|
In this edition:
Marshall Goldsmith on "Adding Value- But At What Cost?"
Patricia Wheeler on "Taking the 'Fuzz' out of Empowerment"
Adding Value- But At What Cost?
by Marshall Goldsmith
The two men at dinner were clearly on the same wavelength. One of them was my friend Jon Katzenbach, the former McKinsey & Co. director who now heads his own elite consulting boutique. The other was Niko Canner, his brilliant partner. They were planning a new venture. But something about their conversation was slightly off. When Niko floated ideas, Jon tended to interrupt him. "That's a great idea," Jon would say, "but it might work better if you . . ." and then he would share a different way to tackle the issue. When he finished, Niko would pick up where he left off, only to be interrupted by Jon again. Back and forth it went, like a long rally at Wimbledon.
As the third party at the table, I watched and listened. I do this for a living as an executive coach. I help smart, successful people identify interpersonal challenges that they can improve -- and then coach them to get better. I'm used to monitoring people's dialogues, listening for clues that reveal why even the most accomplished people may sometimes annoy their bosses, peers, and subordinates.
Ordinarily, I keep quiet, but Jon was exhibiting classic smart-person behavior. When Niko left the table, I laughed and said, "Jon, perhaps you should just go with Niko's ideas. Stop trying to add so much value to the discussion."
In my experience, one of the most common challenges that successful people face is a constant need to win. When the issue is important, they want to win. When the issue is trivial, they want to win. Even when the issue isn't worth the effort or is clearly to their disadvantage, they still want to win.
Research shows that the more we achieve, the more we tend to want to "be right." At work meetings, we want our position to prevail. In arguments, we pull out all the stops to come out on top. Even at supermarket checkouts, we scout other lines to see if there's one that's moving faster.
In Jon's case, he was displaying a variation on the need to win: adding too much value. It's particularly common among smart people. They may retain remnants of a top-down management style even if they don't want to. These leaders are smart enough to realize that most of their subordinates know more in specific areas than they ever will, but old habits die hard. It's difficult for them to listen to others disclose information without communicating either that they already knew about it or that they know a better way.
The problem is, while they may have improved the idea by 5%, they've reduced the employee's commitment to executing it by 30%, because they've taken away that person's ownership of the idea. Therein lies the fallacy of added value: Whatever is gained in the form of a better idea may be lost six times over in the employee's diminished enthusiasm for the concept. One of my top clients said, "Unfortunately, at the CEO level, my suggestions get taken as orders, even if I don't want them to."
Later on, Jon and I had a laugh over the dinner incident. As one of the world's leading authorities on building teams and instilling pride, he knew the right answer. He was amazed at how often he had said "but." That's how pernicious the need to win can be. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that leaders should zip their lips to keep their staff's spirits from sagging. But the higher up you go in an organization, the more you need to let other people be winners and not make it about winning yourself.
For bosses, that means being careful about how you hand out encouragement. If you find yourself saying, "Great idea, but . . ." try cutting your response off at "idea." Even better, take a breath before you speak, and ask yourself if what you're about to say is worthwhile. One of my clients said that once he got into that habit, he realized that at least half of what he was going to say wasn't worth saying.
As for employees, be confident about your expertise. Stand up for what you believe in! Years ago, an experienced chocolate maker agreed to produce a sampler box of 12 chocolates for the late clothing designer Bill Blass. The chocolatiers designed a dozen different chocolates for Blass's approval, but sensing that he would resent not having a choice, they seeded the selection with several intentionally inferior pieces. To their horror, Blass liked the inferior chocolates. Blass was a man of great taste in clothes -- not candy. After he left the room, the chocolatiers said to one another, "What are we going to do?" Finally, the head of the company, a family business that had thrived for seven generations, decided, "We know chocolate. He doesn't. Let's make the ones we like."
Sweet.
Marshall Goldsmith is a world authority in helping successful leaders achieve positive, measurable change in behavior: for themselves, their people and their teams. He has been named one of the top 50 leaders influencing the field of management over the last century (American Management Association), one of the five most respected executive coaches (Forbes) and among the top ten executive educators (Wall Street Journal). He is the founder of the Alliance for Strategic Leadership and Marshall Goldsmith Partners. Marshall invites you to visit his library (MarshallGoldsmithLibrary.com) for articles and resources you can use. This article was originally published in Fast Company Magazine, August 2003.
Taking the "Fuzz" out of Empowerment
by Patricia Wheeler
Employee empowerment. Most companies openly endorse it. The word is frequently engraved on Corporate Vision plaques hanging in organizational hallways. But if empowerment is so frequently touted, why is it one of the fuzziest words in management language? And why do employees complain about micromanagement and second-guessing in many so-called empowering companies?
