Crew Resource Management (CRM) and the Energy Industry

If you work in the airline or healthcare industries, you are probably already familiar with Crew Resource Management (CRM) training.  CRM training was an outgrowth of evaluations of catastrophic airline crashes that were deemed to be due to “human error”.  The original idea behind CRM was to capitalize on the knowledge and observations of other crew/team members when the pilot or doctor was seen doing something that could lead to an incident.  The goal is to help crew members develop the skills necessary to successfully anticipate and recognize hazards and then correct the situation. Recently, the energy industry has begun to provide guidelines for member companies to implement CRM training in an attempt to avoid catastrophic events like the Macondo and Montara blowouts.* CRM training focuses on six non-technical areas needed to reduce the chances of “human error”.  These six areas are:

1. Situation Awareness This involves vigilance and the gathering, processing and understanding of information relative to current or future risk.
2. Decision Making This involves skills needed to evaluate information prior to determining the best course of action, selecting the best option and implementing and evaluating decisions.
3. Communication This involves skills needed to clearly communicate information, including decisions so that others understand their role in implementation.  It also involves skills for speaking up when another person is observed acting in an unsafe manner.
4. Teamwork This involves an understanding of current team roles and how each individual's performance and interaction with others (including conflict resolution) can impact results.
5. Leadership This involves the skills and attributes needed to have others follow when necessary.  It also includes the ability to plan, delegate, direct and facilitate as needed.
6. Factors that impact human performance Typically this category has focused on stress and fatigue as contributors to unsafe actions or conditions.  However, drawing from the wealth of Human Factors research, we view this category more broadly and feel that it includes the many ways in which human performance is impacted by the interaction between people and their working contexts.

We have been writing on these skill areas in our blogs and newsletters for several years and thought that some of our work on these subjects might be beneficial to our readers who are either currently working to implement CRM training or evaluating the need to do so.  If you have been following our writings, you will already know that we take a Human Factors approach to performance improvement (including safety performance), which involves an understanding of the contextual factors that impact performance deemed to be “human error”.  It is our view that, while human error is almost always a component of failure, it is seldom the sufficient cause.  We hope that this link to our archive of Crew Resource Management related posts will be useful and thought-provoking.  For ease of access, you can either click on one of the six CRM skill sets described above, or the Crew Resource Management link, which includes all related writings from the six skill sets.

*OGP: Crew Resource Management for Well Operations, Report 501, April, 2014. IOGP: Guidelines for implementing Well Operations Crew Resource Management training, Report 502, December, 2014 The EI Report: Guidance on Crew Resource Management (CRM) and non-technical skills training programmes, 1st edition, 2014.

Safety Intervention: A Dynamic Solution to Complex Safety Problems

If your organization is like many that we see, you are spending ever increasing time and energy developing SOPs, instituting regulations from various alphabet government organizations, buying new PPE and equipment, and generally engineering your workplace to be as safe as possible.  While this is both invaluable and required to be successful in our world today, is it enough?  The short answer is “no”. These things are what we refer to as mechanical and procedural safeguards and are absolutely necessary but also absolutely inadequate.  You see, mechanical and procedural safeguards are static, slow to change, and offer limited effectiveness while our workplaces are incredibly complex, dynamic, and hard to predict.  We simply can’t create enough barriers that can cover every possible hazard in the world we live in.  In short, you have to do it but you shouldn’t think that your job stops there. For us to create safety in such a complex environment we will have to find something else that permeates the organization, is reactive, and also creative.  The good news is that you have the required ingredient already…..people.  If we can get our people to speak up effectively when they see unsafe acts, they can be the missing element that is everywhere in your organization, can react instantly, and come up with creative fixes.  But can it be that easy?  Again, the short answer is “no”.

In 2010 we completed a large scale and cross-industry study into what happens when someone observes another person engaged in an unsafe action.  We wanted to know how often people spoke up when they saw an unsafe act.  If they didn’t speak up, why not?  If they did speak up how did the other person respond?  Did they become angry, defensive or show appreciation?  Did the intervention create immediate behavior change and also long term behavior change, and much more?  I don’t have the time and space to go into the entire finding of our research (EHS Today Article) , just know that people don’t speak up very often (39% of the time) and when they do speak up they tend to do a poor job.  If you take our research findings and evaluate them in light  of a long history of research into cognitive biases (e.g. the fundamental attribution error, hindsight bias, etc.) that show how humans tend to be hardwired to fail when the moment of intervention arises we know where the 61% failure rate of speaking up comes from…… it’s human nature.

We decided to test a theory and see if we could fight human nature simply by giving front line workers a set of skills to intervene when they did see an unsafe action by one of their coworkers.  We taught them how to talk to the person in such a way that they eliminated defensiveness, identified the actual reasons for why the person did it the unsafe way, and then ultimately found a fix to make sure the behavior changed immediately and sustainably.  We wanted to know if simply learning these skills made it more likely that people would speak up, and if they did would that 90 second intervention be dynamic and creative enough to make immediate and sustainable behavior change.  What we found in one particular company gave us our answer.  Simply learning intervention skills made their workforce 30% more likely to speak up.  Just knowing how to talk to people made it more likely that people didn’t fall victim to  the cognitive biases that I mentioned earlier.  And when they did speak up, behavior changes were happening at a far great rate and lasting much longer that they ever did previously, which helped result in a 57% reduction in Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR) and an 89% reduction in severity rates.

I would never tell a safety professional to stop working diligently on their mechanical and procedural barriers, they should be a significant component of the foundation on which safety programs are built.  However, human intervention should be the component that holds that program together when things get crazy out in the real world.  It can be as simple as helping your workers understand their propensity for not intervening and then giving them the ability and confidence to speak up when they do see something unsafe.

