Mean Bosses Cost More Than You Think...

My company's HR Director, Pam Allen, passed along this article from the Mountain States Employers Council newsletter. I thought it was pretty interesting.

"Ethics, manners, nice people finish last...we have heard it all before. Well, guess what? Mean does cost in terms of employee productivity and performance. A study by the University of Florida and University of Southern California demonstrated that verbal abuse, which included yelling at employees and disparaging them in front of others, hampered subsequent employee creativity, problem solving, the performance of routine tasks as well as the ability to be good team players. Rude and abusive behavior actually impeded employee cognitive functioning.

The study involved three situations. In the first situation, a person showed up late for class, once dismissed, the professor yelled at the class participants about how unprofessional the students were compared to other universities she had taught at. The second situation involved students arriving at a scheduled test site where a person greeted them by saying, "Can't you read the sign?" and continued berating them. The third situation involved a group of students who arrived at a classroom only to be told the room had been changed and were given directions to proceed to the new room.

The groups who were berated performed poorly on subsequent cognitive tests when compared to the group that was simply redirected to another room in a courteous manner. Another interesting finding was those groups were also less likely to engage in constructive helping behavior towards others. This study is discussed in detail in the October 2007 issue of the Academy of Management Journal.

These findings provide more data showing that how employees are treated in the workplace is linked to overall productivity, and subsequent engagement and retention."

From Mountain States Employers Council May 2008 Bulletin/Newletter

Now, Something Totally Different....

Laura and I (well, actually Laura - I was just there for the conceptual design phase of the project) just had our sixth child, Adam. You would think I would be used to this by now but I am still amazed at how different each of our kids are from each other. How can six kids with the same two parents be so completely unique? It is amazing to think about the billions of people on Earth and realize that we are all different aren't we? I don't have anything to ad other than that I think that's pretty cool - I really just wanted to post this pic of Noah and Adam.

Experiential Learning: Are You Experienced?

As a trainer I'm always beating the drum about making training "experiential". Adult learning theory stresses the importance of experiential learning and hands-on training and, of course, I agree with that - it's crucial. But I like to think that "experiential" also refers to what the adult learner brings with them to the classroom.

As a trainer, I am doing a great disservice if I do not acknowledge and leverage the wealth of experience that my participants have. In any given class I'm sure I have multiple individuals who are full-blown experts at something. True, they may be new to my particular industry, but chances are they are bringing with them a bevy of experiences, skills and insights that will help them in their current undertaking. Why not build on what they already have instead of building from scratch? One of the easiest ways to do this is to simply give your class plenty of time for discussion. Let them talk. Let them bring up past experiences. I've found that in most cases the more my participants talk the better. It's the basic "guide on the side" vs. "sage on the stage" philosophy.

This past week I attended an ASTD seminar with Cynthia Clay, President of NetSpeed Learning in Seattle. She shared a great quote from George Siemen of the University of Manitoba. He views the training professional as a "museum curator". A trainer should be "an expert who creates spaces in which knowledge can be created, explored and connected." Wow. What a great analogy. Our job isn't necessarily to jam folks' brains full of everything we know but rather to create an environment where they learn on their terms. One of the best ways for adults to learn is from other adults and sometimes one of the best things a trainer can do is shut up and let participants talk.

I remember a Sunday school teacher a few years back, an older lady who was a retired school teacher - a very intelligent woman steeped in the traditional "education" approach. It seems nearly every week we would get to a point in her lessons where there would be some great discussion going on or at least the potential for some great discussion- but this sweet lady always nipped it in the bud! "Well, we need to cover all of this material so let's move on", she'd say. Why was it so important that we moved on? To be honest, I got more out of the contributions made by other class members than from her "curriculum". This is an example of being curriculum driven vs. learner driven. Focus on the learner not the curriculum! I would much rather have participants really "get" one or two topics than simply hear a dozen topics just for the sake of "getting through" the material.

C.S. Lewis said "a person with an experience is never at the mercy of a person with an argument." We cannot underestimate the value of experience. It is a key element in adult learning. It means we need to give participants hands-on experience but it also means we need to make the most of the experience they already have. Much of the learning that takes place in your classroom may very well come from the experiences shared by your participants. Don't be afraid to let that happen.

Corporate Stewardship: What I Learned from Boy Scouts and Sheep Herders

A long, long time ago I was a Boy Scout. In addition to memorizing the scout law (“a scout is trustworthy, loyal, brave”, etc…) my scoutmaster made us memorize the Outdoor Code. I won’t recite it for you, but one of the main ideas was that you should always leave a campsite better than you found it – clean up your mess, don’t leave a fire-ring, have little or no impact on the environment, and so forth. It makes sense - it’s Common Courtesy 101. But there’s a broader application. The Outdoor Code is basically introducing the concept of stewardship isn’t it? I think there is value in looking through the “stewardship lens” as we view our roles as leaders at work.

