Archive for August, 2009
Why internal communications matters
“You bang on a lot about communications don’t you”, someone said to me recently. Yes, it’s true I do, but that is because communications happens all of the time. It is how we get things done – or not as the case may be.
Some research done in the 1990s showed that if an organisation had a healthy internal communications package then it:
• Improved productivity
• Reduced absenteeism
• Increased innovation
• Reduced costs
• Produced better quality services/products
I would add:
• Reduces turnover of staff
• Builds trust
• Improves cooperation
Actually there is a lot of research out there that points to the benefit of good communications whether they are internal or external. Internal communications when developed to allow employees to have their say allow people to talk about their needs, it helps them to get information and they get a chance to influence decision making.
It has also shown that lots of face to face communications between managers and their teams leads to improved motivation and morale. It means that people are understood and small adjustments can be made in between the annual appraisals.
So yes I do bang on a lot about communication because you can really see the organisations that are not communicating with their people and the ones that do – the latter are the ones still in business!
Should CVs have photos?
I was asked this the other day and the answer is, with one exception NO!
When an employer is looking for someone to fill a post, what they are interested in is the skills set, experience and achievements that you can bring to the job. None of these are determined by how you look.
Your CV, therefore is a marketing document to get you that all important interview. It should contain all the information needed for the employer to determine your suitability for the job.
The one exception? Models or other people who use their looks in their work such as actors.
Sometimes it seems impossible to do right
I came across three stories recently all of which have a sad ending.
In one case a very senior executive in a very large organisation had been asked to do something by his organisation which was not ethical. Before committing himself he had thought long and hard about the request. It was clear that if he refused he would soon be forced out of his job. But if he agreed he would be compromising his principles.
Eventually he made a decision and loyalty plus the job won over principles. With time the issue became public and his (not so loyal) organisation ditched him in their attempts to survive. He is still looking for work.
In the second case another very senior executive working in a very large organisation was asked to do something which was not ethical and, even worse, compromised his professional standing. He was left with the imponderable question of whether the job and loyalty to his organisation came before professional integrity.
On this occasion he took the other route and refused to play ball. Predictably he was ousted very quickly and found himself unemployable, being branded as a ‘whistleblower’. His small part in this corporate story was the tip of a very much larger scandal and the organisation eventually went under. Although he did find work after a long while, he has never recovered fully.
The third story I told recently and that was of a middle manager who was trapped between the infighting of his two senior line managers (See Too many managers). Unfortunately he has been forced to leave along with a number of his team members. Life became too unbearable to remain.
In each case the person concerned had not asked for the problem to be thrust upon them; and in each case they paid the ultimate penalty – losing their job. You can argue their individual merits but ultimately you will be forced to take sides.
I do not condemn any of them. Nor in each circumstance could I swear with any certainty that I would act any differently. Anyone disagree?
A fit of the giggles
Anyone who knows me well would not expect me to have a fit of the giggles.
With some people I can react quite badly when they make thoughtless mistakes – one such was the presenter on BBC Breakfast recently when he talked about ‘less’ people. Now if you were Jonathan Swift (assuming that he were still alive) writing about Lemuel Gulliver in Lilliput, then you might have some sympathy; but the thoughtless remark from a so-called journalist and presenter beggars belief.
I think the miscreant concerned meant to say ‘fewer’ people since he was making reference to a numerically reduced number of people. Alas, instead he reduced all those involved to Lilliputian size.
Nevertheless, that was not what gave me the fit of giggles; instead it was a supposedly worthy report, upon which I was asked to comment. Within the report the writer, a lawyer by trade I believe, had made a number of wonderful grammatical mistakes, but two stand out. I quote:
“When the government changed in 2004, the consultants were immediately terminated.”
As one of the consultants to whom the writer refers, I can report that I remain in very rude health and don’t feel in the slightest bit terminated.
His second mistake which reduced me to further fits of giggles was:
“According to the ICR, the project contracted foreign English-speaking consultants who could not communicate directly with 90 percent of the non-English speaking Sri Lankan population.”
Aha! So how did they communicate with the other 10% of the non-English speaking Sri Lankan population? Sign language? Dutch perhaps? Or just shouted in English a little louder?
Or perhaps he meant to say that the foreign, English speaking (no need for a hyphen) consultants could not communicate with the 90% of the Sri Lankan population who do not speak English.
I won’t argue the toss with the writer about the niceties of consulting in a foreign land because, when you read the rest of the report, you soon see that he has a closed mind. However, there is a very simple lesson here; if you insist on writing a report which you want to be taken seriously, then at least get someone to check your grammar. Otherwise you may reduce the reader to fits of giggles.
Too many managers
Here is a tale of too many managers – we shall call them Manager A (the top manager), Manager B, Manager C and Manager D.
Manager D is the person we were talking too and he had a bit of a predicament. He was receiving instructions from both his line Manager (C) and her line Manager (B). That might be less than ideal but workable if everyone agreed on the approach to be taken.
