better results than one with multiple A players because they were focused on a team win, not a personal best.

Creating and nurturing high performance teams is hard work. It isn't luck. And it begins with a focus on high performance standards, not merely collaboration.

People as a Source of Competitive Advantage

As you can easily tell by the title of this blog, I believe an organization's people are the source of competitive advantage for most companies.

You may say, "No, my company's competitive advantage is in our cutting-edge technology." Who designed that technology? Who markets that technology? Your people. So fundamentally, your company lives or dies on the knowledge, skills and efforts of the people who work for you.

This blog will focus on how to turn the talents of your employees into profit by improving their performance. I hope you will follow this blog and add your thoughts and comments along the way.