Leadership by example is the only kind of real leadership. Everything else is just authority playing itself out.
—Albert Emerson Unaterra
A few years ago, I was asked to take on an employee who was struggling in his role. His name was and is Charles. I did this as a favor to my manager as I had previously salvaged a problematic employee who was now one of the company’s top performers. Charles, like the previous employee, was one of the company’s poorest performers, and it was my job to turn him around. I knew this was Charles’s last chance. If I succeeded in correcting his problems, Charles got to keep his job. If he failed to improve his performance, Charles loses his job.
Prior to meeting with Charles after his lateral move, I reviewed his personnel file to get a handle on the challenges I would face. I wanted to have a game plan for helping him get back on track. I was not encouraged by what I found.
There was a litany of problems recorded by his previous manager. They included:
• He is consistently late for work about 2 days per week.
• He failed to accomplish his objectives in the previous two fiscal years.
• He doesn’t return voicemail or e-mail messages for days.
• He constantly bothers other employees when they are busy.
• He shows up late for meetings, even the meetings he calls.
• He invades other people’s offices to chat, even when his projects are overdue.
• He refuses to deal with certain employees.
• He has alienated many employees to the point where they no longer deal with him.
• He tends to sabotage his department’s efforts by undermining their decisions with other departments.
Where to start, where to start?
I asked myself some questions:
• Is Charles the right person for the job?
• Is he motivated to do the job?
• Why does he seem to create his own problems?
• Does he have an attitude problem?
• Is his personal life interfering with his performance?
When faced with this problem, managers try to figure out whether Charles wants to do the job, and whether he is or isn’t motivated to change his behaviors. If Charles isn’t motivated, they will then try to “fix” Charles by motivating him. Many managers feel that if a person isn’t motivated, there is little that can be done to turn around poor performance. Following this route, managers who fail to motivate Charles will most likely attempt to replace him with someone who is motivated.
The Card Game
This is an exercise I’ve done with first line supervisors on assembly lines and one-on-one with CEOs in their office suites. I call it the “Card Game” and usually use a set of five cards placed on a table in front of my audience.
The outcome of the Card Game is to get managers to figure out how much control they have over human performance. It is almost always enlightening to every audience.
The best managers are keenly aware of how much control they have over another person’s performance. In my experience coaching and working with managers in almost every industry, one key characteristic of all the most successful managers is the ability to focus on the factors they have the most control over; especially when managing and leading people. And one thing that makes all these managers effective is that they always, always, always focus on the factors they have the most control over; they all manage best within the span of their control.
And the opposite is true as well. Again, in my experience, the managers who are most challenged by people performance issues are those who attempt to control, some might say micro-manage, factors that they have the least control over, regardless of whether theirs is a “hands-on” or “hands-off” approach.
One indicator of whether you as a manager are focusing on the wrong things is the number of performance issues you have in your team. As a manager, you are only as good as your bench strength, and if your bench is causing you problems for more than six months, it might not be the make-up of your team; it might be that you do not understand where your control as a manager starts and where it ends.
So, a good exercise is to apply the factors that you have most control over to apply it to a specific situation, to Charles.
The ability of anyone (in any job) to perform is influenced by five interrelated but independent factors. Managers have more control over some of these factors than others. It is critical to your success as a people manager to understand each of these factors. If you do, then you can begin the work of managing performance without controlling people. As an example, I can salvage Charles’s career . . . maybe.
Here are the five factors that impact a person’s ability to perform in their role. These are listed in random order, for now.
There is one and only one assumption: that intelligence is a given. Assume, especially in Charles’s case, that he is smart enough to perform that task. Charles is a talented guy; he just hasn’t been pulling his weight.
So, the question I pose to you is, “Which of these factors do you as a manager have the most control over and which do you have the least control over?”
The answer to that question can determine your success as a people manager.
Before we begin, let me define each one of these factors so you can make a more informed evaluation regarding most control to least control.
