Mike Lehr's Blog

Business drastically discounts the interpersonal interaction in favor of group ones. Saying the same thing to ten people simultaneously is more efficient than saying it ten different times to each person. However, this efficiency overlooks two important qualitative, interpersonal aspects:

1. People prefer to interact with their leaders one-on-one.
2. People enjoy talking about their leaders to others.

In a business setting, presidents, executives and managers, can influence the company’s internal grapevine through dynamic, interpersonal interactions with their employees. The right-hand figure illustrates the reverberation these interactions can create. A leader (blue sphere) interacts with an employee (red sphere) causing him to share his experience (red rings) with the leader with others (green spheres). The challenge is making the reverberation a positive one. Leaders accomplish this by taking advantage of opportunities to employ their personalities.

For example, in a thousand-person, five-floor regional office, a sales representative sold the largest single order for a particular type of product in the fifteen-year history of the office. The Regional President sent the sales representative a congratulatory note.

While a satisfactory response, it demonstrates the dynamic, grapevine opportunity he missed. He could have gone done to the sales representative’s floor and congratulated her personally. Even if she weren’t there, the mere sight of him on the floor would have created positive reverberations. Moreover, while he was there, he would have had the opportunity to interact with other employees creating other reverberations.

Every day, business leaders miss these kinds of opportunities to seize control of the grapevine, to make dynamic gestures. The effort is very similar to a public relations campaign except it’s internal. Instead, business leaders moan and complain about gossip, believing it’s beyond their control, when in actuality they actively make the grapevine work for them.

Related post: Tapping the Power of Personality for Executives and Senior Managers 1.0

The article, “Think Yourself Better,” in the May 21, 2011 edition of The Economist discussed the placebo effect: belief in a medical treatment increases its effectiveness. Research is also showing that this effect continues even if patients know a placebo was used. So, if belief helps doctors treat patients, why can’t it help managers manage employees?

The connection becomes more pragmatic when we consider that placebos work better when the drama around administering them is intensified. For example, the more enthusiastic the doctor is in administering it, the more likely it will have a greater effect. Additionally, giving an injection works better than a pill and a sham surgery works better yet.

The application to management is this: you can improve employees’ performances by telling them you believe they will become better. By connecting this belief to various new tools, initiatives and training, you will make the tools, initiative and training work better.

Presentation is a large part of what makes placebos work. A previous post talked about two identical bonus plans that were presented differently to employees. One motivated them more than the other did. This held true even when employees learned later that they earned the same bonus under both plans.

In pragmatic terms, this means that the more enthusiastic you are, the more attention you pay to employees and the more important you believe they are, the better they will do. This will occur even if you don’t show them one single technique to do their jobs better.

To make employees better, help them believe they can become better by showing sincerely and enthusiastically that you believe they can become better. If you want good employees, treat them like good employees.

I read two articles related to the impact positive feelings can have on performance. One concerns positive feelings from comments (Harvard Business Review) and the other from superstitions (Psychological Science). Both reference research from Dr. Lysann Damisch of the University of Cologne.

They reminded me of the commentary from the Top Gun DVD (Widescreen Special Collector’s Edition). A Top Gun instructor who was a technical advisor for the movie emphasized the importance of pilots’ confidence; they need to feel invincible. Thus, the crisis of confidence that Tom Cruise’s character, Maverick, had after his partner’s death is very real and dangerous.

Paradoxically, the modern workplace seems more concerned with telling employees what they are doing wrong rather than right. How successful can we be then in nurturing positive feelings to enhance the performance of employees? How much better would employees do if we took the same care as a Top Gun instructor? The research suggests, “They would certainly do much better.”

Part of the problem is psychological. We often see managers who regularly point out employee errors as being much tougher than those who regularly point out their successes. We tend to associate toughness with criticism and gentleness with compliments. Consequently, it’s extremely difficult for managers to convey strength when they’re complimentary. Moreover, complimentary actions can trigger sensitive emotions encouraging managers to feel “soft.” This can be a fearsome personal event for managers in companies that even have a small amount of machismo in their culture.

However, what studies like this demonstrate, and there will be more in the future, is that the emotional state of our employees is far more important than their mental state. Nurturing this will take extremely disciplined and emotionally secure managers to overcome their own feelings of being a “softy,” not a trait that has normally been in managerial talent.

As a result of my post, Dealing with Bosses Who Manage by Email, a reader’s email wanted to know what to do about co-workers who copy their bosses on emails to you. There are two perspectives to keep in mind:

1. For some reason your co-worker believes it’s important to copy the boss
2. Under no circumstances should you assume you know the reason

In general, a co-worker will copy the boss for one or both of the following general reasons:

1. He wants to.
2. He feels compelled to.

For instance, he might want his boss to know that he sent the email, or his boss might have told him to copy him regularly. Even if his boss didn’t say anything to him, the co-worker might be interpreting something about the company’s culture that encourages him to do this.

