The Ivory Tower Syndrome

"His cardinal mistake is that he isolates himself, and allows nobody to see him; and by which he does not know what is going on in the very matter he is dealing with. - Abraham Lincoln on his reason for relieving Gen. John C Fremont of his Missouri command. (September 1861)

How many times have you been given direction from your boss or the "head office" where you find yourself just shaking your head, wondering how the executive team could possibly have made such an uninformed decision? Maybe they have implemented a new cost control program that eats at the heart of your implementation process, putting you into a position where you can't possibly meet your delivery commitments. Or they roll out a new sales promotion that is not supported by your systems and almost assuredly will result in unhappy customers.

In my younger years I worked as an accountant at the head office of a shoe retail chain. We were suffering some significant losses in some stores and implemented some new control systems. Later I was shopping in one of our stores where the sales clerks did not know me. They were bemoaning the latest directive from "The Ivory Tower" and how silly it was and how difficult it made their job.

"These guys just don't get it", they were saying. "They've totally lost touch with what goes on in the real world." I was young, and very confident that we in the head office had a bigger, more complete view of the situation than these sales clerks did. I was confident that they were the ones who had lost touch. They just didn't see the big picture. Sound familiar?

I know that I heard a similar refrain at least 100 times in my career. The people in the field were convinced that the people in "The Ivory Tower" were out of touch. The executives in the home office were convinced that they had taken the proper steps based on "the big picture".

Who was right? It's hard to tell. There is no pat answer. Surely not every decision the executives make is correct, nor is every decision they make wrong. But as Lincoln intimated when he replaced General Freemont, it's not a good thing to lose touch with what is happening on the front lines.

Leaders that isolate themselves too much from the day-to-day activity of their business take the risk of losing touch with their employees, their customers, and even the companies' mission. In fact, there is an old joke about how decisions are made with input from the front lines that gets so badly distorted by the time it reaches the executives that it bears no semblance to the original message. Some people would tell you that this represents a communications problem. And to an extent, it does. But it also represents an executive team that is out of touch because it relies entirely on the chain of command to get information about important issues instead of being directly plugged into the day-to-day activities.

But here is an important thought that every reader needs to keep in mind. My experience is that the first line managers are just as likely to be out of touch with the day-to-day activities as the executive team is. If you are failing to walk the floor to talk with your employees; If you are failing to open the lines of communications on what happens on a daily basis; If you are so absorbed in meetings that you don't spend direct time with your first line staff then you too take the risk of not truly understanding your business. And that is much more risky then what happens in "The Ivory Tower".

Micromanagement and Delegation

Micro-Management and Delegation Recently I had a long discussion with a friend of mine about Managers and managing. She is a former HR Manager for several major companies and was bemoaning the fact that training for managers has been cut back so significantly in recent years and that managers no longer receive the type of help, guidance and assistance that they received just a few short years ago. My background has been in retail and telecom. Hers was neither. Yet the same problems and issues seem to rise in every industry. Of course, this is exactly the reason that I got into coaching. Coaching allows those managers who want to improve a very personalized venue to do just that.

We went on to agree that the common pattern these days seemed to be for the department star performer to be promoted from contributor, to team leader, to manager in seemingly record time. We agreed that new managers have difficulty moving from the contributor to the manager role because no one is willing to spend the time and energy to coach them through the various hurdles that new managers and leaders face. We agreed that this lack of training never seemed to lower the expectations of the manager, just the performance.

Then we disagreed, strongly. What caused the disagreement? The

concept was micro-management. My friend explained to me that she has "coached" many employees recently and that many of them complained about one particular manager who was micro-managing them. She told me that she helps the employees understand and come to grips with "their problem". "You're not going to be able to change that manager, she explained to me, "so you've got to change the employees". She explains to them that if they are being micro-managed, there's probably a reason for it. They are probably doing something wrong. If they just identify that problem and improve, their manager will stop the micro-management. "The employees need to improve themselves. It's as simple as that."

I wish my life was as simple as that.

She acknowledges that with that many employees complaining that

it's likely the manager is the problem. But changing the manager is too much trouble, she says, so let's tell the employees it's their fault.

While it is true that it is sometimes necessary to micro-manage

people, her explanation makes little sense to me. You might micro-manage an employee if their performance is lacking. Or because the project they are working on is very high visibility and any chance of error must be minimized. But when a number of employees are complaining about the same manager micro-managing them it implies one of two things.

Either this manager:

1. Has a lot of problem employees and needs to start weeding them out, or

2. This manager does not know how to let go and properly

delegate to their staff.

