6 dumb ways to kill employee morale -...

6 DumbWays to Kill

EmployeeMorale

And What You Can Do to Fix ItA SPECIAL REPORT FOR EXECUTIVES

PBPExecutiveReports

6 Dumb Ways to KillEmployee Morale – And

What You Can Do to Fix ItPBP Executive Reports are straightforward, fast-read reports designed for busyexecutives. PBP Executive Reports excel at cutting the fluff, eliminating jargonand providing just the information today’s executives need to improve theirorganizations’ performance.

This PBP Executive Report was compiled, written and edited by the editorialstaff of Progressive Business Publications. Not only does this report includeeffective techniques and proven strategies, it delivers the best and latest thinkingon improving employee morale.

© 2010 PBP Executive ReportsAll rights reserved.370 Technology DriveMalvern, PA 19355800-220-5000

www.pbpExecutiveReports.com

Executive SummaryThe most efficient organizations aren’t necessarily those that have the best

people. Instead, organizations that excel are those that get people to work togethermore productively, to get each member of a team to do his or her best, bothindividually and together in teams. Organizations successful at achieving meaningfulincreases in productivity have been able to build something called “social capital,”positive connections among individuals through social networks. Trustworthiness isthe key to any successful social network. Getting people from diverse backgroundsto interact and trust each other is crucial to achieving and maintaining increases inproductivity.

Productivity is an environment in which organizations maximize the results ofeverybody on the team. Organizations with a track record of success in this area doa better job of making new hires work. That’s due to a better understanding bothwhat people’s skill sets are, which is probably the easy part, as well as how theirbehavioral nature fits the job.

Managers often spend a lot of time trying to change people into something theyhave no hope of ever becoming. People don’t change that much. Managers wouldbe much better off trying to figure out what their people are really good at andplaying to those strengths, instead of forever trying to correct people’s deficiencies.

Companies don’t make mistakes. People do. Companies make decisions throughtheir managers. The immediate supervisor is all-important when it comes to anyindividual employee’s output and morale. Experts in behavioral psychology haveidentified six dumb ways in which companies, through their managers, destroymorale and productivity.

Mistake No. 1 is the failure to set clear expectations. What’s expected in the first90 days, between the beginning of the year and the end of March? What’s expectedbetween then and the end of June, the first six months? Most people want to do wellin a job. As long as they know clearly what’s expected of them, they’ll try hard tomeet those expectations.

Mistake No. 2 is the failure to focus employees on the key issues. Managersmay “assume” employees know what the manager knows. Or managers may havedone an inadequate “selling” job to their employees to make the company’s prioritiesand key issues their own priorities as well.

Mistake No. 3 is a failure to find the positive. Many people in leadership roleshave too many things on their plate. It’s difficult to go crazy and give people astanding ovation for pretty much doing their job. Old-school managers still may be

Page 1

EXECUTIVE SU

MM

ARY

tempted to “fix” everybody, but this always involves criticism and reinforcesnegatives. These managers would do better figuring out what people are good atand play to their strengths.

Mistake No. 4 is the failure to exchange ideas in a positive, open forum. Intoday’s environment of empowerment, command and control doesn’t work. It can’tjust be management telling people what needs to be done. Managers need to hearwhat’s going on at the grassroots level, because those are the people who aredealing with the company’s customers. Listening skills are an essential ingredient ofsuccessful management.

Mistake No. 5 is the failure to recognize and reward outstanding performance.When people really do go outside the norm, over and above the call of duty,managers need to be sure to recognize it. When they don’t, it creates a negativeenvironment, with negative consequences for morale and productivity. This appliesnot only to the individual employee whose outstanding contribution isn’tacknowledged enough, but to all those around that employee as well, who see thatthe extraordinary effort is merely taken for granted. It kills their morale as well, andmakes them think: “Why bother?”

Mistake No. 6 is the greatest challenge for most managers. It’s the failure tounderstand the unique behavioral strengths and challenges of each individual.Managers who play to people’s strengths do a better job of making new hires work.The easy part is to identify skill sets. It’s much harder to identify the behavioralnature that fits the job. People do things more because of their own intrinsic naturethan because of any lack of expertise or intelligence.

There are plenty of examples in everyday life situations of the four basicbehavioral traits that people in the workplace exhibit.

They are:

1. Dominance, the so-called control trait (the person who pushes his wayinto an already full elevator)

2. Extroversion, the so-called social trait (the person who looks toestablish a new social network in the same crowded elevator)

3. The “patience” trait, which has to do with rate of motion (the personwho’ll wait for the next elevator), and

4. The “conformity” trait, prevalent in people who like structure and detail(the person who checks the officially posted load capacity of the elevatorbefore getting on).

