September 16th 2008 01:49 am
Business Management, Career Crisis/ Disaster, why some Outcomes deny the Definition
Many managers say they would like to define the right outcomes and then let each person find his or her own route, but they can’t. Some outcomes, they say, defy definition. And if you can’t define the right outcomes then you have to try to define the right steps. It’s the only way to avoid chaos, they say.
From some angles this perspective is actually quite sympathetic. First, some outcomes are indeed difficult to define. Sales, profit, or even student grades lend themselves to easy measurement. But customer satisfaction doesn‘t, nor does employee morale. Yet both of these are critical to excellent performance in many roles.
Second, if you do fail to define, in outcome terms, “customer satisfaction” or “employee morale,” then you still have to find some way to encourage people to pay attention to their customers and to their employees. Defining the right steps would certainly be one such way.
This perspective may be sympathetic, but it is not wise. These managers have given up too quickly. Just because some outcomes are difficult to define does not mean that they defy definition. It simply means that the outcomes aren’t obvious. Some thinking is required. If you do give it some thought, you find that even the most intangible aspects of performance can, in fact, be defined in terms of outcomes. And with these outcomes defined, you can then avoid the time-wasting futility of trying to force everyone to satisfy their customers or treat their employees in exactly the same way.
Let’s look at the outcome “employee morale” in more detail. Many companies have realized that the strength of their culture is part of their competitive weaponry. If they can treat their people better than their competitors, they will be able to attract more talent, focus that talent, develop that talent, and ultimately dominate. In their view, culture—how managers treat their people—has become tremendously important. Too important, it appears, to be left to chance.
Rather than defining a strong culture in terms of the employees‘ emotional outcomes—”This is how we want our employees to feel”—many companies have chosen to break “culture” down into steps—”This is what all managers/leaders must do.”
Once defined, competencies provide a common focus and a common language for a great deal of what happens within the company. New managers are required to learn them. Existing managers are rated against them, by peers, direct reports, and their superior. The picture of the perfect manager is he who possesses them all. Of course, everyone knows this person is a phantom, but that doesn‘t stop you from becoming concerned if your direct reports rate you low on competencies like “Compelling vision” or “Calm under fire.” Nor does it stop your boss from telling you to improve your scores for the coming year if you are to earn 100 percent of your discretionary bonus. Yes, these competencies are quickly taken very seriously.
Not by great managers, fortunately. They know that you should not legislate in advance how a manager is to interact with his people, moment by moment. You should not try to script culture. First, it’s distracting—it focuses the manager on compliance to a “standard” while she should be figuring out what style works best for her. Second, it’s impossible—her innate talents, not her “competencies,” drive the manager’s moment-by-moment interactions, and talents cannot be taught.
But this does not mean that you should not hold your managers accountable for treating their employees well. You should. You just shouldn’t legislate how to do it, step by step by step. It would be more effective to identify the few emotions you want your employees to feel and then to hold your managers accountable for creating these emotions. These emotions become your outcomes.
As an example, take those first six questions of the twelve that measure workplace strength:
Do I know what is expected of me at work?
Do I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right?
At work, do I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day?
In the last seven days, have I received recognition or praise for good work?
Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person?
Is there someone at work who encourages my development?
These questions describe some of the most important emotional outcomes that you should expect your managers to create in their employees. You want their employees responding “Strongly Agree” to these questions by the end of the year, and you certainly want to hold your managers accountable for securing these 5’s. But now that you’ve identified what you want their employees to feel, you are, happily, freed from forcing each manager to create these feelings in lockstep.
Take the emotion “trust,” as measured by the question “Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me?” One front-line supervisor has a quiet, caring relationship style. One supervisor builds relationships through his straightforwardness and his consistency. One supervisor uses his rah-rah passion and humor. But the great manager doesn‘t care one way or the other, as long as the supervisors‘ employees respond “5″ to the question “Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person?” The great manager knows that he doesn‘t need to waste time and money sending the quiet one to public speaking class or the straightforward one to interpersonal sophistication class.
As Gallup discovered, defining the right outcomes to measure “culture” can be quite a challenge. But it is worth the effort. If as much effort were spent identifying the right employee outcomes as has been spent hying to legislate the manager’s style, then everyone would be better off. The company would be more efficient. The human resources department would be more popular. The employees would be more trusting. And the managers would be themselves. Finally.
Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
Business Management, Career Crisis/ Disaster, why some Outcomes deny the Definition
- Part Science, Part Art— and Online Market¬ing Programs Guided by Strategy
- How High Is High Enough for You?
- Think back — and make thank-you cards your `policy', now and forever
- Email Marketing Program, Developing a Customer Contact Plan, give a Call
- Categorizing Internet Direct Marketing Players continue...
- The Importance of Being Earnest About Politics
- Job Career and no Job no Career, Coping with Dismissal
- Helping Employees Through Personal Crises
- Talent Career Hunting
- E-mail Marketing, Affiliate, Because Size Matters
- Cultivating allies
5 Comments »
Email Marketing on 16 Sep 2008 at 5:11 am #
Before the date, the Company was engaged in the business of marketing services to other companies wanting to reach the Hispanic market. … Email Marketing
Business Today on 16 Sep 2008 at 7:40 am #
Sir James calls Board meetings on an irregular basis as, and when he feels there is important business to… … Business Today
Email Marketing on 16 Sep 2008 at 9:59 pm #
We always love to hear how Constant Contact’ s email marketing service is helping businesses and organizations effectively communicate with their customers and members. … Email Marketing
Printing Consumers on 19 Sep 2008 at 4:29 am #
Lexmark is a leading developer, manufacturer and supplier of printing solutions – including laser and inkjet printers, associated supplies and services – for offices and homes in more than 150 countries. … Printing Consumers
Online Business on 21 Sep 2008 at 1:56 pm #
More than 150 homes or businesses were flooded when a storm dumped more than 7 inches of rain in the Habakkuk, Assunpink and Gold Run creeks in less than two hours. … Online Business