An overlooked facet of the leadership communication puzzle is the ability to listen effectively. Listening skills, when not properly engaged will result in significant communication and relational disconnects with peers and team members.
The easiest method of improving the listening side of communication is to manage the environment in which listening is performed. If the dialog is important, and not just to you, the environment must be conducive to listening. This means that interruptions and distractions must be significantly reduced or eliminated. If your phone will disrupt an important dialog, silence it. If your cellular phone vibrating will move your attention to who is calling, turn it off for an important conversation. If the traffic by your office distracts your eyes and your attention, move to a more private or less traveled location.
Two important elements to consider about distraction values and listening. First is the time investment of how long it would take you to reconnect with a conversation after distraction compared with managing the distraction in the beginning. Or worse still, how much time will it take to repair the error that you make because you missed important details in the conversation.
The final consideration related to listening distraction is the not-so-subtle message of disrespect. In a conversation, you look down to see who is calling. How does that make the other person in the conversation feel? Are they the most important or is that dependant upon who is calling you on your cell phone? This disrespectful lack of focus on listening will often cause greater dysfunction in a relationship and many times impact future approachability and trust.
Another barrier to effective listening is the concept of assumptive responding. Assumptive responding is providing a response, not based on what you just heard, but rather on what you believed was said. This can be based on the situation or with whom you are having a dialog. Imagine for a moment, a team member has spent the last several days complaining about Ed, their co-worker. The team member asks if you have a moment to talk about Ed. Regardless of what is actually said in that conversation, there is a pretty good chance that your recollection of the dialog will include the team member complaining about Ed.
Those of you that have done what you have done for a living for five or more years are more likely to be candidates of assumptive responding. Having “been there, done that” or “heard it all before” will greatly impact your ability to truly listen compared to assumptive responding. Unlike managing your listening environment, dealing with assumptive responding is a little tougher. The skill is cognitive and requires both an improved focus and a reduction in the time desired to move into response mode. The bottom line is don’t be so anxious to judge the situation and hear something coming out of your mouth.
One additional listening skill is the use of complimentary validation. This is an extraordinary skill that really improves the flow of information while validating the comments of a communication sender. Complimentary validation is providing a compliment when key information is heard or processed in the listening cycle. Many people do this almost naturally or automatically and we often comment about those people that they were great listeners or they were excellent communicators or relationship builders.
In a typical conversation, routine relational dialog occurs. When you ask what someone did this past weekend and the person in dialog responds and says “we sat around and watched the grass grow.” Right behind that comment you will need to add a complimentary statement such as “those relaxing weekends are the best, that is outstanding you were able to do that.” In another conversation, you ask where someone is from and they indicate “Pawtucket.” You fire back a comment about what a great part of the country or pretty city that is Pawtucket.
The purpose of complimentary validation is simple. You are providing the acknowledgement that you were listening and, more importantly, you are providing the communication feedback that you want to hear more and are legitimately interested in the dialog. Using this skill will allow you to obtain far more information from a person than by using more traditional validation methods.
Listening is an important element in leadership communication that must be managed as actively as the rest of the communication cycle. Failure to engage good listening skills can have an adverse reaction in relationship management and the ability to communicate effectively in the future.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Friday, March 26, 2010
Monday, March 22, 2010
Monday Mentor Week 12-Self Regulation, Control and Discipline
The best definition of self control is resisting the urges to act and speak when not appropriate. This is about holding your emotions, your tongue and desire to behave when you know it is inappropriate or even when you have doubt on the appropriateness of the behavior.
One of the most important concepts for leaders to embrace is that of hot buttons. We all have them. They come in a lot of shapes, sizes and colors. Some even have the names of people attached to them. A hot button is any event, issue, subject, situation or person that will evoke a negative, sarcastic or edgy response from you. A person or event pushes the hot button and you react in an adverse manner.
A critical point about hot buttons is the transfer of power that occurs when pushed and a reaction occurs. The button pusher gains power and situational control when you react. You lose power by reacting to your button being pushed. They win. You lose.
Related to this phenomenon is the learning that occurs by the button pusher. Whoever pushed your button and you reacted will remember this event and return to that newly learned skill again and again. Those of us that are parents understand this circle well.