Diagnostic Tools for Poor Performance

In our May Newsletter we described a Contextual Model designed to help us understand how people make decisions that impact their performance. You will recall that we focused on four general contextual factors (Self, Others, Surroundings and Systems) as primary contributors to determining performance success or failure. The salience or "relative weightiness" of specific factors within these general factors create what we called “local rationality”. Local rationality is a term to describe the fact that individuals perceive and interpret the contextual factors weighing on them in a way that is uniquely their own and makes total sense to them, irrespective of how "irrational" the interpretation appears to an onlooker. This locally perceived and vetted interpretation of the contextual factors weighing on a person, in turn, determines how the person decides, behaves, or performs.

Therefore, to accurately (and thus effectively) hold someone accountable for performance requires that we examine their context before we attempt to “fix” their performance.

Four Skills

We suggest four skills that when applied during an “accountability discussion”, or what we also refer to as a “re-direction” discussion, will help you get an accurate picture of the person’s context.

We have a natural tendency to want to understand and explain what we see as quickly as possible, so we have a tendency to make a guess about the causes of poor performance.

Thus the first skill:

“Don’t Guess”

Whether you are right or wrong in your guess, you are likely to create defensiveness and we have already talked about the negative impact that defensiveness can have on communication (Read the Blog: Dealing with Defensiveness in Relationships).

Additionally, when you guess you can unintentionally influence the person to agree with your assessment even if it is incorrect. So, instead of guessing, become curious and think to yourself...”I wonder why it makes sense to him to do that?”.

This question also weakens the influence of the Fundamental Attribution Error and allows you to entertain factors other than motivation as a cause for failure.

This leads to the second skill:

“Ask Opening Questions”

Start by making sure that your tone of voice is respectful and not accusatory which would most likely be interpreted as a guess and lead to defensiveness.

Don’t ask “Yes” or “No” type questions which would also be seen as guessing, rather simply ask the person to help you understand why they did what they did (a reflection of your curiosity question above).

For example “Can you help me understand why you are doing it this way?”

If you show genuine curiosity and not judgement you will be much more likely to get at the real reason behind the decision and behavior.

Sometimes you will only be able to identify a general contextual factor with your Opening Question, so this brings the third skill into play:

“Ask Drill Down Questions”

Remember, the objective of this discussion is to determine the real reason or reasons behind the poor performance so that you can fix it. If you didn’t get enough information from your first question, then just ask a second, more specific question (i.e., Drill Down Question).

For example Let’s say the person used the wrong tool for the job and when you ask them why they say they didn’t have the right tool. You might drill down by asking something like...”Why didn’t you have the right tool?”.

Just telling them to use the right tool might not fix the problem if the reason they don’t have the right tool is because there is only one available and someone else is using it!” Remember, drill down far enough to find the real reason(s) before you attempt to fix it.

And finally, during the whole conversation apply the fourth skill:

“Listen Completely”

Listening to “what” the person is saying (their words) is only half of the process. To listen completely, you must also pay attention to “how” they are speaking, e.g. their tone of voice, their willingness to maintain eye contact, their body posture, etc. These help you understand the “real” meaning behind what they are saying and will also help you get to the real context that led them to perform as they did.

What's the Point?

Only after you have ascertained the real reason(s) do you have a sufficiently complete and accurate “accounting” of the failure. With this "accounting", you can now help find a fully informed fix that will lead to sustained improvement going forward.

Why We Fail to Hold Others Accountable

Have you ever failed to hold someone accountable for poor performance? Perhaps it was a server in a restaurant who failed to provide good service. Perhaps it was an employee who didn’t meet stated expectations. If you are like us and the thousands of participants in our Performance Management in the Workplace™ and PerformanceCompass® classes over the last 30+ years, the answer is a resounding “YES”!

So why do we often fail to step up to the conversation needed to hold another person accountable for failure?

Female boss pointing a pen at her male employee

Well, there are probably a lot of reasons, but a research project that we conducted in 2011 sheds a lot of light on a couple of those reasons. Our research project focused on one form of workplace performance failure (unsafe actions), but the results serve as a model for any form of failure in the workplace.

The question that we posed to more than 2,600 employees was, “When you see someone doing something that is unsafe and choose not to intervene in what they are doing, what is usually the reason?”

We asked this question (and several others) to both supervisors and non-supervisors with a negligible response difference between the two groups.

Survey Says? The two primary reasons that respondents gave for not intervening (i.e. not holding the other person accountable) when they see something unsafe:

1. The other person would become defensive or angry
2. It would not make a difference.

These two reasons indicate a common, underlying problem. Namely, a large number of employees, including supervisors, do not hold others accountable when they see something unsafe because they either are or believe themselves to be incapable of doing so effectively. They do not believe that they can intervene in a way that stops and sustainably changes the other person’s unsafe behavior, while also preserving a respectful working relationship.

Anecdotally, when we ask supervisors in our training classes why at times they don’t step up to hold their employees accountable for other forms of performance failure, they give us the same two reasons.

Reason #1: Defensiveness All of us, at some time, have been defensive and have experienced defensiveness on the part of others. Defensiveness does not occur because of the words that are used, but because of the interpretation of the intent behind the words.

If you, or the other person interpret the intent as an attempt to harm dignity, reputation, or both, then defensiveness is most likely to occur.

Think about it; when you think someone is out to harm your dignity or reputation, don’t you become defensive and either shoot back at the person, or retreat with your feelings hurt? If you do, then you are normal.

