Lately, I’ve been talking quite a bit with leaders about expectation setting. Interestingly, the conversation doesn’t always start there. Usually it starts with concerns about employee productivity and performance or disappointment that the organization’s culture seems to be at odds with the leader’s vision. Yet, after peeling back those issues, we often find the same culprit – lack of clarity and accountability around expectations.
Expectations cannot be inferred
Everyone, at every level of the organization needs to hear what is expected of him or her. There is a common myth that people higher up in the organization do not need to have expectations laid out. Somehow they are supposed to “know what is expected.”
That’s simply not true. No one, regardless of how senior in the organization can read his or her bosses’ mind. It’s true that most competent people understand their company or department's overall targets and goals. But, there are a lot of ways to make a company successful. Consider this analogy. If ten ships set sail from New York to London but are 5-10 degrees off course from one another, they aren’t going to wind up in the same place. The same is true of your people. Even if they are able to “infer” 90-95% of your expectations, they might wind up in the same general area, but they aren’t going to land together.
In addition, good leaders adjust their expectations over time. In my very first performance review I received an “exceeds expectations” mark in every category. After congratulating me on my performance, my boss said, “Now that I know what you are capable of, my expectations have changed. If you do the same things this coming year, you’ll only meet my expectations.”
Sometimes expectations change because a leader better understands his or her people’s ability. Sometimes it is because the business context changed. Regardless of the reason, expectations change. Do you really know what you are going to be expecting of your people in three, six, nine, or twelve months? If you don’t know, how can you expect your people to know?
Compounding the problem is that there are different types of expectations. Just as a balanced scorecard helps ensure that a business has a holistic set of measures, it is important to provide a holistic set of expectations.
Four key types of expectations
There are four types of expectations that leaders should set for their people:
Results: What business results do your people need to deliver? What metrics and standards will you use to measure those results? These are the easy expectations. Most leaders do a good job of setting and tracking them.
Cultural/Behavioral: Is it ok for your people to get those results at any cost? Or, are you trying to build a specific type of culture in your organization? Do your people understand that culture? Do they know how you expect them to treat their co-workers, your customers, and others? Do they know if you want them to take risks or manage risks? Do they know if you are looking for innovation or are just trying to keep things running smoothly? (for more information on setting cultural expectations, see my post: What culture are you trying to create? Does your team know?)
Process: What actions should your people take to position your company/department for success? Should they be reaching out and building bridges with specific people or groups? Should they be focusing their attention on certain issues, customer segments, or opportunities? It’s not enough for people to know the outcome you want to achieve, if you have a vision for how to get there, they’d better understand that as well.
Individual contribution: Each of your people has unique strengths. It’s true that you might expect all of your sales people to meet revenue targets but how they do it might differ. For example, one person might be better at mobilizing others. Another person might be great at finding process improvement opportunities. Still someone else might be a superstar with the customer. Let your people know how you expect them to leverage their strengths above and beyond the day to day mechanics of doing their job. More importantly, let them what you expect them to do in order for you to help them succeed. Should they be focusing on increasing visibility ith senior leaders or improving credibility with their peers? Is it more important that they deliver one big project this year or do they need to be seen as contributing to the success of many smaller initiatives? (for more information on understanding an leveraging individual strengths, see my post, What's so special about YOU anyway?)
If you don’t need to provide expectations, then your people don’t need you
A leader’s job is to create clarity and focus for his or her people. If your people can figure everything out for themselves, then they don’t need you as a leader.
Help your people understand what they are to accomplish, how they should behave, and, at a high level, where they should focus in order to ensure company and their own success. Your value as a leader comes from ensuring that everyone in your organization understands those four things.
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Fix the economy: Stop buying AC/DC Albums
In the October 27, 2008 issue of The Guardian, Alexis Petridis makes an interesting observation
Most people see this as an interesting coincidence. Some, like Petridis even go on to speculate about a link between the two
Sometimes that distinction isn’t as clear, especially when the two issues are more closely associated. Confusing coincidence, correlation, and causality can lead to bad decisions and costly actions.
Correlation is when two things consistently move in the same (or opposite) directions. For example, your credit rating and insurance risk are correlated. People with better credit ratings generally have lower risk. Better credit doesn’t cause their risk to be lower. It just happens that those two things tend to go together. They are probably influenced (caused) by similar sets of personal attributes. One advantage of correlations is that they can provide insight into how one thing is likely to behave based on the behavior of something else. As with the case of insurance underwriting, this is especially helpful when it is easier to gain information on one of the two issues at hand. Correlation doesn’t give you insight into how to change either of those behaviors or how they interact. Contacting one of the many agencies that promises to improve your credit rating won’t make you a safer driver.
Confusing correlation for causality could lead to erroneous and ineffective investments. In the book Freakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephan Dubner describe such an error. A study showed that children whose households had more books performed better academically. This was a correlation. The number of books doesn’t cause kids to be smarter. Both the number of books in a house and academic performance are probably a result (caused) by parent attitudes about learning.
