What do you have to get done today?

There are a million things to do and a hundred deadlines to meet. You've got to write emails, you've got to make phone calls, you have to sit in meetings and try to be engaged...and in between all of it, you have to get your daily work done.

How many of us feel this way on a regular basis?

What do we do about it? We get flustered, we respond to the loudest voice or the squeakiest wheel of the moment, and we try to get everything done. Or maybe, we run and hide, thinking that "doing the ostrich" and burying our heads in the sand will make it all go away. Regardless, we're most likely not being efficient and effective and we may be rough to live with while it's all happening. This kind of living stinks.

Is there a way out?

• Well, the first thing you have to do is ask yourself if you need to be doing everything you're doing. Are you doing some relatively simple work just because you like to do it or you're really good at it versus delegating it out?
• Moving on, is there anything you can say "no" to? As far as work is concerned, maybe that's not reasonable, but maybe there is. There may be some opportunities personally, too.

Great, you've delegated and you've pushed back and you still have a ton of things to do. There's no end in sight. Where do you turn? Stop and ask yourself this simple question:

"What do I HAVE to get done today?"

Just ask it. It seems so simple, yet when we are frazzled and feel overwhelmed, we often just forget. We forget to take a few minutes and prioritize.

So, shut the door, take a deep breath, and ask yourself the question. It may help you get through the day.

What other ways work for you in dealing with too many tasks on your list?

Benefit of the doubt

It's really easy to misunderstand someone else, especially in writing and especially on email. If people can start wars with the flick of a pen, think about the damage we can do with email. In fact, I wrote about this a while back (see post here).

The thing is, most of the time we're not trying to be difficult when we write to someone else (although I could be wrong). When misunderstandings take place, it's more about the receiving party taking the meaning differently than intended. We miss the tones and inflections and so we take the words however we want to or based on the mood we're in.

So, how many times have we misunderstood the message? How many times have we received an email that was innocent or benign, put a negative spin on it, and taken it as an attack? How many times have we ripped off a scathing response, one that anyone would KNOW was negative, only to find out later that the original message was not intended to be antagonistic?

We need to give email writers the benefit of the doubt. Unless we know the person at the other end is out to hurt us (and has proven it in others ways besides email), we need not jump to the negative.

We have several choices of how to take an email's meaning. Let's choose to put a positive spin on them and give the writers the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise.

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?