Again, the general approach if a co-worker is doing something you dislike is to ask him why he’s doing it. There might be a solution. For instance, if he needs to document his requests, he can file them rather than copy bosses. Even if there isn’t a solution, the reason could help you learn something about your boss, the company and your co-worker. However, it’s important to ask in a non-accusatory manner. That’s why you don’t want to presume you know the reason. It could upset you and make asking challenging.

Regardless of whether there is a solution, ask your co-worker if he would stop realizing of course that he might not comply. Still, it’s important that he knows you are aware of what he’s doing. On the other hand, he might comply simply because you asked. This is why it’s important to develop good relationships with all your co-workers, so you can leverage them when you need.

A financial professional emailed me regarding bosses who “manage by email.” She implied that her boss rarely calls  or meets with employees. She asked, “What does this mean?” and “What should I do?”

First, email does provide certain efficiencies over personal interactions (phone calls and visits). However, from a relationship-building perspective the others are superior. Consequently, I advise managers to have at least one personal interaction with every employee every day.

Managers who MBE will do so for different personal reasons. Nevertheless, we can categorize them under one or both of the following:

• Wanting to minimize their personal interactions
• Liking something better about email communications

So, what do you do? Begin by uncovering the specific reasons under these broad preferences. Here are a couple sample questions to customize:

• What are the advantages of emailing on ____ over meeting to discuss it periodically?
• It seems you prefer to communicate by email; if so, would you share with me why so I can ensure I communicate effectively in them

Their answers will give you a general direction as to what bosses like to see in their relationships. For instance, if he references efficiency, then speed might be more important than substance in his relationships. If she references documentation, she might prefer accountability, organization and recollection. If he references organizing or forming his thoughts, he might prefer control to spontaneity in relationships.

After gaining this insight, employees can initiate personal interactions and seek to deliver the attributes they’ve identified. Regardless, employees are wise to reverse the tables and make it a point to call or visit their bosses at least once a day. This will not only help protect their jobs but also help employees be happier and more successful in them.

A labor relations expert emailed me describing a trial in which an employee lied about a previous injury even when the truth would have helped her receive compensation. He wondered whether such lying was just something the employer had to accept.

First, I would broaden the context by asking: Why did the employee feel the need to push this to trial? She obviously had no confidence in her employer looking out for her. Yes, some employees game the system; some professionals even try to help. However, the fact remains that employers who have mediocre relationships with employees are going to experience more contention and dishonesty than those who have exemplary relationships.

In these situations, employees will lie even if the truth helps because 1) they don’t know that, or 2) even if they do know it, they don’t believe it. Once an employee refused to take documents to her doctor certifying a serious health condition because she didn’t believe her employer was trying to help.

Second, many employees just don’t believe the judicial process is there to help. To impress this on employers, I often ask whether they would tell someone like Stalin or Hitler the truth even if they assured them of fair treatment? Yes, an extreme view, but not so far from the true feelings of some employees.

Finally, we falsely assume that if people aren’t telling the truth then they are lying. In reality, they just have a different interpretation of the facts; and thus, they fully believe they are truthful.

Unfortunately, most employers feel their relationships with employees are better than they are. As a result, they need to look at situations like the above as professional and business failures. Exemplary employee relationships will minimize these situations; relationship building is often the best defense.

The Hot Spotters, by Atul Gawande in the January 24, 2011 issue of The New Yorker spoke primarily to minimizing medical costs but had much relevancy to my experiences in effecting change. It covered five tactics. This is the third of a five part series.

Tactic #3 involves breaking down and delivering change in very small, simple steps. For organization-wide change, every manager has responsibility for detailing this for every one of his employees. This is difficult.  Usually, there are two problems:

1. Failing to uncover some important details
2. Seeing only one step where there are two or more

Unfortunately, the difference between too little and too much detail isn’t clear. Generally, it’s better to err on the latter; while keeping in mind timing and the threat of over planning, and accepting that we will always overlook some details.

When we bring the change to the individual level, it’s extremely important that we break down the change into small bites and deliver them one at a time. Emotionally, the change is too daunting if we show someone all of it at once.

Often, the worse person to detail these steps is someone who performs them well because they come naturally to her. Thus, what she sees as one step could easily be five to ten. In these cases, someone with a project or process management orientation is helpful. He can observe and work with the model to detail the steps. If the change is dramatically new and lacks a model, he can jointly work with the expert on the new process and those affected employees to detail the new steps.