Managers can create a kind of cheat sheet to understand the behavioral natureof the people on their teams. The descriptions in this Executive Report may give

Page 2

EXECUTIVE SU

MM

ARY

enough clues to get a fair idea who’s who in a particular organization or on a team.For more precise measurements, many HR consulting or psychological testing firmswill have so-called forced-adjective tests to determine who’s who, either forprospective or current employees.

Once managers understand the behavioral nature of their employees, they canstart to think the way their employees think. What do they need? Do they needdirection? Once they figure that out, they can start thinking like a great manager.Great managers play to the strengths of their people and fill square holes withsquare pegs. They understand what any position needs and fill the positions withpeople who fit those needs, then provide guidance and encouragement to helppeople meet the position’s specific requirements.

Page 3

EXECUTIVE SU

MM

ARY

The Executive Report

Six Dumb Ways to KillEmployee Morale – And What

You Can Do to Fix ItHR experts have known for some time that the most efficient

organizations, the ones that consistently outperform their directcompetitors, aren’t necessarily those that have the best people. Instead, theorganizations that excel above all others are those that get people to worktogether more productively, to get each member of a team to do his or herbest, both individually and together in teams. What constitutes thisessential ingredient for success?

It has a lot to do with an interesting concept that’s called “socialcapital.” Organizations successful at achieving meaningful increases inproductivity have been able to build that social capital. In his book,Bowling Alone: How the American Society Has Changed since World WarII, Robert Putnam says social capital consists of the positive connectionsamong individuals through social networks, norms and reciprocity and thetrustworthiness that arises from them. Social capital is how we get peopleto connect. The book shows how a society of many virtuous but isolatedindividuals is not necessarily rich in social capital, while a societycharacterized by generalized reciprocity is more efficient than a distrustfulsociety. Trustworthiness is the key. Trust lubricates a healthy society andgets people to relate positively in frequent interactions. Getting people fromdiverse backgrounds to interact is crucial to achieving and maintainingincreases in productivity.

Much of this is generalized reciprocity – the idea that if you asksomebody to do something for you, you know they’ll do it, not because

Page 4

they’re going to ask you to do something in return right now, but becausethey know that they COULD ask you to do something at any time andyou’d do it for them. A perfect example is the volunteer fire departmentthat promoted a fundraising pancake breakfast by printing up sweatshirtsthat said, “Come to our breakfast! We’ll come to your fire!” They’llprobably come to your fire anyhow, but there’s a concept of impliedreciprocity, whether or not you actually go eat their pancakes.

Defining productivityProductivity is an all-important measure of success in the business

world. How do we define productivity? Here’s an admittedly simplisticdefinition, but one that will fit a lot of situations: It’s an environment inwhich organizations maximize the results of everybody on the team.Organizations with a track record of success in this area do a better job ofmaking new hires work. That’s due to a better understanding both whatpeople’s skill sets are, which is probably the easy part, as well as how theirbehavioral nature fits the nature of the job.

The same “Bowling Alone” book by Robert Putnam makes anothersignificant point. It says: “People don’t change that much. Don’t waste timetrying to put in what was left out. Try to draw out what was left in – that’shard enough.” And it’s plenty hard, but it’s also probably pretty accurate.Managers often spend a lot of time – mostly in vain – trying to changepeople into something they have no hope of ever becoming. At a certainpoint in their lives, people don’t change that much anymore. Those samemanagers would be much better off trying to figure out what their peopleare really good at and playing to those strengths, instead of forever tryingto correct people’s blind spots or deficiencies, a frustrating endeavor forboth the manager and the employee, which will probably hurt morale andproductivity in the end and result in another disillusioned employee leaving.

Figuring out how to get increases in productivity based on frequentpositive interactions among people may be tough. It’s closely tied tonebulous concepts like employee morale, always hard to measure. Ratherthan concentrating on how to affect employee morale in a positive way, it

PBP EXECUTIVE REPORT: 6 DUMB WAYS TO KILL EMPLOYEE MORALE

Page 5

may be easier to figure out what NOT to do. As a matter of fact, experts inhuman behavioral psychology have identified six dumb ways in whichcompanies can – and often do – destroy morale and productivity.

Companies don’t make mistakes; managers doOf course companies don’t make dumb mistakes. People do. Companies

make decisions through their managers, and companies also achieve socialcapital and those gains in productivity through their managers. Themanager, the immediate supervisor, is all-important when it comes to anyindividual employee’s output and morale.

Companies that operate in a multi-branch office environment haveproven this time and again. All the branches may be pretty much doing thesame thing, but could well get very different results. One branch officewould be very successful; another branch office would really struggle andof course you’d probably also find everything in between. When you try tounderstand the reasons, as a businessperson, you may first focus onexternal factors to explain the differences. The different branch officesprobably sold the same product to the same type of customer base, andlocal economic conditions didn’t vary all that much, either. Also, everybodyhad some local competition, some more than others, but again, thatcouldn’t explain all the differences. Any given market might be in a slumpfor a whole for some reason, but that didn’t account for the consistentdifferences in productivity, either.

