Not Another Memo!

The road began to rise as I approached the mountains just east of Seattle. The skies were blue and the road was dry. Ahead, a readerboard warned there was construction ahead and to be prepared to slow down to 55 mph.

I was making pretty good time heading toward the pass until a pair of trucks pulled out in front of me. They blocked the highway and each truck displayed a sign: Do not pass. The trucks proceeded down the interstate going 20 mph. Traffic backed up quickly and stretched out as we traveled west at this slow speed.

We headed down the highway for 15 then 30 minutes in a procession. We passed more reader boards with the same message: Construction ahead, be prepared to slow down to 55 mph. Questions began to nag me. Why are we doing this? How much longer will this last?

This situation reminded me of a common complaint that I hear from both employees and managers. 

From the staff, I frequently hear such comments as, why are we doing this? What is it we’re supposed to be doing? From management I hear, why is this taking so long? Why is this is a problem? Typically the comments resonate with frustration.

When managers are asked how they communicated a new requirement, they will cite how they sent an email or memo explaining all the details. They will typically claim they sent the information out well ahead of time and in detail. In other words, they did their job.

In spite of this effort, many remain frustrated by a lack of understanding. Employees and managers alike want to know what is going on, to be informed. This want for being “in the know” was identified as a top priority for both employees and managers over 60 years ago.

Part of the problem is that few people read emails and even fewer read memos. Why? Because they haven’t found them to be very helpful or they are overwhelmed and can’t get to them. Another possible obstacle is that they resent the lack of personal interaction represented by written notification, which they may perceive as a lack of concern and respect.

Too often the solution to convey information is deemed simple. But in reality, it takes a lot of effort. To successfully get the word out requires going and talking with the folks with whom you want to communicate. Doing this in an informal manner allows you to see people’s reaction, answer questions and verify the message was received. People will feel respected, valued and be more inclined to help with whatever you’re trying to accomplish.

Sure, this takes time – but cutting corners by not making the effort to meet with people will invariably lead to frustration and challenges in what you’re trying to accomplish. This will lead to delays in accomplishing the objective. Going slowly up front by personally getting the word out will allow you to go much faster in accomplishing your objective with considerably less frustration.

After following the trucks for 40 minutes, they pulled over and the two lanes of traffic made it safely through a very short detour. As I sped up, I wondered about the return trip.

Don’t Put Off Problem-Solving

As I looked at my friend Al Koehler, we gave each other that “oh boy” look. We were knee-deep in receiving too much unproductive attention.

Koehler and I were Army lieutenants and each of us was responsible for a battery of six howitzers, a type of cannon. We shared the same problems with accuracy for our howitzers. This was critical given that we were firing at targets up to 10 miles away. After eliminating the possibility of human error, we decided to test the alignment of the sight with the bore of the howitzer.

This was an involved process requiring a large hanger, a plum line suspended from the ceiling and great attention to detail. When we tested the alignment, we found that 10 out of 12 howitzers had problems. Little did we know the host of other problems that would come our way that day.

Koehler and I contacted our battery commanders and explained what we found. Shortly thereafter my commander, Captain Nick Perkins, arrived at our location. After asking several questions and evaluating the conduct of the tests, Perkins notified our battalion commander of the test results. From that point on, we had too many high-ranking officers scrutinizing our process.

They examined every minor detail, repeatedly, with little attention focused on the real problem – that the howitzers were out of alignment. During this process, Perkins interjected himself into the discussion, championing the core problem. However, the higher-ups persisted in their efforts to focus on fixing accountability. After watching the discussion go around in circles, Perkins informed me that he would be available by phone and left.

Finally, the problem was identified: the alignment needed to be corrected. While we were packing up to leave, Koehler and I were directed not to test all the howitzers at the same time. Our test results had negative repercussions for readiness evaluation purposes and following such a schedule would minimize the impact of this problem.

