Effective Leadership: Maximize Employee Performance by Leveraging Discretionary Effort

Here's a few thoughts on discretionary effort:
Maximize Employee Performance by Leveraging Discretionary Effort

Effective Leadership: Coach to behaviors not metrics

The call center business is very metrics driven. We operate in an environment where everything is measured - hold time, handle time, conversion rates, dropped calls - you name it, we measure it. In fact, I'm pretty sure there's even an Avaya report that will show you the number of times the toilets flush in the employee restrooms. Well maybe I'm exaggerating just a bit but it's not hard to understand how we can sometimes fall in to the trap of managing to metrics instead managing to behaviors.

It is not uncommon at all to walk past a coaching discussion and hear something like this: " Well, your AHT (average handle time) is 540 seconds. Get that down to 480 by next week." Unfortunately, this supervisor thinks he's "helping" his agent be saying this. The reality is this is not helpful at all. If the agent knew how to reduce their AHT to 480 seconds don't you think they'd already be doing that?

A much better approach is to arm the agent with the specific BEHAVIORS that will help them accomplish the goal. Instead of saying "get your handle time down", the effective coach would give the agent specific action items that will result in a lower handle time, for example: follow the required call flow or ask this specific question at a specific time, etc. And this doesn't apply to only AHT discussions. This applies to any aspect of managing performance.

I am not saying that metrics or numbers are not important. On the contrary, in the call center industry, particularly in the call center outsourcing industry, meeting metrics is how we make our money. But their is a huge danger in holding agents accountable to metrics instead of behaviors and here's why: Agents do not control metrics. BUT agents do have complete control over their behaviors. If the right behaviors are happening the metrics will take care of themselves.

An agent feels empowered when he or she leaves the coaching discussion with specific, observable and measurable behaviors to put in to practice vs. feeling demoralized after getting beat up over their "numbers". And here's something to keep in mind: If agents are doing all the "right things" and still not hitting the metrics than we have probably showed them the wrong "right things". Make sure you focus on the "critical few" behaviors that will have the biggest impact on performance.

Remember, managing performance is about changing behavior. It's as simple as that. And you will never change behavior by focusing on a number. You have to focus on the right behaviors and hold your team members accountable to those behaviors.

Effective Leadership: "Sit right back and you'll hear a tale..."

I've always had a great affinity for Gilligan; I grew up watching reruns of Gilligan's Island every day after school; I can sing the theme song (both versions! If you're a true Gilligan afficienado you know what I'm talking about) word for word; I've even been told I have an uncanny resemblance to Gilligan himself - not sure if I should be proud of that or not. Believe it or not, I learned a few good lessons from "little buddy."

Remember the episode where Gilligan makes a set of wings? In one scene he has his wings on and is flapping madly and actually hovering about ten feet off the ground. He says "Skipper! Skipper! Look at me! I'm flying!." Skipper replies, "You can't fly! It's impossible! Get down from there!" So Gilligan dejectedly crashes to the ground. Gilligan was actually flying until Skipper "shot him down" with what he said.

Here's the moral to that little story: People have a tendancy to live up to their expectations. If you set the bar low - guess what - that's exactly what you get. If you set the bar high - that's exactly what you'll get. This is basically the same theme as my last post. We can "condition" people to perform (or not perform) by what we say (or don't say) to them.

Negative conditioning or negative messages have a way of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies. As an example, look at our current economic situation. For the past 18 months the media has been bombarding us with how bad the economy was. Even though the vast majority of Americans were still doing ok financially, the media (and some politicians') constant drum beat about the economy forced people to actually change their behavior - in a way that just caused more harm to the economy - they spent less money! Don't get me wrong, there are some major issues going on in our economy right now but if you believed what much of the media and politicos are saying we are on the verge of armageddon. The reality is the economy today is bad, but no where near as bad as it was even during the late 70's and early 80's. It goes to show if you say something often enough and loud enough people will begin to believe it and act the part.

Good leaders inspire. Good leaders play on the positive not the negative. Good leaders bring out the best in people - not the worst.

If the Skipper would've been on his game in that episode he would have encouraged Gilligan in his apparent successful attempts at flying. Who knows, maybe they could have flown off the island years sooner? Anything would've been better than the professor's coconut powered distress beacon!

