Problem four: The common difficulty with goal setting is that although you need to focus on the positive (some say in ratio of four to one) often there is little attention paid to assessment of obstacles and the strategies to overcome them. What we need to do is spend a little time in predefining anticipated difficulties or obstacles and allocation the resources that will be needed to overcome them. we may need legal assistance, financial assistance or the cooperation of an already over-stretched production department just to cite a few examples. Lets be honest even with all the positive attitude we can muster we still have to deal with the reality that obstacles are unavoidable and we must spent some energy in planning for them in advance.

Problem five: Little or no serious focus is given to the solutions that need to be developed for overcoming obstacles. I’ve often been in planning meetings and heard the term “lets cross that bridge when we come to it”. If we are going to invest time energy and money into the execution of a plan that attitude is just not good enough. Some sort of scenario development needs to be undertaken an brainstorming for creative solutions needs to be done at the outset, otherwise all investment up to the the point of difficulty can be wasted.

Problem six: Keeping the goal to ourselves either as individual or a small team: Attempting to achieve our gaols alone or with limited resources is fraught with danger. We are all always part of a bigger process and we need to align with those ‘external processes’ and stakeholders if we are to achieve real results at a minimum cost. You need to call on all resources you have reasonable access to the get the best results for the goals you have set.

Problem seven: Not setting and clearly defining the important milestones on our path to achieving the result we (outcomes) we want. I talked in the previous post about objectives and again these have to be clearly defines and measured. Once reached they also need to be rewarded and celebrated.

I guess I could have titled these posts the “Seven Deadly Sins of Goal Setting” and that they may be. Finally it is wise to remember that goals to us may just be seen as onerous targets when other from whom you enlist support and effort. People inherently do not like externally imposed targets, so if you are gong to obtain “real support” for your goals, you have to get others whom you need to buy into your vision and accept the mission that the goals are supporting.

Ric-orglearn The six “Ps” of planning, always important and so is visualising what you want the end result to look like!

So sticking with the goals problem and bearing in mind what I have said, what are the main reasons we fail in our mission and what are the common mistakes we have to watch out for in the goal aspect of our plan?

Problem one: Often we do not spend enough time working on our most focusing on audacious or difficult goal.  Why – easy more comfortable goals can seem more attractive as we get some form of payback in a much shorter timeframe with much less effort.

Problem two: No form of the “SMART” principle is used. SMART stands for “Specific Measurable Attainable Realistic Time-bound” If this formulae is not applied to both the activities supporting the attainment of the goal and the goal itself the plan will be nothing more than some wishful thinking or useless navel gazing.

Problem three: Not correctly defining our compelling reasons the goal and not gaining agreement of the implementers of the action plan that the goal is worthwhile for all stakeholders. The goal must clearly be understood and valued in terms of the accepted vision and mission. It is critical that the goal setter clearly defines the benefits so it inspires those take the actions to stay committed to their tasks. Of course not clearly defining the downside and consequence of not achieving the coal can be part of the problem. We must explain both sides of the coin.

Please come back for part two of  “Goal Setting is Just the Start of the Real Work”

You as a new recruit might have more talent than existing team members however they have more experience.

It’s a privilege, not a right, to play/work in a top team regardless of how talented you are.

Your place in any team is temporary and it will be in every team you work with, or as he put it, “Your jersey is rented. You’re replaceable”

Developing sound levels of emotional intelligence is essential. “Don’t get sensitive, be coachable.”

“Habits create who you are and if you’re habits aren’t changing, you ain’t changing.”

Never be late for meetings, it shows a lack of commitment and loses you the trust of others and of course their respect.

“Be a good listener.” This is a learnable skill, if you have a problem with it… fix it.

Work hard to earn the trust of the leader and senior team members.

