Micro-Management is My Kryptonite

Posted on 2012/11/202012/11/19 by Jason Hensel

Inc.com recently ran a story titled “10 Leadership Practices to Stop Today,” by Paul Spiegelman. It’s a great piece, and I agree with all 10 recommendations, especially No. 1: “Out: Micro-management, or the need to control every aspect of your company. In: Empowerment, the ability to give your people some rope–even rope to make mistakes without blame.”

Perhaps it’s because I’m a writer, someone who makes his scratch in the creative arts, but micro-management is the Kryptonite to my creativity and productivity. Whenever I’m being micro-managed, I feel less empowered, less trusted, and more like a slave.

In fact, researchers from Harvard Business School and Rice University did a study last year and found that “workers perform just fine when managers don’t keep close tabs on them, and that workers are more likely to be fearful of experimenting when their managers micromanage; as a result, the employees learn less and performance suffers,” as reported by Kimberly Weisul for CBS News.

The struggle for me is knowing how to handle micro-management. Sure, I play along and let managers know everything I’m doing down to the last detail. But I can only allow myself to do that for so long before I become either depressed or angry. Neither of those are good for my health or career.

What does one do? How have you handled micro-managing in your career? How can a lower-level employee convince leadership that a lack of autonomy is stifling creativity, productivity, and a healthy mental state?

(Image via Flickr: ZaCky / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

Why Ask Why?

Posted on 2012/11/052012/11/06 by Jason Hensel

I once had a boss that said we should always ask why three times. I never took up the recommendation to her face, but the advice has stuck with me for many years.

When you ask why questions, as opposed to how questions, you open people up to a more abstract way of thinking.

“‘Why’ questions make people think more in terms of the big picture, more in terms of intentions and goals, whereas more concrete ‘how’ questions are focused on something very specific, something right in front of you, basically,” said University of Illinois psychology professor Jesse Preston.

Preston, along with two other researchers, recently conducted a study to test abstract thinking’s influence on political beliefs. They used the Islamic community center and mosque in New York because it’s a strong polarizing issue.

The first study showed that after viewing a plane fly into the World Trade Center, conservatives and liberals held opposing views of the mosque at ground zero.

The second study, however, had participants answer three why questions or three how questions in a row on an unrelated subject before offering their views about the mosque.

Preston says the why questions (not the how questions) brought liberals and conservatives closer together.

“We observed that liberals and conservatives became more moderate in their attitudes,” Preston said. “After this very brief task that just put them in this abstract mindset, they were more willing to consider the point of view of the opposition.

“We tend to think that liberals and conservatives are on opposite sides of the spectrum from each other and there’s no way we can get them to compromise, but this suggests that we can find ways of compromising,” Preston continued. “It doesn’t mean people are going to completely change their attitudes, because these are based on pervasive beliefs and world views. But it does mean that you can get people to come together on issues where it’s really important or perhaps where compromise is necessary.”

Asking why questions isn’t limited to politics. It can be used in the workplace, too, granted that you have a supervisor who is open to other viewpoints. The best ones are open and will have good answers for all three of your why questions.

And if they don’t, continue asking why.

BONUS: Here’s a clip from Lucky Louie showing that by asking why one can really get to the true reason behind something.

(Story quotes from the University of Illinois. Image via Flickr: Brendio / Creative Commons.)

Send to Kindle

My Quarterly Rant About Lazy Readers

Posted on 2012/11/022012/11/05 by Jason Hensel

I don’t understand this new form of pride of not reading things because they’re “too long.” I’ll sometimes pass on great articles to friends or post the links on forums, and I’ll get a tl;dr (too long; didn’t read) response. I get the feeling that there is some chest puffing behind that tl;dr response.

I was reminded of this the other day when I saw this post on Tumblr from ShortFormBlog:

I agree, Ernie. It’s frustrating that people can’t even be bothered to read 300 words. At this rate, we’re going to devolve back to grunts and snorts for communication.

While I’m on the topic of grunts and snorts, I also don’t understand when people tell me that executives and leaders only want bullet points, that they don’t have time to read a full report or article. What kind of leader doesn’t want to know the whole story? If someone is too busy to read what’s put in front of her or him, then maybe that person has time management issues and shouldn’t be a leader.

I’d rather follow someone who has good critical reading and comprehension skills than someone who only wants the “highlights.” In fact, by asking someone to spoon feed you bullet points, you’re acknowledging that you’re not smart. That’s fine if you’re not smart. Just say, “I’m not smart, so please tell me the highlights of a story.”

But don’t say you don’t have time to read something. That proves you’re lazy, which is a far worse trait than ignorance.