Effective Leadership: Dogs, elephants and snow banks

The area in which I live was pummelled with snow over the past few weeks. Since December 18th we've recieved over 60 inches of snow! Needless to say, that's alot of snow. Most of us lucky homeowners have spent much of the last few days shoveling off our roofs in the hopes of avoiding a collapse. Well all of this roof clearing means nearly all the homes in my neighborhood are encircled by five-foot berms that, after daily thawing and nightly freezing, are now impenetrable, rock-hard mini mountains.

My dog Brandy, a shepherd/husky mix, has discovered that the chank link fence in our back yard which is about 4 1/2 feet tall without snow is now effectively about a foot high. She just scampers up the snow mound and hops right over the fence to freedom. Here's the funny part. Brandy would have never thought of jumping over the fence if the snow mounds had not provided her the opportunity. I've removed all the snow from the part of the fence where she's been escaping but guess what? she can still jump over the 4 1/2 foot fence! She could have been jumping over the fence for the past two years that we've had her but the thought never occurred to her. She WAS conditioned to stay within the confines of the yard. But now she sees that that measley little 4 1/2 foot fence need not keep her from exploring the big wide world! All thanks to the lousy snow!

This reminds me of a little story I've heard about training elephants. (I'm not positive it's true but it's a great analogy so stick with me.) When training baby elephants the trainers will cuff a large chain to the elephant's ankle. The other end of the chain is fastened to a large stake which is pounded deep into the ground. The chain and the stake are so strong that there is no way the baby elephant can escape. The little elephant learns very quickly just how far he can walk until the chain stops him. As the elephant grows he is conditioned to being staked. By the time the elephant is fully grown the trainer no longer has to use a big chain and stake. In fact he can use a flimsy rope barely nailed into the ground - anything to just remind the elephant that they are restrained. That elephant's brain is conditioned to believe he can't "escape" because he's staked - even if that stake is so flimsy he could pull it out with little effort.

Do we as leaders ever negatively "condition" our employees? We probably wouldn't do it intentionally, but I think we probably do it more than we realize. How might we be conditioning our reps? It might sound like this: "Oh, nobody's ever been able to achieve that! Maybe you'd better rethink your goals." Or maybe there are operational or process issues that condition our employees. I remember a former employer of mine would always have a "fire sale" at the end of every quarter. They were always short of hitting their quarterly sales figures so they would offer deep discounts. Both the reps and the customers were conditioned to expect big promos and discounts at the end of each quarter. Why should an agent try to hold top margin when he or she knows the company is going to slash prices at the end of the quarter? Whey should a customer cut a purchase order now when they know they can get a much better price by merely waiting until the end of the quarter?

Think about ways in which your organization might be negatively conditioning its employees and what you can do to help change that trend. Me? I'm going to go find my dog who is roaming the neighborhood at this very moment...

Effective Leadership: 20-60-20 - a win-win-win scenario

In our Coach Me 2 class we spend a little time discussing the 20/60/20 rule. This rule says that on a given team roughly 20 percent of our agents will be superstars, 20 percent will be strugglers and 60 percent will be average performers. So, with which group should the manager spend the most time?

The manager should dedicate the most time to the middle 60 - because that's the majority of his team. Unfortunately, however, many of the managers I've talked with say most of their time (and energy) is spent managing the bottom 20. Wouldn't it be great if there were a way to ensure that our top 20 and middle 60 got the same level of attention as our bottom 20? "But there just isn't time" you might say. Well today is your lucky day!

This is one of the most effective things a leader can do: use your top 20 to help you develop your bottom 20. This is a win-win-win scenario. The first winner is the top 20 agent. He or she feels appreciated and recognized when you say to them "You do a really good job at X. I would like for you to spend some time with (insert bottom 20 agent's name here) and show them some of the things that work well for you. Then report back to me and let me know how it went." Interestingly, one of the key workplace motivators for an employee is being entrusted with additional responsibilities. This scenario fits that bill quite nicely.

The second winner is the bottom 20 agent. They will benefit from getting some one-on-one "coaching" from a successful practioner, and them getting it from another face can't hurt either. And, let's be honest, if we have been in a management role for awhile we may not be as good in the trenches as our top 20 agents are; so tips and tricks coming from these folks might hold a bit more weight than those coming from us.

The third winner is the manager. Obviously, by leveraging our top twenty to work with our bottom 20 we've created much more time for ourselves to work with our middle 20. We could spend alot more space talking about all the cool things that come about from using the 20/60/20 rule but all we really need to know is that it works. Give it a try and see what happens.