The Solution Successfully handling defensiveness in others is critical to having the confidence to step up to accountability conversations. We suggest a simple tool/skill to help you deal with defensiveness and we call it a “do/don’t statement”.

When you sense that the other person has misinterpreted your intent then just clarify what you really intended. For example, “I don’t mean to imply that you are incompetent. I do want to make sure that we get the results that were expected.”

Notice that the order of the “do” and the “don’t” doesn’t really matter as long as you clarify your “real” intent. Of course if your real intent was to harm dignity or reputation, then an apology might be in order.

Reason #2: It would not make a difference Most of the time we don’t speak up because we have failed in our attempt to get improvement before and assume that we will fail again. This is because we have not helped the person “find a fix” for the real cause of their failure.

Stay Tuned We will talk about this in more detail in a future newsletter because there are several skills required to accurately understand the real reason(s) behind the failure and thus find a fix that will create sustained success. For now please understand that there is a simple, easy to use set of skills that will create success in accountability conversations and help create sustained performance improvement in others.

What's the Point?

While there are probably other reasons why we don’t speak up when we observe failure of all types, the two primary reasons both have to do with our doubt that we can either successfully deal with defensiveness or get sustained improvement.

Both of these reasons have associated skills that can predictably lead to success.

Avoid Cognitive Bias to Create Workplace Accountability

As we discussed in our January Newsletter, the first step to Accountability involves an examination of the facts/reasons underlying a specific event/result (accounting). In order for this process to bear fruit, it is important that we accurately and fairly evaluate the causes of the poor performance. To effectively examine the facts/reasons for a specific event/result requires that we understand how our biases could affect that evaluation. This is where Cognitive Biases can come into play. You may be saying to yourself…”I don’t have any biases. What are they talking about?”

Well, the truth is that we are all impacted by biases and much of the time for that matter.

What is a Cognitive Bias?

A Cognitive Bias is anything in our thought process that can distort the way we view things including the actions of another person.

There are a multitude of cognitive biases that have been identified and studied by psychologists, but there are two that directly impact accounting for the actions/results of another person.

Confirmation Bias

One of these is what is called Confirmation Bias or the tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. In other words, we are predisposed to look for causes that confirm what we expect.

This means, for example, that if we are predisposed to view another person as competent, a hard worker and motivated, then we will tend to look for these types of behaviors in that person and also overlook behaviors that are in conflict with our preconception. Additionally, we would be more likely to account for poor performance on the basis of external factors such as lack of resources, lack of support, etc. rather than internal factors such as knowledge, ability or motivation. In other words, we would be likely to conclude that the failure was out of the person’s control.

On the other hand, if we are predisposed to view another person as incompetent, lazy and unmotivated, then we will tend to look for support of this preconception as the cause for failure and perhaps blame the person for the failure.

The Confirmation Bias is the underlying driver for a phenomenon commonly referred to as the Self Fulfilling Prophecy. This phenomenon has been demonstrated through research and personal experience in various environments and is notably reflected in the positive correlation between a supervisor’s expectations of a subordinate and that subordinate's performance.

Low, negative expectations tend to result in poor performance, whereas high, positive expectations tend to result in good performance.

Therefore, how we view an individual not only can color how we evaluate performance, but it can also determine how the individual actually performs. To fairly hold others accountable for failure we must be aware of our predispositions/biases regarding the individual and how we may have contributed to the failure in the first place.

Fundamental Attribution Error

The second Cognitive Bias related to Accountability is called the Fundamental Attribution Error.

Have you ever been driving on a three lane highway, going the speed limit in the right hand lane (left hand lane if you are from the UK) approaching an exit that you are not taking, only to have someone cut dangerously close in front of you to take the exit? What were your thoughts about the person doing the cutting? If you are like most of us you called the person a “jerk” or something worse and honked your horn or gestured “politely”.

You just attributed the other person’s actions to an internal attribute related to carelessness or some other bad motive. In other words, we view the other person as “bad” in some way.

Now, have you ever cut someone off in a similar circumstance when you were needing to get to an exit? If you are like us, and everyone else we have asked this question, then the answer is “yes”!

So why did you do it?

Probably because that “jerk” in the right hand lane wouldn't get out of the way and let you exit. In other words, your poor performance was due to external causes and not your carelessness or bad motive.

This is the Fundamental Attribution Error which says that we tend to attribute internal/motivational causes to the poor performance of others but not to our own poor performance. This cognitive bias can cause us to “jump to the conclusion” that the cause of the poor performance was due to motivation and thus interfere with our complete evaluation of other causes. Failure to accurately evaluate the “real” causes will most likely lead to consequences or corrections that will not lead to success in the future.

What's the Point?

Simply being aware that these two Cognitive Biases exist will help reduce or hopefully eliminate their impact on the accountability process.

As we will discuss in a future newsletter, starting your accounting of poor performance without “guesses” as to the cause(s) will almost always lead to a more accurate evaluation.

Effective Organizations Build Resiliency; Capitalize on Failure

How many times have we seen professional athletes come back from serious injury only to perform even better than they did prior to the injury? Think about Minnesota Vikings running back, Adrian Peterson, who suffered a season ending ACL/MCL knee injury on December 26, 2011. Peterson fought back to start in Week 1 of the 2012 NFL season and ultimately finished just nine yards short of breaking Eric Dickerson’s single season rushing record!

There is something about adversity that, for champions, increases desire to succeed rather than desire to give up.

The same is true for highly effective organizations, i.e. they are resilient. They bounce back from significant (even catastrophic) events to resume the same or even better performance than they had prior to the adversity. They use the adversity as a catalyst to innovate and improve.