Send to Kindle

How Men and Women Evaluate Glass Cliff Positions

Posted on 2012/10/282012/10/30 by Jason Hensel

Yahoo! hired Marissa Mayer as president and CEO this past summer. Before accepting the position, she was an executive at Google, a very successful company. Yahoo!, though, is experiencing some business pains. Did Mayer take the job because it would be challenging, or did Yahoo! seek her out because feminine leadership traits–such as tact and understanding–are preferred when a company is facing a crisis?

Psychological Science published a new study that answers that question and shows that it’s not the crisis positions that attract women leaders, it’s the social resources attached to the job positions.

The Association for Psychological Science has the rest of the story:

Psychological scientists Floor Rink and Janka Stoker (University of Groningen) and Michelle Ryan (University of Groningen and the University of Exeter) investigated how men and women evaluate these “glass-cliff” positions. The researchers speculated that, all else being equal, women wouldn’t be more attracted to a precarious position, but they would be more sensitive to certain aspects of the position.

Rink and her colleagues hypothesized that, following gender norms, women would be more attentive to communal aspects of precarious leadership roles, focusing on social resources, while men would attend to aspects related to authority and hierarchy, focusing on financial resources.

In the first study, Rink and colleagues asked Dutch business students to imagine working for a large company in financial crisis. They were offered a top leadership position at the hypothetical company, where they would be in charge of resolving the crisis. All of the students read a passage containing information about the social and financial resources that came with the position. One group read that they had employee support (social resources) and financial investment from management (financial resources), a second group read that they had financial investment but no employee support, and a third group read that they had employee support but no financial investment.

Comparing across genders, women generally seemed less likely than men to evaluate any of the positions positively. Yet comparing across the three scenarios, women were particularly less likely to accept the position that lacked social resources, while men were less inclined to accept the position that lacked financial resources, confirming the researchers’ hypotheses.

A second study suggests these findings may have been driven by internalized gender stereotypes about leadership. The researchers found that women viewed employee acceptance as a factor that would lead to influence, while men viewed influence as an attribute that would lead to employee acceptance.

“Since the discovery of the glass cliff, researchers and practitioners have questioned whether women are simply more likely than men to accept precarious leadership positions, thereby–albeit unintentionally–putting themselves at a disadvantage in their careers,” the researchers note. “Our findings make it clear that the glass cliff cannot be attributed to women’s failure to recognize the precariousness of glass-cliff positions.”

Taken together, the findings from the two studies suggest that societal expectations about gender and leadership play a key role in driving women’s and men’s evaluations of glass cliff positions.

The researchers argue that these findings may be useful for organizations searching for new leaders to guide them through crises.

“In order to get the right person for the right job, it is probably important for organizations to recognize which aspects of a crisis they want their future leader to solve and to give him or her the appropriate means with which to do so,” says Rink.

Send to Kindle

Employees Are Your Best Customers

Posted on 2012/04/132012/04/13 by Jason Hensel

At every job I’ve had, I’ve heard phrases such as “the customer is always right,” or “think of the value to the customer.” While those sentiments are good, I never hear anything about a product or decision being valuable to an employee. It’s as if business leaders are too focused on keeping customers happy that they forget about employees. And that’s crazy, because employees are your best customers.

The main reason a business treats its customers well is because they will be happy and spread the word to their friends and family about how great the business is. Couldn’t the same be said for your employees? Treat them well, contribute to their happiness, and they’ll extend that feeling in dealing with customers.

It makes so much sense that I’m confused as to why it’s not addressed more. If you’re leader, please do everyone a favor and the next time you want to ask something like “What is the customer value?” please pause and actually ask “What is the value for the customer and the employee?” Running a successful business is a two-way street, and more often than not most leaders have a one-track mind.

Send to Kindle

Social Media Preferred Over Salary

Posted on 2011/11/042011/11/04 by Jason Hensel

There’s some good news from the 2011 Cisco Connected World Technology Report. In it, 40 percent of college students or young professionals say they would take lower paying jobs if companies offered more flexible social media policies.

This shows, to me, that people are getting away from the idea that money buys happiness. We’re becoming a society that values time more than how fat a wallet can get.

Findings include:

Half of those surveyed would rather lose their wallet or purse than their smart phone or mobile device.
More than two of five would accept a lower-paying job that had more flexibility with regard to device choice, social media access, and mobility than a higher-paying job with less flexibility.
At least one in four said the absence of remote access would influence their job decisions, such as leaving companies sooner rather than later, slacking off, or declining job offers outright.
Three out of 10 feel that once they begin working, it will be their right–more than a privilege–to be able to work remotely with a flexible schedule.

For years, I’ve gone on record several times where I work that I’d take a pay cut if management would allow me more freedom in my workday. It’s a losing argument, though, because it means managers have to give up some control. They would have to focus mainly on results.