Corporate Culture: "All in the Family"

The family was the world's first "organization". Wise men and women down through the ages have discussed the vital role families play in society. Most societal ills can be traced back to the breakdown of the family unit. Debates rage about what defines marriage and family. Families are a big deal to everyone because there is so much at stake: A nation or society is only as strong as its familes.

Isn't it funny how as kids we would fight tooth and nail with our siblings. I can remember a few fights I had with my brothers - name calling, cruel insults, eye gouging, bloody noses, body slams - you name it. But if someone outside of the family were to threaten or bully me or one of my brothers the other two would be their to defend the other to the last breath. That's what families do. What is it about families that makes us so invested emotionally - both good emotions and bad emotions? Well, I don't understand all of the science but I think it's part of the grand plan. It's at home with our family that we first learn the lessons we'll need to be successful in life. And yet it seems we sometimes compartmentalize or differentiate our "family self" from our "professional self". Perhaps there are things we've learned from our families that we could apply to our organizations?

Isn't it great how your family loves you unconditionally? You can be the world's biggest bonehead and your family will still accept you. You can be in between prison terms and you'll still get invited over to your parents' home for Thanksgiving dinner. You can continually fued with siblings, possibly even coming to physical blows, but if someone else threatens a family member all of sudden you'll rush to their defense. Blood truly is thicker than water. Except in very rare occasions, a person's family will love and accept them no matter what. Familes don't give up on each other.

Our workplace organizations are different. First, we get to choose the people who will be in our organization. Second, if things aren't going well, we can always ask people to leave. We have all kinds of metrics we can use to determine a person's "worth" to the organization. If they aren't measuring up, we don't have to keep them around. And when we "let someone go" there's always a supply of new people waiting to take their place. Imagine if familes had "performance plans" like organizations have. "Sorry son, but we're just not seeing the type of performance we need from you so we're going to have to let you go." I'm sure my parents felt like having that talk with me once or twice!

At the risk of sounding very touchy-feely let me propose this little exercise: Imagine your team at work is "family". You didn't get to choose them, they're imperfect, and you can't get rid of them. Some of them have difficult personalities. Some of them are lazy. Some of them do embarrassing things in public. Some of them disagree with you and will tell you right to your face! Some of them belong to a different political party, church or bowling league than you do. If some of them are underperforming, too bad. You can't just replace them with a new family member. To put it another way - for better or for worse - you're stuck with them. If this were the case, what types of things would you do differently? How would your "performance management" change? Would you be more creative about finding a good fit for each of your employees? Would your focus be more long term than short term? Would you be more forgiving? Would you put yourself in their shoes a little more often? Spend a little time pondering this scenario.

In one of the CORE training classes I regularly facilitate I ask the question "what has made our company successful in the past?" In almost every class I'll have a tenured employee say that one of the keys to our company's past success was that our work environment was "like a family." What makes a work environment "like a family"? Do we feel accepted? Do we feel like folks we work with care about us? Do we feel like we are valued unconditionally?

Obviously we have a job to perform and business needs to be met. Businesses exist to drive profits and build stockholder wealth, but I think there can be a balance between bottom-line needs and the emotional needs of our people. People may choose to "give up" on themselves and, let's be honest, sometimes our organization may not be a good fit for everybody. If that's the case, that's okay. Hopefully, though, we as leaders will not be the FIRST one to "give up" on an individual. Here's where the "family" model really comes into play. Your family continues to accept you and root for you and even invite over to Thanksgiving dinner - even if you are "underperforming".

What can we do as leaders to keep the positive aspects of the family relationship alive in our workplace? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Employee Motivation: Maslow and Money...The path of least resistance

What's the most common thing companies use to motivate their employees? Money! Don't get me wrong. We all appreciate money and none of us would turn it down if it were offered to us, but is monetary reward really the best way to motivate people?

I mentioned in my previous post about Maslow's Hierarchy that leveraging higher level needs will yield better results than focusing on lower level needs. Yet money is usually the motivator of choice, particularly in a sales environment.

Remember the five levels in Maslow's Hierarchy? 1.) Physical, 2.) Safety-Security, 3.) Social-Belonging, 4.) Esteem, 5.) Self-Actualization. These build on one another. For example, I would not be highly motivated by social or esteem factors if I don't have enough to eat. The needs in the lower levels need to be met before the higher level motivators kick in. Money is actually a Safety-Security factor, that's only the second level of the hierarchy. "But money is the most important reason people work," you might say. Money is important, but actually it is not the main reason people stay with or decide to leave a job.