An effective leader must identify their personal hot buttons and do everything possible to not react when those buttons are pushed. That includes avoiding situations and people that push buttons and confronting button pushers directly and tell them to cease pressing your buttons. Remember, we condition others that button pushing is effective and we can also begin the process of reconditioning them to cease pressing.
One of the most common occurrences in management, leadership and supervision is over-emotionalism. Often labeled with the highly scientific and technical term of crack pot. Effective leadership and over-emotionalism do not work. A leader must be calm and cool in all situations and events and be level-headed in all interactions.
A crack pot leader will fly off the handle and become angry when things do not go his or her way. They often blame that on being passionate about their job but in reality these type of bosses are alienating their followers. They will reduce their approachability and actually have their team avoid any contact out of the fear of an angry reaction. When upset by an event or circumstances, you know it and deal with it by going for a walk, workout, take some time off or get some coffee. Anything to blow off your steam except to interact with your team.
When angry or disappointed it is also important to resist the urge to vent unless to a trusted friend, peer level leader or family member. Venting to a team member is never appropriate and credibility may be lost when venting to your boss.
Another symptom of the crack pot type leader is pouting. Hiding in the office. Avoiding all contact. Sullen and unapproachable. Often occurs when things don’t go quite right or when a leader has suffered a set back. Remember, your team looks to you for tone, optimism and hope and if you pout, you are telling them that things must really be bad.
As a sub-type of the crack pot type leader is the Chicken Little. You remember from either the childhood story or the Disney movie, Chicken Little is the predictor of the sky falling. Chicken Little predicts doom and gloom at every opportunity. As with the character, a leader that loses his or her calm when times are difficult will lose credibility.
Our team members look to us for calm and optimism in time of difficulty. They do not want a leader that commiserates and sees only the negative. They desperately want their leaders to pick them up and pull them through the difficulties.
The concept that we most often teach and coach is battlefield cool. This important leadership skill comes from the American civil war when the government forces under the direction of U. S. Grant camped a little too close to their Confederate adversaries. One particular morning, the command tent of General Grant was overwhelmed with cannon fire. The scene was chaotic and confusing. General Grant’s primary aide was decapitated.
General Grant’s response? To make a pot of coffee. He responded to the most hectic and desperate events by making coffee. When asked about this, he indicated there was plenty of time to withdraw and he was not going to be shaken by immediate events.
His troops response? To rally behind his battlefield calm and rout the Confederates that morning.
Poise under pressure and difficult circumstances is tough but it is a necessary competency of effective leaders.
One of the most important concepts for leaders to embrace is that of hot buttons. We all have them. They come in a lot of shapes, sizes and colors. Some even have the names of people attached to them. A hot button is any event, issue, subject, situation or person that will evoke a negative, sarcastic or edgy response from you. A person or event pushes the hot button and you react in an adverse manner.
A critical point about hot buttons is the transfer of power that occurs when pushed and a reaction occurs. The button pusher gains power and situational control when you react. You lose power by reacting to your button being pushed. They win. You lose.
Related to this phenomenon is the learning that occurs by the button pusher. Whoever pushed your button and you reacted will remember this event and return to that newly learned skill again and again. Those of us that are parents understand this circle well.
An effective leader must identify their personal hot buttons and do everything possible to not react when those buttons are pushed. That includes avoiding situations and people that push buttons and confronting button pushers directly and tell them to cease pressing your buttons. Remember, we condition others that button pushing is effective and we can also begin the process of reconditioning them to cease pressing.
One of the most common occurrences in management, leadership and supervision is over-emotionalism. Often labeled with the highly scientific and technical term of crack pot. Effective leadership and over-emotionalism do not work. A leader must be calm and cool in all situations and events and be level-headed in all interactions.
A crack pot leader will fly off the handle and become angry when things do not go his or her way. They often blame that on being passionate about their job but in reality these type of bosses are alienating their followers. They will reduce their approachability and actually have their team avoid any contact out of the fear of an angry reaction. When upset by an event or circumstances, you know it and deal with it by going for a walk, workout, take some time off or get some coffee. Anything to blow off your steam except to interact with your team.
