THE TROUBLE WITH ACCEPTING BAD BEHAVIOR

Have you ever noticed that people tend to blame others much more frequently than they accept blame when something goes wrong?  Our children do it ("It was not my fault!"), our employees do it ("I could have had it finished if only I had received it on time from..."), and we often even do it ourselves ("Had I done it by myself it would have been finished long ago…").  Blaming is easy.  One must only open his or her mouth, shoot off a couple of random statements that shift responsibility to another, then sit back and keep out of the crossfire.  While blame can be deferred, however, it does not change the fact that someone did (or did not do) something that derailed a project, process or activity.  Unless (or until) we address or correct the behavior it will most likely continue to happen – each time becoming more acceptable than the last.  Unless (and until) we address the behavior (action or decision) that leads one to produce poorly we will never rise above the obstacles that surround us. 

Learning from the mistakes of others is easy (since there is no personal pain from their thwarted gain).  Assuming accountability for our own shortcomings or failures is far more difficult.  Though most people would say it is ridiculous to think that one would subject themselves to the added pressure of constantly assuming another's mistakes, think about the way that our culture has evolved.  We come to the rescue of those in need.  We try to create an “equal playing field” whenever possible.  We reward effort rather than results.  We provide limitless opportunity to succeed while sheltering, buffering or protecting from failure.  How can we expect to instill a degree of accountability into others when we are unwilling to implement the “effects” that should be a direct result of their “causes?” 

We teach to the masses, trying to bring all to a defined level of competency rather than pushing those capable of more to their maximum potential.  Rather than grouping kids by learning (and achievement) levels, classrooms are "blended to better reflect the environment that will be experienced in real life."  We make sure that kids are SOCIALLY adjusted - but at what cost?  Why be the "good kid" when those creating havoc are the ones receiving all the attention?  Why do we reward "improvement" or “effort” rather than "achievement?"  Do our extreme inclusive and recognition efforts encourage good behavior or reward bad?  Think about the ramifications of our actions - who gets most of your time and attention?  Do you spend more time with those doing all that is expected or the one needing constant attention and continuous reminders as to what needs doing next?  Our continuous excusing of bad behavior (or accepting a marginal result) is possibly the worst behavior we could display – and it seems to run rampant in the name of equality (rather than equity), living wages (rather than competitive market rates),  and relative worth (rather than absolute value).

We tend to reward bad behavior in business, too.  Sometimes individuals rise to their highest level of incompetence unless we are willing to identify and address inadequacies along the way.  I once knew an employee who had excellent technical skills but could not supervise people.  Rather than providing him with the tools needed to perform his job then holding him accountable for his performance, he was promoted into an upper management position so the company could retain his knowledge of the industry but “insulate him from making daily supervisory mistakes.”  Failing to evaluate performance honestly – not communicating expectations and establishing consequences – often allows a person to rise within an organization by moving from one frustrated supervisor to the next.  Though we may not intentionally reward someone for acting poorly, accepting the results of negative behavior without consequences unintentionally validates the poor behavior being displayed.  Supervisors often look the other way when employees make mistakes but very few employees (or people) will initiate behavioral change without first feeling a little pain of reproach – a conundrum created by silent acceptance of inadequate behavior.

Everyone has rules designed to control actions, increase productivity or quality, reduce losses or provide a safe, socially acceptable environment in which to work.  When writing or implementing rules, however, we should identify the intent or behavioral change expected.  Before publishing the restriction, consider the “why” of a rule more than what the rule says (allows or disallows).  Should a rule violation occur, we must address inappropriate or unacceptable behavior, point out what was done wrong AND detail how it could have been done correctly.  In addressing an unacceptable result we must not minimize the individual responsible but cannot excuse bad behavior but rather should embrace the learning that comes from making mistakes.  We must allow individuals to recognize and acknowledge the obstacles that stand between where they are and where they wish to be – and to address them (rather than simply moving around them).  Pure avoidance rarely results in lasting change – the very action you wished altered often reinforced when there are no consequences.