However, in early 2004, Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich developed a proposal. The state would mail one book per month to every child in Illinois from the time they were born until they entered kindergarten. The legislature ultimately turned the proposal down. Had they not, the state would have spent approximately $26 million in taxpayers’ money on a program that would have provided little value. Confusing correlation and causality can be costly. But it’s easy to fall into the trap. Mailing books is much easier than improving student performance and it creates the illusion of action. It’s tempting.
In a prior entry, I referenced a report that argued companies should invest more in engaging their employees. The report cited a study showing that companies with low employee engagement also had lower shareholder value. However, the data, as presented, did not show causality, it only showed correlation. There might be a causal relationship, but you must find evidence for it, and not infer it from the correlation. Perhaps the causality was reversed - companies with lower shareholder value might not have as much to invest in their people, causing decreased engagement. Or, maybe the poor performance and engagement was due to bad leadership, management, systems, tools, or processes. Before taking an action to fix a problem, it is important to know whether that action will actually change anything.
Many leaders feel pressure to demonstrate action and prove “ROI” on that action. That’s when the lure of correlation becomes strong. It’s convenient to assume that positive business results are caused by the most recent initiatives or actions that you’ve put in place. But, don’t fall into the trap. Before declaring victory on your actions (or investing in new one) make sure that you know if the relationships that you are seeing are causal, correlations, or just simple coincidences.
------------------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
“Last night came final and irrevocable proof that the country is entering tough economic times, unseen since the 80s: AC/DC have returned to the top of the album charts for the first time in 28 years. . . Those keen to draw wider inferences from its success might note that the last time AC/DC made No 1 in Britain, the country was on the brink of recession. . . When the economy recovered, AC/DC's popularity receded. . . But right on cue the album that returned the band to its heyday was The Razors Edge, released in 1990 - just as Britain headed towards its last recession.”So, fixing the economy (at least in the UK) seems to be as simple as boycotting AC/DC, right? Of course not.
Most people see this as an interesting coincidence. Some, like Petridis even go on to speculate about a link between the two
“AC/DC's appeal in unpredictable times is straightforward. People crave something uncomplicated and dependable in a time of uncertainty, and rock music has never produced a band so uncomplicated and dependable as AC/DC.”Yet, no one would think that AC/DC’s commercial success causes economic turmoil.
Sometimes that distinction isn’t as clear, especially when the two issues are more closely associated. Confusing coincidence, correlation, and causality can lead to bad decisions and costly actions.
Correlation is when two things consistently move in the same (or opposite) directions. For example, your credit rating and insurance risk are correlated. People with better credit ratings generally have lower risk. Better credit doesn’t cause their risk to be lower. It just happens that those two things tend to go together. They are probably influenced (caused) by similar sets of personal attributes. One advantage of correlations is that they can provide insight into how one thing is likely to behave based on the behavior of something else. As with the case of insurance underwriting, this is especially helpful when it is easier to gain information on one of the two issues at hand. Correlation doesn’t give you insight into how to change either of those behaviors or how they interact. Contacting one of the many agencies that promises to improve your credit rating won’t make you a safer driver.
Confusing correlation for causality could lead to erroneous and ineffective investments. In the book Freakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephan Dubner describe such an error. A study showed that children whose households had more books performed better academically. This was a correlation. The number of books doesn’t cause kids to be smarter. Both the number of books in a house and academic performance are probably a result (caused) by parent attitudes about learning.
However, in early 2004, Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich developed a proposal. The state would mail one book per month to every child in Illinois from the time they were born until they entered kindergarten. The legislature ultimately turned the proposal down. Had they not, the state would have spent approximately $26 million in taxpayers’ money on a program that would have provided little value. Confusing correlation and causality can be costly. But it’s easy to fall into the trap. Mailing books is much easier than improving student performance and it creates the illusion of action. It’s tempting.
In a prior entry, I referenced a report that argued companies should invest more in engaging their employees. The report cited a study showing that companies with low employee engagement also had lower shareholder value. However, the data, as presented, did not show causality, it only showed correlation. There might be a causal relationship, but you must find evidence for it, and not infer it from the correlation. Perhaps the causality was reversed - companies with lower shareholder value might not have as much to invest in their people, causing decreased engagement. Or, maybe the poor performance and engagement was due to bad leadership, management, systems, tools, or processes. Before taking an action to fix a problem, it is important to know whether that action will actually change anything.
Many leaders feel pressure to demonstrate action and prove “ROI” on that action. That’s when the lure of correlation becomes strong. It’s convenient to assume that positive business results are caused by the most recent initiatives or actions that you’ve put in place. But, don’t fall into the trap. Before declaring victory on your actions (or investing in new one) make sure that you know if the relationships that you are seeing are causal, correlations, or just simple coincidences.
------------------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Know your triggers
Have you ever noticed that sometimes your ideas blow everyone away and then, in the very next meeting, you seem to be the only one who doesn’t “get it”? What’s going on? Your ability to think can’t be changing that quickly. Can it?
