Blanchard LeaderChat

A good performance management system has three components; Performance Planning—where goals are set; Day-to-Day Coaching—where managers provide direction and support as needed; and Performance Evaluation—which most of us know as the “annual review.”

Of these three components, which one do you think is short-changed the most in organizations?  It’s day-to-day coaching.  Read more…

One of the biggest barriers to people working together effectively is the human ego. When people get caught up in their ego, it erodes their effectiveness. That’s because the combination of false pride and self-doubt created by an overactive ego gives people a distorted image of their own importance. When that happens, people see themselves as the center of the universe and they begin to put their own agenda, safety, status, and gratification ahead of those affected by their thoughts and actions. Read more…

When people don’t trust their leaders, they don’t come toward something; they pull back and withdraw instead. They doubt rather than cooperate.

According to Dr. Pat Zigarmi, Founding Associate of The Ken Blanchard Companies, and Randy Conley, the Trust Practice Leader at Blanchard, a self-centered, “What’s in it for me” attitude robs an organization of the best that employees have to offer. When employees perceive that an organization—or its leaders—are less than forthcoming, employees become unwilling to contribute any discretionary energy or make any commitments to their organization’s well-being beyond the absolute minimum. Read more…

The Society for Human Resource Management just posted its annual look at the factors that drive employee satisfaction in the workplace.  One unique element of the SHRM research is that it looks at the factors from two perspectives—employees and HR professionals.  First time readers of the report will be surprised that the lists of what employees want from the workplace and the list of what HR professionals perceive they want do not match up exactly.  But in reality, it makes perfect sense, because each group perceives the environment a little differently depending on their experience.  Let’s take a look at the two rankings in this year’s report, identify the differences, and explore what it means for leaders in today’s organizations. Read more…

David Bugea manages leadership development and diversity training programs for Arvest Bank, a full-service financial institution that operates over 230 locations in Arkansas, Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma. In this One Minute Interview, Bugea discusses the importance of trust and collaboration during uncertain economic times.

Q.  What are the top issues you are looking at in 2010?

A.  Obviously, what lies ahead in our economy is on everyone’s mind. Beyond that, as a financial services organization we wouldn’t be surprised to see more frequent and more significant changes to our industry’s regulations in the coming years. While it’s something we’re accustomed to, the magnitude of these regulations may require more careful communication to our customers, as well as internally.

From the viewpoint of one who develops organizational talent, it doesn’t matter which industry you’re in – issues such as labor law changes, generational differences and the ever-changing rate of unemployment require new competencies from both leaders and the individuals they serve.

The lessons of Situational Leadership® II teach us that individuals often experience regression and performance issues when faced with personal and professional distractions. Our associates (employees) are no different than other people who work in our economy. As much as we may reassure them of their job security at Arvest, their thoughts may be focused on what will happen if their spouse loses a job, or if their home decreases in value.

That’s why it’s vital that open communication continues to be a part of our corporate culture and environment here at Arvest. While it may sound unusual for business leaders to be aware of personal issues in associates’ lives, it’s often an important part of understanding why regression is occurring. 

Q.  From your perspective, what are some of the barriers that get in the way of trust and collaboration in organizations?

A.  As some businesses – and entire industries – have endured losses in recent years, there is a natural tendency for business and government leaders to try preventing or limiting losses in the future by building checks and balances into the system. If we define this action with terms used in SLII®, we’d realize that any sort of checks and balances, limits or regulations – whatever you want to call them – are simply a form of increased direction on the part of a leader.

Now take a second look at SLII®; in particular, the Needs Model. When people perform satisfactorily and suddenly their performance comes up short, they need more than just direction. They need direction and support. In other words, people need leaders who listen, not just someone to tell them what to do. Most importantly, this is a time when people need to know why.

Leaders don’t always do this, and there is a risk of weakened trust any time you take away an individual’s autonomy and introduce limits. It sends a message of, “Hold on, you’re doing something that requires me to make sure you’re not messing up.” But if leaders simply take the time to explain that certain limits protect the individual and the organization’s long-term ability to provide them with a livelihood, such limits may be met with less resistance. Bottom line: Never underestimate an individual’s ability to see the big picture! 

Q.  If you were going to offer some words of advice to your peers as possible ways to stay ahead of the curve for 2010, what personal suggestions would you have?

A.  Professionalism is important, but don’t let that make you blind to the fact that, like you, the individuals you serve have passion and emotion. That’s a double-edged sword; the passion and emotion you value in an individual’s approach to a task can also stand in the way of performance when personal issues affect commitment. So my advice is to be aware that economic and employment trends affecting your business will often have a similar impact on your team members and their families. You can’t always change that, but you can be supportive.