Upon returning to the motor park, I informed Perkins of the decision to stagger future tests. He turned his head, sighed and then uttered an expletive in his drawn-out Southern accent. Perkins went on to explain that it was stupid, as it wasn’t solving the problem and conducting the test in this manner would require too much time. He shared that the problem was readily apparent and that too much effort was expended trying to avoid blame.

I learned a valuable lesson that day. When a problem comes up, focus on solving the problem first. Get it working. Then, if holding someone accountable is prudent, do that after the solution is in motion. I also learned that by using this approach, more problems were surfaced sooner.

Our howitzers were aligned properly by the support folks and delivered accurate artillery fire. Perkins retired many years later as a major general. I’m confident he continued to focus on solving the problem first and didn’t shy away from adding emphasis with his Southern accent.

Walking on Egg Shells

Many years ago I began handing out tootsie pops at work.  It was interesting to watch people’s reactions when I presented a box of tootsie pops and invited them to take one.  While there was initial surprise, with a little encouragement pretty much everyone said yes and sometimes asked for a specific flavor.  Inevitably when savoring the lollipop a smile would appear.  

I started handing out tootsie pops many years ago because of Stover James.

James was our boss and there were ten of us Army officers and NCOs working in the office with him.  While James could be approachable at times, the smallest things could set him off.  His face would turn bright red.  He would kick the trash can and pound the table.  Everyone would get rattled and a tense atmosphere would be created waiting for the next explosion.  On a fluke, I brought in a box of tootsie pops to cheer folks up after a James’ eruption.

Since then, I’ve encountered similar situations where employees have been required to work with a volatile employee or worse yet, a boss acting in the same manner.  When people recalled their association with such a person, their reactions were predictable – an overwhelming sense of dread while they vividly relived the experience.

Working with a volatile coworker or boss has several consequences.  One is the decline in morale.  Another consequence is the development of a way to work around the difficult employee or boss.  These responses hinder productivity.  The most severe consequence of dealing with a volatile coworker or boss is when a good employee decides to leave.  The combination of these consequences can be very detrimental to an organization.   

Just like in James’ case, many times these negative behaviors are well known and tolerated.  An all too common response when bosses are made aware of this behavior is to ignore it.  Frequently this response is a reflection of the boss’ personal need to avoid conflict.  Avoidance is not a solution.

Everyone deserves to have good coworkers.  Requiring employees to work with an emotionally immature person is especially demoralizing.  This sense of dread is amped up when people feel the boss doesn’t care enough to resolve the issue.

When a volatile employee or boss’s behavior is checked or they leave, a great sense of relief is felt by everyone associated with the disruptive employee.  Transferring the employee within the company can be a sign of avoidance.

The vast majority of employees want to do a good job.  To help them do this they need coworkers and a boss they can interact without fear of repercussions.  It is the responsibility of the boss to make sure that happens.

When I hand out tootsie pops, I can still picture Master Sergeant Romero, a veteran of two tours in Vietnam, leaning back in his chair with a big grin on his face while savoring a lollipop. 

What’s Message of Email Clutter?

One of the more common complaints I hear from managers concerns emails - too many, unnecessary and never ending.  Unopened emails linger over the manager’s head and create a sense of resignation as the train of email appears to have no end.

Several different approaches are used to cope with this endless list – ignore them, cherry pick some (maybe the funny ones), try to read all of them or a combination of these techniques.  This may work, temporarily.  But then the cycle of receiving emails continues.  How do you get out in front of the tidal wave of emails and stay there?

A high volume of email traffic can be symptomatic of a bigger issue.  Emails can be a request for guidance, information or possibly a process which needs to be provided.   In which case, the solution resides outside the use of emails.  Figuring out if the emails fit into one of these needs and reducing the number of emails is a two step process.

The first step is to figure if there is a way to group any of the emails being received. Who is sending emails, either by person or group?  Is there a common theme?  Do the emails seek information in any sort of pattern?  Does the number of emails increase in conjunction with an event or a certain date?  Some of the emails will fit into a category and that category is one that can be addressed in a more comprehensive method rather than using piece meal emails.

