By Daniel Robin
“Don’t we have to send out surveys to test the waters before determining an advertising budget?” the new boss asks.
“Nah, the Web isn’t like that. And since when are you an expert in marketing?” the marketing manager asked her boss.
“That’s why you’re here, alright. To keep me in line. And if my business degree means anything, it’ll come in handy to help you measure the impact of this hyper-social stuff.”
“You gotta deal, boss!”
… and so the strategy to include social media marketing eventually became a reality.
When to Assert, When to Collaborate
The old management approach was “Do it my way or pay the price… questions?” In the new workplace, employees are collaborators, suggesting that we work together toward mutual benefit. And yes, the increased freedom and autonomy relies on building in accountability systems.
As we mentioned in the previous article, some extremely successful companies (Hewlett Packard, for instance) provide tremendous operating freedom to their employees. Management gives broad operating guidelines, and lets people flourish or hang themselves in the process. Not every business can succeed with this approach. There’s a balance point between telling people what to do and giving no direction at all, relying on self-organizing systems and chaos to produce the desired results.
How Good Can You Stand It?
New workplace leadership tends to focus on primarily staffing and resource issues, coaching, and clearing obstacles when a situation is outside their staff’s sphere of influence. Perhaps management’s new charter is to get out of the way….
But why is it that some employees inevitably “wig out” with all this freedom? Have you noticed that some folks apparently can’t handle being in charge of their own life … it makes them uncomfortable, like they’ve just been given the keys to a powerful race car but fear they might lose control or something worse. There are often a small number of people who bring unresolved issues with authority to the workplace, and for whatever reason, act out their personal history on the job. The remainder of this article explains how to deal with such situations on and off the job.
Handling Workplace Crud
To effectively manage and motivate people when there is a policy non-compliance issue, or when serious mistakes are made, remember to focus on recognition and praise in balance with any corrective measures and “feedback.” Ideally, give 80% recognition and 20% feedback and constructive criticism. The only exception: when you’ve tried all other approaches, including making a direct request, and you get no cooperation. At times like this, explain the consequence – that you have no choice but to issue a verbal written warning or other disciplinary action – so there is a proper record.
Remember, if you feel angry, outraged, or like placing blame, somehow get that negativity off your chest and out of the way before opening the conversation. Unless you have incredible emotional restraint (skills as an actor, basically), you may want to privately go fully into what we call the “Blame Frame” (also known as venting) in order to acknowledge to yourself what the problem really is. Remember that the person is not the problem. Even if you think they are “problematic,” it does no good to act from this assumption. It just creates a right/wrong power struggle and useless loops that go nowhere in a hurry.
Why get anger and emotionality out of the way? Because any heavy “parental vibe” will likely trigger them into fear or defensiveness, and will not help you correct the problem in an open and collaborative way. Safety is essential. It works better to assume they already feel bad about the situation (or they will soon), so instead give them every opportunity to voluntarily make an agreement that solves the situation for future.
Conversationally, you might ask the other person “So, what can be done to make sure this never happens again?”
Gaining Cooperation is Key
Help them feel supported and safe enough to openly acknowledge the problem and their part in it. Even if they are unwilling to take responsibility, or they feel it is unfair, having them feel bad (blamed and shamed, criticized, put down…) must be reserved for the absolute last choice as a motivation or persuasion tool. To do otherwise will create a struggle where the other person waits for an ultimatum (like disciplinary action) to begin to improve.
Rather than relying on pleasure (reward and recognition) or pain (criticism and consequence) to motivate people, persuade and negotiate, perhaps causing what psychologists call “cognitive dissonance” – what will cause the person to either take action or try to justify their behavior to resolve the dissonance. If you can show the other person “what’s in it for them” and push back on some of their limiting beliefs, you may have a greater influence on their behavior than empty promises or harsh consequences.
Assume from the start that everyone does the best they can with what they have, hold them to as high a standard as you hold yourself, and fully expect them to succeed … and, eventually, they will!
