I'd be the last to deny the need for a clearly defined management structure. We all need to know what is expected of us in our jobs, the level at which we must perform in order to keep those jobs, and the person or people to whom we report.
Over the years, however, that concept of hierarchy has led many otherwise good managers to adopt an authoritarian stance. "Just do it," they respond when asked for reasons. When approached with ideas that might better accomplish a task, they often automatically ignore them because they didn't come from them. Their attitude is defined by their position in the hierarchy, which has historically dictated that attitude problems must, of necessity, rest with those reporting to them. It is this brand of manager who invariably suffers the greatest employee morale problems; it is their revolving doors that turn faster.
Need for Accountability
I acknowledge the need for accountability to a higher power. Everyone has a boss. A company's CEO must report to a board of directors. Even a board of directors has a boss--the consumer of the company's products and services.
Times have irrefutably changed, however, and "business as usual" is no longer a viable way to proceed. Most changes are due to outside forces that shape American business. In response, attempts are made to initiate new and innovative policies to accomplish goals in this altered climate. Unless the general attitude of a company's management changes for the better toward employee motivation and reten-tion, these attempts at enlightened leadership stand little chance of succeeding. What prevails in too many cases is the notion that if it was good enough before, it's good enough now. The simple truth is that some of the "good old ways" weren't very good at all.
Today's workers are different than their parents. Their needs and expectations, shaped by changes in the environment in which they grew up, are certainly not the same as those of previous generations. Of course, some older workers are dismayed by what they perceive as a diminished work ethic, but that assessment is wrong for the most part.
What has changed are the factors that motivate today's workers. The gold watch and the pension are not as compelling as they once were (although a decent retirement and recognition for a job well done are never out of style). A Thanksgiving turkey and family picnic are pleasant pluses, but do not foster employee loyalty and commitment as they once did. The following sections address the needs and expectations that motivate employees.
Involve Employees in Key Decisions
Today's workers possess a heightened sense of individuality. Many may be called on to perform duties by rote, but at the same time they have ideas about how to make their jobs and the company better. They view their employment as more of a partnership than did previous generations, which were more comfortable with the traditional employer-employee relationship. Today's workers still respect the need for management structure and chain of command, but they don't consider it as an obstacle to their perceived partnership.
Employees in these times "want in." They wish to feel a part of a company's success and to have their contributions recognized. They seek the opportunity to advance ideas, good and bad, and be told why their ideas have been adopted or shelved. They expect answers and deserve them. Any company concerned about retaining and motivating its good people should be willing, indeed anxious, to meet this expectation, not because of some vague altruistic philosophy but because it's good business.
Why are so many employees left out of the loop when it comes to decisions that directly affect their everyday working lives?
Suppose new equipment is purchased for a factory, or an office is redesigned. However, those who work in them every day are not consulted for their knowledge of what must be accomplished. Inviting the rank-and-file to contribute to such projects does not mandate accepting their suggestions, but their ideas might have made the new office or factory more efficient and palatable. If that were the case, not only would the company function more smoothly and productively, those same employees would feel they are a more integral part of its operations and goals.
For example, the owner of a restaurant I occasionally visit decided to redesign its bar area. The bartender had worked there for 20 years, yet, when the designs were developed, he was never consulted. As a result, his job was made more difficult because things were no longer located where they functionally should have been. Worse, he was demoralized. By not recognizing this veteran bartender's years of professional experience, the owner conveyed the impression--right or wrong--that he didn't hold his good employee in especially high regard. The bartender's ideas did not have to be accepted, but he should have been asked.
Here's another example. Years ago I made a routine visit to the Los Angeles office of Robert Half International. Its manager, who'd been with us for many years, brought up a problem he was having with his second in command, an extremely capable woman. It certainly wasn't an earth-shattering problem: He believed that her desk was situated in a location that made it difficult for her to supervise some key people who reported to her. "If I tell her to move it," he told me, "she'll get angry."
I suggested we go to dinner and return to the office later. "No one will be there," I said. "We can move her desk to see if it will work the way you think it will."
After dinner, we returned and moved the desk to the new location. The manager was right. It was a better spot for her desk, but before we left the office, we moved everything back to the way it had been earlier in the day.
I spoke with the woman the next morning about a number of routine administrative matters. Then I asked her to suggest things that would make her work easier and more efficient. As if it were an afterthought, I said, "Can you think of a better spot for your desk?"
Her response: "I've been thinking it might be better over there." She pointed to the spot her manager and I had moved it to the night before. We relocated it before she changed her mind.
Good workers don't especially like to be told to do something different. They naturally resist change, but if you can get them to come up with the idea as though it were their own, two people are made happy-you and the employee.
One final example: a friend of mine owns a one-man import-export company. He hired a part-time employee a number of years ago and soon was aware that she was often sullen and without energy. He finally realized that he'd been telling her how to do everything. That was his nature. He eventually established a more interactive relationship. She was informed of what had to be accomplished and was encouraged to accomplish it, using her own approach. The change in her attitude was dramatic. She brimmed with verve and purpose, and a lot more got done.
