Can Your Staff Manage Themselves?
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