When angry or disappointed it is also important to resist the urge to vent unless to a trusted friend, peer level leader or family member. Venting to a team member is never appropriate and credibility may be lost when venting to your boss.
Another symptom of the crack pot type leader is pouting. Hiding in the office. Avoiding all contact. Sullen and unapproachable. Often occurs when things don’t go quite right or when a leader has suffered a set back. Remember, your team looks to you for tone, optimism and hope and if you pout, you are telling them that things must really be bad.
As a sub-type of the crack pot type leader is the Chicken Little. You remember from either the childhood story or the Disney movie, Chicken Little is the predictor of the sky falling. Chicken Little predicts doom and gloom at every opportunity. As with the character, a leader that loses his or her calm when times are difficult will lose credibility.
Our team members look to us for calm and optimism in time of difficulty. They do not want a leader that commiserates and sees only the negative. They desperately want their leaders to pick them up and pull them through the difficulties.
The concept that we most often teach and coach is battlefield cool. This important leadership skill comes from the American civil war when the government forces under the direction of U. S. Grant camped a little too close to their Confederate adversaries. One particular morning, the command tent of General Grant was overwhelmed with cannon fire. The scene was chaotic and confusing. General Grant’s primary aide was decapitated.
General Grant’s response? To make a pot of coffee. He responded to the most hectic and desperate events by making coffee. When asked about this, he indicated there was plenty of time to withdraw and he was not going to be shaken by immediate events.
His troops response? To rally behind his battlefield calm and rout the Confederates that morning.
Poise under pressure and difficult circumstances is tough but it is a necessary competency of effective leaders.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
NYT-The Secret to Having Happy Employees
About 10 years ago I was having my annual holiday party, and my niece had come with her newly minted M.B.A. boyfriend. As he looked around the room, he noted that my employees seemed happy. I told him that I thought they were.
Then, figuring I would take his new degree for a test drive, I asked him how he thought I did that. "I'm sure you treat them well," he replied.
"That's half of it," I said. "Do you know what the other half is?"
Read the article at: http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=115335182&gid=2234494&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Ffinance%2Eyahoo%2Ecom%2Fcareer-work%2Farticle%2F109063%2Fthe-secret-to-having-happy-employees%3Fmod%3Dcareer-leadership&urlhash=qypA&trk=news_discuss
Then, figuring I would take his new degree for a test drive, I asked him how he thought I did that. "I'm sure you treat them well," he replied.
"That's half of it," I said. "Do you know what the other half is?"
Read the article at: http://www.linkedin.com/news?viewArticle=&articleID=115335182&gid=2234494&articleURL=http%3A%2F%2Ffinance%2Eyahoo%2Ecom%2Fcareer-work%2Farticle%2F109063%2Fthe-secret-to-having-happy-employees%3Fmod%3Dcareer-leadership&urlhash=qypA&trk=news_discuss
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 11-Postive Feedback: The Unchained Melody and Eligible Populations
Unchained Melody
One of the most important rules of coaching involves connecting positive and corrective feedback messages. This method has been used for years and even achieved a name: The Sandwich Method. This describes the abhorrent practice of placing corrective feedback between two pieces of positive feedback.
Nothing could be more ineffectual than combining or enjoining types of feedback. The self-critical will only remember the corrective piece. The halo effect types will only remember the positive feedback. At a bare minimum, the person receiving the feedback will be confused. “Did
I receive praise or did I get chewed out?”
The most common expression of chained feedback comes in the form of “you did a great job with that customer, but you needed to complete the order form in a more timely manner.” The big but. You can even see some team members expecting it. When they hear a piece of positive feedback, they wait for the other shoe to drop and hear the but statement.
The interesting part of this method is for whom it is designed. It certainly does not help provide a clear message to the team member receiving the feedback. It certainly doesn’t insure good spirit and the replication of great results from the person receiving the feedback. This method was designed for the ease of delivery from the person providing the coaching. Easy; yes. Effective; absolutely not.
