‘It flows downhill

I remember jetting once from Sacramento to Seattle, daydreaming over a sea of clouds, when the waves of whirling mist crashed abruptly on what appeared to be mountainous islands just outside the window. They were the peaks of the Cascades, violently replacing my tranquil fantasy with the rocky reality of a not so vacant treacherous sky.

That might be how some bosses feel; working so hard to climb to the top and not always knowing what perilous step will bring them falling from grace. But as much as managers can feel like castaways sequestered to far off mounts, no one is an island – especially not in an organization. Even the most subtle of emotional expression affects those below.

As someone wise once told me, “Shit flows downhill”. Imagine life as a stream, each of us bucketing out a small amount of social interaction and emotional support to survive, dumping back our psychological waste. Anything we throw in that flow affects the person downstream. And, if it’s a harsh word or nasty look, it washes over them without escape.

Of course they try to throw it back but often only with a little waste of their own, in turn affecting those further downstream. And while the strongest among us absorb it, ignore it, change it into something else, those of such emotional awareness and maturity are rare. Instead the pollution in the stream grows and affects more the further it flows.

These overly colorful analogies illustrate why I think it’s so important that people learn how they affect others; how to constructively deal with their feelings, particularly on the job, specifically if they’re the boss. The little that those at the top contribute to any mess has a tendency to clog the system with not only their own waste but that of their affected subordinates.

(Thanks to one of my Facebook followers for sending the above photo to me.)

Moving on up

The award ceremony

Annals of Improbable Research, the science humor magazine of Harvard, annually awards what it calls the Ig Nobel prizes “for serious scientific research on topics that seem anything but serious” (Beast, 2010).

This year, a group of Italian physicists won the Management Prize after mathematically proving that random promotions within a company actually made it run more efficiently. Here’s an excerpt from the work of Alessandro Pluchino, Andrea Rapisarda, and Cesare Garofalo of the University of Catania, Italy (Physica A, vol. 389, no. 3, February 2010, pp. 467-72):

In the late sixties the Canadian psychologist Laurence J. Peter advanced an apparently paradoxical principle, named since then after him, which can be summarized as follows: {‘Every new member in a hierarchical organization climbs the hierarchy until he/she reaches his/her level of maximum incompetence’}. Despite its apparent unreasonableness, such a principle would realistically act in any organization where the mechanism of promotion rewards the best members and where the mechanism at their new level in the hierarchical structure does not depend on the competence they had at the previous level, usually because the tasks of the levels are very different to each other. Here we show, by means of agent based simulations, that if the latter two features actually hold in a given model of an organization with a hierarchical structure, then not only is the Peter principle unavoidable, but also it yields in turn a significant reduction of the global efficiency of the organization. Within a game theory-like approach, we explore different promotion strategies and we find, counter intuitively, that in order to avoid such an effect the best ways for improving the efficiency of a given organization are either to promote each time an agent at random or to promote randomly the best and the worst members in terms of competence.

Check out their research here: The Peter Principle Revisited: A Computational Study.

Peter was right; too many managers are promoted simply because they’ve reached a certain organizational level and or their upper-management no longer knows how to reward them. And, it seems simple randomness would at least put a few people into play that actually possess the temperament and acumen to pull their teams and organizations to success. There is after all some order in chaos. But I have to ask, wouldn’t it be better to only promote individuals with those necessary managerial skills, and or ability to be trained? Perhaps someone will study that next.

Motivational Madness

Over the past 10 weeks, we’ve come to accept that everyone can’t be relegated to convenient stereotypes for our emotional consumption and that they possess valid perspectives just as important as our own. Consequently we’ve also learned to put our own egos aside and decided completing the task at hand is more important than our personal agendas.

We’re growing, changing, using our language skills more effectively, and accepting others. And, then the organization is likely to reward us for all this. Now the key is to know what exactly motivates others. Because let’s face it, after understanding ourselves, understanding others is even harder. Why do employees react one day one way and the next day another.

To make it more complicated, we need to realize that different people have different hot buttons. Along those lines, there are numerous working theories on how individuals operate in the work place. For example, Attachment Behavior Theory explains the bonds we enter into based on our childhood relationships and Bowen Family Systems describes our interaction with others based on our familial birth order.

This is just to name a few. There are numerous others not having anything to do with family. Culture, ethnicity, hormonal chemistry, etc, etc can all influence how people relate to each other. So what is a manager to do? Even with a psychology degree, it would be near impossible to diagnose each and every employee in order to most effectively manage them. Luckily, I argue you don’t have to.