Finally, it’s natural for leaders to provide more direction – more handholding, more rulemaking – both during and immediately after challenging times. Such behavior may actually be expected. But don’t forget that a return to directive behavior makes individuals feel more scrutinized. When this happens it can put the individual on the defensive; if a leader fails to be supportive and listen, trust will inevitably suffer. And when trust suffers, the resulting barrier of communication results in an environment where things get done not because of collaboration, but in spite of it.

That’s why it’s essential for leaders to pause, step back and focus on the use of supportive behaviors to build trust and collaboration. Yes, we’ve got to keep an eye on the bottom line to ensure our organization’s long-term success. But don’t put aside the importance of engaging with associates in two-way conversations. Now more than ever, it’s time to let those you serve know that you listen to their concerns, and most importantly, that you care!

The One Minute Interview is LeaderChat’s new monthly series featuring interviews with some of today’s most intriguing HR-focused thought leaders and practitioners. David Bugea is a featured speaker at this year’s Blanchard Summit 2010.

 Laura Birk is the Director of HR at Barilla America, a part of Italy’s Barilla Group, the #1 provider of premium pasta products in the world. In this One Minute Interview, Birk talks about the challenges of innovation in a global company.

Q. What is your top business or management challenge as you look forward into the year ahead?

A. For us, the top challenge is managing a couple of questions that all center on innovation in a global world. Specifically—

• How can you influence innovation?
• Who has the technical competencies within the organization?
• Who owns the process?
• And finally, who knows the most about the consumer?

What we are finding–probably not surprisingly–is that different people have different parts of the puzzle—some have the competencies, others own the process, and still others are the ones who know the consumer best. Yet, when we are trying to push innovation globally, that creates some challenges that we are keeping our eye on.

For example, one of our goals is to create innovative and authentic Italian pasta products. Here in the US, our local marketing research and development group knows the US consumer best. Yet our people in Italy are the ones who have the competencies about what true authentic Italian is. The question then is who should own that innovation pipeline?

Q. What are some of the potential challenges associated with this?

A. The challenges on the business side are primarily the complexity of the manufacturing environment and the capacity and the technology needed to implement whatever the innovation is.

We have an innovation business team here for our local geography, but we are also playing on a bigger team in terms of global innovation. While we don’t necessarily need, or want, to be first to market, when we do lead we want to lead well, but that means coordinating locally and globally.

Another challenge from an HR or OD perspective is being able to know the business well enough as an HR OD person that you are invited to the strategic discussion. It doesn’t matter if you have HR-speak, what senior leadership wants to know is if you have business speak. The reality is that you have to be a business leader first, and an HR leader second.

Senior leadership is interested in how a new strategic direction is going to impact people, but they don’t really ask it from an HR perspective. Instead they ask, “What are the risks of us being able to execute this in our business from the people side?” As an HR professional, you need to be in on that conversation early. But if you don’t have the necessary business acumen, then you are not going to be at the table, or be able to chime in or ask the question.

Q. Any advice you might give to peers if they want to get a head start on this challenge in their organization?

A. For me, personally, I’d recommend volunteering to facilitate strategic planning meetings. I’ve found it helps me to anticipate and think about some of those risks we should consider. People always appreciate good facilitation and while you are serving as facilitator, you are also getting great insight about the direction and strategy the company is considering.

Second, I’d recommend spending more time with business people. Actually go and be with them in their work. If they are salespeople, go on sales calls, go to their meetings, be a fly on the wall.

Finally, ask people, “How are we doing?” Sincerely ask them. And I think that when you spend time with them, and sincerely ask them, they are going to be very open to giving you feedback about how you are doing on helping them solve their issues. And if they ask you to come to the table, it is a pretty good signal on how you are doing!

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Most people do not pay attention to the issue of trust in their organization until it is broken. But by then the damage is done: people withhold facts and information, managers set convoluted goals, management is not available, people talk behind each others’ backs—the list goes on and on. 

What’s the trust level in your organization? 

Here’s a short quiz you can use to evaluate the level of trust currently present in your organization and to open up conversations.

 1. Demonstrating Trust—If you want to create a trusting work environment, you have to begin by demonstrating trust. What are the rules, policies, and procedures in your organization saying about your trust level with your people? Sometimes, trying to protect against a few bad apples sends the wrong message to the vast majority of people in your organization who need and deserve to be trusted. 

2. Sharing Information—One of the best ways to build a sense of trust in people is by sharing information. To what degree does your organization share information, including sensitive and important topics such as the competition’s activities, future business plans and strategies, financial data, industry issues or problem areas, competitor’s best practices, the way group activities contribute to organizational goals, and performance feedback?  

3. Telling it Straight—Study after study has indicated that the number one quality that people want in a leader is integrity. How are your leaders doing in this important area? 