Excessive micro-management is not the sign of a healthy manager.

When someone is constantly micro-managing their staff it's generally their problem, not the employees.

If you are micro-managing your staff, refusing to delegate routine, and not so routine tasks to them for completion, then you are setting yourself up for trouble. Have you ever heard yourself say, "I would delegate this to someone else, but it's just as easy to do it myself"? Or maybe you say, "This task is too complicated to delegate. I have to make sure it's done right."

If so, I hope you like your job. Because you aren't going anyplace higher. Delegation can be difficult to learn because it looks like a huge risk and a huge leap of faith. But it doesn't have to be that way. There are techniques that you can learn that will help you delegate and get you out of the detail. And you have to get out of the detail if you really want to be an executive.

Micromanagement and Delegation

Micro-Management and Delegation Recently I had a long discussion with a friend of mine about Managers and managing. She is a former HR Manager for several major companies and was bemoaning the fact that training for managers has been cut back so significantly in recent years and that managers no longer receive the type of help, guidance and assistance that they received just a few short years ago. My background has been in retail and telecom. Hers was neither. Yet the same problems and issues seem to rise in every industry. Of course, this is exactly the reason that I got into coaching. Coaching allows those managers who want to improve a very personalized venue to do just that.

We went on to agree that the common pattern these days seemed to be for the department star performer to be promoted from contributor, to team leader, to manager in seemingly record time. We agreed that new managers have difficulty moving from the contributor to the manager role because no one is willing to spend the time and energy to coach them through the various hurdles that new managers and leaders face. We agreed that this lack of training never seemed to lower the expectations of the manager, just the performance.

Then we disagreed, strongly. What caused the disagreement? The

concept was micro-management. My friend explained to me that she has "coached" many employees recently and that many of them complained about one particular manager who was micro-managing them. She told me that she helps the employees understand and come to grips with "their problem". "You're not going to be able to change that manager, she explained to me, "so you've got to change the employees". She explains to them that if they are being micro-managed, there's probably a reason for it. They are probably doing something wrong. If they just identify that problem and improve, their manager will stop the micro-management. "The employees need to improve themselves. It's as simple as that."

I wish my life was as simple as that.

She acknowledges that with that many employees complaining that

it's likely the manager is the problem. But changing the manager is too much trouble, she says, so let's tell the employees it's their fault.

While it is true that it is sometimes necessary to micro-manage

people, her explanation makes little sense to me. You might micro-manage an employee if their performance is lacking. Or because the project they are working on is very high visibility and any chance of error must be minimized. But when a number of employees are complaining about the same manager micro-managing them it implies one of two things.

Either this manager:

1. Has a lot of problem employees and needs to start weeding them out, or

2. This manager does not know how to let go and properly

delegate to their staff.

Excessive micro-management is not the sign of a healthy manager.

When someone is constantly micro-managing their staff it's generally their problem, not the employees.

If you are micro-managing your staff, refusing to delegate routine, and not so routine tasks to them for completion, then you are setting yourself up for trouble. Have you ever heard yourself say, "I would delegate this to someone else, but it's just as easy to do it myself"? Or maybe you say, "This task is too complicated to delegate. I have to make sure it's done right."

If so, I hope you like your job. Because you aren't going anyplace higher. Delegation can be difficult to learn because it looks like a huge risk and a huge leap of faith. But it doesn't have to be that way. There are techniques that you can learn that will help you delegate and get you out of the detail. And you have to get out of the detail if you really want to be an executive.

The Communications Myth

Living in the 21st Century is truly marvelous, isn't it? We live in a world of instant communications where everything we need to know is right at our fingertips. The moment anything of significance occurs it is instantly transferred around the globe making us the most well informed generation in the history of the world.

Why is it then that communications is such a problem in the modern workplace? Why do so many employees believe that key decisions of upper management, or even their immediate management are not being communicated to them?

Don't believe me? Then go out and ask the rank and file in your company about the companies' direction; the department's goals and objectives; the companies newest marketing campaign; or the reason behind the recent decision to implement new systems.

Most employees don't know these answers because the communications is just not reaching them.

The reality is that communications comes in two parts. First, there is what the speaker or author sends, and then there is the message that is received. If what was sent is not the same as what was received, there is a communications error. Even worse is when the sender believes something is being sent, but nothing is received. Without a feedback loop the sender often assumes that the message has been received and understood when it truly has not.