The explanation, time and again, was the effectiveness of the first-levelmanager running that operation. Another great business book, First BreakAll The Rules: What the World’s Greatest Managers Do Differently, byBuckingham and Kaufman, has a well articulated bit of wisdom: “Talentedemployees need great managers. The talented employee may join acompany because of a charismatic leader, its generous benefits, and itsworld-class training programs, but how long that employee stays and howproductive he or she is while there is determined by the relationship withthe immediate supervisor.”

So if companies rise or fall through the effectiveness of their managers


Page 6

and supervisors – and fail through their ineffectiveness – it stands to reasonthat managers need some help to avoid the dumb mistakes that kill moraleand productivity.

Here are the six dumbest mistakes they need to avoid:

Mistake No. 1Mistake No. 1 is the failure to set clear expectations. It’s amazing how

companies can spend so much time and effort hiring people and definingthe needs and the requirements for any particular position, but then fail todo a very clear job of defining what the expectations are for the individualwho is put in that position within a realistic time period, be it the first 90days, or the next 90 days. What’s expected between the beginning of theyear and the end of March? What’s expected between then and the end ofJune, the first six months? Are there other expectations to be met after thefirst year? Some jobs are complicated and require a lot of interaction withdifferent departments in the company to see the big picture. In those cases,it may take up to a year to meet the expectations. But managers need to dotwo things with expectations: First, establish them; and then communicatethem.

Most people want to do well on the job, regardless of their intrinsicnature and their different behavioral traits. People rarely go into a job withideas of failing and/or sabotaging the works. As long as they know clearlywhat’s expected of them, they’ll try hard to meet those expectations.

Setting clear expectations as to what’s expected within a certaintimeframe also helps a manager reach a decision quickly to fire when it’snot working. One of the worst things an organization can do is to continueto write a paycheck to somebody who everybody else in the organizationalready knows should not be working there. Whatever managers can do toshorten that decision cycle will be a positive step, for the organization as awhole and for the morale and the productivity of all remaining employees.

Holding on to a bad hire too long is one of the most common dumbmistakes companies and their managers do to kill productivity and morale.


Page 7

It’s almost always better to bite the bullet and get through a difficulttransition period with the help of all concerned – sometimes it fomentsteamwork – than to leave the underperformer in place until a replacementcan be found. The greatest tool managers need to make those decisionsquickly is the yardstick of clear expectations by defined time frames.

Of course the best way to avoid this No. 1 dumb mistake is to hire rightin the first place – to select the person who’s the right fit for the job. Thebest hiring managers figure out exactly what kind of person they need for aparticular job and then try to do their very best accommodating the personto the needs of that position. That’s not to say that only one kind of personwith one particular behavioral style is right for that job. There’s always arange but the good managers understand what that range is and whodoesn’t really fit.

Even so, hiring mistakes will be made. Then the really dumb mistake isto compound that first mistake and hold on to the bad hire too long.

The person may turn out to have been a bad hire because he or shelacked the requisite skill set. But it’s also possible they were just a badinfluence on morale. It’s a manager’s obligation to do everything possible toimprove morale. It does take two to tango and bosses are probably in somemanner, shape, or form contributing to low morale if it exists. But if thereis a toxic person in the office, the first thing to do is to figure out if there’sa way to meet this person in the middle and if the situation is fixable.However, no organization can live with low morale forever. Once managershave done everything they can to build it and that toxic person is stillnegatively impacting other people, companies need to move on without thatperson, even if they possess the right job skills, because such toxicity canhave a cumulative effect within an organization.

Whether it’s lack of job skills or negative attitudes, good managers setclear expectations that neither will be tolerated. Failure to set thoseexpectations, in either area, is always a dumb mistake.


Page 8

Mistake No. 2Dumb Mistake No. 2 is the failure to focus employees on the key issues.

To be sure, those key issues may change and changes are often inadequatelycommunicated by the front-line supervisors. Managers may have focusedtheir employees on what the key issues were 90 days ago, or a year ago,but do the employees really understand what the key issues are today? Aremanagers doing an effective job making sure that they’re reinforcing today’skey issues to the organization to ensure that people are focused on them?

Dumb mistakes are made in this area for various reasons. Managersmay “assume” that employees know what they know, but that’s almostalways a perilous assumption. Or, managers may have done an inadequate“selling” job to their employees to make the company’s priorities and keyissues their own priorities as well – or at least to see everything they do intheir jobs in the light of where the company is heading.

