Recently an acquaintance was asking me what he could do to make sure that his team members were more "engaged". He felt that they lacked enthusiasm or motivation for their task. As the team leader, he wondered if there was something he should be doing to his management style to make them happier or more satisfied.
My response was that he should first look at the task they are doing.
When I was in junior high school, one of my favorite books was "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams. One of the characters is a robot named Marvin, who is absolutely brilliant but generally quite depressed. Marvin is repeatedly asked to do menial tasks (because that is what robots are for after all), and as he trudges off to complete the menial task he mutters "Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they ask me if I can (insert menial task here)".
Well, we often do this same thing to our employees without realizing it.
Many years ago, Richard Hackman and Greg Oldham came up with what they called the Job Characteristics Model. They posited that employee motivation would be based upon the task(s) that employees are being asked to perform. Their model statest that motivation increases when employees are given a "meaningful" task (meaning that it requires a variety of skills, the task is significant in some way, and it has a specific identity), which is then combined with autonomy to perform the task in way the employee decides, and followed up with regular, specific feedback about task performance.
This model can be found in almost any organizational behavior textbook. But we often fail to take it into account when we design teams/tasks or when we look for ways to increase "engagement".
Designing teams and tasks properly takes work. More work than most of us ever want to do. Our business environments push us to start accomplishing things yesterday, we don't have time to do things properly just start doing them. However we often forget that teams are a technology that we have borrowed from sports and the military, and those two industries know that to have a high performing team you need to spend time with it, redesigning the team, working with the individuals, running it through simulations. Practicing managers don't have that amount of time to invest into a team before they get results. However, as a team leader, you need to find at least some of that time to think about how the team and the team members should approach the task at hand, in order to keep everyone's engagement levels up.
So stop thinking so much about your "management style" and focus on the task!
September 30, 2009
September 21, 2009
Trust me!
So recently someone was asking me about how to develop trust within a team.
Trust in teams and organizations: its pretty much a perennial concern. Everyone wants trust. Let's face it; everyone wants to be trusted, everyone wants to work with people that they trust, we know that trust has some positives associated with it (e.g. reduced conflict, increased information sharing, etc.) and has relatively few downsides.
But in our 24/7 instant-on-demand culture, we want trust to develop faster. We want to develop trust before the team starts, we develop team-building sessions to help create trust, we find ways to encourage (or even force!) non-task social interaction in order to develop trust. Especially in virtual teams, where team members do not have the opportunity to meet face-to-face, we are concerned with the impact on trust.
What we often forget is that trust is primarily an outcome of social/task processes, not an input. When you first meet someone you have neutral trust with them - or rather, you have whatever trust you happen to have in the social context. If there is a strong social system with distinct rules and laws, then you have trust in those rules & laws rather than trust in the individual. If you meet someone in a relatively lawless environment, then you are going to be suspicious of them until they have given you reason to trust them. So trust is an output first, and then becomes an input into social processes over time.
So, the best way to build trust within a team is let people start interacting and performing. Over time (and really, not that much time if they have the opportunity to work on shared tasks), they will get a very realistic sense of how much they can trust each others' motives, values, intentions, competencies, etc.
But still, some people will want to speed up the development of trust within their team. Sorry, you can't. You cannot force two people to trust each other. You can however build up a social system in which they can place trust, regardless of the trust they may have for each other (positive, negative or neutral). So what you do is focus on building very clear, shared goals for the team - working to make sure that everyone's motives and intentions are in alignment with each other. You create very clear roles for everyone on the team, and explain to all team members what John Doe brings to his role and what Jane Smith brings to her role. This helps to build trust in people's competence. Finally, you encourage communication between group members about their task, as it is hard to feel interpersonal trust for someone who is isolated from you. Now you have a system that encourages trust in the short term, plus the interaction to build interpersonal trust over time. So sit back and start enjoying the task, the trust will come.
Go on, give it a try!