The result of a controlling mindset, though, could be a disengaged, unproductive workforce. That is, if people actually want to work for a company like that anymore. And it’s beginning to a lot look like people don’t.

How important is social media access and workplace flexibility to you? Or are you just happy to have a job (if you have one)?

(Photo via Flickr: Kalyan Chakravarthy / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

Why Engagement Matters

Posted on 2011/11/012011/11/02 by Jason Hensel

National Novel Writing Month is in November. I tried it once. I didn’t succeed. Writing more than 1,666 words a day is hard, especially if you have an editing and writing job. After a day’s work, I just want to come home and do anything but write or read for a few hours. Then by the time I want to write, it’s time for The Daily Show. Can’t miss that! Then it’s The Colbert Report. Have to watch that, too! Oh, look, it’s 11 p.m. What’s on Facebook? A few hours later, it’s time for bed. National Novel Writing Month, I hardly knew you.

There’s another national writing project that happens each month, though. It’s National Blog Posting Month. Writing a blog post a day seems totally doable, primarily because there’s no word count requirement or need for a complete story. If I want to write about banshees one day and then write about the dangers of electricity the next, as Bobby Brown would say, that’s my prerogative. It just takes engagement on my end.

Engagement, however, is difficult. A recent Gallup poll found that 71 percent of U.S. workers were “‘not engaged’ or ‘actively disengaged’ in their work, meaning they are emotionally disconnected from their workplaces and are less likely to be productive.”

And who are these less engaged workers that are bringing down production? They’re primarily college educated, men, and between the ages of 30 and 64. Oh dear, I’m in my prime disengagement period.

A perceived lack of progress or the fear of layoffs are two of the main reasons employees are less engaged in their work. Leaders, though, can mitigate the lack of engagement, according to Gallup:

Every manager can play a role in engaging workers by clarifying expectations, getting employees what they need to do their work, giving workers recognition when they do good work, encouraging employee development, helping workers connect to the broader purpose of the organization, and frequently measuring and discussing progress. The managers and departments within organizations that do these things are more likely to produce high-quality work and help their organizations grow and improve the wellbeing of their workforce.

Now while I believe a lot of workplace issues are due to mismanagement and poor communication from leaders, they shouldn’t solely take the blame. Employees should communicate with their employers about what’s bothering them. They should have honest conversations, without fear of retribution, about an organization’s direction and their role in that direction. Unfortunately, there’s usually a huge highway between employers and employees.

The Gallup poll says that employees younger than 30 or older than 65 are more engaged. That raises the question: Are these age groups just happily employed due to economic conditions?

Increasing engaged workers could spur job growth, according to the Gallup report. But maybe people don’t care about things such as job growth, seats at the table, and money anymore. Maybe 30- to 64-year-old, non-engaged worker concerns are about other things, such as time, family, and spiritual matters. Maybe to them, work is just work, so why be engaged in it? Get in, get enough money, and get out as soon as you can in time to enjoy the rest of your life. If that is your plan, then maybe being more engaged will get you there sooner. Or maybe not. Maybe you’re more engaged in throwing a Frisbee with friends every afternoon.

What I’m saying is choose your focus. Figure out what you ultimately want in life and do it. Maybe it’s working hard every day. Maybe it’s writing a daily blog post. Whatever it is, figure it out for yourself and be engaged in it, because there’s nothing worse in this world than a life half lived.

(Photo via Flickr: drinksmachine / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle

Real Leaders Embrace Dissension

Posted on 2011/10/21 by Jason Hensel

I’ve been thinking a lot about dissension and its role in business. It appears that most leaders avoid it at all costs, especially from customers. Or if we’re talking about associations, if you don’t march in time with the brand, you’re labeled a traitor.

However, as Howard Zinn, U.S. historian and activist, said, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.”

So, why would leaders be afraid of those who offer contradictory opinions?

The answer is simple: Ego. Most leaders take to the notion that they’re “leading.” And by “leading,” that means their word is final, their roads in the woods the only ones to walk.

But what about the loyal customer or the long-time member who offers a different opinion? Shouldn’t she be listened to, as well?

Yes! More often than not, though, she is not listened to. That person is dismissed as a rebel rouser, someone out to undercut the business.

But what if that person has been a loyal customer or a renewing association member year after year? Maybe she is really out to help the company. Maybe that person put a lot of time and money into something she feels like she “owns”?

I think leaders are short-sighted to ignore these “owners.” They’re probably more invested in the company than managers or board members, who may be in the business for a quick buck or to pad their resumes.

Real leaders embrace contradictory opinions. They know how to engage. They build up rather than put down. If you’re afraid of a little criticism, you’re not a real leader.

(Photo credit via Flickr: Romain Rolland / Creative Commons)

Send to Kindle