Part 3 of 3 Parts
Helena, the district manager, went into the retreat with a strong position against a reorganization plan the vice president was proposing.
“This new plan will flatten our organizational structure, reduce our overhead and allow us to be nimbler,” the vice president proposed.
Helena responded, “As the plan keeps the same number of people, I don’t see how we reduce overhead. A new customer-response team will likely meet our immediate needs much better.”
Following lengthy debates, the VP prevailed in his proposal.
“Afterwards,” Helena commented, “I had a problem. My team knew I was against the VP’s proposal, but the VP clearly expected us to support it.”
Rule 1: When you disagree with your leader’s decision, listen with an open mind and try to understand and accept the leader’s position.
Rule 2: After the meeting, when others approach you and voice their disagreements, respond with something like. “Look, the leader has made a decision, I am committed to its execution and it would be better if you took the same position.
After tough decisions, too many team members accelerate stress by continuing to campaign against the decisions in hallways and parking lots. Effective teams bury their opposing tactics and channel their energies toward executing the plan.
Part 2 of 3 Parts
“I understand what our leader is trying to do, but he does not know our history. His proposal will fail,” an employee said to me. “Are you saying team members cannot disagree with their leaders?”
“No,” I responded. “Effective leaders encourage competing opinions. Healthy, passionate parleys often lead to improved decisions.”
The intent is to offer divergent options without dividing members into opposing camps that muscle up for win-lose standoffs. Consider two rules for respectfully disagreeing with your leader.
Rule 1. Present your views as an alternative rather than creating a blunt force against the leader’s position. For example, “I see your point. Here is another option for addressing the issue . . .,” or “I understand but I’m still having trouble with . . .”
Avoid zero-sum phrases such as, “It won’t work.” “You are going to fail.” “Others won’t support it.” “You said . . .”
Rule 2. Acknowledge the leader’s right to make the decision. Introduce your disagreement with, “I’m going to do what you ask me to do but I’d like to suggest. . .”
All team members have a right to have their say but not a right to have their way.
Part 1 of 3 parts
“Why are you cutting costs in this area?”
“I don’t think we should be opening a new facility at this time.”
“If you would allow us to fill our two open positions, we could achieve our objectives.”
These comments were directed toward the leader (only four months into the role) during a contentious staff meeting. The new leader was proposing strategic changes. And, as you might expect, some of the staff members were not buying in.
Followership Rule 1: understand the leader’s vision.
Effective followers focus on understanding—not attacking—the leader’s vision. As the saying goes, real leaders ride the horse where they want the horse to go. Listen and observe. Remain open. Strive to fully understand what the leader is trying to accomplish.
Followership Rule 2: if the leader’s vision is legal and ethical, get onboard.
It is normal for team members to have opposing ideas about what to do and how to do it. But continuous whining, arguing and resisting only increases the likelihood of team failure. Productive followers embrace the leader’s vision; they lean into the leader’s decisions; they operate off the same playbook. To paraphrase the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, if you cannot be a good follower, you cannot be a good leader.
“It is the mission! The mission! The mission. . . our purpose—the reason we exist!” a quote from an unknown source.
Here is an example of how a leader prioritized mission over morale.
An employee said to his manager, “I need to take Thursday and Friday off. My parents are passing through on their way to Colorado. They want to spend a couple of days with us.”
“I can’t let you off this week. I need your cost estimates by Friday.”
“I’ve got most of the work done. Someone else can complete it.”
“I don’t have anyone else. You’ll have to work Thursday and Friday.”
Two-thirds of supervisors in my workshops place morale as a higher priority than mission. Morale is important. I agree. But more often it is prudent to prioritize mission over morale.
By denying the employee’s request, the leader prioritized the mission. The employee fumed and complained bitterly to his peers, but he did stay and complete his project.
To avoid permanent morale loss, the leader will need to find some way in the coming weeks to reward the employee for his sacrifice. While leaders can survive short-term morale dips, few survive long-term morale adversity.
Which of the following best describes your bond to your work?
a. pays very well. It supports my family and my expensive hobbies (a job).
b. offers a good career path. I can see several promotions in my future (a career).
c. gives me a sense of purpose. I can make a real contribution (a calling).
Yale University professor, Dr. Wrzesniewski, explains that employees typically identify their work in three ways: a job, a career, or a calling.
Whether your work is a “calling” depends on two things: job fit and how you choose to view your work.
A good job fit occurs when your natural talents, plus your acquired knowledge and skills, allow you to perform your work tasks well. It is your decision as to whether you view your work as a calling.
Those who see their work as a calling tend to be more satisfied and more highly motivated to perform well. Of course, work that is a calling may also offer a good career path and good pay.
As the late humorist Mark Twain said, “Find a job you enjoy doing, and you’ll never have to work a day in your life.”
As the director hurried into his office, his phone buzzed with the text message: “I just learned that governmental auditors will be in my office next week, and I still don’t have current documentation of our revised safety processes.”
The manager texted back, “OK, after my 8:00 o’clock meeting, I’ll check with the safety training officer and get back to you.”
Very quickly, the manager allowed the staff member to pass the responsibility to him. With the responsibility off his back, the staff member can ignore the issue while awaiting the boss’s solution.
Authors Oncken and Wass, writing in the Harvard Business Review several decades ago, described this process as “Who’s Got the Monkey?” A “monkey” is responsibility for the next move.
In the case above, the monkey sprang from the back of the subordinate onto the manager when the manager agreed to check on the issue.
Some managers, because they are confident they can resolve issues quickly, often overburden themselves by accepting subordinates’ problems.
A more effective approach is to keep the monkey—the responsibility—on subordinates’ backs by asking such questions as: “OK, it is important that you have the proper documentation. How are you going to take care of that?”
“Alfred sounded great during our interviews with him,” a manager commented to me. “However, in a few short weeks Alfred managed to alienate most of his team members with his arrogant, condescending and uncooperative behaviors.”
More than eighty percent of attendees in my leadership workshops say they have been badly fooled during candidate interviews.
Rachel Feintzeig, writing in the Wall Street Journal, reports several studies showing that lying is rampant during job interviews. And Dr. Nicolas Roulin, author of The Psychology of Job Interviews, estimates that up to eighty percent of job candidates embellish their experiences and about twenty percent invent things—like degrees they have not earned and positions they have not held.
Numerous reports suggest that many job candidates inflate their skills, experiences and responsibilities. And what do they minimize? Short comings of course. Further, applicants showcase the likeable version of themselves and may feign passion for what they perceive to be interviewers’ interests.
I do not suggest the elimination of candidate interviews. Rather, the intent is to heighten awareness and confirm impressions with other tools such as cognitive tests, personality assessments, work samples, and reference checking.