Trust in teams and organizations: its pretty much a perennial concern. Everyone wants trust. Let's face it; everyone wants to be trusted, everyone wants to work with people that they trust, we know that trust has some positives associated with it (e.g. reduced conflict, increased information sharing, etc.) and has relatively few downsides.
But in our 24/7 instant-on-demand culture, we want trust to develop faster. We want to develop trust before the team starts, we develop team-building sessions to help create trust, we find ways to encourage (or even force!) non-task social interaction in order to develop trust. Especially in virtual teams, where team members do not have the opportunity to meet face-to-face, we are concerned with the impact on trust.
What we often forget is that trust is primarily an outcome of social/task processes, not an input. When you first meet someone you have neutral trust with them - or rather, you have whatever trust you happen to have in the social context. If there is a strong social system with distinct rules and laws, then you have trust in those rules & laws rather than trust in the individual. If you meet someone in a relatively lawless environment, then you are going to be suspicious of them until they have given you reason to trust them. So trust is an output first, and then becomes an input into social processes over time.
So, the best way to build trust within a team is let people start interacting and performing. Over time (and really, not that much time if they have the opportunity to work on shared tasks), they will get a very realistic sense of how much they can trust each others' motives, values, intentions, competencies, etc.
But still, some people will want to speed up the development of trust within their team. Sorry, you can't. You cannot force two people to trust each other. You can however build up a social system in which they can place trust, regardless of the trust they may have for each other (positive, negative or neutral). So what you do is focus on building very clear, shared goals for the team - working to make sure that everyone's motives and intentions are in alignment with each other. You create very clear roles for everyone on the team, and explain to all team members what John Doe brings to his role and what Jane Smith brings to her role. This helps to build trust in people's competence. Finally, you encourage communication between group members about their task, as it is hard to feel interpersonal trust for someone who is isolated from you. Now you have a system that encourages trust in the short term, plus the interaction to build interpersonal trust over time. So sit back and start enjoying the task, the trust will come.
Go on, give it a try!
September 15, 2009
Aligning your people
A bit of a follow-up to last week's post on personal (or personnel) development.
Teams (as well as larger organizations) often have a tendency to suffer from inertia. In other words, we keep doing something in the same way because that's the way we have "always" done it. A key manner in which this can hurt a team is in terms of job assignments.
Your team changes. New people come onto the team, sometimes people leave, sometimes people alter the amount of time they can spend on your team, and sometimes people go out and learn new skills & knowledge. However, we rarely sit back and systematically look at the (human) resources that we have and how they map onto the jobs/demands that the team must fill. Your financial advisor will tell you to systematically look at and adjust your financial portfolio every 1-3 years. However, they will also tell you that this doesn't hold if certain things change - most notably your own financial goals or the goals of an individual fund.
Similar logic holds for systematically analyzing the resources your team has at its disposal. You don't need to do this every 6 months, or every year. However, there are certain situations that should trigger a systematic evaluation of the team's tasks and the roles of team members.
These will include events such as:
So mix it up!
Teams (as well as larger organizations) often have a tendency to suffer from inertia. In other words, we keep doing something in the same way because that's the way we have "always" done it. A key manner in which this can hurt a team is in terms of job assignments.
Your team changes. New people come onto the team, sometimes people leave, sometimes people alter the amount of time they can spend on your team, and sometimes people go out and learn new skills & knowledge. However, we rarely sit back and systematically look at the (human) resources that we have and how they map onto the jobs/demands that the team must fill. Your financial advisor will tell you to systematically look at and adjust your financial portfolio every 1-3 years. However, they will also tell you that this doesn't hold if certain things change - most notably your own financial goals or the goals of an individual fund.
Similar logic holds for systematically analyzing the resources your team has at its disposal. You don't need to do this every 6 months, or every year. However, there are certain situations that should trigger a systematic evaluation of the team's tasks and the roles of team members.
These will include events such as:
- A change in the team's tasks and responsibilities. Don't just assign someone to the new task, make sure that your overall "portfolio" of people and the roles that they perform make sense. This includes not only what is someone's availability and technical skills/expertise, but also what relationships and people skills can a team member take advantage of?
