3 Keys to Building Confident Employees

Most supervisors want employees who are willing to show appropriate initiative in their work - employees who do things without having to be told to do them.  How many of you would like for your children to clean their room without being told?  OK, maybe that is a little far fetched, but you get the idea.  We know from a lot of research over the past 50-years that people with confidence are much more willing to take initiative.  With this in mind, really good supervisors do everything they can to instill confidence in their employees.  So how do they do it? There are three essentials to building confident employees (and children): 

1.  Evaluate strengths and weaknesses

2.  “Engineer Opportunities for Success” based on those strengths and weaknesses  

3.  Acknowledge success to increase confidence

First, you have to honestly evaluate what each employee is really good at and where they could use some improvement.  Second, “engineer opportunities for success” primarily for the areas needing improvement, but also for the areas that are already strengths.  Remember, while we can learn from failure, confidence is built primarily on successes.  Finally, “acknowledge the success”.  People need positive feedback from important people in their lives, and as a supervisor or parent, you are significant.  Be a confidence builder and you will find that things get done faster and with less of your effort.

What is Accountability Anyway?

One of the primary roles of a manager, supervisor or parent for that matter is to hold people accountable for their performance and the results that they either achieve or fail to achieve.  We hear over and over again that people must be held accountable if you want improvement.  We agree, but what is accountability anyway? Here are some real life examples of what accountability is NOT:

• Blaming a peer when they fail to meet an important deadline

• Making an example of an employee to discourage others from making the same mistake

• Threatening the team during a meeting to demonstrate that you won’t tolerate “poor performance”

• Sending out a memo to let everyone know that team members must have thick skins to keep standards from slipping

• Writing a “strongly worded” performance evaluation to reflect your sincere disappointment with an employee’s contribution over the last few quarters

• Giving your significant other the cold shoulder or withholding affection until they start paying attention to your needs, too

• Sending a child to his room when he doesn’t do what he is told

Here are the common themes with all of these accountability failures:

1. The disappointed party assumed that motivation was the cause and blamed the poor-performer for the results they observed, and
2. The disappointed party chose to punish the poor-performer into new behavior.

This simply isn’t what effective accountability is all about.  For us, accountability is a process and it includes two basic components:

1. Examination of the facts/reasons underlying a specific event/result -- We take the “accounting” in accountability seriously.  Without knowing exactly “why” the person didn’t meet expectations, it is virtually impossible to know how to do the next step.
2. Applying appropriate consequences for the actions and results -- These consequences must be logically tied to the real reason behind the result if you want improvement.

In our March newsletter we will be discussing how to effectively use these two basic components to effectively hold others accountable when they fail to meet expectations.

Are you a "Best Boss"

For the past 30+ years and with thousands of participants, we have been conducting an informal survey to determine the characteristics of those people deemed to be “best bosses”. While teaching supervisors how to manage the performance of their direct reports, we had them participate in an exercise where they listed the characteristics of the best boss they had ever had.  We noticed that there was a lot of consistency across groups and around the world.  We came to call the leadership style that emerged from the data “The Facilitative-Relational Leader” because these bosses used skills to create an environment that made it easier for their team members to express their ideas and achieve their objectives.  While there is some variance in the lists that were generated, there are 20 characteristics that always showed up, and they are:

1. Excellent communicator (Sends clear messages and listens effectively)
2. Holds himself and others accountable for results
3. Enables success
4. Motivates others
5. Cares about the success of others
6. Honest and trustworthy
7. Shows trust by delegating effectively
8. Fair and consistent
9. Competent and knowledgeable
10. Rewards/recognizes success
11. Leads by example
12. Loyal to employees
13. Friendly
14. Good problem solver
15. Team builder
16. Flexible and willing to change when necessary
17. Good planner/organizer
18. Good decision maker
19. Shows respect to others
20. Deals effectively with conflict

Over the next few weeks, we are going to address some of the key characteristics and delve into how the best actually express them, but for now, you may want to think about how you would be viewed by your employees.  How would you stack up against this list?  We have our class participant’s rate themselves on a scale of 1 to 10 (where 1 means “not at all” and 10 means “very accurately”) on how well each characteristic describes them as a manager/supervisor.  You may want to imagine how your team members would evaluate you.  This will give you an idea about what you should focus on to become more effective in your role as a leader.

Complexity and Local Rationality

Why do people - like employees and children - decide to break the rules?  Do it their way?  Resist change?  It doesn’t make any sense!  Or does it? It can be frustrating and often perplexing when employees fail to adhere to company policies and procedures, especially when those policies and procedures are in the employees’ best interest. Filing a required document can legally protect managers, but they don’t file it.  Locking out a machine that is being serviced can keep a technician safe from pain, injury and even death, but he regularly services the machine without locking it out.  Your children “know” the rules, but sometimes break them anyway. There is a useful way to think about this issue:  What employees and children do makes sense...to them.

We live, work, play and make decisions in complex environments. It helps to think of our environments as systems with overlapping and interacting components - including people, things, rules, values, knowledge, etc. - which are, in turn, complex sub-systems. One of the principles of complex systems is that the “people” component tends to be driven by the limited information that is available to and impressed upon those people within their local contexts. We make decisions based on our knowledge of what makes sense at the local level, at any given moment.  We call this the principle of “local rationality.”  In other words, our decisions are rational to us because they are based on the information available within the local context (which includes knowledge residing in our brains) at a particular point in time.

As supervisors and parents, we observe behavior that is driven by the principle of local rationality, but we only have limited information about what factors the individual is using to make their decision.  Why did it make sense to the employee to do such a dangerous thing?  Why did it make sense to the child to break the curfew rule?  After all, they know the rules and we have rules to make it clear how they should behave, don’t we?

Rules are only one component of the complex environments that we live and work in.  There are also pressures from other people - including superiors, peers and even you - to make a decision to act in a certain way.  Knowledge of past successes and failures, availability of resources needed to be successful, time pressures, workplace layout and numerous other kinds of factors make it ‘make sense’ for the person. Consider for a moment the last thing you saw a person do that “irked” you.  What kinds of factors could have led the person to do what he or she did?  Why would it have made sense...or did you assume it was because the person was lazy, rude, selfish, or in some other way had poor personal motivation?

As humans, we have a tendency to assume that people do what they do because of personal motivation , and then we treat their “failures” as an opportunity to motivate them to change and make better decisions in the future.  Research shows, however, that actions are often the result of the person’s evaluation of complex input from the environment and may have nothing to do with personal motivation.  For example, we tell employees to work safely, but at the same time push them for productivity, sometimes beyond their ability. The trade-off for the employee is to “cut corners” to be productive because he thinks in the moment that safety is really not at risk and showing you how productive he can be is what is really important.  Your teenager decides to come home late because her date had a couple of drinks and she didn’t trust him to drive safely...and her cell phone was dead, so she didn’t call. It makes sense in the moment, given the information that she had at her disposal.  It doesn’t make sense to you while you sit at home worried sick and imagining all kinds of terrible things.  It doesn’t make sense because you aren’t making decisions in her context!

As parents and supervisors, we need to ask a simple question before we punish undesired behavior: “Why did making that decision make sense to the person making it?”  Why was the decision “locally rational”? If we find out it was motivation, then we can deal with that; but if it is some other factor or combination of factors, then simply motivating won’t work. Look for which contextual factors actually are at play in the decision before you try to change the person’s behavior, and you will be much more successful at creating sustained change.