Do Business Well

First, their feedback was constant. They varied the frequency according to the preferences or the needs of the individual employee. But whether the meetings happened for twenty minutes every month or for an hour every quarter, these performance feedback meetings were, nonetheless, a constant part of their interaction with each employee throughoutthe year. How much of a time commitment did this represent? According to the managers in Gallup’s study, the total time spent discussing each employee’s style and performance was roughly four hours per employee per year. And as one front-line supervisor said, “If you can’t spend four hours a year with each of your people, then you’ve either got too many people, or you shouldn’t be a manager.”

Second, each session began with a brief review of past performance. The purpose of this was not to evaluate, “You should do less of that. You should fix this.” Rather, the purpose was to help the employee think in detail about her style and to spark a conversation about the talents and nontalents that created this style. After this review, the focus always shifted to the future and how the employee could use her style to be productive. Sometimes they would work together to identify the employee’s path of least resistance toward her goals, but often the discussion would revolve around partnership. What talents did the manager bring that could complement the nontalents of the employee?

During that, convention trip, most of Martin P.’s conversations dealt with partnership. “This guy is incredibly driven, incredibly goal oriented, but he lacks strategic thinking—he has a hard time imagining what obstacles might get in his way as he plows ahead. I can help him here. I can play out alternative scenarios for him, and then we can put together contingency plans should any of these scenarios actually happen.”

Jeff H. gives a similar description. “One of my salespeople knows all the tricks for getting her foot in the door and asking the right questions, but lacks creativity when it comes to pricing the deal. I’m pretty good at that. So when we meet, she tells me the players and the situation, and I tell her whether she should present a leasing option, a buy-back option, a volume discount deal, or whatever.”

Third, great managers made a point of giving their feedback in private, one on one. The purpose of feedback is to help each individual to understand and build upon his natural strengths. You cannot do this in a group setting.

This sounds obvious, but given today’s preoccupation with teamwork, it is surprising how many managers forget the importance of spending time alone with each of their people. As Phil Jackson, the extraordinarily successful coach of the Chicago Bulls, observes:

“I prefer to deal with [the players] on an individual basis. This helps strengthen my one-on-one connection with the players, who sometimes get neglected because we spend so much of our time together en masse. Meeting with players privately helps me stay in touch with who they are out of uniform. During the 1995 playoffs, for instance, Toni Kukoc was troubled by reports that Split, Croatia, where his parents live, had been hit by a barrage of artillery fire. It took several days for him to get through on the phone and learn that his family was all right. The war in his homeland is a painful reality of Toni’s life. If I ignored that, I probably wouldn’t be able to relate to him on any but the most superficial level.”

Getting to Know you

With descriptions like this, Phil helps provide an answer to the manager’s age-old question “Should you build close personal relationships with your employees, or does familiarity breed contempt?” The most effective managers say yes, you should build personal relationships with your people, and no, familiarity does not breed contempt.

This does not mean that you should necessarily become best friends with those who report to you—although if that is your style, and if you keep them focused on performance outcomes, there is nothing wrong with doing so. The same applies to socializing with your people—if that is not your style, don’t do it. If it is your style, then there is nothing damaging about having dinner or a drink with them, as long as you still evaluate them on performance outcomes.

When great managers like Phil Jackson say they build close relationships with their people, when they say that familiarity does not breed contempt, they simply mean that a great manager must get to know his employees. And “getting to know someone” extends beyond a detailed understanding of an employee’s talents and nontalents. It extends all the way to the practicalities and dramas of his personal life. The great manager does not necessarily have to intervene in the employee’s life—although some do—but she does have to know about it. And she does have to care about it.

During Gallup’s eighty thousand manager interviews we asked this question: “You have a talented employee who consistently shows up late for work. What would you say to this employee?” The answers ranged from the authoritarian to the laissez-faire:

“I would fire him; we don’t tolerate lateness here.”

“I would give him a verbal warning, then a written warning, then fire him.”

“I would lock the door to the office and tell him that, from now on, even if you are two seconds late, you won’t be allowed in.”

“That’s fine. I don’t care what time they come in as long as they stay late and get their work done.”

Each of these responses is defensible. Each has its merits. But these were not the answers of great managers. When told that an employee was consistently showing up late for work, the great managers gave this one reply, which sums up their attitude toward manager-employee relationships:

“I would ask why.”

Maybe it has something to do with a bus schedule. Maybe he has to wait for a nanny to arrive. Maybe there is trouble at home. Once they had understood the employee’s personal situation, they might take any number of different actions—ranging from changing the employee’s hours to ten to six to telling him to get the situation sorted out, fast. But no matter what the next step, their first step was always to get to know the employee: “Ask why.” Phil Jackson’s comments about personal relationships ends with this line:

“Athletes are not the most verbal breed. That’s why bare attention and listening without judgment are so important.”

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
The Manager and the New Career continue…

• The Manager and the New Career
• Opportunity for the Acting Manager
• The Art of Tough Love: how do great managers terminate someone and still keep the relationship intact? part 3
• My Successful Business Tips, One Rung Doesn't Necessarily Lead to Another
• A Lateral Move Can Lead Upward
• Job Career and no Job no Career, Coping with Dismissal
• Cultivating allies
• How High Is High Enough for You?
• How Your Business Situation Helps Shape Your Plan
• Career Shift, Small Business Starter Self-Assessment Quiz
• Making a Plan: how to construct a simple and workable business plan part 6

2 Comments »