Before I get into the heart of this blog, let me apologize to any loyal readers out there. I have been absent from here while I tried to help my city, Rowlett, Texas, win the All American City Award from the National Civic League. It was a grueling process for the past three weeks, and, in the end we did not win, but it was an amazing thing in which I was a part. You'll probably hear more than one story from that experience in the coming weeks.
In the meantime, back to the show.
In earlier blog posts I've established that managing people is not an easy task. Ask anyone that's had to create a work schedule for their employees and maintain that schedule in spite of absences, apathy, and disloyalty. Ask any manager that has had to fire someone they liked personally, but who wasn't performing on the job. Ask any manager that has had to ensure the job got done in spite of difficult personality conflicts.
If you break down the art/science of managing people, there are two distinct schools of thought that create the outer extremes regarding how we go about this. On one end, we have the school of thought that says that you place as much adversity in front of those you lead and the superstars will shine and rise to the top. This Darwinian approach is typified publicly in television shows such as The Celebrity Apprentice and is probably demonstrated somewhere in view of you in your workplace. It is very popular and it works. It wouldn't be popular if it didn't work. On the other end of our continuum, we have the approach that if you provide those you lead with everything they need to do the job, then they will provide extraordinary results. This is not as popular as the previously mentioned approach, but it has followers nonetheless. When it works, it works in a huge, dramatic way. When it fails, the failure can be just as huge and dramatic. All managers' approaches to managing the people they lead fall somewhere on this continuum.
If we explore each approach independent of comparison for a moment, we will see that each has merit. It is where this merit falls that should influence your decision making about which approach is right for you.
The first approach, which I like to call The Last Man Standing Approach, works because the participants in it learn to work the system to get as much out of it as possible. This is good news because the system doesn't give up all it can naturally, and those that can massage and manipulate it will have the opportunity for better results. It also produces thick skin for the participants, creating a better chance of them performing under extreme circumstances, pressure, and criticism. Managers that employ this strategy get results, if for no other reason than the fear the employees have of failure and the consequences of that failure. The Last Man Standing Approach certainly claims a very high constituency among those in management. Simply look around and observe--it is not hard to find. Unfortunately, there is a downside to this strategy. The positive effects of this approach are short term in duration--because they are born of fear and compliance. When a person complies because they are scared of something, they will only comply when the thing they fear is present. If they fear the manager, then when that person goes to a meeting, leaves town, or is ill, the fear is removed and compliance ceases.
Also, by using this approach, another lesson is taught and learned. People learn that nobody watches their back and they develop self-preservation skills very quickly. Self-preservation skills often are lacking in loyalty and commitment (to the manager and/or to the organization.) the people learning this lesson are focused on one thing, themselves. This breeds unhealthy competition where one person in the organization is, at best, hoping for the failure of another so that they come out looking better. At worst, people sabotage one another. It is here that we can see how managers can be the architects of their own suffering in the long run.
Another downside of The Last Man Standing Approach is that it produces frauds. Because under this strategy what really counts is looking good, a person focuses on how they appear in a situation, not what they actually produce or do. This is the basis for a great deal of subterfuge and underhandedness. When the primary measure is the "surface" appearance, then that gets all of an individuals attention and energy. Remember that if others look bad, and I look good by comparison, then I am fine--regardless of how much better I could be doing. So, in this situation it would be in my best interest to make others look bad. The long-term prospects for this approach are meager.
So, if there is so much baggage associated with The Last Man Standing Approach then what is the alternative? The other side of the spectrum provides the next option. I call this choice Leadership. Some may argue that Leadership is simply getting people to do what you want them to do--and there is an element of truth to that. The reason The Last Man Standing Approach doesn't fall under the Leadership umbrella is that it doesn't get people to want to do what the Leader wants them to do. It's a subtle difference, but that difference has long-term implications.
Leadership is not as popular as The Last Man Standing Approach. This is because Leadership has downsides as well. The first downside is that it is not easy. Indeed, difficulty lies down this path. Getting people to follow you out of loyalty, commitment, and respect takes much more skill than getting them to follow out of fear. This method takes time as well. A person can instill fear into an employee in a matter of seconds or minutes and maintaining that level of fear doesn't require too much effort. Using Leadership skills to accomplish the same thing could take hours, day, weeks or longer. It requires much more mental and physical energy to use Leadership, at least at the beginning. But, there is an upside to this as well. Leadership enables people to follow, even when the leader is not there. Because it builds loyalty, true Leaders have proven an investment in their followers well-being. After this is established, followers often do not want to let their Leaders down. Followers often adopts a "whatever it takes" attitude toward getting their jobs done with quality, speed, and caring. As you can see, then, the emphasis is not on looking good, but doing and being good. Because true Leaders come across as selfless, caring more about the mission and the people than themselves, followers will often adopt a similar approach. No longer is self-preservation the ultimate goal, but, instead the mission and the team become the primary focus. This creates is long term commitment to the organization and to the Leaders--aiding organizational stability and forward momentum. Leadership is difficult, but the reward is worth it.
Each behavior executed from the perspective of either The Last Man Standing Approach or Leadership causes a ripple in the surface. Can a person using a Leadership strategy survive in the midst of an organization that primarily rewards The Last Man Standing Approach? The answer is not only can it survive, but it can produce real results that cannot be denied. It is true, that in that situation there is a political price to pay for being different, but, one must break through the surface in order to begin creating the ripples of change.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment