You Don't Have To Be A Superstar

I used to work with a sergeant whose platoon (around 35 soldiers) was always the best. These men and women were head and shoulders above the rest of the platoons in my company (and probably in the entire battalion of about 600 soldiers). Typically, a platoon is led by a lieutenant and a Sergeant, First Class. This sergeant was so young in his career that he hadn't made it to Sergeant First Class, but was still a Staff Sergeant AND he had no lieutenant most of the time. When we were short of officers, I would let this sergeant lead on his own.

One time, Sergeant H and I were talking and I asked him, "why is it that your platoon is so strong? Why is it that they're so obviously superior to every other platoon around them?" His reply was, "Sir, my guys aren't superstars and I don't expect them to be. All I expect them to do is their jobs. All the others around them who don't perform will make them look like superstars."

Now, depending on how you choose to look at it, you can see this as an indictment on most of us OR you can look at it from the perspective of focus, teamwork, guidance, and expectations. Sergeant H didn't expect his people to perform miracles. He just expected them to do their work; he expected them to do their jobs.

What do you expect of your people? Do they know your expectations?

Is it your honor?

Do you consider it your honor to be a leader? Is it your honor to be a boss?

When your people come to you for guidance or advice, do you consider it an honor that they ask or are they being pests?

When one of your team members is messing up, do you consider it a pain to have to coach them or do you see it as an honor that you're entrusted to help him or her grow?

When you have customers who are unhappy, does it upset you to have deal with them or do you consider it an honor to be able to perform great service recovery and help them be even more loyal patrons?

Sometimes I think that, as bosses and leaders, we forget that we have been chosen and entrusted to help grow our organizations, develop our teams, and make fanatic fans of our customers.

It IS our honor.

What does it take to get you to act?

Specifically, I'm talking about discipline. What does it take to get you to respond to behavior that is not up to your standards?

Anger: When I was a young leader, it often took me being upset or angry before I could openly and directly face someone not doing what he or she was supposed to be doing. I used to have to mentally "fire myself up" or have one of my junior managers help me get riled, reminding me of the inappropriate actions, in order to go take care of business.

Prodding: Sometimes it takes an event to get bosses to act, perhaps like some evaluation, especially if it's an evaluation of you. Maybe your boss is wondering how you're handling a situation or situations. Regardless, you're not going to act unless poked or prodded. Is it OK to take this approach as long as the behavior gets modified?

Self-prodding: This is the approach I've seen taken a lot by good managers. Someone isn't performing up to standards and you know you need to take action. You don't want to. It bothers you, perhaps to the point of almost making you nauseous, because you really don't like confrontations. However, you're a professional so you don't stick your head in the sand. It's your job and you know it. Your mind won't let it go until you deal with it. Eventually, you make corrections, but you've probably spent a fair amount of time worrying about how your team member will respond or how good a job you'll do at the correction. Your focus may be taken away from other priorities. Is all this OK as long as you get your person back on track?

Just another task: You are a mature, self-assured manager. You just see the need for a correction as another task on your list for the day. You don't worry about it. Sure, you may be a little disappointed that the correction is needed, but it's a part of life. Of course, you do think about the best way to proceed with that team member...you're not cavalier about it. Perhaps you have such a strong relationship built with your people, based on open communication and mutual respect, that it's not a big deal to correct, coach, and move on. This approach seems the most healthy.

Think about it. Where are you among the different approaches to discipline? Can you identify with one of these or is your approach different? Are you at the place you want to be? If not, what will it take to help you get there?

Intimidation

Your stare will melt ice.

When you walk into a room, a cold wind begins to blow, dogs begin to wail, and mothers grab their babies and scuttle off to safety.

When you show your displeasure, strong men drop to their knees and begin to weep, "for the love of all that's good in the world, please spare me!"

And you like it.

What is it that causes some bosses to appear pleased when their people are afraid of them...at least a little? One manager told me, "when you walk into a room, your people should take notice and be at least a little nervous."

Why?

Is that how managers build a cohesive and loyal team (cohesive against you and loyal with each other against "the bad boss)? Is that how leaders promote efficiency and effectiveness?

This certainly was the case in the not too distant past and it probably still exists some places.

The boss I mention above is not a builder, but one who tears down. Instead, we need to be approachable. Our people need to know that we care about them and the contribution they make to all our success. Sure, we set standards and stretch goals. Of course, we let our people know what we expect. It just needs to be in a positive and respectful setting.