The bottom line is to simply know that people have differing motivations, specifically from your own. Once you accept that, the teachings of react less, balance more, and communicate better build upon themselves. The most important idea to take away from this blog is that your perspective is not always THE perspective. You don’t always need to know your employee’s hot buttons as much as acknowledge that they have them.

Bosses are people too

So often I talk about what managers need to do in order to be less jerky towards their teams. But it is just as valid to suggest these same assaholic attributes are found in employees as well. In many cases the advice given can just as easily be read from the perspective of staff. React less, balance more, communicate better isn’t just a mantra to be chanted by management alone.

Employees need to realize that their bosses are people too. They have bad days, feelings, and personal motivations that aren’t always as sinister as they seem. Many times they simply have bosses above weighing pressure upon them to meet the same goals they present before subordinates. Perhaps managers and the managed have more in common than they realize.

Stepping out of one’s daily grind long enough to see the world from another perspective, can lift the burden of resentment and distrust. Empathy and motivational understanding have the tendency to free us from our own emotional bindings. Carrying baggage can be exhausting. Employees just as much as employers need to try putting it down every once and a while.

Such understanding can lead to open discourse and a better working relationship. Sometimes opening up to another is enough to allow them to open their point of view enough to see you too. Both sides need to accept that they cannot control the other, they can only control themselves. Removing the a-hole before you sometimes begins with the one standing before them.

Managerial Monster

Click Here for Video

Here’s another interview with Bob Sutton. In it, he touches on the work of Deborah H. Gruenfeld. A researcher in the business school of Stanford University, she has done studies into power and its effects.

As Bob mentions, Deborah contends that putting people into positions of power actually changes their personalities. It seemingly corrupts all those whom it blesses.

One such research study is outlined in the book, Psychological Science (Galinksy, Gruenfeld, Inesi and Magee, 2006, p. 1068). It suggests that those who obtain power tend to focus on their own perspectives over others.

While I would argue this is a common affliction of all people, such a finding supports my constant suggesting that managers step back and be less reactive in order to communicate better.

Plus the chapter discusses how those in power lose touch with their empathy, being unable to recognize emotional expressions.

That too seems common in all organizational members as individuals get wrapped up in their own paradigm and feelings. But the idea that it’s worse in managers emphasizes the need to teach managers to overcome their self-centered instincts.

They need to learn to find balance between their own perspective and others, their own feelings and others. This is not only for the respect of their teams, reaching of goals, and health of an organization.

It is also important for their personal career security. Bob gave a few examples at end of the video of companies removing a-hole bosses for the sake of internal harmony.

Now that the effects of power are seeing the light of day and the old values of authoritarian perspective are fading into the shadows, being a maga may finally no longer pay.

Reasonable Rhetoric

We’ve talked about how managers can best interact with their staff; the key being to take a step back from themselves. Once that’s mastered, employers learn that expression of emotion can be a tool best reserved for when they don’t actually feel them.

On the surface that sounds like a description of the stereotypical a-hole – the robot without emotion. But I’m not saying bosses don’t have and express their feelings. It of course needs to be done in a controlled manner. Instead I’m suggesting it also be done as an exercise in communication.

For example, I often recommend to consultancy clients in management, marketing, sales and customer service that they not show anger when they’re actually angry. Doing so often puts them at a strategic loss of control and justifiable action. Intended outcomes get misplaced in the wake of such outbursts.

Alternatively, showing anger when it would be expected but you don’t actually feel it has the effect of communicating a point while not giving into a lack of balance. It allows the speaker to calmly listen to the agendas of the audience while conveying disapproval where appropriate.

The point is that effective communication often requires subtle manipulation of pitch and tone. The key is to draw from a point of emotional sincerity while not becoming overwhelmed by adjacent feelings. Management of one’s speech is imperative to the effective management of people.

The Wise-(Donkey)

A Wise-(Donkey)

A question asked of me on Facebook by one of my readers in the US reminds me of an issue I’ve seen many employers grapple with throughout my career: When is it ok to be friends with an employee?

Managers who have mastered the art of an a-whole philosophy over the a$$holic alternative often want to be playful and joke around in the office. 

There seems to be a general confusion between renouncing the traditional authoritative style and becoming bosom-bodies with subordinates. It’s important to note that lack of one extreme does not beget the other.

But that doesn’t mean a more enjoyable workplace can’t be created with office comradery. Employees who respect their boss tend to be more willing to give an organization their best.