Nobody can stand up without first falling down nor run without first walking.  Why do we expect more from people in a work situation than is necessary to live and grow?  When actions are overly regulated, we penalize individuals making a mistake by removing their opportunity to change – to learn from failure.  Rather than being a part of the problem, address the negative actions of others (in a positive way) to become a major factor in the implementation of a solution.  Learn from personal failure while remaining tolerant of shortcomings.  We tend to receive no more than we expect and achieve no more than we believe possible.  When we accept poor behavior (and its resulting poor performance), how can we ever expect to achieve greatness? 

Identify inappropriate actions, correct them, then monitor the resultant changed behavior to make sure a mistake becomes “the exception” rather than the “rule.”  People can learn from their mistakes and move forward ONLY if they are constructively confronted when the behavior occurs (AND their actions or results addressed appropriately should the behavior not change).

Are MANAGEMENT and LEADERSHIP Synonymous?

Management is the ability to transform one person’s talents into performance.  Good managers identify each individual’s unique talents and abilities.  They treat people EQUITABLY rather than EQUALLY – determining what is best for them based on their abilities and how they can contribute most rather than assuming all should receive equal benefits even if they do not add similar value.  Good managers define and communicate expectations, then assign tasks to persons having the greatest potential for success – giving them the ability to act independently and the right to assume responsibility for results. 

Experienced managers leverage individual talent and experience towards the successful accomplishment of organizational goals and objectives – identifying existing abilities and maximizing contributions by assigning duties and managing priorities RATHER THAN focusing on training individuals to “fix” their shortcomings.  While training is critical and often necessary, it should not be seen as the “ends” but rather as the “means.” Recognizing that all employees contribute differently, and accepting that individual contributions are a necessary part of success, helps to define a great manager.  A good manager might try to elevate all employees to their highest potential.  A great manager will utilize an employee’s inherent ability to accomplish great things.  Should employees need additional training, a great manager will know how each employee learns best and set up programs that cater to individual needs and differences. 

Leadership is moving people (as opposed to individuals) towards a common good – rallying the team to accomplish great things together rather than capitalizing on an individual’s existing talent.  A leader needs to be eternally optimistic – knowing that people working together will eventually accomplish things better and more easily than those working alone.  Great leaders make employees feel that anything is possible – that no mountain is too high to climb and no valley too deep to enter – by “showing the way” rather than providing tools for them to move forward by themselves.  Leaders demonstrate what must be done and accomplished rather than by telling them and staying out of the way. 

Leaders motivate through actions rather than through words and assignments as they join in to make sure the team accomplishes things as a cohesive and collaborative body rather than as a group of talented individuals.  Great leaders communicate clearly by defining expectations and focusing on anticipated results as they motivate individuals to work with others to maximize the impact of their group’s efforts.  Leaders live their words through their actions.  Effective leaders are able to identify individual potential that can be nurtured and melded into a great functioning team.  Should a team need additional training, great leaders would develop programs to teach skills that will benefit the organization rather than strengthening individual talents that already exist within the team.

Are you a Manager or a Leader?  Far too often we see problems caused by well-intentioned supervisors managing when they should lead OR trying to lead when times call for strong management.  A strong MANAGER tends to accomplish specific things more quickly.  Tasks are clearly identified, people having proven abilities are assigned to accomplish them, and results are expected immediately.  A strong LEADER will pull others towards outcomes rather than pushing them towards pre-defined destinations.  A leader will draw others forward using a carrot while a manager may tend to carry (and liberally apply) a stick.  Both styles are necessary (at times) in order for organizations (OR relationships) to thrive BUT there is a time and a place for each.  Choose your “time and place” wisely to help maximize the results your group can achieve!

