Cross-Fitness for the Organization

Contrary to conventional wisdom, proficiency isn’t always the best way to achieve a goal. Sometimes, proficiency can lead to deficiency.

Take running, for example. I’ve heard many a runners’ mantra that the way to improve running performance is to run exclusively. They run over and over, but eventually hit a plateau. Initially, the runner’s caloric output is high because the body uses more energy than normal to get used to the new patterns. As the body becomes more efficient it uses less energy to burn the same amount of calories, so the runner has to work harder to get equal output as before.

This same holds true for individuals as people fall comfortably into a pattern of behavior. Someone may get used to a specific approach, mindset or process that achieves results. The individual repeats the behavior in multiple areas. After all, why change something if it’s not broken?

There is a blindside, however, in repetition and mastery. When an individual masters something, he becomes less dependent on external resources to master the process and more dependent on his efficient mastery of the problem itself. Similar to the runner who runs exclusively, the individual who repeats the pattern requires less energy over time because the behavior has been mastered. All of the sudden, it becomes easier to develop a strategy because she’s done it before. It becomes easier to enter a new market because he relies on past experience to get him there. But in the meantime, the individual is subtly separated from the fresh insights afforded by a changing external reality.

Thus, individuals – and by extension, organizations – absently self-sustain instead of externally replenish with resources, individuals or other ways of doing things to achieve results. Processes cement around doing things the way they’ve always been done, hiring the same people or entering markets in the same way and the organization hits a plateau.

So what’s an organization to do? Well, what’s a runner to do?

Cross-fitness.

It’s counterintuitive, but if a runner wants to improve his run, he’s got to do more than just run. Moderate swimming, for example, increases a runner’s lung capacity and strength, resulting in improved speed, endurance and performance. By doing something outside of running, the individual actually becomes a better runner.

Within an organization, an individual who seeks external discovery in the unexpected advances farther than the internally oriented individual. The individual is exposed to ways of thinking, relating, approaching and executing that were not there before. All of the sudden, the avant-garde becomes the new normal, and you leave the laggards in the dust.

Filed under: Challenge, learning, Strategy, Vision

Why pay attention to your employees?

  

I’m continuously mulling over the give and take between manager and employee. For example, should a manager coach her employee or does that responsibility fall to the employee? What happens if management doesn’t act as referee for employees? Is it wrong for management to stifle creativity or is that the manager’s right within the organization? Is the manager a mentor, or should they be if they’re not?

Let’s continue to unpack another idea: is it necessary for managers to pay attention to their employees?

Daily demands of work can certainly keep a manager busy. There are always meetings. And phone calls. And “fires to put out”. And then there are those pesky requests from senior management to “measure this” or “change that”. It’s a part of the daily grind, that’s for sure. These distractions are daily and explicit reminders of the job that needs to be done; the requirements for fulfilling the position.

Have you ever thought, though, about one of the implicit requirements for fulfilling the position of manager? There is one requirement of particular interest today, and it is the connection between employee and manager that is bridged by a manager’s attention. Too many times in management there is no feedback loop from manager to employee confirming or acknowledging the job being done. There are assumptions, of course. Managers think, “They’re still getting paid; they know they’re doing the right job”. But over time, for the employee, this assumption from management can lead to doubts.

Envision for a moment, a 5 year old boy on the playground. He’s struggling for the attention of mom and dad. He’s just scaled the monkey bars yelling, “Ma, look at me! Look what I did! Isn’t that cool?” and he’s looking for two things: attention and confirmation. “Great job, Hunter! You did that so fast! Try the big slide next”, says mom. Hunter skips away, swelling with pride and energetic to tackle his next challenge.

But what happens to the kid that doesn’t get the parent’s attention? He keeps trying and trying, time and again, but each time the little seed of doubt in his mind, planted by non-attention and watered by non-confirmation, grows larger. “Maybe what I did wasn’t that neat.”; “Why aren’t they looking?”; “What am I doing wrong?”; “I wish they’d look over here!” Over time, the desire for attention still strong, other emotions slip in: defeat, confusion, dejection and deflation. Eventually, he stops asking for attention.

Instead, he gives up and sadly walks away.

Now take this story and project it to the manager/employee relationship. Do you see the similarities?

So many times, employees come into the department with new ideas, fresh thoughts and the courage to scale new heights. They want two things from a manager: attention and confirmation. There is some degree of 5-year old Hunter in every employee. Managers who recognize achievements hold the power to propel and those who don’t recognize achievements hold the power to defeat. Instead of coming up with new ideas, the unrecognized employee resigns himself to fulfilling the “contract”; he does nothing more and sometimes even does less. Complacency sets in. Lack of motivation plagues projects and the uninspired employee dutifully comes to work every day, being extremely careful to do little more.

As a manager, consider the implications. On the one hand, you save a lot by not paying attention. After all, it takes time away from your meetings and your strategic planning to stop and look at what your employees are doing around you. It takes effort to understand their cries for attention. And it takes courage to help them improve and be more. But on the other hand, should that be your problem? Is it worth the future of your department, the quality of your product or the satisfaction of your customers to ensure that your employees know that you are paying attention? That you’re confirming, acknowledging or recognizing the work they are doing? It’s your decision.

Filed under: Coaching, Management, Relationships