Managers may be very happy about the fact that they’re not in Salesbecause they’re uncomfortable selling. But they have to realize that being amanager always involves selling – they have to sell their ideas and thecompany’s ideas to their employees to get buy-in. If they don’t do aneffective selling job, productivity and morale will surely suffer. You don’tneed to have “Salesperson” on your business card to be selling something.As a manager, you very often need to be selling ideas, getting buy-in forconcepts, obtaining approval for budgets. Whatever the case may be, it’salmost invariably a sales situation.

A crucial factor in sales success is the ability to predict human behavioron the part of the buyer, or in an organizational setting, the people whomanagers are trying to sell their ideas to. Anybody who ever had any typeof sales training should have gotten something that says: “How toUnderstand the Behavioral Nature of Your Buyer.” To sell an idea to anemployee, a good manager may have a look at the employee’s desk. If theyhave a lot of pictures of people, it probably means the person likes toconnect with people, so when selling an idea, stressing teamwork andrelationships with other people might be a prime selling point. On the otherhand, if everything is very organized on the employee’s desk, a goodmanager may conclude that the person is very analytical and may be “sold”


Page 9

on the idea more if it’s explained exactly how and why the idea will resultin improvements for the organization and how those will be measured.

Whatever the case may be, the “selling” or communication style doesmake a difference and depending on the “selling” approach, the manager ismore likely to be effective at getting buy-in. Just as this is true forprofessional salespeople, it’s true for managers as well. It’s very important that managers be able to communicate effectively and predicting human behavior is a key to that. It’s not okay to be able tocommunicate just with people who are exactly like them. Managers need tobe able to communicate with people who are opposites. Being able tocommunicate effectively with all personality styles will build trust andsocial capital within the team. That leads to improved morale andproductivity. If managers are unable to focus their employees on the keyissues, they have little chance of being successful and will repeat DumbMistake No. 2 over and over.

Mistake No. 3Dumb Mistake No. 3 is a failure to find the positive. People have gotten

rich writing books about this. The One Minute Manager advocates tryingto catch employees doing something right and then praising them for it. Itsounds great and it is great. But in practice it’s still hard to do. Not doing itenough is a dumb mistake too many managers fall into, hurting morale andproductivity in the process.

Sure, managers have lots of excuses for “forgetting” to do enough of it.They rationalize not doing it. The challenge is that many people in aleadership role always have so many things on their plate. When people dosomething that really could kind of fall into the category of just “doingtheir job”, it’s difficult to go crazy and give them a standing ovation forpretty much doing their job. True enough, but managers do need tounderstand how important it is to always reinforce the positive.

Old-school managers still may be tempted to “fix” everybody. Fixingpeople’s perceived deficiencies, while this may be necessary at times, alwaysinvolves criticism and reinforces negatives. These managers often don’t yet


Page 10

understand they just don’t have time to fix everybody. But they would havetime to figure out what people are naturally good at, play to their strengthsand take advantage of those.

Managers need to do a better job of understanding, predicting, andmanaging behavior, and the first key to that is to understand that peoplerespond differently to the same events and experiences. Those responses aretied much closer to people’s behavioral styles and have very little to do withintelligence. Managers tend to be too critical – and therefore they don’tmake enough of an effort to find the positive. It’s because they have astrong tendency to slap an intellectual label on people that do thingsopposite from the way that they would do them themselves – and thatintellectual label isn’t necessarily a compliment. In fact, it’s usually a slap.It’s human nature to feel more comfortable with people who respond morelogically to you. Therefore, managers are often too negative on most peoplewho don’t have the same makeup as themselves.

Managers need constant training and reinforcement to find the positivesin what people do to move toward a common goal, even if employees did itin a way that’s not how the manager would have done it.

Mistake No. 4Dumb Mistake No. 4 is the failure to exchange ideas in a positive, open

forum. It’s so important for managers to keep the communication goingboth ways. In today’s environment of empowerment, command and controldoesn’t work so well. Even the most hierarchical institutions like theCatholic Church and the Army can’t rely on command and controlanymore. It can’t just be management telling people what needs to be done.

Managers need to hear what’s going on at the grassroots level, becausethose are the people who are dealing with the company’s customers. Thepeople who are out there with their feet on the street are likely to have thebest ideas as to what needs to be done. Management needs to listen tothem. Listening skills are another essential ingredient of successfulmanagement. An employee who didn’t get exactly what he wanted from hisimmediate supervisor nevertheless stayed in the job a long time and did


Page 11

great work. “At least he always listens to me – he really listens,” theemployee said when asked to explain his loyalty and dedication.

To improve listening skills, once again managers can learn a lot fromsalesmanship.