- A change in the team's membership. Obviously, if you have different members on your team, you have a different set of skills & abilities at the team's disposal. We often see this in terms of new skills added to the team (by a new team member), or skills lost to the team (when a veteran team member leaves). However, we rarely think about moving people around within the team to better position the team as a whole after the arrival of a new team member. An example: John has been our team's liaison to Operations over the past 9 months. He does a pretty good job, and he is not dissatisfied with this aspect of his job. Now Lisa joins the team. She has a background in Operations, worked there for 15 years. Most managers don't think about giving her John's liaison responsibility, they just give her any "open" jobs, or a job that someone is performing poorly. However, this is a lost opportunity.
- A change in the way key tasks are performed (e.g. new software, a new business partner, etc.). "I've been doing this task all along; so yeah, I suppose I'll learn the new software...". As a team leader or manager, your response should be "no, wait". Its one thing if this team member wants to learn this new skill for other reasons. But if someone else in the team has that skill, this may be a good time to reposition a few team members and the roles they perform.
So mix it up!
September 11, 2009
Leading people via personal development
A fair number of people I know have been asking lately about performance feedback. What *is* the best way to give performance feedback?
Some people prefer to focus on an individual's weaknesses, some prefer to focus on strengths, some prefer to try to achieve "balance" between strengths and weaknesses, etc.
A lot depends upon your goal when you give someone performance feedback?
An analogy: when a child reaches towards a hot stove, do we take the time to praise them for their curiosity or their ability to climb up on the chair by themselves? No, because our *goal* is to make sure that they don't make that "mistake" (touching the hot stove) again. Conversely, when that same child draws a picture and proclaims it to be several fish swimming in the sea, do we criticize them for not drawing an accurate depiction of fish? Again, no, because our "goal" this time is to get them to begin developing their abilities to draw & color, use a writing implement, express themselves, etc.
So the way we handle feedback should be in with our goals for that particular feedback session. If someone has just made a mistake, and you want them to not make that mistake again - then by all means use critical feedback. The human brain is hard-wired to accept and remember critical feedback. From an evolutionary perspective, if I just ate a berry that made me sick - I really, really want to remember what it looked like so that I don't eat that same berry again. We remember critical feedback very well, it makes an impact on us. Properly timed criticism can be very helpful in ensuring that we do not repeat mistakes.
However, if you want your employees to grow and develop, you need to adjust your feedback strategy. Critical feedback makes everyone do the same thing (avoid the mistake). But it also has side effects: it limits experimentation, makes us less likely to communicate with others, and in many people has a negative impact on motivation and satisfaction. Positive feedback on the other hand ("here are your strengths") causes very different reactions: it makes us *more* likely to experiment with new ways of accomplishing tasks, more likely to incorporate new ideas and information into our thinking, more likely to connect and communicate with other people, and it tends to have a positive impact on satisfaction and motivation.
Positive feedback also allows us to better identify, understand and develop our own unique and individual strengths. Organizations are made up of many people for a reason, you don't *want* carbon copies of one person. The fact that organizations have a diversity of people means that they have a diversity of strengths, and a successful organization plays to this.
Another analogy: If you were managing a sports team, would you want your roster made up entirely of multiple versions of David Ortiz or Teddy Bruschi or Tom Brady? Okay, so I'm a New England sports fan, but still... You wouldn't want a soccer team made of carbon copies of David Beckham or even of Pele; you wouldn't want a basketball team made of multiple copies of LeBron James, or Shaquille O'Neal, or even Michael Jordan. Business organizations (like many sports teams) operate in a complex environment where they benefit from specialization.