Adapted from a summary of “The Incredible Speech New NFL Recruits Got This Year” (June 29th 2011) – on the Business Insider Website. Read the full article at: http://www.businessinsider.com/15-career-tips-from-herm-edwards-nfl-speech-2011?op=1 where they also have the link to the actual speech on YouTube

Important point: Fitting into a new team is never easy however the tips here and of course the full list referenced above will give any new recruit a good start. I once conducted a survey in a company I worked with an asked existing staff if they accepted new company hires immediately because the company had put the trust in the new hires by employing them in the first place. The emphatic answer was no, not for some months until they had “proved themselves”. Lets be honest whether its formally documented or not all new jobs come with a six month probation period. Guess who decides if you pass probation or not, your peers and ‘subordinates’… not the management, however they will see how you relate to the team, the team will inform them on how well you fit and if you don’t you’re out.

Not a silly question, many think they know and don’t. Delegation of a task or activity to someone in our team or department, even though it is a central function of management, is often a greatly misunderstood process. Recently I read a paper by a gentleman with a PhD who stated that delegation was basically the act of “sharing the responsibility for a project’s outcomes”. This is a typical, however incorrect, assumption about delegation.

In a course I facilitated in the past the definition we used was, “delegation is the granting of all or part of your authority to decide or act where you the delegator always retains responsibility for the outcomes”. This delegation definition exposes one of the problems managers have with delegation, as obviously many managers are happy to pass on responsibility, however most them/us want to retain or protect our authority.

The big issue here for many managers I have trained is the issue of having, or developing, the trust in the person to whom they are delegating.

The reasons for delegating are obvious: efficiency, effectiveness, staff training and preparation for succession. The ultimate benefit of delegating is that the delegator, through developing efficient and effective staff will eventually release themselves from their current position so they can move to higher positions. If advancement is a goal it follows that effective delegation is probably the most important competence a manager can develop.

Practical aspects of delegation

Bearing in mind what I have said above the first issue to address is that a manager must be prepared to let go of the desire to undertake the tasks or the implement the actual project him/herself. Secondly, the staff member must be prepared to accept the delegated tasks. Issues of ‘I’m the best at this job’ from the manager’s perspective and ‘why should I do extra’ from the staff member need to be addressed at the outset.

Delegation is not simply asking somebody to perform an activity to help the delegator get his or her work done or finish a project. True and effective delegation requires that the manager explain the purpose of the delegation and conduct the necessary skills assessment or training to ensure the receiver can perform the tasks adequately. The key as I said is to hand over the necessary authority to get what is required done to a fully competent staff member.

The keys to successful delegation are: planning and prioritizing tasks, effective time management, setting of proper agreed deadlines, follow-up at half and three quarter time, giving up favourite tasks particularly after you have been promoted and ensuring the appropriate skills are present in the person being delegated to.

Developing Willing Employees

Effective management requires an ongoing process selecting people that can be trained to take on more stretching tasks. If you are familiar with Blanchard’s Situational Leadership II the method by which you do this will become obvious. By first giving small amounts of authority to complete basic tasks and then by monitoring their progress and making corrections where necessary, is a great way to start.

It is also important to look your group’s workload as a whole. The delegation of tasks will affect the whole group and it is wise to find out how work is now allocated and how much time is available for each member to do new, developmental tasks. It’s a good idea to involve your entire group in the process. All of us are somewhat motivated by a sense of equity and an equitable distribution of both workload and learning opportunities is essential.

For delegation to meet both work and development goals managers need to:

1. Delegate assignments that a team member needs to strengthen areas of weakness.
2. Delegate a variety of activities broaden and add interest to the recipient’s job.
3. Delegate activities that will, if carried out effectively, lead to advancement of the individual/s being delegated to.
4. Remember you may need to delegate in a chain effect. What I mean here is A takes over say two or three of your tasks and B takes over two or three of A’s task’s. You will need to keep a watchful eye on both A and B.

The Four Stages of Delegating

The Blanchard Situational Leadership (or Hershey & Blanchard) model is I believe the best approach. Although the model is used as a “Leadership Model” it still provides a great basis for assessing “what and how much” to delegate to employees. The categories they use are often misconstrued as generalizations about an individuals overall competence. It must be remembered that the categories need to be task specific. This means that employees can be at development level 1 (D1) in one task and perhaps D4 in another. I have changed the level descriptions below from the original model to better reflect the delegation discussion.