To sell their idea, managers and supervisors need to listen to whatemployees are saying – and not only to the words being said, but to thenon-verbal clues as well. That employee with all the pictures on his or herdesk, even without saying a word, is trying to communicate to anyone whodrops by what’s important in his or her life – people and family. And theemployee with the neat desk, without having to articulate it, is telling his orher supervisors that he or she likes things set out in an orderly fashion.They are telling their managers, with words, gestures and non-verbal clues,how they want to be “sold” on cooperating to the maximum degree, butmanagers need to open their eyes and ears wide to be able to hear it all.

Listening skills are so important in selling that sales managers often tellindividual salespeople working for them to “shut up and listen … reallylisten” to what the customer is saying. Similarly, one of the dumb mistakesmanagers make with their people is not listening enough to what they’resaying. Nothing demoralizes today’s employees faster – and thereforeresults in an immediate and measurable decrease in productivity – then thefeeling that he or she is not being listened to. Listening is an essential partof communicating effectively as managers and predicting human behavior.And again, managers have to make a special effort to listen to people whoare not exactly like them. They may have the tendency to be curt anddismissive with people who like to take their time getting to the real point.But managers need to be able to listen to people with different behaviorstyles, opposite from their own.

Mistake No. 5Dumb Mistake No. 5 is the failure to recognize and reward outstanding

performance. When people really do go outside of the norm, over andabove the call of duty, managers need to be sure to recognize it. When they don’t, it creates a negative environment, with negative consequences


Page 12

for employee morale and productivity. This applies not only to theindividual employee whose outstanding contribution isn’t acknowledgedenough, but to all those around that employee as well, who see that theextraordinary effort is merely taken for granted. It kills their morale aswell, and makes them think: “Why bother?”

To be able to avoid this dumb mistake, managers need to firstunderstand themselves, their own strengths and challenges. No one iscapable of being good at everything. It’s just not possible. People’s greateststrengths will also lead to their greatest challenges. That’s just the way it is.Managers need to accept that they may not be so good at recognizingoutstanding behavior. If that’s the case, they need to do whatever it takes tocompensate for it – get another trusted employee to help remind them –whatever will do the trick.

If managers do it well, the result will be greater productivity from theentire team, better performance from new people added to the team,improved long-term retention rates and ultimately reduced new-hireturnover.

Sometimes people fail to recognize and reward outstanding performanceout of insecurity. Insecure supervisors don’t want anyone else to shine –they’re afraid the person who’s done something outstanding may take theirjob some day. It’s often difficult to make a person with an insecuritycomplex feel safe and comfortable in the work environment. It’s certainlypossible to make attempts at that. But it’s also best to recognize that thefeeling of insecurity probably didn’t begin the day the person started in thecurrent job. They probably had it when they were in kindergarten. Socompanies need to figure out how to manage the business effectively evenwith people who may have some of those tendencies – how to get thembeyond the point where they have placed themselves by at least makingthem feel comfortable and safe in the work environment.

Many managers grumble about wanting more people to be self-starters:“I can’t stand it when people come to me and tell me they have a problembut they haven’t come up with a solution.” However, there are a lot ofpeople in this world who look towards leadership to provide some, if notall, the solutions. And if managers judge all people by the self-starter


Page 13

yardstick, a lot of people would never get recognition for doing anythingoutstanding. It’s not a lack of intellect that prevents them from coming upwith a solution – that’s the way they’re wired. For some people, the factthat they’ve identified a problem already represents an outstanding effort.Even if they haven’t come up with the solution, the discovery of theproblem may still be worthy of special recognition. Good managers praisethe behavior they want to see repeated. If the people raising the problem(even without a solution) don’t get recognized for doing it, they may neverbring up another problem again, leaving it to fester and explode later into amuch bigger crisis.

Some managers may mistakenly think that engaging in some form ofgallows humor gets them closer to their people. They may say things like,“Sure this job stinks, but what the heck, it’s a paycheck.” Big mistake. Agallows humor environment has a very negative impact on a lot of people.It wears on them.

Managers need to get a different message out there, a message thatfocuses on the good and the positive and that’s often best done throughrecognition of positive acts and behavior. Failure to extend that recognition,and dwell too much on negatives, is one of the dumb mistakes to avoid.

Does special recognition for stars sometimes create jealousies on the partof other employees? Sure, it can happen, but that’s no reason to withholdit. On a sales force in which most reps have cubicles that measure 8 by 6feet, the No. 1 salesperson in the country may well have a much largerwork space. If the guy’s the No. 1 salesman in the country and if that’swhat he wants, that’s what he gets as long as there’s a balance between theright thing and the wrong thing. Special privileges can be earned by over-performers, but there are boundaries. Just because he’s the king of thesales organization doesn’t mean he can keep a bottle of Scotch in hiscredenza. It’s inappropriate for business, but that didn’t mean the guydidn’t deserve a bigger cubicle. If some new hires had a problem with that,so be it. At least the message was that if they got to be the No. 1salesperson in the company some day, they, too, could have a biggercubicle. You can’t bend your morality, but you can make special privilegesavailable for people if there are tangible ways to measure their performancecompared to everybody else’s. That’s part of the special recognition.