Once detailed, someone with a training attribute can help organize them into a developmental plan for the manager’s use with his employees.

Other links in this series:

• Change Management – Tactic #1: Pick the Right Moment
• Change Management – Tactic #2: Strengthen Relationships
• Change Management – Tactic #4: Repetitiveness
• Change Management – Tactic #5: Request Demonstration
• Change Management – Tactic #6: Guard Employees’ Time

Long ago I sat in on the reprimand of an employee by a manager. The manager concluded his discussion by asking the employee, “Do you understand what I’m saying?” The employee responded, “Yes.” It suddenly occurred to me how biased we are in thinking that education alone will correct behavior. In other words, we assume that if someone understands our argument and reasons they will adopt our point of view.

In this above situation, there was no follow up by the manager to explore whether the employee agreed with the manager’s alternative action or whether the employee was moved to act accordingly in future situations. Yes, he was aware of the consequences, but we tend to forget that sometimes people are willing to pay those consequences.

I refer to making this false assumption about “Do you understand?” as a cognitive bias; we tend to believe that reasons, logic and rationales are enough to win the day. This bias will tend to make us wrongly believe that we’ve done “our best.”

I also experience this in non-disciplinary situations in which anyone is trying to influence another person. This cognitive bias happens frequently with instructors trying to move participants to take action in such settings as business training. They will ask participants, “Do you understand what I’ve shown (said, did, etc.)?”

Therefore, in summary, I find four basic hurdles, represented by the following questions, that we need to negotiate and verify before we can have significant confidence that we’ve persuaded someone:

1. Do you hear me?
2. Do you understand me?
3. Do you agree with me?
4. Are you moved to take the recommended action (to act on this idea)?

Even though it spoke primarily to minimizing medical costs, the article, The Hot Spotters, by Atul Gawande in the January 24, 2011 issue of The New Yorker had much relevancy to effecting change. It covered five tactics to do so and crystallized many of my experiences. This post covers the second tactic. Three future posts will cover the remainders.

The second tactic is strengthening relationships with employees. If change management were painting, then this tactic would be prepping and priming the surface. Just as the outcome of painting is largely determined by the prepping and priming of the underlying surface, the success of change initiatives is largely determined by the relationships management teams have with their employees.

This relationship building is best done through approaches that influence employees on an intuitive level, making emotional connections. Here are five approaches discussed in other postings:

1. Remembering and using employees’ names
2. Thanking employees for doing their job every 3-6 months
3. Shaking employees’ hands every 3-6 months
4. Learning to use compliments effectively
5. Tapping the power of personality in executives and senior managers

None of these requires any expense. However, they require a disciplined and well-coached management team. Ideally, these are happening on an ongoing basis not just when a change initiative is happening.

Some personality styles will be more comfortable with these, especially those with greater empathy, sensitivity or emotional intelligence. Managerial and executive assistants can help their bosses by scheduling and prepping them for these activities. They can even encourage their more reticent bosses.

Initially, if these approaches are new, employees might be suspicious so they will need some reassurance. However, regardless of the manager’s or executive’s interpersonal skills, employees will eventually appreciate them. The keys are consistently applying them and not expecting quick fixes.

Other links in this series:

• Change Management – Tactic #1: Pick the Right Moment
• Change Management – Tactic #3: Very Small, Simple Steps
• Change Management – Tactic #4: Repetitiveness
• Change Management – Tactic #5: Request Demonstration
• Change Management – Tactic #6: Guard Employees’ Time

How many times do we hear, “I’m really a people person”? Yet, when people are the problem, we can’t find those folks in the country?

It’s not unusual for employers to say, “My people make my business,” and then in the same breath say “The worst part about running a business is dealing with the employees.”

How many times do we hear salespeople say, “I’m a relationship specialist,” but when it comes to working with their assistants, they stumble over themselves and run to human resources?

How many times do people say they want to get into management, but then pass on their less desirable employees to other departments by giving them satisfactory reviews?

When conversation is light and pleasant, many extroverts mingle with the best, smiling, shaking hands and joking. Yet, how many of them enjoy working with people when they have protracted developmental problems? When we use the term “socialize,” does it even connote people problems?

What does it mean to “work a crowd”? It means meeting people as fast as you can before they dump any problems on you. When was the last time anyone worked a crowd to find out what the problems were?

Yes, computers can be problems, but they are usually quiet about them. Wouldn’t it be neat if people were the same way? Maybe that’s why some people prefer sitting at their desks reviewing the latest figures to see what problems there might be rather than wandering around to see what problems people might have.

Perhaps the next time someone says, “I’m a people person,” we should ask two questions:

1. What was the last people problem you tackled?
2. Why did you enjoy it?