Ordinarily criticism is seen as negative, creating a barrier for the person, system or organisation subjected to critical analysis. Organisations are even more antipathetic to criticism than individuals; the modern profession of spin-doctors has seen an inflated demand because 'spin' is seen as the antidote to criticism, deflecting it and rendering it invalid.
Yet organisations cannot advance without correcting what is wrong, and improving what is right. How can that come about without someone taking it upon himself to examine the merits and demerits of a situation and sifting the good from the bad, so that a clear path to improvement is laid out?
There are two objectionable things in criticism; one lies with the person who hears criticism and takes it as a personal affront, and the other lies in the person delivering criticism as if it were a judgment on another person's intellect, integrity, or intentions. Good criticism, even of another person's work, is not to be delivered as if it were a damning of the person; it should rather take the form of pointers to things not considered, mistaken conclusions drawn, and should suggest a better way, allowing room for debate. It is never a good time to criticise, if feelings of ill toward the other person overwhelm the purpose of objective critique.
Why do people take it badly when criticised? The vehemence with which some appraisals are delivered has something to do with it. It is made to seem as if a person's espousal of a particular method or a particular end is unforgivably bad. Another common reason is that the negative critique is rendered with a personal thrust of the dagger (sarcasm being its common disguise), instead of being based on a keen analysis that focuses on the objective, the means, and the alternatives; and sets out why a particular suggestion is more efficient in achieving the ends sought.
Unless managers learn how to take criticism well, and how to deliver criticism impersonally, gently, and objectively, the organisation suffers. Opportunities for improvement are lost, and personal animosities begin to poison the atmosphere. Inter-departmental wrangling breaks out, collaboration suffers.
Every organisation needs to conduct a workshop to perfect the art of giving and receiving criticism, so that it becomes what it should be: a powerful way to communicate and bound forward rapidly.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Training – for the lower echelon
Organisations conduct extensive training for their skilled employees, routinely. It is expected. For, how can an employee perform the unique functions according to the company's norms, employing the custom processes, unless detailed knowledge is imparted, and a certain amount of role-playing is simulated?
However, what is thought normal for skilled employees is most often neglected for those who are lower in the payscale. A receptionist, a store clerk, a delivery boy, a help-desk person, a company driver, a mechanic, and such others are examples of those who are not put through a thorough course which would make them aware of (1) all the know-how they should carry in their heads, (2) other references they should have at hand, (3) the range of situations they can be confronted with in real life, and (4) how to act appropriately.
As a consequence, the organistion fails to look professional when a client comes through and encounters one of these portals. The receptionist may fail to be precise or proves less than helpful in locating people, and makes little effort to put the incoming person at ease. In much the same way a company driver may not be told how to address those who are being met or transported, and how to help them aboard and and what pointers to give, which questions to expect, and how to drop them off. It is in the little things that the company's training evinces professionalism; and conversely, goofing up on little things makes the amateurishness apparent.
Customers are turned off by experiences at the interfaces of the company to the public. These flaws are easily detected by outsiders, but the company's management remains blithely unaware because they never enter through any of the interfaces that customers, vendors, visitors and others have to come through. They would do well to correct this lacuna by blind testing and gather the information to convince themselves the system is at fault in neglecting the training of people at the lower rungs. Such carelessness indicates, moreover, a dual lack of care: for these employees and for the customers who will encounter them.
Two weeks a year in training is par for skilled employees in a well-known company. Is it too little to expect one week in training upon induction into any job, and a day or two every year, to make sure every function (however peripheral it is thought to be) keeps improving its functioning?
However, what is thought normal for skilled employees is most often neglected for those who are lower in the payscale. A receptionist, a store clerk, a delivery boy, a help-desk person, a company driver, a mechanic, and such others are examples of those who are not put through a thorough course which would make them aware of (1) all the know-how they should carry in their heads, (2) other references they should have at hand, (3) the range of situations they can be confronted with in real life, and (4) how to act appropriately.
As a consequence, the organistion fails to look professional when a client comes through and encounters one of these portals. The receptionist may fail to be precise or proves less than helpful in locating people, and makes little effort to put the incoming person at ease. In much the same way a company driver may not be told how to address those who are being met or transported, and how to help them aboard and and what pointers to give, which questions to expect, and how to drop them off. It is in the little things that the company's training evinces professionalism; and conversely, goofing up on little things makes the amateurishness apparent.
