Fulcrum Point Partners

Do you expect your employees to do things that you didn’t do when you had the job?

I was coaching a client who mentioned one of his employees won’t do a particular task. As we continued to talk, he told me he never did the task when he had the job. I asked him,

how can you expect your employee to do the task when you didn’t do it?

He called me mean!

But he got what I was conveying. It’s hypocritical to expect others to do what you won’t.

If the company has a no personal calls at work policy and we make personal calls at work, how can we expect our employees to do the same thing?

One of the most effective and responsible things we can do as managers is to be honest about what we are asking. If we don’t follow a rule, why should someone else? The era of do as I say, not as I do, doesn’t work anymore.

My client realized the value of doing the task he never did when he became a manager.

This is an opportunity. You can start talking with you employee by empathizing with their lack of motivation. Admit you didn’t do the task either. But why you now realize the benefit of doing the task, for them, for you and the company.

When we don’t expect our employees to do what we don’t do ourselves:

• We are avoiding disappointing outcomes
• Conversations can be more genuine
• Opportunities can be created because we can understand where they are coming from and can relate to them that way

As management continues to get more dynamic due to growing technology opportunities, diversity of the work force and stricter HR rules, the age of different rules for different levels within the organization is less and less effective.

Your management techniques can be more applicable and your life less stressful when you don’t have expectations from your employees that you yourself never met!

How effective is it when we look at our employees as a collective group instead of looking at them individually?

A manager in one of my workshops worked a lot internationally. There were many communication challenges, as well as cultural and time barriers when dealing with the French. So it was easy to blame the French for all his issues!

It’s doubtful the entire French population communicates the same way. But in many ways, it made sense and was easier to generalize by putting all the French into one group.

As managers, we tend to group certain employees together. We’ll say younger employees feel entitled, so it’s difficult to motivate them; older employees resist change and are counting the days to retirement.

The reality is some younger employees do feel entitled. Some older employees just want to retire. And some French might have communication issues.

But there are also younger employees who want to work hard and older employees who are committed to the job. And some French who are open to communication!

It’s a trap to group everyone together.

If we desire change, we need to look at each individual.

Instead of saying it’s the French – say which people in France am I having communication issues? Which person, who happens to be younger, is not meeting their goals?

Stereotypes exist because some general behaviors in people will fit those characteristics. But others won’t.

As managers, we would be more effective to look at each employee as a unique individual instead of stereotyping into groups.

When we look at each employee as individuals instead of grouping them together:

• It’s easier to develop specific and measurable plans for each employee
• We find out what motivates each of them and develop actions accordingly
• We get into action because its easier one on one instead of feeling its you versus an entire group of people

Blaming a group instead of individuals keeps us stuck.

Looking at each individual can give us an action plan to move us forward.

Managers will get asked this question. They get asked by their employees so the employee knows how to act around them.

Most managers will answer the question by stating their preferred style.

But there really is only one correct answer.

And that’s to answer the question with another question. And that question is:

It depends. What management style do you need?

Managers shouldn’t have only one style. They should be flexible to use the style appropriate for their employees at the time.

Some people will need a lot of direction. Some will need to be left alone. Then the people who needed direction might need to be alone at times, and the people being left alone might need more direction!

It’s always changing.

How can you be most effective as a manager if you don’t change your style to match what each employee needs?

How effective can you be when you only have one style? It won’t fit a majority of situations because one style does not fit all!

When you adapt your management style to fit the needs of each individual employee and not have them adapt to your style:

• You are able to meet each employees needs more effectively
• Results and productivity increase dramatically
• You make your job a lot simpler!

Not only can answering the question what’s your management style with the question it depends – what management style do you need, be effective with your employees; it will serve you on an interview for another management/leadership type position as well!

How does it feel when your employees work as a team?

In the last soundbite, I described the airplane game, which is played in my management courses. This game demonstrates delegation or collaboration.

Briefly, the game is played by having everyone make paper airplanes and fly them into a garbage bin. The reason they do this is we pretend we’re all part of the same company. The way we generate revenue is to get airplanes into the garbage. Yes, reality has to be suspended for this game!

Round 1 everyone works alone. Round 2 everyone at the same table can collaborate. Round 3 the whole room works together.

In one workshop where I taught communication skills, there were managers and non managers attendees.

Since we covered the topic of delegation, we played this airplane game.

The results were intriguing.

The end result was similar to when only managers participate. Each round saw an increase in the number of airplanes thrown into the garbage due to working together.

The difference was how the participants collaborated.

There was a better division of tasks prior to the final round.

How come?

You could say since it wasn’t all managers, there weren’t as many cooks as when it’s all managers. But at least half the group was in management positions, which is still a lot of cooks, I mean, managers!

I think there was a better division of tasks because with the mixed audience, there was more inclination for discussion, strategy and input.

This is good news for managers!

It shows how people want to be included. They want to participate in achieving results, for themselves and the team.

For newer managers, it’s different to rely on your team. Your success used to be dependent on you, now it’s dependent on others.

For more seasoned managers, you might have gotten used to not having as many people to confide in, therefore you sometimes forget there is a team who can help and support you.

When managers continually keep their team involved:

• There is more team collaboration
• More shared responsibility happens between team members
• Problems can be addressed more proactively

You will still have conflicts, misunderstandings and miscommunication throughout the team. This doesn’t go away.

But how it’s handled can be a rocky airplane ride or one with a little less bumps and more smooth sailing!