Is there ever a time when you think it's OK for a boss to rule by intimidation?

Stepping into your shoes

Succession planning is a hot topic these days. We, as managers, are supposed to develop and groom suitable team members to replace us when we get promoted or move on to other opportunities. It does make sense considering the potential loss of productivity that can occur when your replacement has a long learning curve.

This is not something we typically do very well. A few possible reasons spring to my mind:

1. The ever excuse of no time, which might be true, but could just as easily translate to not knowing what to do.
2. General issues with delegation that are present already.
3. Fear that one of your people might be better than you (shoot, I think it's great to have people smarter than you on your team. When I was lucky enough or smart enough to have that happen, it really helped me stretch and grow).

A great way to start with succession planning is to determine who you think most likely to be your replacement, even if that never comes to pass because this person moves on or your bosses choose to replace you from outside your team. Your candidate could be one or more of your team members.

After you know who you'd like to have to fill your shoes, then you can actively work to delegate some of your traditional tasks as well as allowing the team member to weigh in on decisions, strategies, or programs. When you're away, like on vacation, you can put this person in charge and give them a sense of what being in your position might be like. You could even have the team member head up an initiative with higher-level exposure to give them some face time with the honchos and learn while you're still around as a safety net.

The key for the least impact to your departure is to start thinking now about who could replace you and what you would want them to know in order to do your job. Then execute on the plan.

What other suggestions do you have for successful succession planning?

Disagreements

I know people who spend their lives trying to avoid conflicts or disagreements. They consider disagreements as bad and that, while resolution to conflicts is good, avoiding any disagreements in the first place is always best.

What's wrong with disagreement? Is disagreement always bad? I guess it is if we have to always be right...then it definitely is a problem. I'm happy when others agree with me, but having others always agree with us isn't necessarily productive.

If everyone always agreed with those around them, how would we ever improve as human beings, as nations and cultures, let alone coworkers, friends and family? I don't think disagreement and conflict are bad at all.

Disagreements and conflicts are bad if we never resolve them. It's in the very act of resolution, if what we're doing is trying to learn and progress, instead of just mollifying or acquiescing, that positive outcomes can develop.

If we realize that we, personally, are not infallible, and the groups we are a part of are not perfect, then we know we have areas where we can improve.

When I think of a project team working to build a better widget, how far can it progress if all the team members are just going along with the leader instead of thinking, analyzing, and challenging the plans? The project might progress somewhat, but it will never reach it's optimal result unless the team members embrace disagreement as they challenge their ideas and the ideas of their colleagues.

What do you think? What other ways do disagreements and conflict fit into the picture as we look for innovation and growth?

Employees Leave Their Bosses

I was just re-reading Monday Morning Leadership in preparation for a meeting. One of the comments in there was about why employees leave a company. That caused me to do a little Google search where I found this post called "The Real Reason Why Employees Leave" on the IAAP (International Association of Administrative Professionals) web site.

The article references a study by the Saratoga Institute that says:

"89% of managers believe employees leave for more money. But, in fact, the survey found that 88% of employees leave for reasons other than money."

You know the #1 reason people leave a company? It's because of us, their bosses. People don't leave companies, they leave US.

Sure, there are a percentage of "job hoppers" out there who are never satisfied or who are looking for 25 cents more per hour. Most employees, though, want to be where they are valued and appreciated. They also want to respect who they work for. Come on, who wants to work for a boss who they have no respect for?

That's our job as bosses: to value our people and ensure they feel valued; to set clear standards and expectations that all can follow, including us.

What are some of the ways we can help our folks feel valued and appreciated?

1. Communication: We regularly converse with our people. We don't just talk TO them, but we converse WITH them, keeping them informed soliciting feedback.
2. Respect: If we want our team members to show us respect, we have to do the same for them. The rules that apply to them should apply to us, as well.
3. Interest: We need to be interested in our folks and understand what's important to them. We need to learn their priorities and their goals. We need to understand what makes them tick.
4. Management: One management technique DOES NOT fit all. We need to tailor our approach, at least somewhat, to the people we're supervising. That doesn't mean we're wishy-washy or vague, but it does mean that we understand the subtleties and individuality of each employee.

What other ways can we help ensure our people know they are valued? What other ways can we help them exhibit the respect they want to give and we want to get?