The assumption that because a message has been sent that it must have been received is the source of a lot of frustration in the workplace today. In an effort to ensure that their communications are received, companies are sending out communications at an ever-increasing pace. Company directives, employee newsletters, status reports on dozens of pending projects, letters from the CEO that are sent and then forwarded and re-forwarded by various levels of management, departmental bulletins, company news flashes and so on lead to the illusion of communication. But since the employees don't receive or value the communications, they are not being received. And while I admire the efforts to transmit information and knowledge throughout the company no one should ever confuse the quality of information being transmitted with quantity. And that means that you should never assume that because something has been placed into an email, or newsletter that it has been communicated and understood.

In the fast paced work environment of today, employees are overwhelmed with deadline, projects, and an ever-growing pile of unread email. Employees are not ignoring these communications intentionally, but rather they are overwhelmed with pressing assignments. In addition, they believe that the value of these communications is limited due to the absence of any reasonable way to direct their questions and concerns back tot eh sender. Written communications, whether they be in emails, printed newsletters, posters, or even personalized letters can never be a substitute for the depth of understanding and commitment that comes with interactive, face to face discussions.

Clearly it is not possible for the CEO, the Vice Presidents, or even the Directors to meet each person one at a time to discuss issues with them, but in this age of communications, there is no excuse for not using interactive video or audio to communicate on a regular basis. If you want to reach your employees and make sure that your message is being received, then don't rely on contrived communications vehicles like newsletters, or mass communications like email. Instead, invest in your employees by direct communications. And do it at all levels of the company. Remember, sending a message that is not being received is of no more value than a message never sent in the first place.

Keeping and Motivating the Best Employees

Keeping and Motivating the Best Employees In "You Win With People" we talked about the need to hire the very best people to build your team. Now that you've done that the question becomes, how do you keep them, and how do you keep them motivated.

Much has been written about Employee Retention and about Motivation. But most of what has been written has been written in terms of the average employee. In fact, if you are measured at all by your company in this area, it's almost always a measurement of employee retention. But all turnover is not bad turnover, so a retention measurement is actually a false measurement of how you're hiring and firing practice helped the company.

So back to the question. How do you keep and motivate the best employees that you've hired? All human beings have basic needs that must be met, starting with food and shelter. So it's obvious that you must pay a fair wage and provide adequate benefits or people won't be able to stay with you. But once the basic needs are met, does it require more money or more elaborate benefits packages to keep the best employees?

In reality, neither are truly required.

Pay and benefits only go so far, and the best employees, the intelligent, self motivated, team oriented, results oriented employees are not out to squeeze the last dollar from their employers. The best employees have other needs that must be met and the good news is that you, their manager can meet these needs yourself.

Recent studies of highly motivated employees show that once their basic needs are met that other factors keep them motivated and interested in their jobs. Here are the 12 questions that the best employees want to be answered:

1. Do I know what is expected of me at work?

2. Do I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right?

3. At work, do I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day?

4. In the last 7 days, have I received recognition or praise for doing good work?

5. Does my supervisor, or someone at work, seem to care about me as a person?

6. Is there someone at work who encourages my development?

7. At work, do my opinions seem to count?

8. Does the mission/purpose of my company make me feel my job is important?

9. Are my coworkers committed to doing quality work?

10. Do I have a best friend at work?

11. In the last 6 months, has someone at work talked to me about my progress?

12. This last year, have I had opportunities at work to learn and grow?

It's important to note that of these 12 questions, 11 of them (all except number 8) are controlled locally by the employee, the manager, or the supervisor. This means that the first and second line managers have enormous control over their ability to motivate and retain the talented employees that they've hired. You can even argue that you directly impact number 8 based on how you represent the company.

Look back at your own career and think about the people you've worked for and which one's you were most willing to follow. Were these the needs that that leader met for you?

Goals and Objectives

Picture this scenario and see if it seems familiar to you.

"Dave, I need you to give me the goals and objectives for your group for the new year".

"Sure boss. What would you like them to look like?"

"You know. The usual. Increase productivity by 10%. Reduce your headcount by 15%. Implement some new controls. Oh, and I need them in two days."

Frankly, I've had this discussion about 25 times in my career and it always made me just a little bit crazy. Without any real look at what is going to happen this year, or any idea what the top executives are shooting for, I'm going to lay out my department's goals for the next year. Then I'm going to drive my people to meet these goals so that I get a good review and an increase in salary.

Not only does this scenario ignore the direction that should be set by the top executives, but it also misses the single most important reason you are in business..... The customer. So, while you're out doing the victory dance for meeting your objectives, your customer is sticking sharp pins into a voodoo doll that bears a remarkable resemblance to you.

