All Things Workplace

Is It Really Just About Strengths?

2009-07-13T08:00:15-04:00

Have you ever noticed people making excuses for poor performance or ugly behavior by invoking the "It's just who I am" defense?

Research (and common sense) show that focusing on peoples' strengths can have a positive affect on engagement and results.

But any approach or new , misunderstood, can actually cause negative side-affects.

Have you seen any of these?

- Using "strengths" research as an excuse for managers to avoid uncomfortable performance discussions with employees. ("Everyone knows that James is difficult to work with and shirks his responsibilities. No one wants to work with him and clients complain about him...but he's a really good analyst. Let's not rock the boat.")

- Hiding behind strengths as an excuse for bad behavior. For example, "I'm sorry that I snapped at you and called you a bumbling idiot. I have a short fuse. That's just how I am. Sensitivity is not my strength. You'll just have to accept that."

- Dumping mundane tasks (like paperwork, administration) on others because "it's not my strength." (For example, "Anne, you're so good at making the office coffee, cleaning out the pot and using the fax machine. Would you mind? I'm not good at that kind of stuff.") All jobs require doing some things we don't like, or aren't particularly good at...and most companies can't afford to give all of their employees an assistant to dump work on. Sometimes we just have to suck it up and do something, even though it's not our strength.

All of that said, I'm still a huge believer in understanding one's strengths. I just get alarmed when I see a good concept spin out of control and become destructive.

What's Happening With The Strengths/Weaknesses Thing?

There are probably a number of reasons why, but I think there is a phenomenon that gets played out--at least in American business circles--whenever the latest and greatest thing hits the scene. And it's this:

What is actually a Principle is adopted as a Rule.

Instead of really taking time to understand all that lies underneath a principle, people run with the catch phrase and treat it as "the way." A book title becomes a buzzword that is then tossed around in meetings. It becomes problematic when the word doesn't have a shared meaning among the users. And that happens a lot. So it is with Strengths.

It's a lot easier to say "It's all about Strengths" than it is to live a life identifying and acknowledging our strengths; figuring out where we need to become at least adequate in some of our weaknesses; and respecting the people around us enough to behave unselfishly even when we "feel" like doing our own thing our own way.

When managers avoid uncomfortable performance discussions, they are showing disrespect for their employee. How can the person improve without hearing the truth, exploring ways to change, and growing as a result?

When we hide behind Strengths as an excuse for bad behavior, we're really saying "I don't respect you enough to bother to honor you with good behavior."

And when mundane tasks are dumped on someone else because "I'm not good at it," then I better ask myself just how I'm using my position power. Is one of my less attractive "strengths" the inclination to take advantage of others' weakness?

What I find ironic as I write this is: we're talking about Strength, yet the insidious culprit is Laziness.

What to do?

1. Take time to learn the "why?" behind the "what." When you can explain a concept accurately using everyday language, you've got it. If you or colleagues around you are still discussing things using buzzwords, stop and ask for an explanation of the meaning. That discussion could lead to shared meaning and deeper understanding.

2. When you hear a "performance excuse" disguised as a reason, follow up by asking: "What are you going to do about that? It's impacting other people and that's not acceptable." It's amazing how we'll make changes once we are called on our behavior and not allowed to explain it away.

3. Make really bad coffee and jam the fax machine.

Managers Guide Passion

2009-07-10T12:14:49-04:00

Talking about "passion", especially in the workplace, can create passionate debate.

No one is against the idea of being passionate about one's work. But Managing Leadership's Jim Stroup has this thought:

Passion for work is generated by the value of that work - not by a mindless "passion" gene or character trait. As a result, the responsibility for generating passion should be placed back where it belongs - on managers, or even on directors and owners, not employees.

Managing Passion Creates Engaged People

Although passion may be an individual experience, in the workplace it's the manager who is the perpetrator of passion.

Matching the right tasks with the right people breeds the kind of productive experience that offer satisfaction as a result of accomplishment. That kind of matching means that managers have to know their people well enough to know what their individual talents are--then use them accordingly. This does at least four things (you may want to add more):

1. It offers the opportunity for the company to benefit from the strengths that it supposedly hired.

2. It shows the employees that their talents are, indeed, recognized, and that they (the employees) aren't just "human" resources.

3. It shows the employees that their managers know "who they are and what they are all about."

4. It offers a genuine chance at a reality of "excellence" rather than "excellence" as a buzzword.

Maybe we should start referring to this as "managing passion": understanding the best of what people bring to the job and managing more deliberately to help people become productive in satisfying ways.

Note: Look, there are tasks that all of us have to do, regardless of the work we've chosen. We not only aren't passionate about them, we don't like them. It's part of life and being an adult. Managers aren't there to "make people happy." Happiness is a personal choice. But managers get paid to produce excellent results. They can't achieve that goal without bringing about excellence in their people. And I don't think I've ever heard anyone express disappointment at the opportunity to excel.

Management Engagement

That's what has to happen to make all of this a reality: management engagement. Employee engagement implies that there are vast numbers of workers malingering on the job--and we have to "get them engaged."