Page 14

Mistake No. 6The last mistake, Mistake No. 6 on this list, isn’t really a dumb mistake

at all. Even smart managers often make it. It’s the greatest challenge formost managers, but it can still have disastrous consequences for theorganization. It’s the failure to understand the unique behavioral strengthsand challenges of each individual. Managers who play to people’s strengthsdo a better job of making new hires work. The easy part is to identify skillsets. It’s much harder to identify the behavioral nature that fits the job –that’s where most mistakes in people management are made.

It’s human nature to look at other people through our own prism. Whenpeople are very different from us, we have a much more difficult timeunderstanding where they’re coming from. Two people facing identicalproblems or sets of circumstances often choose very different actions. Does that mean one is smart and the other is dumb? As managers, we may see it that way, but the different actions most likely have very little todo with smarts or lack thereof. People do things more because of their ownintrinsic nature than because of any real or perceived lack of expertise orintelligence.

A few examplesLook at a few common examples.

A husband and wife come home one day with brand-new cell phones.Two people living the same, exact life circumstances may deal with thesame situation altogether differently. Many people marry somebody verymuch an opposite. So in this example, the husband may tear open thepackage, find the power button, power-on the phone, see that there’s somebattery life and start playing with it, figuring out where to load his speed-dial numbers, how to change the picture and get a voicemail message.The wife, on the other hand, may carefully open the package, take out theuser guide, start reading it, and say to her husband, “It says you’resupposed to read this entire manual before you try using the phone.” Atthat moment both husband and wife might look at each other, thinking:


Page 15

“He/she’s an idiot for doing what they’re doing.”

Another example: On the freeway, some people are inclined to drive inthe fast lane; some choose the middle lane and some take the slow lane. Isthat an intellectual decision based on objective reasoning of what’s best oris that behavioral?

A traveling businessman needs to get to the airport from a remote officeand wants to ask one of the employees to give him a ride. Who’s going toget him to the airport on time? He might pick somebody in that office whonever fails at any task and will do anything and everything to achieve thegoal. These kinds of people often make it a competition or a game, butthey’re going to get him there on time. But if the manager is trying to findout what’s really going on in that office, he needs somebody who’s preparedto open up and talk during the ride and he’d probably pick a differentperson. And if he just wants to know he’s going to able to get there safeand sound, he’d pick yet a third different person, send an e-mail in advanceand say, “Do you think you might be able to get me to the airport? I’ve gota 4 o’clock flight.”

A final example: An elevator door opens and it’s already pretty full.Four people of equal intelligence waiting for that elevator are likely to reactvery differently to the same situation. Person No. 1 says: “There’s alwaysroom for one more,” and barges in. Person No. 2 thinks “This is great”and starts looking for known faces. She also gets in, but may say somethinglike, “let’s all get cozy in here.” Person No. 3, on the other hand, stepsback and says: “No, that’s okay. I’ll take the next one.” And Person No. 4,who may be a very smart MIT graduate, counts the number of peoplealready on the elevator and then checks with the posted maximum capacitybefore getting on.

The implications for the workplaceDifferent behavioral styles can get people to what it is that they’re trying

to accomplish in different ways. This is not an idle exercise in poppsychology. It has profound implications for the workplace and on thenever-ending drive to increase productivity.


Page 16

It’s not a new concept that there are four cornerstone behavioral traitsin individuals. Greek philosophers talked about them as long as 2,500 yearsago. The better managers can understand those four cornerstone traits, thebetter they can understand their people and what makes them tick. Nobodyis all one way. Traits may vary in intensity from person to person, but oneor two of them usually come to the forefront in every person.

These four cornerstone traits can be described as follows:

1. Dominance, the so-called control trait (the person who pushes his wayinto an already full elevator)

2. Extroversion, the so-called social trait (the person who looks to establisha new social network in the crowded elevator)

3. The “patience” trait, which has to do with rate of motion (the personwho’ll wait for the next elevator), and

4. The “conformity” trait, prevalent in people who like structure anddetail (the person who checks the officially posted load capacity of theelevator before getting on).

One: DominanceHigh-dominance people are very competitive people in nature, driven,

innovative in their thinking, conceptually analytical, and good problem-solvers. It’s common for high-dominance people to end up in leadershiproles within organizations, not just because they want to win, but becausethey are, after all, problem-solvers and naturally volunteer to take the lead.If that trait is combined with actual know-how, that individual notsurprisingly ends up in a leadership role.