Break Through or Break Down

Why do some organizations demonstrate resilience while others collapse in the face of adversity? The simple answer to this question is that the resilient have already created a culture based on the characteristics that we have been discussing throughout this 2013 newsletter series. Resilience is not a characteristic that can stand alone, but rather is the result of creating an environment of effectiveness that can not only withstand adversity, but can improve because of it.

Let’s review the other 10 characteristics of an "Effective Organization" in light of what they mean for resiliency.

1. Clearly define and communicate mission, goals, values, and expectations.

• In the face of adversity, resilient organizations stay true to their purpose, but not necessarily to their strategy.
• That is, they find another way to achieve their reason for existence rather than stubbornly adhering to the way they have done it in the past.
• In other words, they innovate.

2. Align all aspects of the organization including people, systems and processes.

• In the face of adversity, resilient organizations re-align the organizational components with the new strategy.

3. Model and develop Facilitative-Relational Leadership throughout the organization.

• Leadership style doesn’t change because of difficulty, rather it becomes even more manifest.
• In the face of adversity, facilitative-relational leaders actively solicit ideas from team members in an attempt to identify the most effective tactics and to increase commitment from those required to implement those tactics.

4. Hold everyone accountable with both positive and negative consequences for results.

• Resilient organizational leaders understand that accountability, not blame is the key to improvement and success.

5. Build a collaborative and empowered environment based upon teamwork.

• Just as in the “good” times, “hard” times require that people work together and make judicious and timely decisions for success.
• Organizations that already have this type of environment are more likely to weather difficult situations.

6. Tolerate appropriate risk taking and learn from both success and failure in an attempt to be innovative.

• Effective organizational leaders understand that while implementing a new or modified strategy there will be risks and that there will be both successes and failures.
• They also understand the need to learn from failure and to celebrate success.

7. Focus on meeting customer expectations and needs.

• Customer focus is essential to success all the time, but especially in the face of adversity.
• Understanding the customer's perception of the organization's response to that adversity is critical to both the development and implementation of the new strategy.

8. Create a culture based on honesty, integrity and mutual respect.

• It goes without saying that trust is the basis for success and organizations that have it are much more likely to succeed in the face of adversity than those who don’t.

9. Identify meaningful measurements and timely feedback.

• Strategy change often requires different measurements to determine how the strategy is working and likewise requires feedback to determine whether change is required moving forward.

10. Insist on open communication throughout the organization.

• It is very easy to become focused when times are tough and to forget to communicate, but resilient organizations are diligent in increasing communication when faced with adversity.
• Leaders understand that failure to communicate will create an environment of “guessing” and much of the time that guessing is wrong and counter productive.

What's the point?

Organizations that are effective in the good times are much more likely to have created a culture that will respond effectively to adversity. There is a good chance that they will become even better because of the adversity. Those organizations that are not effective in the good times will be much more likely to fail when the times get tough.

Effective Organizations Create a Culture Based on Honesty, Integrity, and Mutual Respect

Our 2013 Newsletter Series examines the Top 11 Characteristics of "Effective Organizations". To qualify for this distinction, an organization must not only meet its stated goals and accomplish its stated mission, but the mission and goals must be ones that people would want to invest in and/or participate in because they bring superior value to not only the individual, but also customers and society in general. So far we have seen that an Effective Organization:

#1 -- clearly defines and communicates mission / goals / values / expectations

#2 -- aligns all aspects of the organization including people, systems and processes

#3 -- models and develops Facilitative-Relational Leadership throughout the organization

#4 -- holds everyone accountable with both positive and negative consequences for results

#5 -- builds a collaborative and empowered environment based upon teamwork

#6 -- tolerates appropriate risk taking and learns from both success and failure in an attempt to be innovative

#7 -- focuses on meeting customer expectations and needs.

This month we will look at how an Effective Organization:

#8 -- creates a culture based on honesty, integrity and mutual respect.

Honesty & Integrity

Let’s start our discussion by focusing first on honesty and integrity. What does it mean to have a culture based on honesty and integrity? We tend to think of honesty as “telling the truth” and integrity as “doing what you say you will do”. I once heard someone define integrity as “doing what is right even when no one else is watching” and I think that is a really good working definition of the term.

Have you ever worked with someone that you didn’t trust because that person told you one thing and did another? Maybe it only happened on one occasion, but sometimes it only takes one violation of trust to create distrust. As a customer, have you ever been promised one thing, but gotten something else? How did this make you feel about patronizing that company again?

Effective organizations are built on a foundation of honesty and integrity because their leaders know that this creates an environment of trust both within the organization and with those that do business with the organization. Leaders know that the willingness of their employees to follow them and of customers to patronize them is determined by the level of trust that those employees and customers have in them.

These leaders also know that this is a result of a history of them meeting expectations that have been clearly articulated and communicated. In effect, this creates an environment where employees are willing to follow leadership because they can predict outcomes.....an environment where customers are willing to pay money for goods or services because they can predict outcomes.

Moral & Ethical Behavior

Honesty and integrity also require moral and ethical behavior as a component. These concepts are difficult to define, but at a minimum include a set or code of accepted values and principles that follow not only legal requirements, but also take into consideration the impact that decisions have on others, both internally and externally. Honest people and organizations are those that are seen to consistently and predictably abide by society’s accepted code of morality and ethics even when faced with the opportunity to violate that code. Unfortunately, history is full of examples of people and organizations that have violated society’s legal and moral code. Fortunately, leaders of effective organizations do not usually appear on that list.

