Poise over Panic!

In my time as a manager/leader starting some twenty-five years ago, I've had the opportunity to work with and observe many leaders, managers and staff.  They have all helped me grow and develop my own leadership philosophy and style.  Sometimes I've learned great tools and techniques from them as they have navigated normal and not so normal situations.  But there have been just as many opportunities - and maybe more - where the lesson learned has been "I'll never do that!"

One of the areas of greatest learning has been in the experience of seeing how managers and leaders react to "adverse" events.  Those events have covered a spectrum of circumstances - poor (to deadly) service to clients, the out-of-the-blue call from a prominent political leader looking for action, a staff crisis, a building or equipment malfunction impacting service delivery, or media showing up without warning at your doorstep.  The set of circumstances is largely irrelevant for my blog other than in trying to convey that something bad has happened that needs to be addressed.  More importantly for me, is the range of leadership reactions these situations have engendered - which has been nothing short of extraordinary, educational and (in a perverse sort of way) highly entertaining.

For the intent of this blog and to highlight my point, I am going to focus on what I consider to be the negative side of these reactions.  In many cases, I write from direct experience or have otherwise observed the leadership response as it has unfolded.  Namely, a leadership reaction that actually becomes part of the crisis, or THE crisis, rather than a means of managing in and through it. 

All too often, and for too many in leadership positions, there is a tendency to lose one's head during a real or perceived crisis.  I emphasize perceived because I believe that in many situations leaders may overplay a set of circumstances and never step back for long enough to evaluate whether in fact there is a real crisis in need of management.  Up-front evaluation is an important first step.  Otherwise you are going to be expending a lot of unnecessary time and energy that probably could be put to better use. 

Beyond this initial evaluation, it appears that for some leaders running around, crying out that the proverbial sky is falling is somehow an effective way of ensuring that immediate, decisive and effective action is taken.  That's where I believe some leaders miss the point about what effective leadership is and should be about.  Too many react to a negative scenario by confusing immediate action or any action with effective action.  They seem to believe that only by providing an immediate response in a situation will they be perceived as being in control, responsible and competent.  The reality is often far different.  More often the sense they convey to staff and others around them is that they are in panic mode.  Rather than being a leader that manages the situation their reaction more often generates fear, stress and anxiety to everyone unfortunate to be caught up in the vortex of activity.

Aside from the mental distress that the leader is subjecting themselves and their team to, a "decisive" yet hasty reaction is just as likely (or more likely) to lead to the wrong decision as to the right one.  In most situations we rarely have 100% perfect information.  In crisis situations this is even more the case.  Therefore, crisis demands disciplined leadership, an ability to remain calm, and the strength to keep yourself and your team focused in order to solve the problem at hand.  In my experience, panic and performance excellence rarely go together.  A panicked reaction can often lead to more problems to solve.

A leader in crisis (versus a leader who manages through crisis) also creates a number of other negative impacts that may not be understood at the time or even later. First, in your haste to make a decision, you many not even be solving the right problem but merely papering over symptoms.  Second, by making a hasty decision you may inadvertently compromise your ability to achieve other more important objectives.  Third, rather than creating an effective and productive team you are more likely creating fear, reduced productivity, risk aversion and indecisiveness amongst your staff.  Ultimately, you are also doing damage to the perception of your leadership capacity - you are not creating an image of a confident and competent leader amongst your team, peers, superiors, or other stakeholders that can be looked to for strength in times of challenge.

So Keep Calm and Carry On!  I'm convinced that we don't see or experience as many crisis situations as we think we do.  Take the appropriate time to assess the situation.  And even when you do experience a true crisis, taking a deep breath before taking action is still a good tactic and a sign of confident, disciplined leader.  Your reaction will calm others, help them focus on doing the right things, and ensure understanding of all impacts of your actions.  I'm convinced that by taking a more measured and less panicked approach that you will make better decisions and the confidence in your leadership will be enhanced.

Leadership excellence means more poise and less panic. 







______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC
TEC Canada Chair/Executive Coach/Senior Consultant
hadubiak@wmc.ca

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.

Make your best people quit!

A very simple post to write today - because I didn't write it! I have shared this article on my LinkedIn page recently but realize that many of you are not connected to me in that way and so much of what is said here reflects my thoughts and experience - and the intent in creating my blog - that I thought it was something worth sharing again. 

Enjoy...and reflect on how you or your organization falls into these traps...and maybe do something about it!