A steward is someone who has been given responsibility and accountability over something – usually something of high value. For the good steward, it is not merely enough to “take care of” his charge – that’s the bare minimum. The good steward wants to leave his “something” better than he found it. A good example is illustrated in a discussion I heard in Sunday school a few years back. The teacher asked the question: “What is the difference between a sheep herder and a shepherd?” The class consensus went something like this: A sheep herder is a hired-hand. He takes care of the sheep because he has to – he’ll get fired if he doesn’t. He does the minimum required to keep his job. But don’t expect him to go above and beyond or to put himself at risk when danger emerges (i.e. wolves, robbers, storms). The shepherd, on the other hand, does what he does out of genuine concern – even love – for his flock. He will leave the flock to go after the lone lost lamb. He will risk his very life to protect his sheep. But the shepherd’s focus is not only on keeping his sheep safe from harm but also on helping them grow, prosper and be happy.

So you may be saying, “Okay, this shepherd talk is great for Sunday school class, but what about here at work?” Good question. But before we leave the sheep scenario, let me ask you this: if you were a sheep, would you rather follow a sheep herder or a shepherd? And here in the real world, would you rather have a sheep herder supervisor who is “managing” you like another unpleasant task (i.e. doing the least amount of work required) or a shepherd supervisor who is genuinely interested in helping you grow, prosper and be happy in your position? In which scenario are you most likely to enjoy your job? In which scenario are you most likely to perform better?

In a work setting what does stewardship look like? Am I suggesting you’ll need to risk your life fighting off wolves for your agents? No. What I am saying is that our relationships with agents will be more satisfying and productive for them and for us if we think of ourselves as not just managers but as stewards. The next time you get a new agent on your team I challenge you to ask yourself: “What can I do to leave this agent better than I found her?” Then work to ensure that every interaction you have with that agent builds on that theme.

Stewardship is a very deep concept that can be applied to every aspect of our lives. For the sake of this conversation we’re just applying it to our roles here at work. But there is tremendous power in approaching our day to day job related duties as a steward. Oh, I almost forgot to mention. There’s another word for steward with which you may be more familiar. The word is “coach”.

Effective Teams: The Tao of Ralph and Sam

Some of you who have attended CORE training recently have probably heard me mention the greatest cartoon ever made – the old 1950’s Warner Brothers cartoon with Ralph and Sam. Ralph was a coyote (played by Wyle E. Coyote) and Sam was a sheep dog. The episodes always began with Ralph and Sam meeting each other and walking to work together. “Morning Ralph”, “Morning Sam”, they’d say and they would ask about each other’s kids, wife etc. Then they’d finally get to work – and this is where the fun started! They would each punch in to the SAME time clock then go to work. Sam’s job was to guard the sheep and Ralph’s job was to steel the sheep. Of course what follows is ten minutes of slapstick mayhem and violence – Ralph always at the receiving end – like falls from cliffs, explosions and anvils landing on heads. It’s the good clean fun we expect from those great old Warner Brothers shorts. But believe it or not, there’s a message for us in these brilliant cartoons.

I’m sure we’ve all experienced times where our team or department seems to be at odds with other parts of the organization. Perhaps it takes the form of a process that is so cumbersome it becomes a major performance blocker or maybe it’s an attitude (implied, inferred or actual) that says “that’s not my job”. Whether these problems are intentional or unintentional they have the same effect: they get in the way of us being truly effective.

At one of my previous companies we would refer to the accounts receivable department as the “sales prevention” team. While it was purely unintentional, their processes were very customer “un-friendly” to say the least. Ironically, one of this company’s stated aspirations was “let’s make it easy for our customers to do business with us.” Frankly, the A/R team made it easier for our customers to do business with our competition!

My example may be extreme, but can you think of anything we might do that conflicts with other parts of the organization? Are we ever guilty of self-inflicted “catch 22’s”? Do we ever feel like we’re our own worst enemy? It sounds very simplistic, but I think the key to avoiding the “Ralph and Sam” syndrome is to keep the big picture in view. One of the risks of departmentalizing is “nearsightedness”, where we lose the ability to see things that are farther away. Our focus becomes our own group or department sometimes at the expense of the larger objective. The more we can do to help our teams understand the big picture, the more agent buy-in we’ll have. That means “Ralph and Sam” will actually be working with each other instead of against each other.