No, it can’t. In fact, your ability to think changes very slowly. So why is your thinking right on sometimes and not happening at other times?
David Perkins, Shari Tishman,Ron Ritchhart, Kiki Donis, and Al Andrade argue that good thinking is driven by three dispositions: (1) sensitivity – recognizing that it is an appropriate time to employ a set of critical thinking behaviors (2) inclination – the desire to apply those behaviors; and (3) ability - the knowledge, skills and tools needed to think (Perkins, D, Tishman,S, Ritchhart, R, Donis, K, and Andrade, A. Intelligence in the Wild: A Dispositional View of Intellectual Traits, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2000)
For example, suppose that you are under a tight deadline to come up with a new marketing campaign. You might be so relieved when you hear the first good idea that you don’t think to explore alternatives. That would be a lack of sensitivity. Or, perhaps you know that you should look into alternatives, but due to the time pressure, you decide to go with that first good idea. That’s an example of a lack of inclination. Finally, you might know and want to find alternatives, but you are locked into a single way of thinking. You don’t know how to look at the problem from a fresh perspective. That’s an issue of ability.
Successful leaders and experts have mastered all three of these dispositions. Unfortunately, most critical thinking or innovation/creativity courses only focus on ability. Improving sensitivity and inclination is left up to you. That's too bad since most thinking problems are rooted in those two areas.
Getting a handle on your triggers is one way to overcome sensitivity and inclination issues. Triggers are situations that cause you to stop thinking. Often some type of stress in the environment drives your triggers. In the earlier example, the deadline was the trigger. Time pressure often causes us to stop thinking.
Each person has his or her own set of triggers although there are some common themes. Examples include deadlines, confrontation, working with peers, working with your boss, working on something new, working on something old, and change.
Your job is to figure out 1) which ones impact you the most 2) how they impact your thinking, and 3) how to recognize if you are falling victim to one.
Unfortunately, most people aren't always aware of their triggers. That’s why they are so dangerous. The good news is there are a few ways that you can better understand your triggers:
----------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
No, it can’t. In fact, your ability to think changes very slowly. So why is your thinking right on sometimes and not happening at other times?
David Perkins, Shari Tishman,Ron Ritchhart, Kiki Donis, and Al Andrade argue that good thinking is driven by three dispositions: (1) sensitivity – recognizing that it is an appropriate time to employ a set of critical thinking behaviors (2) inclination – the desire to apply those behaviors; and (3) ability - the knowledge, skills and tools needed to think (Perkins, D, Tishman,S, Ritchhart, R, Donis, K, and Andrade, A. Intelligence in the Wild: A Dispositional View of Intellectual Traits, Educational Psychology Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2000)
For example, suppose that you are under a tight deadline to come up with a new marketing campaign. You might be so relieved when you hear the first good idea that you don’t think to explore alternatives. That would be a lack of sensitivity. Or, perhaps you know that you should look into alternatives, but due to the time pressure, you decide to go with that first good idea. That’s an example of a lack of inclination. Finally, you might know and want to find alternatives, but you are locked into a single way of thinking. You don’t know how to look at the problem from a fresh perspective. That’s an issue of ability.
Successful leaders and experts have mastered all three of these dispositions. Unfortunately, most critical thinking or innovation/creativity courses only focus on ability. Improving sensitivity and inclination is left up to you. That's too bad since most thinking problems are rooted in those two areas.
Getting a handle on your triggers is one way to overcome sensitivity and inclination issues. Triggers are situations that cause you to stop thinking. Often some type of stress in the environment drives your triggers. In the earlier example, the deadline was the trigger. Time pressure often causes us to stop thinking.
Each person has his or her own set of triggers although there are some common themes. Examples include deadlines, confrontation, working with peers, working with your boss, working on something new, working on something old, and change.
Your job is to figure out 1) which ones impact you the most 2) how they impact your thinking, and 3) how to recognize if you are falling victim to one.
Unfortunately, most people aren't always aware of their triggers. That’s why they are so dangerous. The good news is there are a few ways that you can better understand your triggers:
- Ask someone. While you might not be aware of your triggers, the people around you probably are. Ask them what your “hot buttons” are. Find out what situations set you off. Ask how your thinking changes when those buttons are pressed.
- Ask yourself. Even though you might not be conscious of your triggers, your body usually is. Pay attention to the signals that your body gives you – butterflies in the stomach, feeling flushed, heart pounding, sweating, dry mouth, insomnia, irritability, etc. All of these might be signs that you are feeling stressed or overwhelmed. Take a step back when your body sends you a message. Try to pinpoint what is causing the stress. That is probably your trigger.
- Reflect. After your meetings or projects sit down and review your thinking process. Did you seek alternatives, validate information, and challenge assumptions? If you find that you didn’t, think about what got in your way. Look for patterns over time that predict when you are more or less likely to engage in good thinking.
----------------
Brad Kolar is the President of Kolar Associates, a leadership consulting and workforce productivity consulting firm. He can be reached at brad.kolar@kolarassociates.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
