Progressive Managers’ Network

Tom Peters encourages managers to obsess on R.O.I.R - the Return on Investment in Relationships.

ROIR through 121s comes in many forms:

1. increased staff retention
2. improved productivity
3. recognition and acknowledgement of progress
4. appreciation of those who are performing well
5. identification of under performance and early resolution
6. promotion of behaviours that reinforce strategic goals and values
7. increased tempo of coaching to develop potential and performance
8. deeper professional relationships
9. increased trust
10. increased influence
11. increased responsiveness
12. better support of team members in their work
13. conduit for ideas from the front line to be heard and acted upon
14. management support for every member of the team - every week
15. improved communication and focus on what matters
16. progress made and recognised on a weekly basis
17. increased sense of urgency in the team
18. encourage individuals to think through their contribution to team or organisational objectives
19. increased initiative and enterprise
20. planning remains flexible and dynamic
21. documentation makes performance reviews simpler and less contentious
22. barriers to high performance are removed
23. factors contributing to poor performance are identified and resolved
24. formal opportunities for delegation
25. feedback - both given and received
26. increased employee engagement
27. improved knowledge management and knowledge sharing
28. better talent management and development
29. increased creativity
30. more responsibility taken voluntarily by more people
31. reduced absenteeism
32. more diversity as 121s recognise that ‘one size fits one’

Most strategy training talks about the importance of developing a strategic plan and then aligning employees with the strategy.   This is an outmoded view of strategy.  I prefer to see strategy as a thinking and doing process - with the focus on achieving success tomorrow - rather than today.  Many managers struggle to find the time to do this strategic thinking and find it even harder to act strategically.

Learning from Mr Pike

The pike is one of the most efficient, lean predating machines in freshwater.  If you put a small pike in an aquarium with a bunch of minnows it will demonstrate its predatory skills with frightening efficiency.  If you separate the pike from the minnows using a sheet of perspex the pike will continue to launch its attacks for a little while.  And then it will just give up.  You can then remove the sheet of perspex and the pike will still believe that it can no longer catch its prey - and will simply starve to death.

Flies and Bees

Imagine putting half a dozen house flies and half a dozen bumble bees in  glass bottle.  The bottle is placed with its base towards a window and the open end towards the middle of the room.  The bees are strategically aligned to fly towards the sunlight.  The presence of the glass is a mystery to them.  They buzz and buzz away at the bottom of the glass driving towards the sunshine - until they too die.  The flies on the other hand are much less ’strategically aligned’.  They fly in far more random patterns and within a few minutes most of them will have found their way to freedom.

Native Americans and Cracked Shoulder Blades

Some native American tribes used to use shoulder blades to help them plan their hunt.  The night before the hunt would leave they would throw a shoulder blade from a buffalo or deer on the camp fire.  In the morning the bone would have a pattern of cracks caused by the heat of the fire.  The pattern of these cracks - which was essentially random would be used to indicate to the hunting party in which direction they should seek their quarry.  So why would they rely on such a random way of choosing their hunting grounds?  Because without using a randomiser like this they would tend to over work the most productive hunting grounds and threaten the sustainability of the tribe and its environment.

These three stories illustrate something about the nature of strategy and strategic thinking - the perils of over specialisation, the risks of alignment, the problems of holding on to outdated learning and the importance of diversity and randomisation.  I am sure that analysis and planning have their place - but it is thinking and acting strategically that creates real value.

Earlier this week I went to ‘An Evening with Simon Hill’. Drawing on his experience of manufacturing industry and Yorkshire Forward, Simon Hill, Executive Director of Business at Yorkshire Forward talked about strategic business improvement using ‘Lean Principles’. Simon chose not to offer a quick reminder of what these Lean Principles are - leaving a proportion of the audience in the dark. As a reminder they are:

1. Specify what creates value from the customers’ perspective
2. Identify all the steps along the process chain
3. Make those processes flow
4. Make only what is pulled by the customer
5. Strive for perfection by continually removing waste

With its origins in the world of total quality management Lean Principles provide a wonderful way to ensure efficient product or service delivery by allowing the whole business process to be analysed and made efficient. It emphasises systems, compliance, analysis and objectivity in pursuit of the perfect process. It really is scientific management for the late 20th Century. It is one of several business improvement tools that can help an organisation with one of its purposes - that of the efficient delivery of a product or service.

However increasingly efficiency is not the only game in town. Indeed it is not even the main game for most organisations. Renewal, re-invention and transformation are increasingly the key drivers of sustainable value creation in modern knowledge based economies. If I heard Simen rightly then after a considerable investment of money and time in implementing Lean his business had just about managed to stand still. Now this is an great achievement for a manufacturer of automotive components in South Yorkshire - but I doubt if it carries the seeds for a major economic re-birth.

My concern is the ’story’ that Lean tells about the nature of business and enterprise. That it is about analysis, rationality, incremental improvement and mediocrity - giving the customer just what they ask for - when they ask for it. It is that the expectations of the customer should drive the production of the organisation. And Lean is not just a set of tools - it is a management philosophy - a culture. It becomes the way we think and act.