Selection: |
Selection is about hiring and firing; the decision to offer a person a position and the decision to terminate a current employee. So the question is, how much control does a manager have over selection or deselection? |
Expectations: |
Expectations is whether an employee knows what is expected of him or her in the position. These can include many things from job description to professional objectives to code of conduct. Again, how much control does a manager have over an employee’s expectations? |
Resources: |
Resources are the tools and support needed to fulfill responsibilities and perform in a role. These can include everything from the needed technology to the proper training. How much control does a manager have over resources? |
Motivation: |
Motivation is the desire to do the job as it is defined. While more qualitative than some of the other factors, it has been proven repeatedly that motivation is key to a person’s success in his or her job. So, ask yourself, how much control does a manager have over one of his or her team members’ desire to perform? |
Feedback: |
Feedback is the regular coaching and input into performance intended to improve or extend performance. An employee who knows where he or she stands has a better grip on his or her developmental needs and can work on getting better and better. How much control do you as a manager have over feedback? |
The next couple of pages may strike you as running counter to many of the leadership/management books you’ve read or the theories you’ve heard from business gurus. Keep in mind that my principles come from working with the best leaders, from first-line manufacturing supervisors on Caterpillar assembly lines to executives at United Healthcare, and in almost every other industry.
This comes at you fast, so pay attention.
The six factors that influence performance are listed below in descending order of the amount of control a manager has over them.
Manage Within the Span of Your Control
The factor you as a manager have the most control over is . . .
1. Expectations: |
Has the employee been told explicitly what is expected by his or her manager and company? |
You need no one’s permission to sit down with your people and have a frank discussion about objectives, deliverables, behavioral guidelines, or anything else that is expected of them. You don’t need permission from Human Resources or your manager (although you might want to validate your list of expectations with your direct supervisor) or anyone else.
But then why is it that the most common complaint I encounter from people struggling in their positions is that they do not understand what is expected of them? They almost always complain about unclear, unattainable, or constantly changing priorities. And that contributes to an autocratic behavioristic model of management to “solve” this performance problem.
Why would a manager avoid communicating (engage) and getting buy-in to a set of clearly defined, attainable, flexible, and mutually agreed upon expectations? A couple of reasons.
First, it is the potential for conflict. If the employee fails to buy into any of the proposed objectives or deliverables, a dialogue needs to ensue to work things out. Managers need to be able to communicate, negotiate, and persuade their people into agreeing to expectations up-front.
Second, I would say that many managers have a less-than-complete understanding of the things that are considered expectations. For instance, the following fall under the definition of company expectations: goals and objectives, the company mission, the company vision, the company values, parking policy, compensation policy, behavioral guidelines, work hours, and the list goes on and on.
But there are some key expectations that most employees are interested in having clarified and provide 90 percent of the direction they need. One of the objectives of this book is to clarify them for you and provide tools for reaching a mutually agreed-upon set of expectations that will reduce your people-management challenges and reduce the amount of drama in your team.
But the third and I would say most likely reason managers avoid setting clear expectations is that once a set of mutually agreed-upon expectations are in place, another factor comes into play: accountability. Accountability is the act of applying a consequence; a reward or discipline based on performance. Once an expectation is made clear and agreed upon, if a member of your team falls short of or exceeds, then accountability for his or her performance becomes an inherent part of the expectations. We will address this in much more detail in the following chapters, but keep in mind that without accountability, expectations mean nothing. Once you set a bedtime for your child, you must enforce it. Otherwise that and other rules begin to erode.
Managers who do set expectations often do it in an autocratic way. Expectations can be set as hard-and-fast rules or as guidelines within which people can make their own decisions. Expectations can be set in a way that facilitates the learning process. The way expectations are set can be the starting point for helping people become better decision makers.
My first job is to ensure that Charles is aware of and buys-into the expectations of his job and our company.
The factor that you as a manager have the most control over after expectations are clear is . . .