Criticize Carefully and Constructively
The way in which we criticize employees is an excellent barometer of how things have changed (or should have changed) in today's business environment. The "business as usual" approach assumes the right to criticize those reporting to superiors. That's the way it's always been. However, if we buy into the concept of employee input and risk-taking --and every indication points to it as setting the tone for the future--the ability to "criticize" must flow in two directions, up and down.
Unfortunately, the connotation of terms such as criticize and evaluate gets in the way. They ring negative because they traditionally were used in a negative fashion. Employee evaluations were considered to be the opportunity for management to point out employee inadequacies. It was a one-way street. No wonder employees viewed the yearly "report card" with trepidation and disdain.
Today, the management of companies that have embraced a more forward-looking philosophy of employee evaluations see it as a time to exchange information, to analyze and discuss collectively how the employee can play a greater role in the company's future, and to correct deficiencies that might stand in the way of achieving that.
Bill Marriott of the Marriott Hotel chain has set a new standard where evaluations are concerned. Although the company conducts regular reviews of all employees' performance, it also dispatches Marriott's top executives to a one-day retreat where their only task is to critique Bill Marriott. I understand that he takes their comments very much to heart and acts on many of them.
Few of us enjoy criticizing others, but it comes with the territory of being a manager. It simply has to be done. Criticism isn't all bad. Ultimately it's the manner in which it's handled that can be detrimental to working relationships.
Offer constructive criticism. For example, if a report submitted by an employee is inadequate, try saying, "You're on the right track, but you need to include more information and to work on the style of presentation." That will generate a more positive response than, "Do the report over again and make sure it's complete this time." Sometimes, as in this case, it's just a matter of qualifying what's said. To take further demoralizing aspects out of criticism, focus the discussion on the task, not the person.
Ask yourself the following questions to see what kind of a critic you are:
- Do you make sure you've got all the facts before confronting an employee?
- Do you exert your best effort to be constructive?
- Do you make it a point to say something complimentary before getting to the criticism?
- Do you try, when appropriate, to assume part of the responsibility for mistakes?
- Do you stick to the issues and eliminate personalities?
- Do you remain objective and listen to the other side of the story?
- Are you sarcastic when criticizing?
- Do you make it a point to criticize employee when others are around?
- Do you lose your temper easily?
- Do you always contradict the employee?
Stand up for Your Employees' Ideas
Anyone who's been in the business world for any amount of time has run into two types of managers: those who stand squarely behind their employees and those who back them only when they're right and abandon them when they're wrong.
Willis Player, who was vice president of public relations for Pan American World Airlines during its high-flying days, once summed up his philosophy to a friend of mine who had worked directly for him. Player's philosophy was that his primary responsibility was to hire the right people and make sure upper management knew how good they were. He constantly crowed about their achievements. When someone failed, he stood firmly behind that individual's right to fail. His message to his superiors was that he'd hired the best, and the airline was fortunate to have such people working for it.
How many good ideas are never advanced to a level of management at which they can be implemented because of fear that someone further up the chain of command won't like them? If a company's prevailing atmosphere is one of fear of failure rather than the encouragement of prudent risk taking, good ideas are routinely scrapped at lower levels. Safer to say "no" than to run the risk of having a superior say it.
Don't Automatically Say "No" to an Employee's Idea
The word No can be a powerful deterrent to business success. Companies that equate safety with negativism create what's come to be known as a "No"-Zone layer, a cloud of negativity under which all employees must function.
What basically happens in this atmosphere is that initiative wanes, risk is avoided at all costs, and ideas drown. Worse, a "No"-Zone layer thickens over time, fed by the repeated "no" employees hear whenever they present an idea that threatens the status quo.
A "No"-Zone layer is created and fed with management responses such as:
"You're right. That would save time for everyone, but the change would require too much disruption."
"I like the idea but Ben in marketing will never buy it. Let's not even bring it up."
"Great idea. Let's think about setting up a task force to explore it."
"That would definitely be helpful, but it'll cost money. Let's wait and see if we come in under budget somewhere else."
Try to avoid such responses. Admittedly, most ideas are not worth pursuing to the stage of implementation: they prove to be impractical or run counter to long-range goals. However, that can never be determined unless there is an open field for them to be expressed and fairly evaluated by all the right people at the right levels.
It isn't only the ideas that merit consideration in the hope that some will prove to be profitable. It's the people behind those ideas who deserve, indeed, need to know that their thinking counts. When they do, spirits soar, productivity rises, and the revolving door turns less frequently.
"No"-Zone layers are insidious in that they just seem to appear before anyone notices. Then, inertia fuels them until they become an ingrained and integral part of a company's operational atmosphere. Obviously, the time to begin dismantling the "No"-Zone layer is before it gets started.
Undoubtedly, there will be managers in the most enlightened and forward-looking companies who, by virtue of previous experience and ingrained philosophies, create their own private "No"-Zone layers. When a company as an entity stands firm against such pockets of negativity, however, it's more difficult for them to be sustained.
Although upper reaches of management must set the tone that discourages "No"-Zone layers, it's up to managers at every level to implement that philosophy. The entrepreneurial spirit that encourages individual problem solving and risk taking stems from people, not from organization charts.