Customers are turned off by experiences at the interfaces of the company to the public. These flaws are easily detected by outsiders, but the company's management remains blithely unaware because they never enter through any of the interfaces that customers, vendors, visitors and others have to come through. They would do well to correct this lacuna by blind testing and gather the information to convince themselves the system is at fault in neglecting the training of people at the lower rungs. Such carelessness indicates, moreover, a dual lack of care: for these employees and for the customers who will encounter them.
Two weeks a year in training is par for skilled employees in a well-known company. Is it too little to expect one week in training upon induction into any job, and a day or two every year, to make sure every function (however peripheral it is thought to be) keeps improving its functioning?
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Revisiting decisions – why and when?
Opportunities present themselves when managers revisit decisions, but what about the dangers of flipping and flopping?
There is a time for every decision, when postponing it further would potentially cause a loss, or miss out on an opportunity to make a profit. Most decisions can be postponed until that time, which the manager has to judge, and during that postponement the decision has every chance of being improved with better and more pertinent information. But when the decision is made and one goes forward with the effort and expense to attain the end sought, is there any occasion in future to revisit it?
The answer is Yes; you may revisit the decision provided certain conditions are met. The first question to ask is whether there have been changes in the environment that nullify any of the assumptions under which the original decision was made. Such changes could possibly make another way of proceeding more efficient than the original decision. The matter has to be re-examined.
Furthermore, the change in the environment could be so substantial as to supersede the very objective of the original decision. Another objective may appear on the horizon that holds potential for higher profit and opens up many more opportunities. If so, there is a definite need to re-examine the original decision.
Since revisiting decisions seems to have advantages, managers may be tempted to do it for all their decisions. That would lead to much waste of corporate energy; the manager should do a quick calculation whenever there is a temptation to flip a decision. What if anything has changed to cause a review? Have some of the constraints that attended the original decision been removed altogether or substantially loosened? The original objective of the decision may still be valid, but the means to achieve it can be improved.
Unless the manager is quick to recall the original constraints and enumerate which ones have changed he will be perpetually tossing in his mind, unsure of the correctness of the decisions already taken. Therefore, the wise manager notes in his day-journal when a decision of importance is made (i.e., one that entails significant expenditure of effort): (1) what was the objective of the decision, (2) what were the reasons for adopting the stated means to achieve the objective, and (3) more particularly, what were the attendant constraints at the time.
Far more drastic changes may mean the very objective of the original decision needs to be questioned, and a different objective could hold more promise. However, there is a sunk cost from having pursued the original decision. That needs to be taken into account, and could entail continuing on the same path and reconsidering at a later stage when the next investment period comes up.
There is a time for every decision, when postponing it further would potentially cause a loss, or miss out on an opportunity to make a profit. Most decisions can be postponed until that time, which the manager has to judge, and during that postponement the decision has every chance of being improved with better and more pertinent information. But when the decision is made and one goes forward with the effort and expense to attain the end sought, is there any occasion in future to revisit it?
The answer is Yes; you may revisit the decision provided certain conditions are met. The first question to ask is whether there have been changes in the environment that nullify any of the assumptions under which the original decision was made. Such changes could possibly make another way of proceeding more efficient than the original decision. The matter has to be re-examined.
Furthermore, the change in the environment could be so substantial as to supersede the very objective of the original decision. Another objective may appear on the horizon that holds potential for higher profit and opens up many more opportunities. If so, there is a definite need to re-examine the original decision.
Since revisiting decisions seems to have advantages, managers may be tempted to do it for all their decisions. That would lead to much waste of corporate energy; the manager should do a quick calculation whenever there is a temptation to flip a decision. What if anything has changed to cause a review? Have some of the constraints that attended the original decision been removed altogether or substantially loosened? The original objective of the decision may still be valid, but the means to achieve it can be improved.
Unless the manager is quick to recall the original constraints and enumerate which ones have changed he will be perpetually tossing in his mind, unsure of the correctness of the decisions already taken. Therefore, the wise manager notes in his day-journal when a decision of importance is made (i.e., one that entails significant expenditure of effort): (1) what was the objective of the decision, (2) what were the reasons for adopting the stated means to achieve the objective, and (3) more particularly, what were the attendant constraints at the time.