Andrew Mawson - one of the UKs most outstanding social entrepreneurs tells of the first time he asked some members of his community what they would really like to do. It turned out that they aspired to go on a day trip to the coast. Fair enough thought Andrew and worked with them to make it happen. After the trip had been undertaken he asked them what they would like to do next? And the reply came - ‘Let’s go on another trip to the (same) coast’! Let’s do it again! Andrew recognised that the aspirations of his customers were narrow. That he could provide experiences far more powerful and effective in driving community development. He understood that they had no real idea of what was possible. So he proposed that their next project was to be a journey across the Sinai desert. As their supplier he transformed their ideas of what could be achieved based on his on his knowledge, experience and expertise. This would never had happened had been trained in Lean principles.

And now Lean Simon tells us Lean consultants are being engaged by Yorkshire Forward to increase organisational efficiency. No doubt pieces of paper will soon be travelling less far on their journey through the offices, being touched by fewer people and processes generally more efficiently. And many of the employees perceptions will be reinforced that their role is not to facilitate the entrepreneurial re-birth of the region - but to design and administer effective bureaucratic processes.

For me business is about emotion, aspiration, imagination, passion, energy and risk. I am not making an argument for waste (although I do often find myself encouraging clients to ‘create slack’) but I am arguing for cultures that favour action and re-invention over perfection. If the price of Lean is a culture that favours analysis and incrementalism over imagination, re-invention and risk taking then I for one find it a price I am not prepared to pay.

At the end of the presentation I asked Simon whether he really felt that Lean held the answers to sustainable competitiveness in knowledge based business - whether it could drive the creativity and innovation necessary to compete in the future. And he answered ‘ No!’.

In my experience most managers spend much of their management discretionary time working with their stars: those employees who are really up for the job and always willing to take on new assignments as they look to develop their careers. The rewards of working with this group are seductive - but not without risk.

Firstly they are not representative of the majority of your employees. It is easy to believe (or hope) that they are, and that what works with them can be extrapolated successfully to the wider team. For example, crafting an internal communication about the latest management initiative with this group can often result in sending out a message that others find naive.

Secondly this group are unlikely to REALLY challenge you or give you the unvarnished truth. This group are ambitious and want to do well. They will see you as a gatekeeper to career development and are unlikely to risk rocking the boat.

I see managers spending some time managing under performers but usually only when things have become really critical and the issue can no longer be ducked. Instead of actively managing the very first signs of under-performance and getting things back on track quickly, most managers wait until the problem is almost irreparable. When they do act it is usually pretty drastic. Managing under-performance is, in my experience, one of the most poorly executed management tasks and one of the most immediately damaging to both morale and performance.

This leaves a band of employees that get relatively little management attention.

These are the loyal employees, perhaps in their 40s or older who have decided that they don’t want to get to the top. But they do want to do a good job that they feel proud of. They want to work with good people and they want to learn how to do their current job better. Much better in most cases. Yet they often get very little management time.

In part this is because they no longer choose to get involved with every new project that comes along (they are not interested in being ’seen’ by top management as a promotion candidate). And in part is because they will continue to work well with a minimum of maintenance - for a while. It seems that we can afford to neglect them and no harm is done.

Unfortunately this is not the case. Over time this group can become cynical and jaded as their contribution is rarely recognised or rewarded. They can easily become technically skilled but disengaged - doing just what they need to get by. This is one reason why this group should always get their fair share of management time. But they are also a tremendous resource in at least two areas. Firstly they have experience and technical skills. They are usually pretty good at what they do. This means that they could do a good job working with some of the less experienced team members and passing on what they know. Secondly, if you build the right relationships, and ask them the right questions they are far more likely to tell you the unvarnished truth.

• How much of your time is spent working with your stars?
• How much of your time is spent managing under performers? Do you do this effectively? Really?
• What about with that middle band of loyal employees that can so easily be allowed to retire on the job?

A well established programme of 121s, supported by effective team meetings and good performance management processes including feedback, coaching and delegation can go a very long way to helping you become an effective manager for the whole team.

I am currently training as a volunteer for STOP HATE UK who had their official launch in Leeds this afternoon. STOP HATE UK raises awareness and understanding of discrimination and hate crime, encourages its reporting, and supports the individuals and communities it affects.

It was really inspiring to listen to victims of hate crime talk about their experiences and describe the importance of the support that STOP HATE UK has been able to offer. I can’t wait to complete the training and start to get more involved.

But why do people hate in the first place? How could we engage with those who might become perpetrators of hate crime and prevent them from offending?

I am re-reading Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed which I first read when I did teacher training over 20 years ago. It reminds us that the oppressed, in turn, tend to become oppressors. My admittedly limited experience of hate crimes fits this pattern. The perpetrators are themselves victims of oppression both economically and socially. In order to find some power, status and esteem for themselves, they in turn oppress.