1. D1:  Staff member is both unwilling and unable to take responsibility for performing a task.
2. D2:  Staff member is unable however they are willing to do a job task.
3. D3:  Staff member is able however unwilling to perform a task.
4. D4:  Staff member is willing and fully competent to do what is asked of them.

Responsibility of the Delegator for each level is to follow the delegation approach (referred to in the model’s original form “Leadership Style”)

1.      (S1) Telling or directing, characterized by one-way communication in which the delegator defines the task of the person being delegated to and tells them how, when, and where to do it. To gain more commitment and motivation from your employee, then you should of course use a participative style.

2.      (S2) Selling/Coaching for D2 tasks is required as while providing clear direction as to responsibilities, the delegator needs to employ effective two-way communication and emotional support, to get the individual to “buy into decisions that have to be made.”

3.     (S3) Participating (high relationship/low task behavior). Here decision-making and task management is shared between the delegator and the person nominated to do the task – the main role of the delegator is to “facilitate and communicate” and to ensure the approach is based on “high support and low direction”. Low direction is used because the person being delegated to is competent in the task.

4.     (S4) Style 4 – is referred to in the original model as “The Delegating/Trusting Leader” With a task being delegated to someone whose is both competent and willing the delegator just needs to hand over the task. The problem here is that if the delegator is not trusting of the employee taking in the task he or she will tend to over control the situation and frustrate the person doing the job.

If the manager uses the approaches (S1 to S4 above) and remembers to praise people for doing a ‘good’ job, rather than just correcting them when they fall short, great improvements in delegation practices and performance can be achieved.

Another key to effective delegation is to ensure that the individual you have delegated to understands the overall purpose of the project or task being delegated and where it fits into the overall process or operation. Always provide picture of what a successful outcome or output will look like including measurements to be used regardless of the level of delegation or style being applied.

A final point: Keep The Task or Assignment Delegated!

One of the most common reasons for the delegation process to fail is that the manager takes the work back! Do not do this… as an effective delegator a manager must fix the problems not avoid them by taking back the task.

If you delegate effectively remember you will need to evaluate the improvement (or otherwise) on an ongoing basis and… be patient… as successful change and improvement through delegation can take some time.

SO WHICH ONE IS MORE LIKE YOU? – (ACCORDING TO THE STAFF?)

Leadership Anagram (new thinking)

L ove of followers is demonstrated
E mpathetic with individuals at all levels
A ble to create vision & achieve the mission
D emocratic decisions & communicates
E mpowers & encourages others
R esilient, overcomes setbacks
S haring, provides for followers needs
H opeful, positive & future driven
I ntelligent, uses the head and heart
P ersistent, sticks to the task, never gives up

Despotic Anagram (old thinking)

D ictatorial & commanding
E valuates rather than values
S uspicious and cynical
P ower seeking & taking
O ppresses differences
T otal control seeker
I ntrustive & instructive
C old and calculating

“THE WORLD THAT WE HAVE MADE AS A RESULT OF THE LEVEL OF THINKING WE HAVE DONE THUS FAR CREATES PROBLEMS THAT WE CANNOT SOLVE AT THE SAME LEVEL AT WHICH WE CREATED THEM” – Albert Einstein

I assume we are all a bit of a mixture of both leadership styles at different times however it would be interesting perhaps to do a 360 degree analysis on our management approach to see how we are viewed by others we deal with… or would that be a bit too stressful?

In a particular it can explain why many around us (that come from high uncertainty avoidance societies) show anxiety about an uncertain future particularly in times of change and how change induces stress (and often aggressiveness) and why for some formal rules and structures are protected to reduce risk. New ideas on ways of doing things for some can be seen as little more than, not to be tolerated ‘deviant’ behavior. Uncertainty avoidance individuals who feel relatively threatened will strive to believe in a common set of absolute truths (“the way we did it in the past”), with time focus being the now and the past and the traditional hierarchy seen as determining their wellbeing. These individuals will constantly seek direction from a trusted leader in the hierarchy and avoid personal responsibility because mistakes are seen as ‘sins’ that will exact punishment.