However, there is another side to high-dominance people. They have atendency to challenge management, especially managers who they, in theirinfinite wisdom, believe incompetent. They dislike indecisiveness; they’drather have a wrong decision than no decision. And, depending on theintensity of the trait, there’s a tremendous need for high-dominance peopleto feel in control of everything as the masters of their own sandbox. Thistrait has driven many high-dominance people into entrepreneurship because


Page 17

it was the only way to be in control of their own environment.

High-dominance people tend to stick with first impressions. They rarelychange their minds. Once they’ve made a decision, it’s very difficult to getthem to change. They can, however, make new decisions based on newdata. So if managers find themselves with an employee of this type, itdoesn’t work to say, “Well, I think you’re wrong, and I’m right.” Adifferent approach will work much better: “Well, I think I understandwhere you’re coming from. Let me share some information that I don’tthink you’ve been aware of yet. I believe this data may shed some new lighton this.” New data may get a new decision from a high-dominance person;but don’t try to get an old decision overturned.

Two: The extrovertsHigh extroverts are personable, friendly and charming and use

understanding to get things done. They can sell blue sky, but aren’tnecessarily the world’s most technically-oriented people. High extrovertsmake a great first impression and will do a very good job withpresentations, especially if they feel they’re liked.

There are plenty of very effective high-extrovert employees, but one ofthe biggest hiring mistakes managers make is a tendency to hire highextroverts for jobs that aren’t good fits for them. In the interview process,they make great first impressions. So, if managers aren’t careful, they’ll hirea high extrovert for every job. That creates numerous challenges within anyorganization.

High extroverts have to feel they’re appreciated and liked. They can bevery talkative, especially if they’re in a corner. Although they’ll never admitit, they can become defensive if challenged on believability.

Three: PatienceHigh-patience people are very persistent and will take the time to set up

routines. They have great memories and excellent listening skills. Just likemanagers can make the mistake of hiring high extroverts to do jobs thatare not a good fit for them, they can also be guilty of NOT hiring the high-patience person. They just don’t really grab anyone in an interview.


Page 18

They didn’t come across like they really wanted the job. When managersmake recruiting a personality contest, they don’t make the world’s besthiring decisions. The two most consistent hiring mistakes are picking highextroverts for jobs they don’t belong in and passing on high-patience peoplefor jobs they’d be a great fit for.

It is true that high-patience people will be more cautious in gettingstarted with things. They’re looking to be in harmony with the worldaround them. A position that requires a lot of agitation and energy may notbe the best fit, but all organizations have a lot of positions for people whowon’t cause trouble or make waves. Of course the flip side is a tendency toprocrastinate.

Four: ConformityHigh-conformity people may be the smallest part of the working

population in some industries, but the percentages vary. They’re probablynot going to be the highest percentage in a sales organization, but can befound in larger numbers in an IT department or a research lab. High-conformity people have a very strong sense of what’s right andwrong, and they want to know that the organization they work for is doingthe right thing. They will be more formal and reserved and once trained,they won’t make mistakes because they understand what they’re doing.They like the concept of preset standards; they’re likely to have made achecklist and with that helpful tool, they’ll be able to work their plan.

By the same token high-conformity people don’t do well with unjustifiedcriticism. There’s a real strong dedication to accuracy and sense of duty.These people will stay with you through thick and thin. High-conformitypeople may also come across as being resistant to change. If somebodycomes down with a new ruling, like wear white shirts and ties on Tuesday,or whatever the case may be, the high-conformity person, more than anyother behavioral style, will say: “Why are we doing that? Does that makesense? Did they think of this or that?” Some people will look at thatresistance and perceive it to be confrontational, but it’s really not. It’s aneed to have a better understanding of the details, because it’s in the detailswhere high-conformity people find their comfort.


Page 19

Doing a better job of matching people, jobs and teams

How can managers do a better job fitting the right people with thecorrect temperament into the right jobs or teams to avoid having peopleclash with each other or winding up with people in jobs they’re not suitedfor?

To prevent costly mistakes in this area, it’s vital to understand if peoplefeel a need to be more assertive or less assertive, more or less friendly andultimately understand if managers are dealing with a high-dominance orlow-dominance person, high or low conformity, etc. It can be a big energydrain on managers if they try to turn any employee into somebody that heor she has no chance of ever being or becoming – more assertive, lessassertive, more patient, whatever it is. There’s nothing absolute about thistype of behavioral profiling that will allow you to say that this person isgood or bad or that this typical behavior is good or bad, except this: Thegreater the energy drain because of people being in wrong place with thewrong teams, the greater the loss of morale and productivity. Period – endof story. You just can’t be as productive if you’ve got an organization wheremorale is low and people are really dragging. From an energy standpoint,low morale absolutely affects people, even physically, to the point thatthey’d better get out of an environment that’s toxic for them to get wellagain.