Once a category has been identified the next step is to understand what is needed to address the underlying need for a group of emails.  If the emails are coming from one specific group of people, then that group needs to be engaged to find out what is needed to clear up the confusion prompting the high volume of emails.

If the emails are grouped under a new initiative, then the plan might need to be either more fully developed or explained.  If the emails are about a procedure, then that procedure needs to be refined/ communicated.  Sometimes emails are a manifestation of a personal agenda such as passing the buck, covert resistance or a cry for attention.   If there is someone flooding the email channel a deeper look is required to understand why so many emails are being sent.

The problem with the volume of emails doesn’t have to be solved all at once.  Identify a trend in emails that is causing an inbox to overflow and start working on it.  If the root issue is being addressed, the number of emails in this category will decline noticeably. 

Avoidance of emails isn’t a solution.  Bosses lose credibility when emails go unanswered and people come up with their own solutions without guidance.  When emails don’t get answered there is a tendency to ‘amp up the volume’ so more emails are sent.  All of this results in frustration and confusion.

More than likely if a manager is frustrated by emails, other are also.  Developing a better solution for doing business will reduce both confusion and the number of emails. 

Leadership's Golden Rule

"Ph D in leadership, short course.  Make a list of all things done to you that you abhorred.  Don't do them to others, ever. Make another list of things done to you that you loved.  Do them to others,   

always."

 Dee Hock

Don't Confuse Busy with Being Productive

“We trained hard, but it seemed every time we were beginning to form up into teams, we would be reorganized.  I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet any new situation by reorganizing and a wonderful method it can be for creating the illusion of progress while producing confusion, inefficiency and demoralization.”

Petronius Arbiter

Greek Navy

210 B.C.

Change Requires Buy-in

I remember purchasing my first smart phone.  After poking around to understand more about it, I decided to move ahead with the smart phone.  However, I had reservations.  How much time was it going to take to learn how to use the phone?  Was the return going to be worth the time invested?  

Evaluating a business opportunity could follow a similar path - defining what you want to achieve, determining how much time it is going to take and evaluating the commitment needed to get it done.  Exploring an opportunity is more difficult when doing something new involves others. 

When this occurs, more homework is required before deciding to pursue the new opportunity.  This involves asking employees what they think about the change. Why, because you’re asking employees to strap on a new requirement and they are the ones who are going to make it happen. If people don’t have a chance to ‘weigh-in’ most likely they won’t ‘buy-in’ for what the boss wants to accomplish. 

But what the boss decides, others have to go along with, right?  Yes, bosses make decisions but employees can help the change go smoothly or become tied up with other competing priorities or worse yet, resist the change.

Isn’t a boss’s authority undermined by asking people for their input?  No, to the contrary, the role of boss is strengthened.  When employees are asked what they think, they feel respected.  They feel they matter and that goes a long way towards helping the change succeed. 

Doesn’t the boss open themselves for negative comments about the change?  Absolutely, but it is better to get those comments on the table and deal with them rather than let them undercut the initiative once after the project is under way. 

What happens if the boss doesn’t follow their recommendations?  The boss is still better off as long they follow up with those who provided the input by presenting their reasoning for the decision and showing that they valued employee contributions. 

This process of asking employees what they think sounds like a lot of work.  True, more time will be spent up front in order to achieve buy-in.  On the flip side the change will achieve a better result sooner by yielding a good return on the time spent initially to get the project rolling.  

Change is never easy but including others up front helps accomplish the objective by fostering more cooperation.

Learning how to use the smart phone had its bumps along the way but did prove to be a good return for my time.  I’ve dropped it a couple of times so it isn’t pretty anymore.  I receive offers to upgrade my phone with more features and faster connectivity.  I don’t think the trade-off for upgrading is there yet so I’ll just keeping using the one I have.