Far more drastic changes may mean the very objective of the original decision needs to be questioned, and a different objective could hold more promise. However, there is a sunk cost from having pursued the original decision. That needs to be taken into account, and could entail continuing on the same path and reconsidering at a later stage when the next investment period comes up.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Enthusiasm as a style of management
Few are the days when we approach a piece of work with excitement, or look forward to what's going to happen at work. The atmosphere seems drably the same, the faces the usual ones, and the workplace seems all too familiar and lacking in a sense of purpose.
In the midst of the sameness that afflicts us daily how do we regenerate the novelty and the spark that was celebrated when our first acclaimed piece of work was recognised? That was the event that made us proud and made the others happy for the accomplishment. If it could be achieved we would find the key to our contentment and the organisation's advancement. Striving to create such a fruitful environment would appear to be a tough job for management.
Yet it is not beyond any manager to make the organisation just such a place where people relish to come and work and give of their best. You just have to recognise that the most infectious mood in the workplace is enthusiasm. Ask yourself how you greet your employee when you pass her in the corridor or at the lunch counter. Is it with a smile and a nod? Good. Is it a hello, how are you doing, and a wider smile? Better. Do you stop, and ask about a recent personal or work-related matter and say something encouraging? Even better. Do you sweep the person along with conversation, inquiring and suggesting, and spend a few minutes in active discussion, and let the person go with an enthusiastic comment on the promise of the work she's doing? And follow it up by sending a few lines of comment from your e-mail later on? Best of all.
What does it take to create the feeling an employee is contributing, and that the organisation has discovered the talent in the person and wishes to nourish it? It is the attitude of the manager that forms the essence of the employee's core sense of the organisation. That person signifies all that's positive and negative in the organisation. That is the person who most matters in the daily life, and the frustrations, or the sense of self-worth, of the employee. Being apathetic about an employee, or not knowing about her work or recent contributions, and what the problems are, is tantamount to dismissing the employee from the manager's work horizon. And that is the starting point of alienation.
On the other hand the enthusiastic manager who takes trouble to sit down and learn about the work that is being done, and offers reasoned critique and gives pointers, is already creating the environment in which an employee feels "at home" while at work. Now add to that a genuinely welcoming greeting each day, laced with a bit of humour, and you have the ingredients for a satisfying place to work. For, as a colleague said, "It's hard to find a good manager, but that is the key to not being frustrated in your job."
In the midst of the sameness that afflicts us daily how do we regenerate the novelty and the spark that was celebrated when our first acclaimed piece of work was recognised? That was the event that made us proud and made the others happy for the accomplishment. If it could be achieved we would find the key to our contentment and the organisation's advancement. Striving to create such a fruitful environment would appear to be a tough job for management.
Yet it is not beyond any manager to make the organisation just such a place where people relish to come and work and give of their best. You just have to recognise that the most infectious mood in the workplace is enthusiasm. Ask yourself how you greet your employee when you pass her in the corridor or at the lunch counter. Is it with a smile and a nod? Good. Is it a hello, how are you doing, and a wider smile? Better. Do you stop, and ask about a recent personal or work-related matter and say something encouraging? Even better. Do you sweep the person along with conversation, inquiring and suggesting, and spend a few minutes in active discussion, and let the person go with an enthusiastic comment on the promise of the work she's doing? And follow it up by sending a few lines of comment from your e-mail later on? Best of all.
What does it take to create the feeling an employee is contributing, and that the organisation has discovered the talent in the person and wishes to nourish it? It is the attitude of the manager that forms the essence of the employee's core sense of the organisation. That person signifies all that's positive and negative in the organisation. That is the person who most matters in the daily life, and the frustrations, or the sense of self-worth, of the employee. Being apathetic about an employee, or not knowing about her work or recent contributions, and what the problems are, is tantamount to dismissing the employee from the manager's work horizon. And that is the starting point of alienation.
On the other hand the enthusiastic manager who takes trouble to sit down and learn about the work that is being done, and offers reasoned critique and gives pointers, is already creating the environment in which an employee feels "at home" while at work. Now add to that a genuinely welcoming greeting each day, laced with a bit of humour, and you have the ingredients for a satisfying place to work. For, as a colleague said, "It's hard to find a good manager, but that is the key to not being frustrated in your job."