There are other fascinating questions. How do people with the samehigh traits match up (or not) in teams? How do people with different hightraits match up? Many teams are likely to need some people with differentskill sets and behavioral styles since no one person can be good ateverything. If a team is composed of all high-conformity people, chancesare little will get done and every insignificant detail will get studied todeath. However, on the flip side a team of all high-dominance people issure to get into fights, maybe even physical confrontations, in the course offiguring out who does what.

For managers, it’s also important to learn how to deal with people whohave the low trait that may very well be their own high trait – in other


Page 20

words, they are the manager’s polar opposite. If a manager is a highextrovert, how does he or she work with a low extrovert? How does a veryimpatient person work with people who are patient?

It’s important for managers to understand that their own high traitsprovide a filter through which they see people, and to compensate for thosebiases when needed. For example, a high-dominance person often sees ahigh extrovert as more show than tell. The high-dominance person sees anextrovert as someone who talks a lot, appears to be very needy of“stroking” and attention and is often on an “emotional roller coaster.” Nota flattering picture, but in their eyes they’re right. But how does the highextrovert see the high-dominance person? It’s a completely different look.They see that person as controlling and blunt. Those perceptions are bynature negatives, but in the right environment, the actual qualities can beanything but negatives.

A cheat sheetManagers can create a kind of cheat sheet to help them with

interpersonal relations and understand the behavioral nature of the peopleon their teams. With the help of this material, managers and supervisorscan say, “Well, I’m here and I believe that the people I’m working with arethere, and now I think I understand where they’re coming from.” For animpatient person, it’s counterintuitive to know how a high-patience personwill be thinking about or reacting to any set of circumstances. Thedescriptions in this Executive Report may give you enough clues to get afair idea who’s who in your organization or on your team. For any moreprecise measurements, almost any HR consulting or psychological testingfirm worth its salt will have a so-called forced-adjective test that will tellmanagers who’s who, either in the hiring process with prospectiveemployees or with an existing workforce.

Of course there are people who present combinations of traits. Forexample, somebody may have an even amount of extroversion andpatience. That’s called a trait pair. But a high-extrovert and high-patienceperson is very different from a high-extrovert and low-patience person. It’s


Page 21

rare to have all four traits represented to exactly the same level, but notimpossible. Such a person is a chameleon by nature and can be veryeffective working with people outside of his or her department. Somesalespeople have an uncanny ability to morph themselves into beingwhoever it is that they’re trying to sell to.

How do people mesh together in teams? If first-level managers just camefrom the rank-and-file in that department, the odds are their behavioralnature will be similar to the people who they’re now managing. Thatchanges when somebody takes on leadership responsibility in anorganization that’s outside of his or her own personal background andexperience. Keep in mind that no matter how homogenous the jobresponsibilities may be, even in a call center of 100 people or an outsidesales organization of 50 salespeople, you’ll never get a totally homogenousbehavioral style. Every single behavioral style will be represented in anygroup once it’s up to 10 people. To understand that diversity in behavioralstyles can be very helpful in managing for results.

What great managers doOnce managers understand the behavioral nature of their employees,

they can start to think the way their employees think. What do they need?Do they need direction? Do they need to know where the yellow brickroad is to get to the wizard’s house or do they want to be able to cut downthe trees along the way on their own? Do they need stroking orindependence? Do they want to know the exact time frames are in order tobe comfortable and function well in the role?

When managers figure that out, they can start thinking like a greatmanager. Great managers play to the strengths of their people and fillsquare holes with square pegs. They understand what any position needsand fill the positions with people who fit those needs, then provideguidance and encouragement to help people meet the position’s specificrequirements.


Page 22

About PBP Executive Reports

PBP Executive Reports are straightforward, fast-read reports for time-pressedupper-level executives and managers. PBP Executive Reports excel at cuttingthe fluff, eliminating jargon and providing just the information today’s executivesneed to improve their organizations’ performance.

Each report is fast-read, actionable, and packed with invaluable strategies.

PBP Executive Reports is a Progressive Business Publications (PBP)company. PBP is a leading diversified information company that providescutting-edge, high-impact information to help top executives and managersmake more informed decisions and do their jobs better.

As the industry's fastest-growing company, PBP now produces a full array ofinformation products including:

n 24 fast-read, 100% subscription-driven, business-to-business andmedical newsletters

n 22 legal publications covering the education and employment markets

n 10 advertising-free buyer’s guides for office equipment

n More than 650 annual, executive-level and legal audio conferencescovering 17 subject areas

Thousands of executives in America’s top-growth companies – as well as executives in all of the Fortune 1000 – use our products’ concise, expert-to-expert information to improve their businesses.

6 dumb ways to kill employee morale -...

Documents