So maybe you have direct report (let's call him "Bob") in your marketing department that isn't very creative at all, but is a great analyst. You have to do things: (1) you have to help Bob realize that he isn't all that creative, because to let him have a false sense of competence in a specific area isn't fair to him or to your organization; (2) you have to help Bob realize how his analytical abilities help the department as a whole, and how he can be even more help if he goes out and further develops his analytical abilities. Now, Bob is motivated to work on his strengths (because they have been recognized, and will help the organization), and is cognizant of his weak area (and so will allow others to be the strong ones in that area). Plus, because most of your feedback is focused on the positive, Bob is more likely to be proactive and creative in his use and development of his analytical abilities, will be more likely to step forward and communicate his skill to others, and will be more likely to reach out and partner with others who have complementary (rather than redundant) strengths.
The end result? A stronger team.
Much as I like David Ortiz, I don't want him trying to Red Sox entering into the post-season....
Some people prefer to focus on an individual's weaknesses, some prefer to focus on strengths, some prefer to try to achieve "balance" between strengths and weaknesses, etc.
A lot depends upon your goal when you give someone performance feedback?
An analogy: when a child reaches towards a hot stove, do we take the time to praise them for their curiosity or their ability to climb up on the chair by themselves? No, because our *goal* is to make sure that they don't make that "mistake" (touching the hot stove) again. Conversely, when that same child draws a picture and proclaims it to be several fish swimming in the sea, do we criticize them for not drawing an accurate depiction of fish? Again, no, because our "goal" this time is to get them to begin developing their abilities to draw & color, use a writing implement, express themselves, etc.
So the way we handle feedback should be in with our goals for that particular feedback session. If someone has just made a mistake, and you want them to not make that mistake again - then by all means use critical feedback. The human brain is hard-wired to accept and remember critical feedback. From an evolutionary perspective, if I just ate a berry that made me sick - I really, really want to remember what it looked like so that I don't eat that same berry again. We remember critical feedback very well, it makes an impact on us. Properly timed criticism can be very helpful in ensuring that we do not repeat mistakes.
However, if you want your employees to grow and develop, you need to adjust your feedback strategy. Critical feedback makes everyone do the same thing (avoid the mistake). But it also has side effects: it limits experimentation, makes us less likely to communicate with others, and in many people has a negative impact on motivation and satisfaction. Positive feedback on the other hand ("here are your strengths") causes very different reactions: it makes us *more* likely to experiment with new ways of accomplishing tasks, more likely to incorporate new ideas and information into our thinking, more likely to connect and communicate with other people, and it tends to have a positive impact on satisfaction and motivation.
Positive feedback also allows us to better identify, understand and develop our own unique and individual strengths. Organizations are made up of many people for a reason, you don't *want* carbon copies of one person. The fact that organizations have a diversity of people means that they have a diversity of strengths, and a successful organization plays to this.
Another analogy: If you were managing a sports team, would you want your roster made up entirely of multiple versions of David Ortiz or Teddy Bruschi or Tom Brady? Okay, so I'm a New England sports fan, but still... You wouldn't want a soccer team made of carbon copies of David Beckham or even of Pele; you wouldn't want a basketball team made of multiple copies of LeBron James, or Shaquille O'Neal, or even Michael Jordan. Business organizations (like many sports teams) operate in a complex environment where they benefit from specialization.
So maybe you have direct report (let's call him "Bob") in your marketing department that isn't very creative at all, but is a great analyst. You have to do things: (1) you have to help Bob realize that he isn't all that creative, because to let him have a false sense of competence in a specific area isn't fair to him or to your organization; (2) you have to help Bob realize how his analytical abilities help the department as a whole, and how he can be even more help if he goes out and further develops his analytical abilities. Now, Bob is motivated to work on his strengths (because they have been recognized, and will help the organization), and is cognizant of his weak area (and so will allow others to be the strong ones in that area). Plus, because most of your feedback is focused on the positive, Bob is more likely to be proactive and creative in his use and development of his analytical abilities, will be more likely to step forward and communicate his skill to others, and will be more likely to reach out and partner with others who have complementary (rather than redundant) strengths.
The end result? A stronger team.
Much as I like David Ortiz, I don't want him trying to Red Sox entering into the post-season....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)