by William Barclay | Jul 28, 2023 | Management, self-management
Efficiency and productivity – we love them. But where does the responsibility lie for their achievement? Managers have a responsibility to put in place effective processes and workflows, to innovate, and to train staff and motivate them. Important – yes of course, but the self-management capabilities of staff are also a key determinant and are generally assigned far too little importance.
A good self-management capability is an inherent predisposition to work efficiently. It is a person’s ability to manage their behaviours in a productive way. There is a wide variation in the levels to which it is possessed by different individuals. Staff are not tabulae rasae, nor pluripotent hives of capability. The actions of each individual are governed by a unique set of previous influences and experiences. And limited self-efficacy – their belief in their ability to reach goals – may be a major constraint on their capacity to improve.
Employees can demonstrate good self-management in a number of major and minor ways. Manifestations may include: good timekeeping; minimising distractions; effective organisation of own workspace; setting priorities and using to-do lists; regular self-monitoring of progress; acceptance of objectives; and a preparedness to innovate. My personal experience has been that around 30% of staff had good or very good self-management, 40% a reasonable level, and 30% a poor level.
An employee with strong self-management skills can be said to be ‘low maintenance’ and a real asset. But those with weaker skills may damage teamwork and morale as well as impairing productivity. Of course formal performance management processes can be directed towards personal improvement. But the behaviour patterns of poor self-managers, often with a significant psychological component, may be hard to change; quick wins are infrequent. Surveys of underperformance have found that up to a quarter of staff in some areas of employment are not coachable. If dismissal becomes necessary it is likely to be expensive: the replacement costs of an employee can be up to nine months’ salary.
It is understandable if managers come to believe that more consistent recruitment of good self-managers is a better solution. The business writer Mark Murphy proposed the maxim ‘hire an attitude, train the skill’. It is very wise. Selection in favour of individuals with good self-management skills can be a strong driver of effective teamwork and high productivity. It is rare that through proper training and development such individuals cannot develop the skills required. So why is recruitment often regarded as misdirected? The two main reasons are that self-management is ignored altogether because it is believed that direct technical skills are more important; or that an attitude is hired but it’s the wrong one – often a preference given to outgoing extrovert characteristics.
Assessing conscientiousness and diligence during interviews is difficult. Recruitment is a developed skill requiring extensive experience of working with people. Job descriptions and person specifications should describe required attitudes as strongly as they describe skills. The existing best performers should be used as models. Behavioural Event Interviewing is a revealing methodology: candidates are asked to describe how they have planned and organised a challenging task, and how success was achieved, and their responses probed in detail.
Establishing high-productivity workgroups of self-reliant, well-organised individuals is a real accomplishment. As Socrates almost said, ‘know your self-management’!
Comments welcome. More about real-world management in Targets and Terror: England’s Public Services Management Revolution https://www.amazon.co.uk/Targets-Terror-Englands-Management-Revolution/dp/1916035388
by William Barclay | May 8, 2023 | Luck, Management
A Manager Looks at Luck
Managers can easily make excuses for alleged underperformance. Inadequate resourcing, a lack of support from above, unrealistic expectations, and inadequate staff capabilities are some of the explanations most often advanced. But can achievement sometimes be beyond the control of managers? Can failures be down to bad luck? Many managers would give a resounding yes to the question, even the most excuse-averse of them.
Theorists about luck tend to fall into two schools of thought: the prevailist and the opportunist. Prevailists believe that success or failure is frequently due to good or bad luck. They think luck often prevails over talent and effort, and is blind to all levels of self-belief. Opportunists hold that what people regard as good luck is actually following through on opportunities that arise. In their view it depends on how people regard their own lives and how much they retain a positivity of attitude. It is fair to say that prevailist theories have gained much the greater acceptance, overwhelming so amongst experienced managers.