Here are a few of the principles and approaches that will help managers encourage employees and, by extension, discourage "No"-Zone layers.
- Ask managers to regularly second-guess themselves. Have ideas generated by employees been shrugged off or shelved because they were too much trouble to pursue? When turning down ideas, have the reasons for doing so been properly explained to the contributing employees? Have those same people been encouraged to submit other ideas, and are they confident they'll be given a reasonable hearing?
- Are ideas that look good on the surface given a full airing and hashed out in an open and free atmosphere of give-and-take? The most visionary and creative ideas often sound ridiculous when first uttered. It's only through discussion that their true merit can be determined and fine-turned. This takes a willingness by managers to be open-minded, even to the extent of acknowledging that their immediate negative responses might have been wrong. Once employees realize that their superiors are open to exploring new ideas and are willing to expose their own thinking, the creative process is enhanced.
- Are managers committed to carrying good ideas to a higher level, one at which implementation is more likely? If so, will the appropriate credit be given to the employee who originated the idea? I have always believed that one of the management traits employees view most favorably is a boss who'll go to bat for them and who'll take the necessary steps to make things happen.
- Are all employees aware of the company's commitment to encouraging new and innovative ideas? This responsibility rests with individual managers. Having conceptually "banned" the "No"-Zone layer from a company is only the first step, albeit a critically important one. Unless there is an active field at all levels in which ideas are openly sought, good ideas will be slow in coming. The most effective managers I know have initiated tangible and visible programs to elicit ideas from employees. They schedule regular sessions at which the "podium" is open to all. People are expected to come to these sessions with ideas.
Employees soon get this message: The company values you and your ideas and expects you to contribute them.
- Do managers have enough of the evangelist in them to fire up their employees?
- Does the company believe that strategy is the art of experimentation and encourage its employees to take prudent risks to achieve bigger and better results? Has each manager truly bought into this concept, and are employees comfortable knowing that if they risk and fail, they won't be punished? Any manager uncomfortable with taking risk might consider that turtles only make progress when they stick their necks out.
- Is the commitment to abolishing the "No"-zone layer genuine or is it like those suggestion boxes into which go ideas that will never be considered?
- Is there a tendency to seek safety in numbers? Are ideas routinely saved up to be presented to a task force? Nothing discourages ideas faster than knowing they'll be picked apart by many people. Unless someone champions ideas at such meetings, they're doomed to fail. Remember: A meeting is no substitute for progress. In most cases, task forces serve only to delay action.
- Is every manager willing to admit mistakes? Years ago Robert Half International commissioned a survey of executives at 200 large American companies. They indicated that lower-level staff employees are more willing to admit mistakes than are their bosses. This inevitably results in an unmotivated and risk-shy workforce. Admitting mistakes is the best way to avoid repeating them. Henry Ford forgot to put a reverse gear in his first automobile. Edison invested over $2 million in an invention that didn't work. Neither of these great men made those same mistakes again. We can view mistakes as Robert W. Johnson, founder of Johnson & Johnson, did. "If I wasn't making mistakes," he said, "I wasn't making decisions."
- Is the humor quotient of a department sufficiently high to help boost morale when risk results in failure? No one would suggest that managers be responsible for comic relief, but those who are selfeffacing enough to laugh at their own mistakes and foibles set a tone that eases tension and contributes to departmental harmony.
On the other hand, if kindness reeks of manipulation, it will have the opposite effect. I once knew an executive who programmed his calendar to remind himself to ask his employees every three months about their families. This is akin to computers sending birthday cards to clients for business reasons.
Long before there were comprehensive benefit packages, I knew a partner in an accounting firm who, when a loyal employee had sickness in the family, directed that the firm pay all medical expenses and that the employee be given as many days off as needed to attend to the situation. Neither he nor the company broadcast this, but the word got around. So did the fact that the executive in the previous example, the man with notations on his calendar to "demonstrate kindness and concern," obviously didn't mean it when he asked about the spouse and kids.
Praise Employees
Why is it that so many managers find it difficult to praise their employees? The answer may be attributed to some vague and questionable school of management that teaches that too much praise creates complacency--the school of "keep them on edge."
A better school teaches that it's virtually impossible to over-praise. Most employees respond to praise by working harder. Similarly, those who work hard but feel unappreciated are likely to cut back on their efforts.
Jealousy, envy, disappointment, anger, joy, fear, ambition, pettiness, love, hate, inadequacy--the gamut of human emotions is as active in the workplace as in the home and community. What should matter to a company is that these human feelings be channeled in a positive direction, one in which the individual and company find room and reason to grow.
Employees who are empowered to create and contribute have less reason to vent their frustration. Those who are encouraged to take prudent risks without fear of undue reprisal seek new heights, not only for themselves but for their companies.
Above all else, the problems inherent in these things that make us human are not restricted to employees. They are shared by everyone in the company, CEO and mailroom clerk alike. When the human community that is a company sees itself as linked to a common goal and purpose and acts accordingly, growth follows. What more can any company ask?