Research the Kelly Company conducted found that folks looking for a job cite organizational factors (money, benefits, company reputation) as the primary determinant in whether or not they'll join a company - followed by job factors (duties, schedule, training) and then by leader factors (trustworthiness, coaching, flexibility). However, something very interesting happens once an employee has joined an organization. The list flips. The leader factors become the most important thing to the employee. Would you believe that pay comes in at number five (behind things like coworkers, career opportunities, and schedule) for reasons people leave an organization? The number one reason people leave is their leader. Maybe you've heard this cliche: "People don't leave companies, they leave managers." According to this research, it's true.

So why do we so often default to money as the prime motivator? I think we do it because it's easy. It takes much less effort to throw some extra cash at folks than to actually make a person feel like they're part of a team or build their esteem. Perhaps giving cash away is the path of least resistance? It's true the top three levels of the hierarchy require "heavy lifting". It's hard work to motivate and build people up in the face of everyday job pressures but the payoff is worth it. And a funny thing about focusing on the higher levels - it doesn't really have to "cost" the company anything. I'm not saying we should all do away with money-based incentives. But if we think that's all we need to do to keep our employees motivated, we're missing out.

Effective Leadership: The Value of Failure

This past weekend I was at a family reunion in western Montana. It was your typical family reunion - too much food, too much noise and too many people I didn't recognize. It was a good time though, and it provided me with a little reminder at the expense of my two-year old's physical and mental well being!

The reunion was held at a hunting lodge owned by a cousin who runs an outfitting business. (See the picture of his lodge) There is a stocked fishing pond literally steps away from the back door. Needless to say, my wife and I had to keep a very close eye on my son, Noah, as we worried he would get too close to the pond and take an unintentional swim. Over and over we told him to stay away from the pond. Yet he would continually walk towards the pond to see how close he could get until one of us bolted from the deck to grab him. Well, eventually it happened: as he was holding the hand of an older cousin and walking around the pond he decided to make his break for the water. He wiggled away from his cousin, darted to the edge of the pond and reached down toward the water. You've probably noticed toddlers are a bit top heavy - they have big heads - so Noah fell headlong into the pond. His cousin Spencer was right there and had him out of the water in about two seconds but that's all it took for Noah to learn his lesson. His Mom and I had told him over and over what might happen if he got too close to the edge, but it wasn't until he experienced it himself that he "got it." For the rest of the day, Noah wanted nothing to do with the "yucky" pond.

One of the key requirements of adult learning theory is providing an environment in which it is safe to fail. Without even realizing it, we had placed Noah into this type of environment. Obviously an unsupervised two-year old playing beside a pond could be a recipe for disaster, but because there were several safe guards in place (ie. multiple adults and older cousins keeping an eye on all the rugrats) it was actually a good learning environment. Noah was able to experience first-hand the dangers of getting too close to the water's edge. That icy, two second plunge taught him more about ponds than anything his mother or I could have told him.

On a fairly consistent basis I'll have supervisors come into the training office voicing their concern that a brand new agent is "messing up." Uhhh....Yep, new agents will do that from time to time, but here's "where the rubber hits the road," so to speak. Here's where you can tell the difference between a good leader and an average (or poor) leader. The good leader will use those "mistakes" as a coaching opportunity, a chance to build up the agent and leave them better prepared the next time a similar situation arises. The average or poor leader may treat a mistake like an act of disobedience or an affront to the leader's authority. (Think of Cartman from Southpark yelling "Never question my authority!!")

Perhaps some leaders confuse training with performance. They may think because a newhire has been through "training" they will hit the floor doing everything exactly right. That would be great, but that's not a realistic expectation. Even if the agent has "heard" everything they need to know to perform their job, it will take actually "doing" the job and, yes, "failing" a few times before it starts to stick. The trainer's job is too teach the new agent what he or she needs to know - the knowledge. The leader's job is to help them put it into practice - the execution.

Every interaction a leader has with an agent provides two possible outcomes. The leader will either build up the agent or tear them down - it's really as simple as that. Mistakes are mistakes - they need to be corrected, but not at the expense of the leader/agent relationship. As leaders we have the power to determine how we go about correcting those mistakes. Good leaders see them for what they are - they are errors that once corrected will make the agent even better. An average or poor leader may see mistakes as another "mark against" an agent they don't want to spend time devoloping - it's easier to just get them off their team. It sounds counterintuitive but failing is one of the building blocks of success. The test comes in how we as leaders deal with failure and how we help our agents deal with failure.