Bad luck in a career can be thought of as three main types: personal; decisional; and occupational. Personal bad luck can include the social and economic circumstances into which one is born. Nationality, gender and ethnicity can all amplify or diminish a person’s potential. Decisional bad luck occurs when a manager’s workplace decisions turn out to have unpredicted negative consequences. Even when made properly and in good faith, decisions can be undermined by events beyond a manager’s control, sometimes with major negative consequences. Occupational bad luck occurs when factors outside a manager’s control preclude success. They could include: the values and personality of the boss; the organisational culture; the nature of objectives and targets; the behaviour of peers; and the inherent capabilities of staff.
So how can the extent of occupational bad luck be assessed so as to guard against excuse fall-back? Try the Real-World Management 7-point Occupational Luck instrument. Rate your current occupational luck against the following. Give each factor a rating of between 1 and 5. A 5 rating means yes, completely; 1 means completely not.
- The nature of your work is inherently interesting to you
- All that is being asked of you is achievable
- The work environment has little or no favouritism
- You have a good working relationship with your line manager
- You find your work colleagues on the whole to be good to work with
- The staff working for you have inherent capabilities appropriate for what is asked of them
- The pace of change does not impose high levels of stress on you.
Score your occupational luck like this:
30 -35 plenty of luck
25 -30 reasonable amount of luck
15 -25 deficient in luck
0 – 15 seriously deficient in luck
So what can be done? To be clear: bad luck can override everything and be beyond your control. But luck can be managed so to minimise the negative impacts and accentuate the positive. Here is a luck management scheme:
1. Recognise that luck exists and develop a real-world mental model of it. Visualise your future career and the almost certain occurrence of good and bad luck episodes. See yourself making the most of the good and being resilient through the bad
2. Increase the likelihood of having good luck by being proactive in your work. Show initiative. Seek a positive differentiation from others
3. Further increase the likelihood by developing personal work networks through professional acquaintanceship
4. Try not to let your thoughts be dominated by personal bad luck. Difficult as it may be, try to use any such factors as motivators
5. Recognise that decisional bad luck happens. Avoid self-blame. Seek to understand why your decisions had negative consequences. Don’t let them be a route to timidity
6. Assess your occupational luck carefully. Consider the likelihood of bad luck changing. In bad luck situations, do not shy away from considering a role or job change
7. Make the most of good luck by using it as a strong motivator. Put in a special effort. Be modest about your resulting achievements but don’t slip into imposter syndrome. Ignore detractors.
Look luck in the face!
by William Barclay | Feb 19, 2023 | Management
Managers know that staff motivation and job satisfaction are different things. The management approach necessary to deliver them has been subjected to a great deal of analysis. Which influences on staff are most significant today? My experience of staff in the English public services (caution: they are a distinct group, things may be different for others) suggests to me that there are six main influences: pay; comparative status; professional achievement; relationship with the line manager; the working environment; and the social environment.
Pay means bonuses, merit awards, access to overtime etc as well as the salary/wage level.
Comparative status means the extent that an employee believes his or her status exceeds that of peers in respect of such factors as job title, job level and the possession of special responsibilities.
Professional achievement means gaining recognition for the possession of distinctive personal knowledge and expertise. It may also include a sense of having helped customers and others.
The working relationship with the line manager means the extent to which the line manager has a positive regard for his/her contribution. It may also mean the extent to which he/she is more successful in this regard than his/her peers.
The working environment means such factors as the availability of flexible working, the quality of the physical workplace, easy travel and an active health and safety approach.
The social environment means the general level of mutual personal regard within the group and the existence of opportunities for social interaction.
These influences have the following characteristics:
- they can act on both motivation and job satisfaction
- their significance varies for different employees
- their relative importance often changes over time
- they can act in both positively (their presence benefits motivation and satisfaction); or negatively (their absence impairs)
- the removal of influences impairing satisfaction may not improve motivation
- the presence of motivating factors does not necessarily improve job satisfaction
- the same influencers can have a positive effect on some employees and a negative effect on others.
Managing the staff means managing the influences! #motivation #jobsatisfaction
Comments welcome
by William Barclay | Jan 11, 2023 | Management, networking
Networking – Do You Chooze the Scmooze?