Mutual Respect

Effective organizations also attempt to create a culture based on “mutual respect”. Mutual respect is an outward and reciprocal regard for the dignity of another person. It is demonstrated by the way two or more individuals interact, especially when communicating with one another. It involves an attempt to understand the views and feelings of another person and the other person doing the same in return. It involves not only attempting to understand views and feelings, but doing so in a manner that communicates interest through the way we look (body language), what we say (our words) and how we say it (tone of voice). Mutual respect does not mean always agreeing with, or even liking others....it means ensuring mutual opportunity to express views while maintaining one's dignity. Failure to engage in mutual respect very often leads to friction, conflict, and ultimately organizational (and even personal relationship) failure. If you don’t believe this, just Google “divorce attorneys” and see how many hits you get!

What's the point?

Our introductory definition of "Effective Organizations" makes the case for honesty, integrity and mutual respect -- bring superior value to not only the individual, but also customers and society in general. While value is most easily seen from a financial perspective, it is most clearly felt by internal and external customers in the way they are treated -- especially when nobody is looking.

Championship Teams are the Result of 5 Critical Factors

Before starting a career in oilfield operations and ultimately consulting, I was fortunate to coach ten high school football and baseball teams to state championships. As I look back at what made us successful as sports teams and then start to look at the very successful business teams I have been fortunate to serve on, I notice a trend.  They both have the same five critical factors necessary to be successful.

1. Great teams set high goals. We never set a goal to win X number of games, we always set a goal to win the championship. In business, we never set a goal to be average, rather we set goals that would create a competitive advantage for our team and company.
2. Great Teams hold themselves accountable. As we have stated before, accountability does not mean punishment. We must focus on three things for which we must hold all team members accountable:
   • expected behaviors related to how team members respond to one another
   • continuous process improvement to reach higher and higher objectives
   • tasks done on time and done right.
3. Great teams talk through tough issues. Team members do not always agree on everything and at times don’t even get along. To help with these “bumps in the road”, great teams must show respect to all team members, focus on the goal and collaborate for success. Dr. Stephen Covey once said “It is not my way or your way it is a better way” that is the essence of collaboration as you check your ego at the door and focus on the goals and objectives set out from the start. (Check out the latest Newsletter on Collaboration and Teamwork).
4. Great teams connect their work with the other teams in the company. They understand that the Company as a whole is the total team and that its success is based on the success of all the teams that support and deliver that success. Knowing this, they will then support and contribute to other teams as necessary and share knowledge and results throughout the organization.

Great teams believe in their mission/goals. A Gallup Poll released June 11, 2013 indicated that only 30% of workers are engaged at the workplace and that the vast majority do just enough to get by. Great teams get their teammates to understand how their efforts impact the team and company and ultimately get them to buy-in. They know that to motivate the employee to a top level of performance they must align sub-team goals with the goals of the overall team.

Let’s look at these 5 critical behaviors through the lens of one of the more underrated American sports team. The San Antonio Spurs have quietly built a dynasty of sorts. No, they may not be the Celtics of the of the ‘60s that won 8 in a row and it’s not the Bulls of the Michael Jordan era, but they are great in their own right. No, they didn’t win the World Championship this year, but they did take a far superior team (on paper) to 7 games and they have 4 championships since 1999.

This is what is amazing about the run the Spurs have been on over that time, they are ALWAYS overmatched on paper. If you simply compared the talent of the players, the Spurs are almost always on the short end of that stick. Sure they have Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, and had David Robinson. These are all names that the casual fan has heard at some point, but they may not have heard of them if they hadn’t played for the Spurs. Ginobili and Parker look more like law partners than world class athletes and the two big men quite honestly are closer to Will Purdue than they are Wilt Chamberlain. So how do they win? How have they continued to be so successful?

Look back at our list of 5 critical factors and imagine what it must be like to be on that team and playing for a leader like Greg Popovich. Do you think each team starts with the goal of winning a World Championship? Do you think the coaches hold the players accountable to their actions and performance, as well as the players to other players? Do you think they deal with tough issues that arise over a grueling 82 game schedule? Do you think the front office, medical staff, coaches, players, etc. all have the same mission and vision for the organization? Do you think that the entire organization has bought into this vision? If you answered “yes” to all of these questions then you see what an incredibly functional team must look like. The other side of that coin must look like the Dallas Cowboys, but it pains me far too much to discuss that disfunction in this blog.

Effective Organizations Build a Collaborative and Empowered Environment Based upon Teamwork

Highly effective organizations are composed of highly effective teams. Leadership in these highly effective organizations are intentional in the development of those teams and utilize two key tools to aid in this development: Collaboration and Empowerment.

Collaboration

A collaborative environment is one in which members work together to solve problems and to create and implement new ideas. It is based on the notion that through the sharing of ideas and effort, other, better ideas and results can be attained. Additionally, it is based on the notion that common purpose (i.e., the achievement of better results) and shared respect for one another will lead to unselfish contribution and support of and from other team members.

In a collaborative environment, team leaders make sure that objectives are clearly stated and understood by all team members and that shared respect is always present. If disrespect occurs, these leaders are quick to address the issue, determine the cause and re-establish an environment of shared respect.

Team leaders are also quick to recognize the combined efforts of their team members and reinforce those efforts. Collaboration is really the opposite of competition because in collaborative efforts everyone is a “winner” and no one is a “loser”, whereas in competition their is always a winner and a loser. In competitive environments the tendency is for the loser to either become less motivated to participate, or more motivated to “get even”, neither of which leads to better results.

Collaborative teamwork is like basketball where “assists” are just as important as shooting because without the assists, the shots will be less likely to score points for the team.

Collaboration also increases “ownership” by team members because each one has input into the process and thus “owns” a piece of the effort and the result.