2. Feedback: |
Does the employee know whether he or she is or is not meeting the defined expectations? |
The second most common complaint I hear from individual contributors about their manager is, “I never know where I stand!” And that is also strange because you as a manager need no one’s permission to sit down on a regular basis and discuss performance with a person who works for you. You don’t have to check with Human Resources or your manager or anyone else for that matter. That is one of the privileges of being a people-manager and one of your responsibilities as a manager and a duty to your people.
Why would a manager avoid providing his or her people with honest and constructive feedback? There are a couple of reasons.
First, many do not know how to have an effective and motivating performance discussion with employees. What comes to mind when you hear these phrases, “First I want to say that you’re doing a great job . . .” or “Can I see you in my office for a minute?” or the un-reassuring “First, I’d like for you to tell me how you think you are doing.” These phrases most likely cause defensive responses from your people or set them up for a demotivating discussion. But it is possible to have an engaged, constructive, and honest discussion if you follow some pretty specific guidelines that we will discuss later.
But the real reason I believe that managers avoid providing honest and constructive feedback to an employee is the challenge of dealing with conflict. Things can get messy if done wrong and too often a dialogue can become an argument, especially when an employee is defensive. For that reason, managers tend to put off performance discussions until they have no choice. And by that time, the only tool they have is to threaten retaliation or discipline, which is a default to autocratic behaviorism, which naturally is seen by an employee as controlling, because it is.
Early intervention, engagement, and follow-through is crucial to avoiding over-controlling and using discipline to correct performance.
Managers owe employees feedback. Without feedback, employees are operating in the dark. And in the absence of regular constructive feedback, employees often create their own. A manager’s role is to provide information that allows employees to know how they are doing and whether they are improving.
Charles needs to know where he stands in relation to management’s expectations. Without feedback, how can Charles be expected to improve his performance? I quickly discovered that he was clueless when it came to many of them. His previous manager had let him off the hook so often that Charles regarded many of his expectations as suggestions and not actionable offenses.
Most managers who provide feedback do so to control behavior: positive feedback for good behavior and negative feedback for poor behavior. There is an alternative. Feedback can be used as a tool for facilitating a person’s learning process instead of to control.
As a manager, once you have fulfilled your responsibilities of reaching agreement on a set of clearly defined expectations and honest, constructive feedback, then the following factors come into play. With that, we can move down the list a bit more quickly.
3. Resources: |
Do your people have the tools and resources they need to ensure they can meet expectations? |
Some managers will make the argument that without the proper resources a person cannot be expected to meet expectations. And this is true. But let’s come back to the question at hand, which is, how much control do you as a manager have over any of these factors? And while resources are crucial, you have less control over them than expectations and feedback.
All managers have budgets they need to live within and constraints on their spending and capital purchases. This then limits a manager’s control over resources. It is the responsibility of managers to fight for and ensure adequate funding and resources for his or her team, but when push comes to shove, budgets get cut all the time. Enough said. With limited resources, a manager must negotiate and defend budget requests as a regular part of his or her job.
And from as far as I could tell, Charles had all the resources he needed to do his job.
Next in line of performance factors that are within a managers’ span of control is selection.
4. Selection: |
Is the person right for the job? |
Almost immediately I expect, the reader is unhappy with this critical factor occurring this far down the list when it comes to Charles. After all, I had no control over Charles’s hiring; he was given to me already an employee. However, selection is about both sides of the coin, both hiring and firing or, more politely, selection and deselection.
And while I had no choice over whether Charles became an employee, I can always get rid of him. That is, if I do it the right way. Managers who have been in the uncomfortable (but not necessarily unpleasant) position of terminating one of their people’s employment will tell you, it isn’t as simple as just telling a person he or she is done at the end of the day; there is a process that protects all employees from being unfairly terminated while at the same time shielding the company from legal exposure. It’s called the Performance Improvement Plan, or PIP. Now, the real purpose of a PIP is to turn around a person’s performance in hopes that he or she can continue as a productive member of the team, but too often it becomes a formality of a foregone conclusion that has already been reached.