Let's cut right to the chase here. When you create your departmental objectives based on the above conversation, the only thing you are really thinking about is getting the task complete so that you can check it off your list. You're not thinking about customer satisfaction, or how you are going to improve quality, or even major initiatives that you know (or don't know) are coming your way. You're thinking about getting the boss off your back.

And why not? The exercise above is just that, an exercise.

So, how should objectives really be set?

From the top down. The very top. The CEO of your company should be sitting down with his top executives and laying out the 2 or 3 top priorities for the company for next year. Those priorities represent the vision for the company. Each executive takes those 2 or 3 priorities and determines what they can do to support the vision. Working together the executives assure that the goals that they are passing down to the next level of management are consistent with each other and with the overall company goals.

Nothing can do more damage to a company and its customers' then major functional areas with conflicting or unrelated goals and objectives.

After the buy in has been received at that level, those visions and goals are passed down to the next level of management, where more specific goals and objectives are designed and shared with their customers. It's critical that everyone in the company see and understand the vision from the top, and that everyone understands what they are doing to support the vision. By developing a company vision at the top and then developing goals and objectives that explicitly support those goals you can then be sure that you are supporting the companies true goals. Then when you look at what you have accomplished for the year you and your customers will be looking at the same results.

So, how should you act on this?

Start now. And start by asking your boss for the goals and objectives of your senior executives so that you can stay in synch. Plant the seed that you would like to see them to make sure you are marching down the right path and then share what you have developed with your customers. If nothing else it will highlight where you and your customers are going.

Remember, developing goals and objectives for your team that are fundamentally aligned with the companies strategic objectives is a fundamental part of good management.

Micromanagement and Delegation

Micro-Management and Delegation Recently I had a long discussion with a friend of mine about Managers and managing. She is a former HR Manager for several major companies and was bemoaning the fact that training for managers has been cut back so significantly in recent years and that managers no longer receive the type of help, guidance and assistance that they received just a few short years ago. My background has been in retail and telecom. Hers was neither. Yet the same problems and issues seem to rise in every industry. Of course, this is exactly the reason that I got into coaching. Coaching allows those managers who want to improve a very personalized venue to do just that.

We went on to agree that the common pattern these days seemed to be for the department star performer to be promoted from contributor, to team leader, to manager in seemingly record time. We agreed that new managers have difficulty moving from the contributor to the manager role because no one is willing to spend the time and energy to coach them through the various hurdles that new managers and leaders face. We agreed that this lack of training never seemed to lower the expectations of the manager, just the performance.

Then we disagreed, strongly. What caused the disagreement? The

concept was micro-management. My friend explained to me that she has "coached" many employees recently and that many of them complained about one particular manager who was micro-managing them. She told me that she helps the employees understand and come to grips with "their problem". "You're not going to be able to change that manager, she explained to me, "so you've got to change the employees". She explains to them that if they are being micro-managed, there's probably a reason for it. They are probably doing something wrong. If they just identify that problem and improve, their manager will stop the micro-management. "The employees need to improve themselves. It's as simple as that."

I wish my life was as simple as that.

She acknowledges that with that many employees complaining that

it's likely the manager is the problem. But changing the manager is too much trouble, she says, so let's tell the employees it's their fault.

While it is true that it is sometimes necessary to micro-manage

people, her explanation makes little sense to me. You might micro-manage an employee if their performance is lacking. Or because the project they are working on is very high visibility and any chance of error must be minimized. But when a number of employees are complaining about the same manager micro-managing them it implies one of two things.

Either this manager:

1. Has a lot of problem employees and needs to start weeding them out, or

2. This manager does not know how to let go and properly

delegate to their staff.

Excessive micro-management is not the sign of a healthy manager.

When someone is constantly micro-managing their staff it's generally their problem, not the employees.

If you are micro-managing your staff, refusing to delegate routine, and not so routine tasks to them for completion, then you are setting yourself up for trouble. Have you ever heard yourself say, "I would delegate this to someone else, but it's just as easy to do it myself"? Or maybe you say, "This task is too complicated to delegate. I have to make sure it's done right."

If so, I hope you like your job. Because you aren't going anyplace higher. Delegation can be difficult to learn because it looks like a huge risk and a huge leap of faith. But it doesn't have to be that way. There are techniques that you can learn that will help you delegate and get you out of the detail. And you have to get out of the detail if you really want to be an executive.