Is networking slimy? Is it an effective behaviour in the workplace? Is it ethical? Is it right to schmooze? The issue polarises opinion.
Networking means developing and maintaining contacts with other individuals within the organisation and without the organisation in related business activities. It can be regarded as incorporating two very different behaviours: maintaining acquaintanceship and employing schmooze. Acquaintanceship means periodically keeping in contact with individuals for mutual information sharing that may assist both parties and their organisations. Schmooze means interactions with others that are apparently friendly and supportive but which are designed to impress and manipulate them in order to gain personal favours.
Acquaintanceship is based on a wish by individuals to improve their performance by receiving information and advice. It is open and honest; manipulation is absent. It can simply involve periodic phone calls or emails or other communications – not necessarily in person meetings. It can provide a wider information base for individuals to use in their work, reassurance, and ideas for overcoming difficulties. It is not used politically to disadvantage others. When organisations identify mentors – trusted advisors – to support individuals it becomes a formal process. Mentorship can be powerful but unfortunately skilled mentors are not easy to find. Acquaintanceship provides wide benefits. Individuals who find it difficult should resolve to try to develop an aptitude for it.
Schmooze choosers are interested in organisational politics. They are fully accepting of a view expressed by management professor Kathleen Reardon that talent and hard work alone do not get people to the top. They seek out individuals, usually senior staff, who exercise power and influence and provide them with unconditional friendship and support with an ulterior motive of gaining personal advantage. The contacts are used to pursue personal objectives and often to weaken the position of others who have less supportive personal relationships. Skilled schmoozers are possessed of antennae sensitive to the schmooze receptiveness of others allowing them to focus their activity.
From the personal perspective of those doing it, schmooze often works. It can result in a variety of rewards including promotions, appointments, bonuses and the awarding of special responsibilities. Its proponents may not often speak of their motivations but may believe that in organisations with an existing schmooze culture in which advancement is influenced by relationships as much as abilities they are needlessly disadvantaging themselves by not participating. However there are real risks. Organisational change may result in future rewards depending on individuals who disapprove of schmooze. A conspicuous schmoozer may be unpopular with her peers and damage trust and cooperation. There may exist staff members who regard it as unethical and are repelled by it.
So when it comes to schmooze, you do have to choose.
by William Barclay | Nov 23, 2022 | Management, performance gaming, Popular, Targets
Has the Law of Unintended Consequences ever been better illustrated than through the use of management targets? They continue to have widespread use in both public and private enterprises. Ingenuity has no bounds in applying them to different aspects of performance: profit, efficiency, return on capital, timeliness, customer retention rates, staff retention rates and staff attitudes to mention just a few. And the use of targets appears frequently to encourage changes in management approach in a directive and often aggressive direction. There is no shortage of reports of dire consequences for individuals, team and business functions who have allegedly failed to achieve their targets. But this culture is now sufficiently long-lived for a panoply of negative impacts to have become apparent. Let’s consider some of them.
Targets may:
* be misaligned with desired outcomes and as a result misshape and degrade productive effort
* give rise to a variety of gaming approaches resulting in significant dysfunction and degradation of staff culture
* damage the standing and reputation of leaders and managers whose use of targets does not accord with their espoused values
* give rise to levels of stress far above those that might be normal in working life causing lowered morale, increased sickness absence and higher staff turnover rates
* diminish motivation amongst public services staff for whom the public service ethos has meaning
* lower the status of the front-line production/service delivery function relative to other functions within an organisation whose staff are not subject to such a harsh environment
Management-by-targets carries an assumption that the targets can adequately represent real priorities. But resources may be diverted to those aspects of activity that carry targets, damaging other areas of activity. Furthermore it can be more difficult to assign targets to the quality of outputs than the quantity.