And the format of PIPs in all corporations is the same, and I’ve seen them at companies as varied as NIKE, Microsoft, Expedia, Caterpillar, and many others. All PIPs force a manager to document that this person had the opportunity to successfully perform his or her duties by ensuring three things critical to his or her success. Care to take a stab at what those three critical factors might be?
You guessed it. PIPs force a manager to document that the employee was provided with a set of clear expectations, regular honest feedback, and the resources necessary to meeting expectations.
It is a shame that people are provided these more often to help them out the door as opposed to getting them when they first enter the corporate realm.
In today’s hectic business environment, many companies take a sink-or-swim view of new employee hiring and development. And of course, this results in some very high performers. But on the other side, I wonder if some of the people who sank could have been good swimmers with better management.
I was not yet to the point of putting Charles on a PIP. While it was an option, for me at least, I had to do right by Charles and make sure he had a shot at keeping his job.
The final performance factor and the one you as a manager have the least control over will surprise and perhaps anger some of you. It is . . .
5. Motivation: |
Does this person want to do the job? |
Some of you might strongly disagree with how much control you do or do not have over this factor, but hear me out, please. Motivation is the desire to do a job and is influenced by many work and personal factors. But as it applies to your control as a manager, you may be able to create an environment in which people motivate themselves, but motivating a person is a tricky and complex skill. Some people quit and leave, while others quit and stay. And for the latter, trying to make them like their job is a thankless and often useless task.
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is a nice place to start to understand people’s motivation, but it is a poor coaching or performance management tool. People are complex beings with complex needs that vary widely from individual to individual. Managers who ascribe to the “autocratic behaviorist” school of management (even though many don’t know that they do) often think that people are mostly driven by a system of rewards and punishments and so default to those to manage and motivate others. This is a very simplistic and insulting approach to managing people.
While Charles does not seem very motivated, I think he needs some time. If I can provide him an environment in which he has clear and attainable goals and regular honest feedback, perhaps his motivation will change for the positive. I don’t know, but I should give him a chance.
So, you have a problem with the order I’ve proposed?
The managers who have the most people problems usually default to the last two of the performance factors listed above as their most trusted and utilized tools for managing the performance of others. When faced with a people issue, I hear these managers tell me, “My job is to find the right people (Selection) and motivate them to do the job (Motivation). And if it turns out that they don’t want to do the job, then I’ll find someone who does (Selection, or rather deselection).”
The default strategy of relying on factors you have the least control over is a recipe for employee dissatisfaction and people problems. But there are reasons that managers using this strategy to get people to perform find it attractive. First is that it helps them avoid the sometimes difficult work of clarifying expectations, providing ongoing feedback, and ensuring their people have the resources to do their job. In short, it helps them justify their inability or unwillingness to manage.
But the main reason I believe managers default to these two factors is that if you think about it, the manager is never put in the position of being responsible for nonperformance. It’s always the employee who is at fault, never the manager. Just listen to the words I most often hear when these managers are asked about their struggling team members, “I don’t know. Maybe they don’t want this job.” Or “Maybe they were the wrong person to begin with.”
It makes it so much easier to hold other people accountable than it is to hold yourself accountable. The hard work of managing is creating an environment in which people self-manage and self-motivate, not one in which people overachieve to get rewarded or live in fear of being disciplined.
The Most Important Performance Factor
So up until this point, I’ve been fooling you a bit. There is another performance factor I neglected to put on the list. The reason I did this was to make several points that would have seemed less important with this factor in the mix. Another reason is to emphasize how important this factor is to managing performance without controlling people; it is the key to the entire process.