Empowerment is a difficult process to execute at almost every level, particularly within highly technical industries where attention to detail is paramount. Technically trained professionals such as engineers and physicians excel at and enjoy details...which makes it difficult for them, when promoted to leadership positions, to relinquish this level of focus. Some people have problems letting go. And some think they have "empowered" their direct reports even when they receive feedback that suggests otherwise.
But let's face it: as they grow in strategic responsibility, managers have to let go of their old jobs. And if they hire smart, talented people, they have to develop and empower these people to keep them. In other words, their necessary focus on detail must be balanced with management and growth of people.
And bright, motivated people want to have decision-making authority. They crave empowerment and will leave companies if they don't feel they are making a difference. But many managers cite compelling reasons why they can't tolerate even small differences in execution, as though the need for detail was equivalent to the demands of performing brain surgery.
How, then, does the process of empowerment happen within brain surgery? How do newer practitioners learn to execute decisions independently, when small variations can literally mean the difference between life and death? I asked Dr. Dan Barrow, MBNA Bowman Professor and Chair of Neurosurgery at Emory University School of Medicine. Training a brain surgeon, he said, requires a lengthy process of doctors' studying, observing and performing under close supervision. But eventually you have to hand the scalpel over, and Barrow says that 100% adherence to the supervisor's procedure is not necessary at that point, as "different approaches can yield successful outcomes."
So it begins with clarity of approach and well-articulated learning, followed by observation and correction, and eventual hand-off with clear expectations and outcomes. In other words, empowerment.
Then if even brain surgeons can allow deviations in execution which empower the next generation of physicians, how can you make sure you have a clear process to empower your next generation of leaders?
Here's the key: empowerment is not a one step procedure. Ideally executed, it requires continuing dialogue between boss and employee, at every level of the organization, beginning at the top. The leader must set the context and drive the process. These steps must happen:
1. The leader must do a seamless job of explaining the delegated task. This involves clarifying "The Empowerment Area" along the following dimensions: task specifics, resources allocated, timeline, clear desired outcomes, and circumstances under which the employee must seek further instructions. The goal: transfer what's in the leader's brain as clearly as possible to the employee, clarifying decision-making authority, resources and their boundaries.
2. The employee's job is to ask every possible question about the task in "The Empowerment Area." The goal is to approximate total clarity and transparency.
3. The leader and employee must craft an internal and explicit contract setting the stage for ongoing dialogue that allows for mutual feedback, feedforward, questions, clarifications, expansion, praise, teaching, and ultimately, a job well done.
Warning signs:
1. Fuzziness - if either party senses a lack of total clarity about the expectation, authority, resources or outcome, empowerment will likely fail. Fuzziness never goes unpunished.
2. Micromanagement or under-management - either will cause failure. Both parties must be clear about how and when oversight will occur.
3. Silence does not equal assent - if , after assigning a task, your employees do not ask clarifying questions, warning signals should sound. Empowerment is a dialogue in which both parties must actively participate.
What's the cost of "fuzzy empowerment?" Confusion, eroded trust and insufficient knowledge transfer, which in turn leads to inefficient execution. Add to that the possibility that talented employees may go elsewhere to develop their careers.
COACH'S TIP: What steps take the "fuzz" out of empowerment?
1. Meet regularly with your direct reports. When meetings happen irregularly or are frequently cancelled, empowerment cannot flourish. Reserve time for ongoing dialogue, whether you think you need it or not.
2. Keep talking. If your direct reports' performance disappoints you when you think you've "empowered" them, circle back to your initial agreement. Perhaps you missed a step, or are unrealistic about the learning curve. Create more dialogue. And remember that you have to balance control and oversight with letting go for learning and true empowerment to happen.
Sound like a lot of up-front work? Of course! The payoff is at the end, when talented employees work more effectively and move up to positions of greater importance to the organization.
Empowerment is both an art and a science. Dialogue and clarity of expectations are key. Without it, good managers and employees cannot grow. Done well, it is great teaching that builds trust. Done poorly, it's just another fuzzy word in management vocabulary.
Patricia Wheeler is an executive coach and consultant who helps smart people become better leaders. As Senior Partner in the Levin Group LLC, she has spent 15 years specializing in organizational systems dynamics and coaching senior leaders. A distance-learning expert, Patricia uses an action-oriented and results-based approach to coach teams within global organizations, leading to increased synergy and bottom-line results. She is also a member of the Alliance for Strategic Leadership, a global network of senior executive coaches and consultants founded by Marshall Goldsmith. You may contact Patricia by E-mail at Patricia@TheLevinGroup.com or by telephone at 404 377-9408.
|