INTROVERTED MANAGEMENT - SILENCE OF THE LAMB CAN BRING POWER TO THE PEOPLE

Some would suggest that one must be an extrovert to be a good manager – that one must be heard (clearly and frequently) to be followed.  We often think that highly effective managers must be able to speak flawlessly (and persuasively) to crowds or mingle effortlessly at events with public officials and other executives.  Extroverts having KNOWLEDGE, EXPERIENCE AND ABILITY are able to mobilize individuals to follow them when they step into the spotlight but introverts often become excellent (and highly respected) leaders if they can overcome the tendency to hide (or downplay) their strengths.

During my 25 years of promoting operational excellence and business sustainability through the efforts of The Employers’ Association, I have met a number of successful leaders who are successful, universally admired and respected.  Many of the better leaders have been more “introverted” than “extroverted” in their actions, communications and ways they influence those around them.  Though extroverts can often motivate individuals with ease and inspire them to do things they might not have otherwise considered, some extremely introverted individuals have become excellent leaders when they exhibit basic characteristics not typically associated with extroverts.  These tendencies would include:

• Introverts are often deliberate and measured in their responses to situations.  This does not mean they are slow (many process things quickly) but rather that they have considered the “pros and cons” of most decisions and formulated several alternative courses of action should their initial direction prove untenable.  They are not prone to bursts of temper or extreme reactions as they are more thoughtful in how they sift through and process information – rarely acting until they know (or have considered) what might happen should they act.  Introverts respond strategically to most situations rather than emotionally – establishing trust and confidence in those that choose to follow their lead.
• Introverts are analytical in their thought processes – experts at finding their way through reams of data quickly and reaching the core of the matter.   Subdued in words and actions (allowing more time to be spent “thinking” than “acting”), introverts are surprisingly decisive – any perceived delays in action being caused by an introvert’s need to view issues from all sides rather than their fear of acting to resolve issues.
• Introverted leaders are good listeners.  Being naturally quiet, they let others do most of the talking BUT listen closely to everything said around them.  Being deliberate and intentional in their actions, introverts act on what they hear after filtering “what will work” from “what will not” so their decisions are likely to be accepted by “the team” rather than rejected as being a “top-down” proclamation.  
• Introverts are naturally risk averse – a critical management function in avoiding potentially disastrous risk.   While new ideas, products or services must be considered when charting an organization’s future, the ramifications of intentionally changing a product, process or service must be anticipated
  
  (and alternative directions be developed) should “our worst nightmare” come true.  Being “risk averse” helps to minimize nightmares but to remain “as we are” insures nothing but certain death. While we must change to grow, we must take risk wisely when others depend on the decisions we make (or choose not to make).
• Introverted leaders often become the voice of reason within any situation or environment.  While an introvert’s voice is not typically loudest, it often becomes the one to which most listen.  Influenced more by rationality than charisma, an introverted leader is “heard” because people know something reasonable is being said in a rational and thoughtful way.

To be successful as an introvert in management, you have to be willing to force yourself out of your comfort zone. (I can speak from experience on this factor.  A Board member once told me I would have to become more involved in the community if I were to lead this organization.  Having served on more than twenty Boards and/or committees – typically 12 to 15 at any given time – I thank (or blame) this Director for his wisdom!)  An introverted leader must be willing to make him- or herself get up and speak in front of people, run large and contentious meetings, and wade into interpersonal conflict when their natural inclination might be to go home and read a good book or be “an island” rather than a part of a larger society.

While extroverted individuals are often thought to be the best leaders (perhaps because they proclaim themselves as such), many qualities that make people more “introverted” are exhibited by great leaders. Listening before acting, analyzing before deciding and determining direction on the magnitude of risk (rather than the aversion of it) are characteristics of an introvert – AND of a great leader.  Perhaps at no time in history has it been truer than today that we can become anything that we would like – regardless of our natural tendencies or reactions to things – as long as we take intentional action and “own” our failures (as well as our successes) while we act to decide by deciding to act.