4. Providing Opportunities for Everyone to Win—To what degree does your organization foster internal competition versus cooperation? When people within an organization are forced to compete against one another, you lose everyone’s trust. Now all people are concerned about is looking out for number one. 

5. Providing Feedback—This is related to sharing information, but on an individual level. To what degree do your managers schedule and hold regular progress-check meetings with their direct reports? You don’t want to blind-side people by saving performance feedback until it’s time for their performance review.  

6. Resolving Concerns Head On—Does your organization resolve concerns head on by putting challenges on the table and giving people an opportunity to influence the process? When leaders expand people’s involvement and influence, there is more buy-in because people are less likely to feel they are being controlled. This builds trust and increases the credibility of the leader. 

7. Admitting Mistakes—An apology can be an effective way to correct a mistake and restore the trust needed for a good relationship. But in many organizations employees and managers are conditioned to hide mistakes because it’s not acceptable to make them. To what degree are your leaders able to admit mistakes when they are wrong? 

8. Walking the Talk—A leader, above all, has to be a walking example of the vision and values of the organization. The key to leadership is being able to develop a trusting relationship with others. Without trust, it is impossible for an organization to function effectively. To what degree do your leaders “walk the talk?”

So how did you do?  What was a strong suit for your company–and where did you feel you needed the most work?  Post a comment and let’s discuss!

Chasing talent doesn’t work and just costs the companies doing the chasing a lot of wasted money. That’s the conclusion that Jeffrey Pfeffer of Stanford’s Graduate School of Business reaches in his recent blog post for BNET. 

In this latest post, Pfeffer dispels the myth that organizations can buy increased organizational performance by luring top performers away from other companies.  While this may make sense in theory the reality is that it seldom works.  To prove the point, Pfeffer points to research done at Harvard by Boris Groysberg to determine whether a company could gain some competitive advantage by hiring outside talent.  

The findings?  

When a company hires a star away from another firm: 

• The star’s performance falls
• There is a decline in the performance of the group the star joins
• The market value of the company hiring the star falls
• The star doesn’t stay with the new employer for very long   

According to Pfeffer, individual productivity and success depends in part on where people work. A whole host of factors outside of individual talent contribute to an individual’s performance—including access to resources, collaboration with team members, capabilities of manager, etc. 

Pfeffer’s conclusion?  “There are no short cuts to efforts to build systems that develop the full potential of existing employees and cultures which provide the collaboration, mentoring, and learning opportunities that help everyone do better.” 

Click here to read the complete post.

Chris Edmonds, our senior consulting partner who presented Revitalizing the Downsized Organization last week once told me, “Without a behavioral definition of values, confusion reigns when staff members try to hold each other accountable.”

In other words, people need to see an example of the kind of behavior that’s expected of them at work.  Without it, there’s too much room for individual interpretation.  While each of us may have an individual interpretation of what honesty, openness, and responsibility means, what’s really important is how the organization defines it.  And even more important is to provide people with living examples (read senior leaders) who walk the talk of the organization’s values.

As an example, Chris showed me how one large Fortune 500 company defined “Integrity” in their organization:

We work with customers and prospects openly, honestly and sincerely. When we say we will do something, we will do it; when we say we cannot or will not do something, then we won’t do it.

Think for a moment about what the senior executives in this organization would look like.  What would they be doing?  How would they run meetings? How would they manage direct reports?  How would they interact with customers?

It’s important to get a clear picture of what the behavior that goes along with this definition looks like.  Without it, you don’t have a clear set of behaviors that you can hold people accountable to.  And when that happens, you’re setting yourself up for trouble down the road.  Just ask the customers, investors, and employees of Enron—the former Fortune 500 company mentioned above.

How do you find some regular time to address your needs with your boss? One technique we use at The Ken Blanchard Companies are weekly One-on-Ones. In these meetings, direct reports schedule time with their immediate supervisor to discuss what’s going on and what they need in terms of direction and support to get their work done.

Here are a couple of guidelines for setting up your own One-on-Ones.

• Keep them short—limited to 15-30 minutes per session.
• Meet frequently—at least once every two weeks.
• Keep the agenda focused on what you want to talk about—progress reports, obstacles, concerns, or questions.
• Make them a top priority—postponed meetings need to be rescheduled immediately.

It may seem a little awkward at first, but as you settle into a routine of meeting each week with your manager to discuss items that are of concern to you, some highly desirable things will begin to occur including:

• Improved communication between your leader and you
• A chance to set new goals and reexamine previously agreed-upon goals
• Opportunities to ask for direction and support

Sometimes it helps to add a little structure into the communication process. If you’re not having the type of regular communication with your manager that you would like to, try scheduling time for a one-on-one. It’s a great way to exchange information, give progress reports, and do some problem solving on a regular basis.