Many examples of targets giving rise to gaming have been reported, in other words modifying working practices so as to give an apparent improvement through target metrics but not an improvement experienced by clients. This includes re-assigning resources to target-bearing outcomes to a degree that is bound to degrade non-target-bearing outcomes. Processes may be changed to produce an apparent improvement in timeliness but only by artificially making job start times later or finish times earlier. ‘Working to a target’ can result in deliberately slowing activity once a target has been met – the threshold effect; or continuing activity but not recording it until the start of the next reporting period. The reported staff capacity of a work centre may be artificially lowered when targets are proportional to staff capacity.
Failures to meet targets can be associated with sanctions against teams and individuals, sometimes as serious as dismissal. Management theorists
who claim that fear is a poor motivator are wrong. It was no surprise when a survey by the Chartered Institute of Professional Development in 2018 identified stress as the single most important factor for long-term sickness absence in the UK public sector.
There are likely to be more operational pressures in a targets regime on direct delivery staff than on staff in support functions. This is a likely cause of discontent for operational staff. A possible consequence is that operational staff seek moves to other functions damaging delivery capabilities.
The public service ethos can be eroded by a targets culture. It means motivation from a sense of working for the public good, and fulfilment from following principles of thoroughness and neutrality. These personal impacts can be suppressed by a targets culture that produces a commoditisation and narrowing of service provision.
The impact of targets on employees is compounded by league tables – performance data published periodically through which different workgroups can be compared. This is likely to add a new and particularly keenly-felt type of pressure. There are four possible combinations of outcomes depending on targets compliance and league table positions:
Targets failure – League position poor – Calamity
Targets failure – League position good – Comeback
Targets success – League position poor – Comedown
Targets success – League position good – Clover
Low positions in league tables are often more impactful than targets failure – they are seen to be an indication that it is possible for the workgroup to perform better but they have failed to do so. This can depress morale and accentuate rivalries, damaging organisational culture. If the behaviour of leaders and senior managers does not support an espoused culture of support and cooperation, trust can be damaged or even destroyed.
Experience shows that targets can have a place but they need to be few and true. When employed they need to be small in number and carefully related to the real priorities of the organisation. And they should be used sensibly, with an understanding of their impact on staff, and kept fully in alignment with the espoused organisational culture.
by William Barclay | Oct 16, 2022 | Management, Training and Development
Staff Training – Do you Like It or Hump It?
Staff training and development has its champions and many dedicated practitioners. But in many organisations their messages are still to take hold so as to create a critical momentum. There is no shortage of evidence of the benefits: increased productivity, better customer service, reduced employee turnover, and improved company culture. Turbulence in the working environment is resulting in new opportunities and challenges: the digital revolution is allowing much more flexible and tailored training delivery; the pace of change is creating a need for more frequent upskilling; and the recognition is increasing that training can be a competitive differentiator as a means of attracting talent. So why are training and development still not more frequently central in operational strategies? It’s necessary to take a step back and consider fundamental prevailing attitudes. The inconvenient reality is that many managers starting in the job possess little enthusiasm for it. It can be said that there still exists the ‘Training Hump’ – attitudes that have a variety of causes. Training can be taken to imply accountability: managers might fear that putting in place training schemes makes them more clearly accountable for the capabilities and performance levels of the workforce. They might worry that training others might in due course create an enhanced risk to their own position. They might perceive that they have achieved some personal success despite having received only limited training so why should it be different for others? They might question the effectiveness of formal training or have concerns about the cost. The possibility that time and money will have been wasted if trained staff leave the organisation might be a further concern. These attitudes can often be demonstrated in the Staff Performance Review Skew – the process is often much more taken up by appraising other staff rather than with the identification of their future training and development needs. This attitudinal underbelly exists and persists but is not acknowledged by managers themselves or the organisations they work for. It may not even be recognised. But the inability to develop staff capabilities in line with needs is a route to failure. Whole-organisation skills strategies require the development of an emphatic training and development culture having advocacy from senior management and widespread ownership. If significant attitudinal resistance exists, particularly on the part of first-line and middle management, it needs to be strongly addressed. The message is clear: training and development – like it, don’t hump it!