Empowerment

Within these collaborative environments, leaders empower their employees and teams by giving them the opportunity to take initiative and make decisions without “getting permission” first.

Empowerment is based primarily on “trust” that the empowered person will make a decision that is in the best interest of the team and one that will achieve the stated objective.

Empowerment is always relative to the ability and motivation of the individual being empowered. It is based on the understanding that the empowered person has the knowledge, skill, motivation, etc. to make the “right” decisions and execute effectively on those decisions.

Empowerment does not mean “lack of accountability”. Remember our discussion of this topic in our May Newsletter (Effective organizations hold everyone accountable for both positive and negative results). If failures do occur, empowering leaders do not automatically assume that the failure was a result of poor motivation, but rather assumes that the person gave his or her best effort and then explores for the “real” cause(s) for the failure.

If the failure was motivational, then the leader attempts to understand the factors underlying the lack of motivation before attempting to motivate the person. If the failure is not motivational, the leader then works with the person to develop a plan to prevent the failure from occurring again. Failure is seen as an “opportunity” to improve and reduce the chances of additional failure going forward. It is never seen as an opportunity to lay blame.

What's the point?

Empowered employees have a greater sense of satisfaction in their work, a greater sense of ownership and an increased willingness to work together. Ownership increases the likelihood that the employee will exert the effort necessary to achieve success.

A Best Boss Is Flexible and Willing to Change When Necessary, Is a Good Planner/Organizer, & Shows Respect to Others

The holiday season brings us to the final two installments of the Top 20 Characteristics of a Best Boss. As you prepare for the potential stress of family and out of town guests, take the time to look back at the characteristics we have described so far and imagine how they might influence your relationships with friends and family. #1 -- is a good communicator #2 -- holds himself and others accountable for results #3 -- enables success #4 -- motivates others #5 -- cares about the success of others #6 -- is honest and trustworthy #7 -- shows trust by delegating effectively #8 -- is fair and consistent #9 -- competent and knowledgeable #10 -- rewards / recognizes success #11 -- leads by example #12 -- is loyal to employees #13 -- is friendly #14 -- is a good problem solver and #15 -- is a team builder.

This month we will examine how a Best Boss:

#16 -- is flexible and willing to change when necessary #17 -- is a good planner / organizer and #18 -- shows respect to others.

Flexible and Willing to Change When Necessary

“I’m the boss and we will do it my way” is not something you would hear from a Best Boss. That being said, this a common expression heard in many workplaces and a powerful undertone in the culture of many of the organizations that don't necessarily say it out loud. The consequences of this expressed or implied sentiment are dramatic, the least of which include employee apathy, disengagement and a potentially profit forfeiting reduction in creativity.

Fear of Losing Control One of the fundamental issues is that some managers/supervisors view flexibility as a sign of weakness. Common expressions like "give them an inch and they will take a mile" and "too many chiefs and not enough indians" reinforce the belief that the supervisor must exhert unquestionable authority or risk losing control. Quite the contrary, it is often the rigid dictator that incites the desire for revolution.

Fear of not Knowing all the Answers Another driving force in the tendency toward rigidity is that many supervisors don’t want to admit that they don’t have all of the answers. I once heard a really great manager say “I am willing to learn from anyone, even the newest person on the team because they don’t have the years of bias that I have.” If you remember that the job of a supervisor is to get results from the efforts of others, it only makes sense that you would leverage the creative brains of others to get results as well. Flexibility does not mean giving in to all suggestions but rather is the willingness to entertain other views and make decisions on the basis of that evaluation.

Flexibilty & Problem Solving The ability to apply the problem solving skills that we discussed in our October Newsletter is critical to becoming flexible. Good team-based problem solvers will have the opportunity to seek input from team members and then collaborate with them on solutions, thus making flexibility much easier to demonstrate. Repeated practice with collaborative problem solving will reinforce the desire to be flexible as you observe the solution optimizing benefits of additional perspectives.

A Good Planner / Organizer

Planning/Organizing, problem solving and time management go hand-in-hand.

Expectations Good bosses know that their team members need direction so that they will know “what” is expected of them. They must have a clear understanding of the results that they must achieve. A good plan, especially as the result of collaboration, will provide those expectations for each team member.

Reading from the Same Page It really doesn’t matter if the plan is the result of problem solving or simply daily work objectives, the resulting product is the same, namely a plan that everyone understands and supports.

Time and Priorities Additionally, team members must have a clear understanding of “when” those results are expected. This is where time management comes in. Best Bosses help set priorities as part of the planning process. They gather information about the current action items for each team member and then in concert they prioritize them. This helps the team member control his/her time and as a result manage their personal stress.

Shows Respect to Others

What is respect anyway? Respect is defined as “a feeling of admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements.” So showing respect is a demonstration of this definition in some way.

Listen to Show Respect How does a person “show respect” to another? If your answer is “by listening to the other person” then you are in agreement with just about everyone to whom we have asked this question over the last 30-years. Listening does not require that you “respect” every “ability, quality or achievement” of the person, but it does require some very important skills.

You may recall that we discussed listening in detail in the "Good Communicator" installment that kicked-off this newsletter series.

The key is to genuinely show interest in the other person through how you listen with both your words (questions) and with your body language.

Delegation Additionally, the skills that you use as you delegate to your team members demonstrates that you respect their “abilities, qualities and achievements” and allows you to “respectfully” help them improve in those areas where improvement is needed. To refresh your memory, check out some of the blog topics we have written on Delegation. Best Boss Bottom Line

You may have noticed that these three skills are related in that flexibility, planning and respect all require that you listen effectively. Make sure that this is your top priority and you will have a much better chance of being seen as a “Best Boss”.