Feedback needs to be delivered in separate event formats. If the performance was good, the team member receives positive feedback without chained conditions or comparisons. If the performance was not good, the team member receives corrective feedback without glossy coating. Positive feedback and corrective feedback. The two shall not be joined together.
Correctly so, some people have discussed performance where the bulk of the performance was good but there were legitimately some things the team members could have done better. This is a situation in which the leader must use some judgment and decide what type of feedback is most appropriate and what type of feedback could be better deferred to a teaching or mentoring type of session. When the bulk of the performance is positive, provide positive feedback and wait on any discussion of things that could be tuned or done better.
Eligible Populations-The Superstars
One of the bigger stigma points related to positive feedback is wrapped around the eligible populations and who receives it.
Most organizations, regardless of type and size, have between five and ten percent of their team members that are exceptional contributors. The “A” players. These are the people that consistently achieve more, work harder and generally aspire to higher responsibility levels. Not only do they receive positive feedback regularly, they often demand it. They are the team members that will often tell you what they have done well or the leader is well aware of their awesome performance.
One temptation to avoid is to take superstar type of performance for granted. Believing that these star players provide their own internal feedback or that more feedback for more good performance may spoil them will lead them down the path of “why bother.”
Eligible Populations-The Average Joe
Most organizations also have a large population of team members that are “just doing their job.” Nothing spectacular. No superstar status. Just doing what we need them to do. These team members are often the polarity of a working unit and are likely to be eighty to ninety percent of a total team population.
The epiphany question about this population is whether or not they are deserving of positive feedback. The simple answer to this is yes. The more complex answer is yes.
The population of standard performers is the population that is most at risk of leaving the organization because they are not appreciated, engaged or acknowledged. They toil away at what we need and ask of them but rarely hear from us unless something is wrong. This population is also at risk to deteriorate their performance to levels beyond acceptable.
The only way to encourage their continued contributions to organizational success is to provide them with the positive feedback earned from achieving their objectives.
Eligible Populations-The Problems
To complete the bell curve, we also have between five and ten percent of team members that perform below standard or are problematic on behavioral levels.
A typical pattern develops with these team members. After they have been coached, counseled and documented, supervisors and managers go out of their way to hyper-scrutinize their performance. Looking for additional mistakes, stumbles and failures. When found, more coaching, more discipline and more forms are engaged.
And that course of action has achieved what? Further disgruntled and detached team members. Team members that feel hopeless. Team members that become our biggest critics and are toxic in the working environment is what we are creating with this method.
Documentation and formal discipline has a place and need. It is necessary from a compliance perspective. It is necessary to show good faith and fairness. What it does not do is make someone a better or more successful team member.
With the same vigor that is used find more mistakes and issues, effective leaders go out of their way to provide positive feedback when a problem team member does something well. This technique will have a greater success rate than the continued hyper-scrutiny of a team member’s performance. Not a panacea with tough team members but another tool to use.
One of the most important rules of coaching involves connecting positive and corrective feedback messages. This method has been used for years and even achieved a name: The Sandwich Method. This describes the abhorrent practice of placing corrective feedback between two pieces of positive feedback.
Nothing could be more ineffectual than combining or enjoining types of feedback. The self-critical will only remember the corrective piece. The halo effect types will only remember the positive feedback. At a bare minimum, the person receiving the feedback will be confused. “Did
I receive praise or did I get chewed out?”
The most common expression of chained feedback comes in the form of “you did a great job with that customer, but you needed to complete the order form in a more timely manner.” The big but. You can even see some team members expecting it. When they hear a piece of positive feedback, they wait for the other shoe to drop and hear the but statement.
The interesting part of this method is for whom it is designed. It certainly does not help provide a clear message to the team member receiving the feedback. It certainly doesn’t insure good spirit and the replication of great results from the person receiving the feedback. This method was designed for the ease of delivery from the person providing the coaching. Easy; yes. Effective; absolutely not.
Feedback needs to be delivered in separate event formats. If the performance was good, the team member receives positive feedback without chained conditions or comparisons. If the performance was not good, the team member receives corrective feedback without glossy coating. Positive feedback and corrective feedback. The two shall not be joined together.