Although here again I have been discussing societies in general some families I believe produce these types of individuals in all societies so when looking to influence others around us we must be conscious of these traits. Again it is best to ask (tactfully) to understand another’s motivation rather than assuming.

If we add to a work situation a “masculine society”, assertive, materialistic, quantity of life individual who is trying to lead/manage and associate with a; sensitive, relationship oriented, group-welfare valuing, ‘quality of life’ driven flock of people, you can see why difficulties occur. A great example; many hotel GM’s are Austrian, who rank as no 2 in the world in masculine orientation. Imagine an Austrian GM trying to deal with a Thai workforce that rank at no 44, i.e. have a more “feminine” or relationship approach to life.

Part 6 final and back to main orglearn blog

Situation

• There are conflicting views or needs between you and others

• There is a genuine opportunity for give and take for mutual benefit

• Is this likely to be a relatively non-emotional situation

• You have the power to offer rewards and punishments

Strategy: Negotiate win-win outcomes

Situation

• Common purpose cannot be seen or is missing in this situation

• Others lack enthusiasm or understanding of what you need to be done

• Commitment is critical to the success of your influence objective

• Your influence objective has the capacity see see a better future

Strategy: Paint a verbal picture (see earlier post!)

Situation

• You have an undeniable and valid need in this situation

• Is it reasonable that the other person could meet this need

• Compliance more important than commitment in this situation

• You have legitimate authority to act

Strategy: State expectations

Before I go on…

Direct page viewers can go to main blog to check out other posts by clicking on the white “orglearn.org” in the header panel above!

If you think you don’t have enough influence at work and need to seek a place of greater scope take a look at the free resume form!

To continue…

Situation

• Others involved are other rational about this situation

• You are non-emotional and businesslike about this situation

• You hold valid facts and/or data to support your position

• Those who you wish to influence understand work ramifications

Strategy: Convince with logic

Sure situations are never purely one or the other however if you think about your situation and the other players, a correct mix of influencing strategies should improve your chances of obtaining successful outcomes.

G- Usually managed by an all-powerful unquestioned strong willed formal leader
T- Leadership is shared and rotated in accordance with expertise and required outcomes

G- Individual accountability for results (particularly mistakes), responsible for self-alone
T- Members are accountable to each other and responsible for all individuals

G- Individual’s primary motivation is to please those in power (usually by sucking up)
T- Team vision drives a desire to satisfy the recipient of team’s output, the customer

G- Individual work projects are encouraged and the basis for reward
T- Collective work projects to cope with modern complexities and maximise potential

G- Efficiency takes priority over effectiveness, ‘what a good little employee, working late’
T- Effectiveness priority, collective work, on budget, on time and the best customer solution

G- Effectiveness is judged purely by output of the individual’s limited area of responsibility
T- Effectiveness is judged by the team members ability to contribute to team synergy (1+1>2)

G- Work tasks tend to be delegated (or abdicated) to individuals that are ‘controlled’
T- Participative meetings and shared work and adult cooperation are the norm

G- A group really only crystallizes at critical moments for particular selfish endeavours
T- A team will be working to a plan and continually function until the mission is completed

G- Focus is on maintaining relationships and only doing enough tasks to remain accepted
T- Focus is on a shared vision driving tasks and where relationships are ‘properly’ managed

SO WHY DO PEOPLE JOIN (AND ENCOURAGE) GROUPS? REASONS LESSER PEOPLE FORM GROUPS (G-) AND AVOID TEAMS (T-)

G- Being part of a group can mistakenly lead us to the belief that membership will provide ‘defensive security’ and help us through the feeling that we are not alone (“misery enjoys company”)
T- Security is correctly based on expertise and proving our worth through competence, commitment and contribution