A Best Boss Is a Good Problem Solver & Team Builder

Through the first nine installments of this series, we have seen that a 'Best Boss': #1 -- is a good communicator #2 -- holds himself and others accountable for results #3 -- enables success #4 -- motivates others #5 -- cares about the success of others #6 -- is honest and trustworthy #7 -- shows trust by delegating effectively #8 -- is fair and consistent #9 -- competent and knowledgeable #10 -- rewards / recognizes success #11 -- leads by example #12 -- is loyal to employees and #13 -- is friendly.

This month we will examine how a Best Boss:

#14 -- is a good problem solver and

#15 -- is a team builder.

You may have heard it said that “if this job was easy, everyone would be doing it.” It’s true. In reality, supervision, management, leadership and other roles defined by the ability to produce desired results through the efforts of others is genuinely difficult. The job of supervision is a minefield full of problems and people. The corporate battlefield is littered with human resource casualties and lost productivity and profits from the scores of “supervisors” that just weren’t Best Bosses.

The best bosses, the ones described in our research, thrive in complex and challenging environments and are often described by those they have influenced over their careers as good problem solvers and good team builders. These two characteristics clearly work in tandem. A problem solved by “Throwing the team under the bus” does not qualify for best boss status. Nor does building a great team of lifelong friends that consistently fail to solve the problems they face. These two characteristics go together.

Good Problem Solver

Best Bosses are not only good at solving problems, but they are good at teaching their employees how to solve problems. They understand that employee’s who can recognize problems and then bring thought-out solutions to the table are much more likely to take initiative and exhibit creativity in other ways.

While not all supervisors use/teach the same problem solving techniques, most keep it simple and focus on no more that 5-steps.

These 5-steps usually include:

Problem Identification

Knowing that you have a problem is the first step and this involves the monitoring of results relative to standards, listening to coworkers, clients, etc. In other words, it involves the identification of “pain”.

Problem Exploration

Best Bosses know that problems can arise for a multitude of reasons and make sure that they have evaluated each possibility before deciding on a solution. They also involve their team members in this evaluation because it both teaches and increases the chances that the “real reason(s)” will be identified.

Objective Setting

Best bosses know that well stated objectives will increase the chances that an effective plan will be created. They therefore ensure that every objective is Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant and Time-bound (SMART).

Action Plan Development

As important as development of a workable plans is, ownership of the plan is equally important. Best bosses involve the appropriate team members in plan development to both create the best plan possible and to increase the willingness of the team to implement the plan effectively.

Measurement and Correction (as necessary)

If the objective is stated correctly, then measurement is simply the evaluation of the results against the stated objective.

If failure occurs, then best bosses avoid blame and begin the problem solving process all over again to make sure that each step was completed successfully.

While best bosses are skillful at solving problems, they are equally skillful at involving team members in the solution process.

Team Builder

Best bosses know that success is more a function of team work than it is individual skill, so they work just as hard to develop team work as they do to develop individual skills.

Team building first requires bosses to assess their team’s interaction so that they can determine what if anything is creating less than desired teamwork. There are five critical issues related to teamwork that all best bosses evaluate on a regular basis. The specific team building plan will be driven by this evaluation.

How well do the team members get along on an interpersonal level?

• It is not necessary that team member become best friends, but civility and courtesy are a requirement for having a successful team.
• Best bosses are quick to identify any conflict within the team, determine the cause(s) of that conflict, and address those causes effectively.

Do team members work together to accomplish tasks or do they compete with one another?

• While competition is appropriate at some levels, it is never appropriate within a team.
• Competition leads to someone winning at the expense of another team member and this almost always leads to the desire to get even.
• Best bosses know this and create an environment where teamwork is recognized and competition is eliminated or at least minimized.
• Best bosses also know that their attention or lack of it can lead to competition, so they make sure that attention and recognition is provided equally within the team and is not contingent on being better than each other.

Do they share information with each other?

• Failure to share information within a team can be the result of several issues, only one of which is keeping information to increase power or position.
• Much of the time failure to share information is simply due to forgetting to do so, not realizing that the information is needed by others, or not having the opportunity to do so.
• Best bosses make sure that all team members understand their role in information sharing and create an environment where information hoarding is not allowed and certainly not reinforced.

Do they provide support for one another when under pressure to get the job done?

• Best bosses know that high levels of stress negatively impacts an individual’s ability to perform and also reduces the desire to work together on issues.
• They also know that they have a lot of influence on the stress level within the team by the way that they manage time and stress for both themselves and for their team members.
• Best bosses also know that increasing skills through training can help reduce the negative impact of stress on a team, therefore they spend time helping employees develop the skills needed to respond more effectively when stress increases.

Do they focus on solving problems or on blaming each other when problems arise?

• While blame seems to be a natural human response when problems arise, it is really a response to the prediction that the person will receive blame him/herself.
• Best Bosses understand that if they focus on “why” the failure occurred rather than “who” failed they will then avoid contributing to the development of a blame culture within the team.
• Best bosses understand that if they don’t pass blame, they will reduce the need for blame to occur within the team and this will lead to the development of better problem solutions.

Best bosses know that failure in one or more of the areas above can lead to decreased teamwork, decreased productivity and failure to achieve results.

Best Boss Bottom Line

Problems don’t solve themselves nor do teams build themselves, rather it takes someone in charge to see to these efforts. Even more so, it takes a Best Boss to see to these efforts sustainably. Fail to both deliberately solve problems and intentionally build your team and you might have a short life on the corporate battlefield. Strive instead to build a team capable of tackling obstacles effectively using all of the resources they collectively bring to the fight.