----------

Hiring Wisdom: Top 10 Ways to Guarantee Your Best People Will Quit

by Mel Kleiman on Apr 8, 2013    

Here are 10 ways to guarantee that your best people will quit:

10. Treat everyone equally. This may sound good, but your employees are not equal. Some are worth more because they produce more results. The key is not to treat them equally, it is to treat them all fairly.

9. Tolerate mediocrity. A-players don’t have to or want to play with a bunch of C-players.

8. Have dumb rules. I did not say have no rules, I said don’t have dumb rules. Great employees want to have guidelines and direction, but they don’t want to have rules that get in the way of doing their jobs or that conflict with the values the company says are important.

7. Don’t recognize outstanding performance and contributions. Remember Psychology 101 — Behavior you want repeated needs to be rewarded immediately.

6. Don’t have any fun at work. Where’s the written rule that says work has to be serious? If you find it, rip it to shreds and stomp on it because the notion that work cannot be fun is actually counterproductive. The workplace should be fun. Find ways to make work and/or the work environment more relaxed and fun and you will have happy employees who look forward to coming to work each day.

5. Don’t keep your people informed. You’ve got to communicate not only the good, but also the bad and the ugly. If you don’t tell them, the rumor mill will.

4. Micromanage. Tell them what you want done and how you want it done. Don’t tell them why it needs to be done and why their job is important. Don’t ask for their input on how it could be done better.

3. Don’t develop an employee retention strategy. Employee retention deserves your attention every day. Make a list of the people you don’t want to lose and, next to each name, write down what you are doing or will do to ensure that person stays engaged and on board.

2. Don’t do employee retention interviews. Wait until a great employee is walking out the door instead and conduct an exit interview to see what you could have done differently so they would not have gone out looking for another job.

1. Make your onboarding program an exercise in tedium. Employees are most impressionable during the first 60 days on the job. Every bit of information gathered during this time will either reinforce your new hire’s “buying decision” (to take the job) or lead to “Hire’s Remorse.”

The biggest cause of “Hire’s Remorse” is the dreaded Employee Orientation/Training Program. Most are poorly organized, inefficient, and boring. How can you expect excellence from your new hires if your orientation program is a sloppy amalgamation of tedious paperwork, boring policies and procedures, and hours of regulations and red tape?

To reinforce their buying decision, get key management involved on the first day and make sure your orientation delivers and reinforces these three messages repeatedly:

A. You were carefully chosen and we’re glad you’re here;

B. You’re now part of a great organization;

C. This is why your job is so important.

This was originally published in the April 2013 Humetrics Hiring Hints newsletter.

Mel Kleiman, CSP, is an internationally-known authority on recruiting, selecting, and hiring hourly employees. He has been the president of Humetrics since 1976 and has over 30 years of practical experience, research, consulting and professional speaking work to his credit. Contact him at mkleiman@humetrics.com.
______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC
TEC Canada Chair/Executive Coach/Senior Consultant
hadubiak@wmc.ca

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.

Organization structure...any design will do!

A pretty harsh title for something that typically has such major implications for organizations, its staff and ultimately the clients it serves.  The title reflects my jaded perspective on the restructuring that I have experienced, the quality of implementation, and the real outcomes achieved by restructuring - particularly those that have promised dramatically improved organizational performance as a result.

I'll qualify my cynicism.  I'm not suggesting that any organization structure is perfect or should be held sacred and unchangeable.  Organizations should critically evaluate how they are structured and how they need to be structured to best respond to their reality and anticipated changes in their environment.  There are a number of circumstances in which restructuring may be a reasonable and rational response including diminishing revenues and profitability, loss or change in markets that a firm traditionally serviced, lack of clear chain of command or accountability for results, lack of integration or coordination between business functions or units, or changes in technology or other means by which the business accomplishes its goals.  The need for restructuring can also be reactive or proactive - driven by an externally imposed reality or undertaken in anticipation of or in support of new desired directions. 

The challenge for leaders in contemplating and implementing a change in organization design and reporting structures is that there are too many scenarios in which it is undertaken for the wrong reasons, in anticipation that it will solve all the organization's current and anticipated problems, and in too many circumstances is not aligned with other organizational systems or requirements.  Too often it is viewed as an "easy" solution, as a symbolic commitment to change (i.e., "We'll show them we mean business!"), and as ready substitute for the real and hard work of moving an organization forward.