G- Opportunity for status and becoming ‘important’ through recognition based on association with those perceived as powerful or ‘in’
T- Status is based on respect and recognition of the individual’s perspective, competence and contributions to the wellbeing of all

G- Increased self-esteem and confirmation of self worth through association with the powerful, self worth only through others verification
T- Self-esteem and satisfaction through positive achievements brought about through continuous effort and belief in oneself

G- Affiliation is a basic need, even the most inept individuals crave some social acceptance, regardless of the personal cost
T- Inclusion only occurs if we are able and needed to improve the team’s outcomes and each member’s individual results

G- Our need for power/strength (found in numbers) or at least NOT wanting to feel or be powerless
T- Need to accept being empowered to accept responsibility based on expertise and the resultant earned trust

G- Help with personal goals through a pool of individuals often at the cost of our integrity
T- Personal goals only achieved through alignment with team goals and freedom built on mutual respect

SOME NASTY GROUP BEHAVIOURS THAT LIMIT SUCCESS

• Conformity is the basis for membership (demanded) to ensure acceptance, particularly by the powerful, which also destroys creativity, diversity and progress
• Status based on inequitable favouritism which breeds discontent with those on the ‘outer’ and leads to overly compliant behaviour
• Unimportant or peripheral behaviours become norms, ‘that’s the way we do things here’
• Personal credit is highly prized (and sometimes stolen), which often hides the real talent and diminishes any chance of building on shared ideas
• Role-playing in line with a set of expected behaviour patterns, which means plenty of form with minimal/no substance
• Social loafing where members don’t work as hard in the group as when alone, e.g. useless meetings (talk fests)
• The ‘mushroom principal’ flourishes, where members only pass on good news or what the powerful want to hear
• ‘Sucker effect’, hard workers feel as if they are suckers and the rest are having a relatively free ride
• Free-riding by capitalizing on the group’s willingness to suffer shortcomings because of loyalty
• Mooching off of group where the weak are able to suck from the strong in return for adoration
• Little or no effort to achieve a result, just do the minimum to stay out of trouble and in favour
• Importance of identifiably with the group subjugates competence as a success factor
• Groupthink means undesirable emotion based decisions rather than those based on intellect

KILL THE GROUP AND FORM SOME TEAMS

No teamwork at your place perhaps it time to move on… take a look at the free blank resume form!

MORE NASTY GROUP BEHAVIOURS THAT LIMIT A COMPANY’S SUCCESS

I guess the biggest problem with groups is that they inevitably succumb to the evils of ‘groupthink’. Groupthink leads to an illusion of invulnerability, rationalization of all opposing points of view (and unproductive behaviour), a belief in the group’s inherent morality, a stereotyped view of ‘the enemy’, direct pressure to conform, self-censorship (don’t speak the truth), the illusion of unanimity and the emergence of self-appointed ‘mind guards’.

The overwhelming need for agreement with the group position can be so strong that it outweighs a rational look at all of the evidence needed to allow ‘fair-mindedness’ i.e. rational behaviour versus a primarily emotional approach. Loyalty or desire to lead or to follow is paramount, non-disclosure, the tendency to ‘play your cards’ close to your chest destroys the requirement to be truly open and initiative and high energy towards leading (even enjoying) today’s rapid change is stifled by a desire or belief in not needing change in order to make good decisions.

Finally groups can quickly become gangs and indulge in gang behaviour and the associated bullying. According to the experts, gangs, diffuse role definition, have limited cohesion, foster impermanence, have minimal real consensus of norms, have shifting membership, often suffer from disturbed leadership and provide a limited definition of membership expectations.

NO WAY TO RUN A BUSINESS YOU SAY… IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME!

Refs:

http://users.ipfw.edu/bordens/social/group.htm

http://www.the-idler.com/IDLER-01/12-20.html

refs:http://rock.uwc.edu/psych/psy330/outlines/groups.htm

Ric (orglearn) **Link for direct page viewers return to main career success blog to check out other posts!

Have a quick think about your organization, do your project ‘teams’ or departments really operate as teams or are they merely less than effective, riddled with politics ineffective groups?!