A Best Boss Leads by Example, Is Loyal to Employees, & Is Friendly

To recap the series, so far we have seen that a 'Best Boss': #1 -- is a good communicator #2 -- holds himself and others accountable for results #3 -- enables success #4 -- motivates others #5 -- cares about the success of others #6 -- is honest and trustworthy #7 -- shows trust by delegating effectively #8 -- is fair and consistent #9 -- competent and knowledgeable and #10 -- rewards / recognizes success.

This month we will look at:

#11 -- leads by example #12 -- is loyal to employees and #13 -- is friendly.

Combined, these three characteristics of a Best Boss help create workplace climate. It makes a lot of sense that the factors that make up workplace climate would make the list when we asked employees to describe the best boss they ever had. The saying goes that, "People don't quit companies, they quit people." The flip side of this is true as well. When employees talk about loving to work for a great company, they are really describing that they love working in a great work climate. That work climate is created, intentionally or unintentionally, by people -- by bosses. As we look closer at each of these characteristics, reflect back on your own work climate experiences. Better yet, examine the one you are creating or experiencing right now.

Leads By Example

Have you ever heard the statement “Do as I say, not as I do”? It's hard to imagine being motivated to follow the leadership of someone who is not willing to apply the same rules/expectations to him/herself that are placed on the rest of the team. As a supervisor (or parent) we always set an example for someone and it is either a good example or a bad example. In the workplace that example helps to create the expectations that our team members have. Those expectations help to determine the workplace climate in which your team operates.

Bosses, to a very large extent, set the workplace climate through what they say and what they do. Workplace climate includes all the rules of conduct and operation including those formal and written (policy and procedure) and those informal and unwritten (what is acceptable). If a boss works outside the written rules, then the communication is that it is really alright for everyone else to do so, too. Best Bosses understand their role in determining the “real” workplace climate and therefore strive to always set an example of adherence to the written policies and procedures as they expect their team members to do also.

The workplace is inherently complex and stressful enough without the compounding effects of frustration and resentment that accompany a perception of organizational or leadership hypocrisy. Ultimately, there is no amount of personal utility, comfort or privilege that outweighs the detriment to work climate from not "walking the walk."

Loyal to Employees

Loyalty is defined as faithfulness to commitments and obligations that one has to another person or group, so Best Bosses honor the commitments and obligations that they have made to their team members. But how is this loyalty shown?

• It does not mean “turning a blind eye to failure” and
• It does not mean supporting team members with upper management when the team member has defiantly violated policy.
• It does mean supporting team members when the team member has done everything that they were expected to do, but failure occurred anyway.
• It does mean defending team members when they are challenged by other leaders about their efforts and results when the team member has met the boss' communicated expectations.
• It does mean defending team members when they are not present and can’t defend themselves. Best Boss loyalty is not blind but it is fair and dependable as long as it is deserved.

Friendly

Some people think “weak” when they hear that a boss is “friendly”, but this is not what we mean by this term at all. Friendly simply means “not hostile or antagonistic” to their team members. Best Bosses are not usually “best friends” with their team members and they certainly don’t put themselves in positions where they could show favoritism.

Best Bosses understand the difference between being serious about results and showing concern about those things that are of concern to each team member. They take the time to listen to those concerns and to help team members evaluate approaches to dealing with them. They show appropriate humor and never demean a team member either to his/her face or behind his/her back. Friendly simply means creating a relationship that helps to make it easier for each team member to express their concerns and ideas while accomplishing their agreed upon objectives.

Best Boss Bottom Line

Workplace climate is critical to effectiveness and to a large extent is determined by what the boss does, how he treats and supports his/her team members and the relationship that is developed with each person.

Trust: 3 Keys to Establishing Shared Purpose

“Purpose” is the reason for which something is done, so “shared purpose” means a “common” reason for which something is done.  When people strive to “win” by beating the other  person, they may share the purpose of winning, but they are actually at “cross-purpose” because both cannot achieve their desired outcome.  So how do you establish shared purpose?

1.  Define the purpose of each person.  Many times you and the other person already have the same or similar purpose in mind, but don’t know it.  Intentionally and candidly talking about purpose should bring to light both differences and commonalities.  For example, in a coaching relationship both parties need to desire the improvement of the person being coached and the feeling of appreciation for their contributions.  Bringing this to light can lead to increased awareness and trust on both sides.

2.  Determine where you have common purpose.  Once you understand each other's purpose you can now determine what you share and what you don’t.  Sometimes you may have both common- and cross-purpose, so you have to determine how you can capitalize on what you share and minimize what you don’t.  My wife and I recently went on a vacation and both shared the purpose of enjoying each other's company, getting some rest and engaging in personal interests.  Hers was touring gardens; mine was playing golf.  We had a lot of time to pursue the first two commonalities and we found opportunities for each of us to individually pursue our own personal interests by setting times for her to tour a garden while I was playing golf.

3.  Create common ground when necessary.  Sometimes shared purpose is either not present or not very obvious, so you have to create it.  This is where the term “creative” comes into play.  Many times you can find a higher order purpose if you look for it and other times you can combine purposes into a shared purpose. One afternoon on our vacation I wanted to play golf and my wife wanted to visit a garden.  Because we only had one car and the two facilities were too far apart, we had to find common ground.  We both decided that we really wanted to do something together (common, higher order purpose) and that was more important than either golf or touring a garden.  We looked around and found a golf course on our route that also was known for its natural beauty, so she rode with me in my golf cart and checked out the local flora while I chased around a little white ball that on more than one occasion ended up in the same flora she was observing.

Trust starts with knowing that you and the other person have the same purpose in mind and that both will be striving for the same end.