However, Manager B was giving instructions with which Manager C did not agree. So our client, Manager D found himself in a very difficult situation, conflicting instructions which caused paralysis of action, and dispute between his two most immediate superiors.
Even worse, this state of affairs had started soon after he arrived into his job and members of his new team were already leaving because of the problems between the two more senior managers.
We haven’t mentioned Manager A yet; well he is the Departmental Head and seemingly is unconcerned about what was happening despite the high level of staff turnover. It might be worth adding that this is a Finance Department that was heading towards its annual audit.
What can Manager D do about this situation? Well it is very difficult because any wrong move could affect his prospects within the organisation, but equally to do nothing is not an option. So we recommended the following:
1. Talk to his immediate line manager (C) in an assertive and non aggressive way. Explain that this situation was causing operational problems because of the conflicting instructions and ask for clarification.
2. Put the details of this conversation in writing, probably an email, to line Manager C as soon as possible after the meeting with a clear understanding of what was agreed.
3. Ask his immediate line manager (C) to talk to her line manager (B) to get agreement on policies and procedures and to explain what had been agreed between her (B) and Manager D.
4. When approached by Manager B with instructions, ask if Manager C was aware of these instructions. Then explain that to avoid confusion he would email Manager C with the new instructions to get her clarification and agreement. Both Managers (B & C) should receive the email. He should keep a record/copy of any replies.
5. If Manager B became aggressive and told Manager D not to consult with Manager C then he should ask for that instruction in writing; always being careful to keep the conversation calm, polite and non personal.
6. If the situation did not improve after a few weeks then Manager D should speak to Manager A to seek further guidance.
7. If none of these actions work, then leave the organisation – life is too short to be in the middle of a war between two senior managers.
Any additional thoughts?
What is trust?
When talking to managers about working with their teams we often talk about trust. Then one manager challenged me and said, OK define trust so that we understand what it looks like.
It was quite a challenge to define trust in quite the way he wanted; but here goes. On the most basic level it means ‘to have confidence in’; but that doesn’t really define trust sufficiently well for the needs of a manager.
Instead I would define trust in management through three elements, openness, integrity and consistency.
Openness is that element that says tell your people as much as you can, and tell it to them in simple easy to understand language rather than wrapping it up in jargon and management speak to make you sound important.
Integrity is another word for honesty, truthfulness and you could say honourable actions. In other words be true to your people and don’t play silly games or politics with them. Also, don’t take credit for their work but give credit where it is due.
Consistency in one sense means being reliable, steady, perhaps even predictable. Managers who fly into a rage are not consistent. Managers who act in a logical way handle situations calmly, deal with people problems in an even handed way so that everyone knows where they stand.
So that defines trust from the direction a manager should be coming; of course trust is a two way thing and the manager should also have trust in their team.
Disengaged employees
I had forgotten, until I came across an article recently, how bad the problem of disengaged employees is within the workplace. It caused me to look again at Gallup which has a 30 year history of recording such information (see the link below for more details).
Today, according to Gallup, some 50% of the workforce is not engaged with 20% actively disengaged. In other words around 70% of the workforce is going to work without any real interest in the work they are doing. Gallup points out that this leads to poor morale, low productivity and reduced earnings per share.
Gallup suggest 12 elements that link to management. Look at these 12 statements and reflect on how many relate to you.
1. I know what is expected of me at work.
2. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right.
3. At work I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day.
4. In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work.
5. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person.
6. There is someone at work who encourages my development.
7. At work, my opinions seem to count.
8. The mission or purpose of my organisation makes me feel my job is important.
9. My associates or fellow employees are committed to doing quality work.
10. I have a best friend at work.
11. In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress.
12. This last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow.
As a manger it may be worth reflecting if you are doing all the things you need to be doing to ensure yes answers to each of these questions.
If you are not then it may well be that you have a high percentage of disengaged people in your team.
For the Gallup survey have a look at:
http://www.gallup.com/consulting/121535/Employee-Engagement-Overview-Brochure.aspx
Why delegation goes wrong
Recently I was working with a manager who informed me that he didn’t delegate any responsibilities to his team. I was shocked and disappointed and asked why. “Well, he said, every time I delegate a job to one of the team they always screw it up, so it’s easier and quicker to do it myself”.
No doubt it will be no surprise if I tell you that the person screwing up the delegated task was the manager himself. Further investigation revealed two fatal mistakes; he only ever gave grot jobs to be done and he never spent time telling his team member what he wanted from them.
Delegation only works if the manager is prepared to spend time explaining the task, getting agreement from the team member, explaining precisely what the outcome should be, gives them the authority as well as the responsibility to do it as well as any necessary information. The manager also needs to agree times when he and the team member meet to review the delegated task and make sure it is on track. Also, he needs to make sure that there is a time frame for doing the work; and he must trust them and not micromanage.
The other big must is that at least some of the jobs he delegates are interesting, challenging and ultimately rewarding.
If this manager had followed just those simple guidelines then he might have achieved more success, built a more skilful team with higher levels of motivation and greater loyalty to their manager.
He has promised to try again, we wait and see how he does.