So what's my prescription for organization redesign?  First off, be very clear about why restructuring is being undertaken.  When there are multiple or frequent changes in structure - too often coincident with changes in senior leadership - the organization rapidly loses (or continues to lose) credibility around the need for change.  In addition, it loses momentum on achieving key elements of its mandate and certainly starts to lose the commitment and engagement of its staff and management.  If an organization undertakes frequent or constant restructuring the image conveyed and the feeling created is that leadership is lacking commitment to any long-range plan, goals or objectives - "let's just wait this one out; they'll be back with another version in a few weeks/months..."  Worse yet, many begin to wonder whether senior leadership even has the requisite skill to lead if they are constantly changing structure! 

Second, organizations need to do a far better job of connecting redesign efforts to an overall plan for the business.  Organization restructuring efforts - no matter how well designed - are disruptive.  Internal communications and partnerships are changed, systems that people worked with are impacted, and corporate memory (in form of displaced staff) is often lost.  This disruption should be clearly justifiable on the basis of how it helps moves the organization forward and helps it achieve its stated strategic objectives.  If a senior leader or senior leadership team has only a vague notion of what can measurably be achieved from restructuring they are doing a grave disservice to the organization, its people, and ultimately its customers.  There should be an ability to target and communicate specific expectations in terms of improvement - profitability, effectiveness, safety - to be achieved in the transition to a new structure.  If you don't have that, go back to the drawing board and get clarity.  You will need that clarity to get others in the organization on board in a meaningful way.

I've also seen and experienced too many examples of restructuring that are about trying to deal with individuals - when leaders lack the courage or acumen to manage performance or stick to their overarching strategy.  This can manifest itself in a couple of different ways.  One scenario revolves around two or more challenging personalities, people who can't work effectively together, with negative impacts all around.  Rather than deal with this as a personnel issue requiring leadership intervention, clarity of expectations, and other performance management intervention, restructuring can present itself as a simple solution.  Restructure so that those in conflict have less to do with each other.  Problem solved!  A seemingly expeditious way out, but one that can have significant repercussions for everyone around the conflict solution.  Restructuring efforts can also driven by a desire to hold on to an up and comer in an organization - if there is not more responsibility, more recognition, more opportunity, bigger title, more money provided to an individual we may lose them to another opportunity.  So in an effort to keep that individual, an organization rejigs responsibilities that may or may not align with achievement of long-term strategic directions.  Ultimately, once the key individual moves on to the next role, the role they vacate is actually not doable by, nor maybe desirable to, anyone else.  Neither circumstance cited justifies organization restructuring.  Redesign just papers over real and unsolved issues.

Ultimately, if you are going to move forward with a new structure it needs to be planned out as if it were a major strategic initiative - because it is!  It is an effort that requires significant and engaged commitment of leadership, a commitment of communication and change management resources, and otherwise needs effective project management resources to ensure successful implementation.  Failure to make this kind of effort through the redesign - from conception, through initial implementation, through to evaluation of impact - will ensure that all of the positive gains touted will not be achieved, and that more than a few negative results may be obtained in lieu!
Recognize the human impact of the change you are undertaking as well.  The analogy of "Band-Aid off - fast or slow", comes to mind.  Many have their personal preference for pain tolerance but in the case of restructuring my advice is to move with more speed than less.  The restructuring effort is going to create uncertainty for everyone - even those seemingly unaffected by proposed changes.  And in any organization, despite the best efforts at communication, the grapevine will be moving faster than official channels and there will be as many rumours as there is fact about restructuring.  During this time of change an organization runs the risk of losing some of its best people.  They have options to move to other organizations, other careers, and other opportunities.  Don't inadvertently give them the incentive to make the change.

Finally, if it wasn't already made clear above, no organization design represents the perfect solution for any organization.  Your current structure has its problems.  A new structure you are contemplating may solve those problems but it will introduce others.  Ultimately my belief is that structure is one of several levers that is required and must be in sync to ensure an organization's success.  In this case, form must follow function and must be attuned to a well articulated mission, vision and values.  It's up to Leadership to coordinate, integrate and manage all of these components.  It's complex and demanding work.  There is no simple solution on the road to success. 

But if you looking for simple solutions and just trying to "shake things up" then any organization design will do...
______________________________

Greg Hadubiak, MHSA, FACHE, CEC, PCC
TEC Canada Chair/Executive Coach/Senior Consultant
hadubiak@wmc.ca

Helping leaders realize their strengths and enabling organizations to achieve their potential through the application of my leadership experience and coaching skills. I act as a point of leverage for my clients. I AM their Force Multiplier.