Correctly so, some people have discussed performance where the bulk of the performance was good but there were legitimately some things the team members could have done better. This is a situation in which the leader must use some judgment and decide what type of feedback is most appropriate and what type of feedback could be better deferred to a teaching or mentoring type of session. When the bulk of the performance is positive, provide positive feedback and wait on any discussion of things that could be tuned or done better.
Eligible Populations-The Superstars
One of the bigger stigma points related to positive feedback is wrapped around the eligible populations and who receives it.
Most organizations, regardless of type and size, have between five and ten percent of their team members that are exceptional contributors. The “A” players. These are the people that consistently achieve more, work harder and generally aspire to higher responsibility levels. Not only do they receive positive feedback regularly, they often demand it. They are the team members that will often tell you what they have done well or the leader is well aware of their awesome performance.
One temptation to avoid is to take superstar type of performance for granted. Believing that these star players provide their own internal feedback or that more feedback for more good performance may spoil them will lead them down the path of “why bother.”
Eligible Populations-The Average Joe
Most organizations also have a large population of team members that are “just doing their job.” Nothing spectacular. No superstar status. Just doing what we need them to do. These team members are often the polarity of a working unit and are likely to be eighty to ninety percent of a total team population.
The epiphany question about this population is whether or not they are deserving of positive feedback. The simple answer to this is yes. The more complex answer is yes.
The population of standard performers is the population that is most at risk of leaving the organization because they are not appreciated, engaged or acknowledged. They toil away at what we need and ask of them but rarely hear from us unless something is wrong. This population is also at risk to deteriorate their performance to levels beyond acceptable.
The only way to encourage their continued contributions to organizational success is to provide them with the positive feedback earned from achieving their objectives.
Eligible Populations-The Problems
To complete the bell curve, we also have between five and ten percent of team members that perform below standard or are problematic on behavioral levels.
A typical pattern develops with these team members. After they have been coached, counseled and documented, supervisors and managers go out of their way to hyper-scrutinize their performance. Looking for additional mistakes, stumbles and failures. When found, more coaching, more discipline and more forms are engaged.
And that course of action has achieved what? Further disgruntled and detached team members. Team members that feel hopeless. Team members that become our biggest critics and are toxic in the working environment is what we are creating with this method.
Documentation and formal discipline has a place and need. It is necessary from a compliance perspective. It is necessary to show good faith and fairness. What it does not do is make someone a better or more successful team member.
With the same vigor that is used find more mistakes and issues, effective leaders go out of their way to provide positive feedback when a problem team member does something well. This technique will have a greater success rate than the continued hyper-scrutiny of a team member’s performance. Not a panacea with tough team members but another tool to use.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Monday Mentor-Week 10-Ethics, Morality and Communicating Values
The high road in this commandment describes a commitment to and consistency with ethical behavior in the working environment. Even beyond the workplace, it is the application of value sets to daily decision making and interactions with the team being lead. It is also a core competency related to protecting the credibility of the leader.
First, a little background and contrast. Ethics are not morals. Morality is a very personal code of behavior that is individually owned. Morality has fluidity based on social and societal norms that change over time. Imagine for a minute the reaction to Brittney Spears if she appeared on the Ed Sullivan show in the 1960’s. Imagine the lack of reaction if Elvis Pressley appeared on TRL (this is an MTV show for my more experienced readers) and gyrated his pelvis. Society and media will tend to have influence on relative morality and how certain personal behaviors are accepted or not accepted.
Morality is also greatly influenced by upbringing, parents, other relatives of influence, religion, school and geographic region. The most unique aspect of morality is that it is owned solely by the individual. You own your moral values.
By contrast, ethics are a prescribed set of values that are owned by an organization or company. That entity, your employer, tells you what is ethical behavior and what is not ethical behavior. Some organizations do a better job of clarity and communication of these ethics than others but each organization has ethical coding.
When discussing ethics, the word prescribed becomes an important characteristic. If you go to a medical doctor with a hold, he or she prescribes a medication related to that illness and a medication that will, hopefully, cure that illness. Like that doctor visit, an ethical value is prescribed to a particular behavior in hopes of curing or eliminating that behavior. No organization has a crystal ball that will predict all future ethical lapses so they react to inappropriate behaviors by prescribing an ethical value.