Accountability: |
Does this person know what will happen if he or she does or does not perform? |
Lets define terms here before we delve into this factor. First thing to clear up is the definition of the term “accountability.” As an action, accountability is the act of applying consequences to performance or nonperformance. For performance that meets or exceeds expectations (there’s that word again), employees are rewarded monetarily or by promotion or some other extrinsic reward and recognition. For nonperformance, people are disciplined (think PIP or formal written warnings), denied opportunities for advancement, or ultimately terminated.
I do not use accountability in a theoretical sense, not in this book anyway. Accountability in a performance management sense is the actual act of either warning of or implementing a vehicle for accountability. (Think of the example of threatening a child with a time-out. Until a parent places a child in some time-out space, there is no accountability. Yet.)
But don’t confuse accountability with responsibility. Accountability is better thought of as an external consequence, that is, something that is “done to or for a person,” while taking responsibility is an internal decision people make; it is something people either accept or reject. You can make a person accountable for some task, deliverable, or role, but it is difficult, if not impossible, to make them feel responsible for any of that. Responsibility is something that is the result of dialogue, discussion, persuasion, and agreement. But ultimately it is a person who takes responsibility freely and not because it is forced on them. Ever tried to hold someone accountable for something they don’t think they are responsible for? Now that’s a good trick.
The question as to where accountability falls in the order of most-to-least control is almost moot. Because it is such a powerful factor in managing performance, it doesn’t matter. What matters is the way in which it helps complete the formula for managing performance without controlling people.
Managers owe employees accountability. This may sound strange, but managers who continually let people off the hook or interfere with the direct consequences of people’s actions prevent them from learning. Some managers tend to overuse accountability as a stick to get people to fall in line, while some avoid it at all costs. Both approaches to holding people accountable fall into the autocratic behaviorist model.
If Charles’s manager has provided him with a solid basis of clear expectations and frequent feedback, then Charles has chosen to live with the consequences of his actions. Unfortunately, managers who do a poor job of providing clear expectations and feedback often use accountability as a method to control behavior. They substitute accountability for managing.
Accountability can be another tool for people to become better decision makers. It depends on how it is used. For people to become better decision makers, they must have the opportunity to make decisions and experience the direct consequences of those decisions. Facilitating the learning process means providing a safe environment for people to make decisions and experience consequences. It means helping people to hold themselves accountable.
At this point the reader might be hesitant to accept the order of these factors. That is natural. This resistance comes from the tendency in this country to focus on outcome and not process, our “just do it” culture. The outcome I want from the Charles management challenge is an employee who is right for the job and motivated. How I get Charles to successfully perform his job responsibilities is the process.
Because of the focus on outcomes rather than process, managers address problems after they have occurred, not before. This focus influences how managers see and deal with performance problems. They most often see the employee and not themselves as the problem. Upon seeing the person as the problem, managers try to correct it by attempting to motivate.
This strategy of trying to motivate employees, and if unsuccessful hiring someone else, is another attempt to manage results, not process. All managers want employees who are right for the job and motivated. Managers believe they have the most control over these two factors: selection and motivation. They attempt to manage performance problems by trying to motivate employees and, failing that, look for someone who can and will do the job. Managers think they can avoid the responsibility of managing if they hire qualified, motivated people.
Managers who attempt to control behavior will place their emphasis on accountability to get people to do what they want. These managers see their role in providing clear expectations and frequent feedback as less important than accountability.
The facilitative leader sees that his or her primary responsibility is to provide expectations and feedback. Doing a good job of clarifying expectations and giving feedback reduces the need to hold people accountable.
In general, managers in this country emphasize accountability over expectations and feedback. Recently a trend has developed for managers to engineer more accountability into the workplace. There are three reasons for this increasing emphasis on accountability.
The primary reason is the “just do it” management approach. This puts primary emphasis on results, not process. Managers are good at identifying goals and objectives but not very good at clarifying expectations and providing feedback. Unfortunately, this ability interferes with managing the progress toward achieving those goals. Management-by-objectives is not managing; it is goal setting and yet another attempt to manage results.