So if a manager wishes to share a laugh or a drink with their staff, spend time outside the office, or participate in simple team-building, here are a couple key points:

1) Employees have to understand that no matter how much fun is had outside business hours, inside the office, you’re still the boss. And, 2) there won’t be special treatment for friends.

Adhering to these rules might feel like you’re being a jerk again; but if you politely make them clear from the onset of hijinks, you’ll take the edge off in the long run.

Old Dog Tricks

Click on me

I’ve been lucky enough to be supported by readers who agree with my perspectives. But I feel the need to postpone my intended blog post to play Devil’s advocate. After all, a lot of a-hole management is common place in business today. And while we’ve touched on the idea that it has to do with people being people and needing to work through their own emotional issues more, in some cases, it’s also a belief that the old ways are the most profitable.

For 1000s of years, it has been the position of prominent leaders to rule with that proverbial iron fist. Some would argue it’s what built the great empires of our civilizations and in many ways made us who we are, no matter where we are on the planet. One need only look at a simple history book to see evidence of the master-slave relationship whipping societies across the globe into successes that seem to outlast time. Could the Egyptian pyramids have been constructed on emotional understanding?

And in business, hasn’t the tyrannical control and emotional tirades of great minds like Henry Ford and Steve Jobs, not only erected corporations of strength, but also transformed society as a whole? The arguments seem irrefutable. That is, until we accept the managerial axiom that what works for one does not always work for the rest. The majority of us, the research shows, are fueled by positive reinforcement not negative. And the proof is in the bottom line.

Robert Sutton of Stanford University wrote a book entitled Building a civilized workplace and surviving one that isn’t. He bases his assumptions on the management philosophies of a Lars Dalgaard who started a company called Success Factors. Click on the photo of Bob above to enjoy the video.

Where ever Ego, I go.

By now, the theme of react less, balance more, communicate better is starting to take shape in this blog. We understand to not jump to conclusions, know our objective, and maybe… swallow our pride.

The causes of our quick reactions are often simple ego. And while bad moods make it harder for us to be self-aware and take that deep breath, it’s not impossible.

I get it, you’re the boss and you want everyone to respect that. It’s not always your fault. A difficult employee is pushing back, challenging your authority. And, your gut says fight, put them in their place.

After all, it’s normal to reach out for what we feel we’re losing. In this case, power seems to be slipping away. But the balanced person knows chasing doesn’t often equate to catching.

Consistently difficult employees might need to be dealt with harshly behind closed doors but, often it’s just one guy or gal having a bad day.

And while theories of intra-office social-dynamics may suggest you maintain your top dog position by ripping out the throat of your challenger, remembering my previous blog might be important.

Your team has a job to do. Forcing them into submission may not be the best way to reach your objective. Just remember you’re still the boss – whether your employees accept it or not.

A little self therapy goes a long way. Cut through your own ego. Look at the world from someone else’s perspective. Figure out why they reacted that way.

I call this form of empathy ‘motivational awareness’. If you know, or can just guess at, why someone reacts the way they do, you can decide if they’re truly attacking your authority or ‘not’.

Odds are the answer will be not. Ego often blinds us to the truth of someone else’s motivations. Letting that go, allows us to see passed ourselves and into others. That hands down makes us better leaders.

Retention or Release: Know your goal

The 10 am meeting roles around – your staff is seated before you – and you survey their seemingly eager faces, looking your way for guidance. It feels good to be in command of such troops!

But barely a moment into explaining the major points of the task at hand and a single wisenheimer of an employee verbally reaches across the conference table to choke the impish life from your cheeks.

There’s one in every crowd – the person who has to ask what you can only perceive is the stupidest question on the planet. It makes you wonder if common sense is a hierarchical trait of evolution.

After all, you covered the answer to this inquiry in a previous meeting. And so with the full force of a vortex-evoking deep breath you bare your fangs and set upon this annoyance with a tirade of pre-coffee angst.

Of course it was just a simple question, maybe even pertinent to the topic at hand. And, my previous blog did say, “react less, balance more, and communicate better’.

Yet to do so, we have to step back from ourselves, conduct a little self therapy, and let go of our egos. Feel free to make that deep breath one of release and grounding. Take a moment to decide your objective.

I mean, you’re right, he should have taken better notes. But what is more important, being right or getting a job done? Expressing some momentary emotion or achieving a professional goal?

You can always take that staff-member aside later to discuss this issue if it’s part of a bigger problem. In the mean time, it’s best to fight being reactive.

That goes for both employees and bosses. Chances are, with a level head, you’ll decide swallowing that ego fueled emotion is more productive to your own needs. Know your objective. Achieve your goal.