To illustrate that point, imagine about ten years ago when internet access become widespread on every team member’s desktop. When an executive walked by someone’s screen and in horror discovered an employee viewing a less than appropriate image, internet use policy was born. The first company wide email inviting everyone over for a Tupperware party begat email use policy. Event occurs and the organization prescribes an ethical value.
Ethics also have another unique dynamic related to people. Ethics and ethical values are only as good as the people that operate within the organization. For every prescribed ethic, there may be a person trying to thwart the value and the system designed to track ethical behaviors. This means to be a truly ethical organization, values must be synchronized to the hiring and screening process of new team members.
Like morals, ethics have a variety of influences. The most common influence in ethics is the industry type. Highly regulated industries such as banking, utilities, public safety, engineering and insurance will often have a much more formal and rigid set of ethical values. They will also frequency have very elaborate systems in place for tracking and insuring compliance with those values. Other industry types often do not have the degree of formality or depth associated with ethics.
Other important influences include the senior leadership team of an organization and their commitment to ethical practices and their personal value set. This influence is most important when it comes to the enforcement of ethical codes and the consistency in which ethical violations are handled. Senior leaders without strong ethical commitments will often make inconsistent judgments related to a violation or even look the other way in certain circumstances while those senior leaders with high ethical commitment will be consistent in judgment and constant in their vigilance.
The bottom line is that you own your morality and the company or organization owns and prescribes the ethical behavior.
Communicating Ethical Values
To any organization and any leader, the biggest challenge in ethics is in clearly and consistently communicating values.
The best run organizations with the highest commitment to ethics use a multi-tiered approach. The first step is the creation of core organizational values. These values become the foundation for all future ethical polices and statements. Usually somewhere between five and ten value statements are enough to describe what is important to the organization and not too voluminous so team members cannot lock onto some key aspects of them. Value statements need to be written and documented in a very simple and straight-forward manner. Use action statements and highlight the most significant word in the statement.
Behind core values is the creation, implementation and enforcement of a code of conduct. A code of conduct is a more detailed listing of both required and prohibited behaviors for all team members. Typically, this is a pretty fluid listing and it is revisited and updated often. An often overlooked dynamic is that an organization can use multiple levels of a code of conduct. There can be one for the entire company and others at department and division levels based on their unique needs or business practices. When the multiple tier approach is used, it is important to make sure the lower tier conduct rules are as strong or stronger than the higher level or corporate level rules.
A key element with a code of conduct is communicating the rules to all team members on a regular basis. Twice a year with an acknowledgement of understanding is a good rule of thumb. For team members to embrace these ethical standards, they must see them regularly.
This next little part is tough to talk about. One of the best ways to communicate and reinforce ethical values with team members is when a team member is terminated or aggressively disciplined for a violation. The myth of secrecy regarding these events is just that. Depending on the organization, within days, hours or minutes, most team members will hear the story of how someone was fired for insubordination. The flow of this story and team talk about it will often serve as important reminders about the importance of ethical conduct.
By contrast, the message sent when it is widely known that someone “got let off the hook” in reference to an ethical lapse is also powerful. The exceptions granted and the leniency given will also tell team members how serious you and your organization regard company ethics.
The most important method of communicating ethical rules to team members is through the example provided by company leadership. Including you, all supervisors, managers and executives, how you “walk the talk” is more powerful than value statements, codes of conduct or policies. Your, and all leader’s, examples are the best method of communicating the commitment to ethics.
First, a little background and contrast. Ethics are not morals. Morality is a very personal code of behavior that is individually owned. Morality has fluidity based on social and societal norms that change over time. Imagine for a minute the reaction to Brittney Spears if she appeared on the Ed Sullivan show in the 1960’s. Imagine the lack of reaction if Elvis Pressley appeared on TRL (this is an MTV show for my more experienced readers) and gyrated his pelvis. Society and media will tend to have influence on relative morality and how certain personal behaviors are accepted or not accepted.
Morality is also greatly influenced by upbringing, parents, other relatives of influence, religion, school and geographic region. The most unique aspect of morality is that it is owned solely by the individual. You own your moral values.