I would suggest that there are vast numbers of managers who don't know their people well enough to orchestrate work in ways that lift people's desire to engage. There are too many mismatches going on out there.

It ends up being, in great part, a relational issue.

Managing is not an easy job to do well. But it's impossible if a manager doesn't take the time to build relationships that allow insight into individuals' strengths and desires when they show up for work.

The employment agreement is a contract: We, the organization, need to accomplish this; and we're hiring you, the employee (regardless of level), because you bring this to the organization

The manager's job is to orchestrate all of the "this".

I like the idea of Managing Passion.

Photo source: roberts-playground

Leadership, Happiness, and Satisfaction

2009-07-09T07:46:15-04:00

Every so often I check the statistics here to discover what search engine queries bring people to All Things Workplace. I figured that the keywords were going to be mostly "leadership" or "management".

Wrong.

"Job Satisfaction"..."Happiness at Work"..."Where Can I Find the Best Job?"..."Strengths and Weaknesses"..."How Can I Find A Job Where the Boss Listens to Me?"...those are the themes. Career issues--sometimes disguised as communications--turned up on a second page of searches.

(Click on image to enlarge)

Make no mistake. People are searching for how to feel good at work. We want to do well...and we want to feel good in the process.

But these are leadership and management issues. What people are saying is: "We want to be in a place where the "orchestration of work" allows us to contribute our talent. There are times when we need direction and times when we need to improvise our own riffs."

Think about two variables

There's a relationship between how much people enjoy their jobs and how well they perform. That's not a mystery. But there is a dynamic you need to know about in order to manage yourself and others:

1. Some people have to feel good about their job and their workplace before they can get busy and perform at their max.

2. Others have to have to first achieve super results in order to feel good about their jobs.

It's a "Which comes first, the chicken or the egg?" phenomenon. I picked up on this during a stretch where I was diagnosing "performance issues" for a client.

My conclusion: Managers hadn't caught onto the validity of the two approaches to performance. Naturally, the "feel good first" people were perceived as weenie-like non-performers. However, they actually had a huge commitment to doing well. They just needed something else to help them be able to get there.

What was it? They wanted the managers to understand who they were and what made them tick. That went along way to having the "right feeling" about the job.

The second category of people wanted a scorecard. They weren't about to "feel" good until they checked off their tasks and accomplishments.

Target yourself and your people

1. Which approach most naturally fits you? Figure out what that means to the way you work and the way your work is managed. Then talk with your manager about your desire to excel and how you might use this natural preference to make that happen.

2. Managers: The next time you're in a meeting (or one-on-one), have an informal conversation about the two approaches. Let people talk about what comes first for them. You'll learn a lot about how to manage each person; and they'll get more of what they need in order to hit the top of the job satisfaction/high performance curve.

Punchline: First, know yourself and your own preference. Only then will you have a solid point of reference for understanding the distinctions of the people around you.

Apologies and Thanks to Commenters

2009-07-08T14:16:53-04:00

We just realized that spammers have been somehow overwhelming the site with "comments". As a result, the real comments have been getting buried and were unseen by me.

I apologize to all of you who have taken the time to give thought to the different threads of conversation going on here. As you know, I really value the give-and-take and the relationships built here.

When I get back to the office tonight I will respond to all valid comments. In the meantime, we'll try to figure out how to fend off this latest barrage of webgarbage.

Steve

Managers Build Talent

2009-07-08T08:20:59-04:00

You may already have the right people to enable your company to "win"--however you define the word.

We recently designed a leadership 'program' to develop the top talent in a global company. The model created used the executive management committee as coaches for the learning activities. First we coached the coaches on how to coach; then we turned them loose. It's been the most effective learning in nearly 30 years of leadership development and design.

What's happening that works?

The top leadership learns a lot about their own abilities.

They learn about their people while developing closer relationships with them.

The high potential participants receive coaching and company insight from the leaders who know it best.

The participants also "step up" their game. How often do you see the top leadership in a company totally dedicate two full days to the talent beneath them?

You Can Do It, Too

Managers are the natural lighting rods for developing talent. Coaching isn't another job--it is their job.

Companies are always looking for ways to develop people economically but effectively. Every research study on the planet shows that employees are most influenced--pro or con--by their immediate boss. That's exactly why managers at every level have the ability to make the most difference when it comes to grooming people for the future.

The mission: Give them the capability.

Three things managers can start now:

Diagnose: Focus on identifying the very best talent in others.

Encounter: Seek the truth then speak the truth, wherever that path will lead.

Build: Participate in the performance growth or your people.

When managers coach, we get "two personal bests" for the price of one.

Note: Even (smart) stars find a coach somewhere: Check out John Bishop's nice story at Leadership Is A Verb.

Whoa! Just as I was hitting the "publish" button an email came through from Fistful of Talent naming All Things Workplace in the Top 25 Talent Blogs again this year. Given their criteria and primo staff I'm truly honored. And if you are a seeker of talent info, be sure to subscribe to their feed.