I believe that the same effect can play out in the workplace.  Old school managers strive to keep employees effective within roles that are tightly defined by job descriptions, targets, objectives and quality standards. The potential and aspiration of the individual comes a very distant second to their pre-ordained utility in the business.  Over time this distorts and inhibits their development as a human.  Essentially this style of management de-humanises and hatred, frustration, alienation and anger grow.  At best, people retire on the job.  At worst they express their alienation more powerfully through harassment, bullying and deception.

Progressive Managers on the other hand focus on the development of human potential.   Their role is to help people to exploit the opportunities that the organisation provides to further their own development as a person.  They build remarkable teams driven by the realisation of human potential - rather than the efficient but de-humanising fulfilment of a job description.

Rob Greenland has just had a harrowing experience. A couple of on-line tests designed to find out whether or not he has what it takes to be an entrepreneur have come back in the negative. Apparently he ‘may benefit from the security of a permanent job’.  Welcome to the human race Rob!

Most questionnaires designed to elicit whether or not you are an entrepreneur are based on the notion that entrepreneurs conform to a personality type.

• They do not.

They also assume that all entrepreneurs are interested primarily in financial wealth creation.

• They are not.

They also assume that entrepreneurs work in isolation.

• They do not.

The best entrepreneurs work as part of team that they have recruited with care and humility. They concentrate on doing beautifully what they love to do - and surround themselves by people who love to do what they hate. Successful entrepreneurs recognise their own strengths and weaknesses and are able to recruit people to work with them.

It is the skills and passion of the ‘entrepreneurial team’ that are the key determinant in the success of the enterprise.

Not the personal characteristics of the entrepreneur.

If we could just get people to understand the importance of ‘enterprising teams’ rather than the lone heroic entrepreneur then I think we could make a big step forward in the quality of enterprise in the UK.

The death of the entrepreneur - and the enterprise - is solitude.

In the UK, now,

• More women resign than men. More women are resigning now than ever.
• Women get promoted younger than men.
• Women are paid significantly less than men - and last year the gap widened.

These findings are from the Chartered Management Institute and Remuneration Economics.

What explains the high rate of resignations?

Is it the sense of injustice at the widening pay differentials as women take on more responsibility - younger - for less money than men?

Do women have more choices that they can exercise? They are more likely to take up self-employment than men. They may also be more ‘in-demand’ than men as their skill sets leave them better equipped to work in a modern economy. The ’skill sets’ in which women generally outperform men include

• better improvisational skills,
• more relationship-focussed,
• less rank-conscious,
• more trust sensitive,
• more intuitive,
• more collaborative,
• more comfortable with ambiguity,
• better sharers of information
• more able to balance rational thought with intuition and belief,
• more articulate,
• better at reading non-verbal clues,
• better at multi-tasking, networking and negotiating to win/wins,
• a preference to take the long view,
• an ability to promote egalitarian team working and a
• more naturally empowering management style

Or is it because many management hierarchies are still male dominated cultures in which more feminine values linked to the enhanced skill-sets listed above are under valued?

One trend is very clear. Women’s power in a modern economy is increasing. This is driven by their generally superior leadership skills and their influence over just about every major purchasing decision.

This means that organisations that cannot recruit and retain women will be at a significant disadvantage in the marketplace.

“When land was the productive asset, nations battled over it. The same is happening now for talented people.”

Stan Davis & Christopher Meyer, futureWEALTH

According to a recent survey conduced by Snag A Job, the awards for most annoying co-worker go to:

In 5th place - ‘The Hypochondriac’ - 5% of votes cast

In 4th place - ‘The Loud Talker’ - 12% of votes cast

In 3rd place - ‘The Gossip Hound’ - 18% of votes cast

And finally in joint first position, with one third of the total votes each:

“Kiss-ups” and “Slackers”.

There is no doubt that many of these characterisitcs are common-place and often tolerated at work because managers are afraid of the consequences of consistently using feedback to help encourage the good behaviours and influence change around those that aren’t as successful.

This survey focuses on the negative characteristics of the workplace.  What if we developed a list of the most effective co-workers and then encourages positive feedback around these characteristics.  My guess is that it would have a greater net positive effect on performance and culture.  Wh would make it onto the list?  Here would be my nominations:

The Dependable - do what they do, when they say they will do it….

The Change Monkey - always looking to make things better…

The Listener - goes without saying…

The No-man - always happy to speak their mind - even if it means saying No!

Who would your nominations be?

Who have you already got in these roles?  Do you appreciate them enough?

Can you use feedback and coaching to encourage more of these types of behaviour?

• How do you get other people to do what needs to be done?
• How do you make time and space in your diary to do the things that only you can do?
• How do you manage to escape doing those aspects of the job that you don’t like or find hard?

Delegation of course.

But what if your team, the pool of people available to delegate to, is just like you?  Similar personalities and temperaments.  Similar preferences and skills.

If you fall into this trap then those things that you want to delegate - they are likely to want to delegate too.  The jobs that you hate - they will hate too.  delegation becomes a difficult, risky and painful process.

If on the other hand you have a diverse team with a wide variety of skills and preferences then it is likely that you will find someone to delegate to who will enjoy the new work.

By recruiting a team with diverse skills and preferences you will make delegation much more straightforward.