By contrast, ethics are a prescribed set of values that are owned by an organization or company. That entity, your employer, tells you what is ethical behavior and what is not ethical behavior. Some organizations do a better job of clarity and communication of these ethics than others but each organization has ethical coding.
When discussing ethics, the word prescribed becomes an important characteristic. If you go to a medical doctor with a hold, he or she prescribes a medication related to that illness and a medication that will, hopefully, cure that illness. Like that doctor visit, an ethical value is prescribed to a particular behavior in hopes of curing or eliminating that behavior. No organization has a crystal ball that will predict all future ethical lapses so they react to inappropriate behaviors by prescribing an ethical value.
To illustrate that point, imagine about ten years ago when internet access become widespread on every team member’s desktop. When an executive walked by someone’s screen and in horror discovered an employee viewing a less than appropriate image, internet use policy was born. The first company wide email inviting everyone over for a Tupperware party begat email use policy. Event occurs and the organization prescribes an ethical value.
Ethics also have another unique dynamic related to people. Ethics and ethical values are only as good as the people that operate within the organization. For every prescribed ethic, there may be a person trying to thwart the value and the system designed to track ethical behaviors. This means to be a truly ethical organization, values must be synchronized to the hiring and screening process of new team members.
Like morals, ethics have a variety of influences. The most common influence in ethics is the industry type. Highly regulated industries such as banking, utilities, public safety, engineering and insurance will often have a much more formal and rigid set of ethical values. They will also frequency have very elaborate systems in place for tracking and insuring compliance with those values. Other industry types often do not have the degree of formality or depth associated with ethics.
Other important influences include the senior leadership team of an organization and their commitment to ethical practices and their personal value set. This influence is most important when it comes to the enforcement of ethical codes and the consistency in which ethical violations are handled. Senior leaders without strong ethical commitments will often make inconsistent judgments related to a violation or even look the other way in certain circumstances while those senior leaders with high ethical commitment will be consistent in judgment and constant in their vigilance.
The bottom line is that you own your morality and the company or organization owns and prescribes the ethical behavior.
Communicating Ethical Values
To any organization and any leader, the biggest challenge in ethics is in clearly and consistently communicating values.
The best run organizations with the highest commitment to ethics use a multi-tiered approach. The first step is the creation of core organizational values. These values become the foundation for all future ethical polices and statements. Usually somewhere between five and ten value statements are enough to describe what is important to the organization and not too voluminous so team members cannot lock onto some key aspects of them. Value statements need to be written and documented in a very simple and straight-forward manner. Use action statements and highlight the most significant word in the statement.
Behind core values is the creation, implementation and enforcement of a code of conduct. A code of conduct is a more detailed listing of both required and prohibited behaviors for all team members. Typically, this is a pretty fluid listing and it is revisited and updated often. An often overlooked dynamic is that an organization can use multiple levels of a code of conduct. There can be one for the entire company and others at department and division levels based on their unique needs or business practices. When the multiple tier approach is used, it is important to make sure the lower tier conduct rules are as strong or stronger than the higher level or corporate level rules.
A key element with a code of conduct is communicating the rules to all team members on a regular basis. Twice a year with an acknowledgement of understanding is a good rule of thumb. For team members to embrace these ethical standards, they must see them regularly.
This next little part is tough to talk about. One of the best ways to communicate and reinforce ethical values with team members is when a team member is terminated or aggressively disciplined for a violation. The myth of secrecy regarding these events is just that. Depending on the organization, within days, hours or minutes, most team members will hear the story of how someone was fired for insubordination. The flow of this story and team talk about it will often serve as important reminders about the importance of ethical conduct.
By contrast, the message sent when it is widely known that someone “got let off the hook” in reference to an ethical lapse is also powerful. The exceptions granted and the leniency given will also tell team members how serious you and your organization regard company ethics.
The most important method of communicating ethical rules to team members is through the example provided by company leadership. Including you, all supervisors, managers and executives, how you “walk the talk” is more powerful than value statements, codes of conduct or policies. Your, and all leader’s, examples are the best method of communicating the commitment to ethics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