Sunday, July 25, 2010
The neglected art of listening in communicating
The Inbox of communicating is listening, and the Outbox is speaking. The Inbox is mainly to learn, the Outbox is to instruct, convince, suggest, and occasionally, to command. Since most of us have far more to learn than to teach, it follows we should be spending more time in the listening mode than in the instructing mode. Only by self-reflection can managers tell whether this is borne out in their practice.
It would seem listening is easy since it does not involve active articulation of thought or even thinking. However, it is genuinely more difficult to listen than to speak for most people because the ego prompts speech; only by temporarily suppressing the ego will we allow ourselves as managers to assume the mode of receptiveness to the active communication of other people.
Moreover, listening involves the formation of an attitude of giving importance to what one is hearing. It requires patience and calmness to hear out a person without interrupting the flow. And one truly gives importance only by helping the other person elaborate their view, without reacting with objections immediately, or contradicting. If we are patient and receptive, we learn. If not, we rebuff the other person and vitiate the very ability to absorb and appreciate what is being said, and turn off the tap of knowledge by indicating a stubborn unwillingness to listen.
The best listeners lean back, relax, and focus with eye and ear on the other person, and thus encourage the outpouring of knowledge from the speaker. By the focus, managers make known their interest in hearing the view being expressed, and by asking an occasional brief question or giving a nod of appreciation, the listening manager can derive the greatest benefit from the transaction.
The natural follow-on question is what to do with the knowledge derived in such a conversation, in which the major effort has been to listen? The truth is the manager may not know immediately how to deal with the input. More thought is necessary.
The best course is for the listener to to return to the subject after sufficient reflection, and pose additional questions that can aid in developing a response, and point the other person to how the knowledge provided may be used with the additional clarifications. These questions should not appear as deliberate brakes on accepting the communication, or a way of delaying or postponing the response. If, upon reflection, what the speaker has imparted is of value, then it must needs find a place in the agenda and affect the working in some way. It is the job of the manager to ensure this, and thus prove to the person who has opened up to speak that what is of value is considered, and has the effect intended.
And if what is received as a communication, is understood and pondered, but leads to the conclusion that the input is invalided by other considerations bearing on the matter, that has to be explained. It could also be the case that the input is valid and should influence the future working, but it needs to be delayed for other conditions to be propitious. That too bears explication.
Spend a little time composing yourself as a manager and assuming a calm mood of receptiveness, next time somebody has a point to make or something on their chest to get off.
It would seem listening is easy since it does not involve active articulation of thought or even thinking. However, it is genuinely more difficult to listen than to speak for most people because the ego prompts speech; only by temporarily suppressing the ego will we allow ourselves as managers to assume the mode of receptiveness to the active communication of other people.
Moreover, listening involves the formation of an attitude of giving importance to what one is hearing. It requires patience and calmness to hear out a person without interrupting the flow. And one truly gives importance only by helping the other person elaborate their view, without reacting with objections immediately, or contradicting. If we are patient and receptive, we learn. If not, we rebuff the other person and vitiate the very ability to absorb and appreciate what is being said, and turn off the tap of knowledge by indicating a stubborn unwillingness to listen.
The best listeners lean back, relax, and focus with eye and ear on the other person, and thus encourage the outpouring of knowledge from the speaker. By the focus, managers make known their interest in hearing the view being expressed, and by asking an occasional brief question or giving a nod of appreciation, the listening manager can derive the greatest benefit from the transaction.
The natural follow-on question is what to do with the knowledge derived in such a conversation, in which the major effort has been to listen? The truth is the manager may not know immediately how to deal with the input. More thought is necessary.
The best course is for the listener to to return to the subject after sufficient reflection, and pose additional questions that can aid in developing a response, and point the other person to how the knowledge provided may be used with the additional clarifications. These questions should not appear as deliberate brakes on accepting the communication, or a way of delaying or postponing the response. If, upon reflection, what the speaker has imparted is of value, then it must needs find a place in the agenda and affect the working in some way. It is the job of the manager to ensure this, and thus prove to the person who has opened up to speak that what is of value is considered, and has the effect intended.
And if what is received as a communication, is understood and pondered, but leads to the conclusion that the input is invalided by other considerations bearing on the matter, that has to be explained. It could also be the case that the input is valid and should influence the future working, but it needs to be delayed for other conditions to be propitious. That too bears explication.
Spend a little time composing yourself as a manager and assuming a calm mood of receptiveness, next time somebody has a point to make or something on their chest to get off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)