Second, most managers are unclear on their roles and responsibilities. Corporations send their managers to leadership seminars before they have the skills to do an effective job of managing. It is very difficult to become a good leader without management skills. With the increase in authority that people get when promoted into management goes an increase in responsibility to the people they manage. When managers only see the increase in authority without feeling the increased responsibility, they will use accountability to exercise that authority.
The third reason managers focus on accountability to manage is the fast-paced, results-focused environment they work in. This environment encourages management by exception. The squeaky wheel gets the oil. Managing by exception focuses on solving problems after they have occurred. Managers naturally see the employee as the cause of the problem.
A person who is interested in facilitating the learning process builds the groundwork for people to make decisions. He or she first realizes the increased responsibility, then the increased authority.
The first and most important step for facilitating the learning process is to provide clear expectations. Expectations create the base camp from which people can push themselves to greater heights. Expectations provide the net that makes it safe to take risks. Facilitative leaders accept the responsibility of ensuring that people have a good foundation for achievement.
The second most important step of facilitating the learning process is to frequently provide feedback. Feedback helps people manage their own progress. Facilitative leaders spend time giving feedback about how a person is improving or slipping in their progress. This feedback is process based more than results based. Results-based feedback identifies whether an employee has or hasn’t achieved an objective. Process-based feedback reinforces specific behaviors that are or are not working. Using the base camp analogy, reaching the summit is a good goal, but most people appreciate help determining the best equipment and route to get to the top.
When a solid base of expectations exists and people know how they are doing in relation to those expectations, then accountability becomes a natural part of the process. As people become more confident in their decision-making abilities, they are more likely to hold themselves accountable. Facilitative leadership doesn’t mean holding people accountable. It means helping people hold themselves accountable. A leader doesn’t try to make people responsible; he or she helps people take responsibility.
Shifting away from an autocratic behaviorist approach is not accomplished by doing different things. It is achieved by shifting the primary emphasis away from the employee’s actions to the manager’s responsibilities in helping or hindering a person’s success. Facilitating learning means focusing on the parts of the process that managers have control over and are responsible for providing to their employees. The manager looks first in the mirror for the source of the problem.
The difference between an autocratic behaviorist approach and that of the facilitative leader can be illustrated in the models below. A manager who attempts to control behavior uses accountability as his or her primary tool. Feedback is usually in the form of a performance appraisal or infrequent “constructive” criticism. Expectations are assumed.
Facilitating learning requires a different emphasis than a control-based approach. The facilitative leader sees his or her primary role as communicating, clarifying, and coming to agreement on the boundaries within which all employees are expected to work. Feedback is process and results based. When clear, agreed-upon expectations exist and prompt, frequent feedback has been given, employees hold themselves accountable. Facilitative leaders get themselves out of the way.
This shift in emphasis also requires a different way of providing expectations, feedback, and accountability. Managers can provide these three factors to their people in a way that doesn’t attempt to control them. Before we move on to this topic, it is important to clarify how much control managers have over the three remaining performance factors: resources, selection, and motivation. In the remaining chapters, we will use Charles to contrast a management approach that emphasizes control to one that facilitates learning. Chapter 2 will examine expectations and how managers can create either an environment in which people self-manage or one that reinforces management-dependent behavior. Chapter 3 identifies the different effects of results-based and process-based feedback. In the fourth chapter, two different methods for helping people hold themselves accountable are presented.
The final chapter deals with the problem of empowerment. It illustrates how today’s corporate environment works against empowerment and provides a game plan for moving to an empowered workplace. The objective of the rest of this book is to help managers shift from trying to control behavior to helping people improve their decision-making skills.
To make this shift, managers will need to focus on the three critical performance factors: expectations, feedback, and accountability.
A famous conductor once said, “When I have a problem with the orchestra, I come down off my podium, walk into my dressing room and look in the mirror. I usually find the source of the problem staring back at me.”
This statement embodies the mindset of the facilitative leader.
