The Conflict Avoiding Manager

As a manager are you uncomfortable with giving negative feedback to employees? Do you always seem to find a way to delay, distort or “water down” negative feedback? Do you always give the employee the benefit of the doubt? It is more common than you may think but ignoring serious signs of poor employee performance can be very damaging to the business, employee and your reputation as manager. This is particularly so when the problem areas remain uncorrected for long periods of time.

Surveys suggest that over 60% of employees claim that their managers do not provide regular performance feedback. Many organisations have an annual performance review process but the long time lag between receiving feedback can result in the employee having difficulty in connecting the feedback with the so-called poor performance. Any benefit of a performance review process may be negated by the conflict avoiding manager in any case because they will not provide accurate, albeit negative feedback. A common outcome of this feedback gap is that the employee’s perception of their own performance is far removed from that of the manager.

There may be a number of drivers for a conflict avoiding manager. 

• The manager might see the performance problems as temporary and will simply resolve themselves. Why confront the employee if the problem will go away soon?
• The manager is led to believe that the poor performing employee has little control over their performance. 
• The manager easily accepts an employee’s excuses for failure or poor performance as a way to avoid providing negative feedback. 
• The manager believes that the employee will react defensively to negative feedback. 
• The employee’s self esteem and self efficacy may be threatened by the negative feedback. 
• The manager has a “nurturing” style of leadership and desires to be supportive regardless of the facts. 
• The manager has a strong need for approval of the employees.

Strategies for the conflict avoiding manager

1. Understand the employee’s use of self-serving bias.

2. Understand all potential causes of poor performance.

3. Increase psychological distance to gain objectivity.

4. Practice active listening and let the employee control the dialogue.

5. Understand that negative feedback can be non-threatening.

6. Give negative feedback in a timely manner so the employee can make the connection. Always give negative feedback privately.

7. Maintain a learning mindset.

8. Make use of a rehearsed script to reduce discomfort levels.

9. Follow the “DASR” framework (describe, acknowledge, specify, reaffirm)

10. It’s all about ownership.

The DASR plan in particular is very useful for the conflict avoiding manager. It is a framework often seen in management programs and also used for family counselling. This feedback strategy will provide the manager a script which will assist to reduce the discomfort in providing negative feedback. An example of how is works is as follows.

Describe – You are consistently failing to return reports to me by the due date.

Acknowledge – This is very frustrating for me as I need to provide collated reports to our client.

Specify – I would really appreciate it if you could provide all reports to me by the due date.

Reaffirm – You are an important member of our team and I need your valued input to ensure our reports of a high standard.

The views expressed in this post are those of the author and do not reflect those of other individuals or organisations.

Tony Grima

Adaptive Leadership

Business is rarely static and organisations often find themselves in a state of perpetual adaptation in order to survive and succeed in challenging environments. With shifting markets, increased competition, new technologies and changing employee expectations, many leaders are struggling to find a fixed point on which to aim. It is not so much the case that business fundamental objectives have changed. As an example, organisations still pursue shareholder returns or increased market share and profitability. Rather, the way to achieve those goals are changing and managers are failing to adapt and effectively execute. In the face of these new challenges we increasingly see organisations restating their corporate values, redesigning their strategy, and merging, divesting or acquiring businesses. Unfortunately, efforts to transform a business through these actions may falter because leaders fail to understand the requirements of adaptive work. What is also often misunderstood is that the company culture, HR practices and organisational structure may present a hurdle to effective adaptive change. The solutions to these problems do not reside in the executive suite. Rather the solution requires the involvement and collective intelligence of people at all levels of the organisation. Leaders who will thrive in this environment are invariably exceptional change managers who have a natural contingency style of management. They are leaders who are able to mobilise their employees and change their behaviour in order to meet new business challenges. Why is it that so many senior managers struggle with adaptive work? One explanation may be that senior managers have reached their position due to their competence in taking responsibility and solving problems. They tend to take a technical approach and believe problems can be solved by systems or processes or simply giving directives. When an organisation faces an adaptive challenge the responsibility for problem solving must shift to its people.

There are six principles to lead adaptive work (Heifetz, 1994)

1. Get on the balcony – Don’t get tied up in the nuts and bolts or daily churn of the business. Try and keep a higher view to maintain the appropriate perspective.
2. Identify your adaptive challenge
3. Regulate distress – Let employees debate issues and clarify assumptions behind competing views. Provide direction, define key issues and control the rate of change. Maintain just enough tension to resist the pressure to restore the status quo. Knock employees out of their comfort zone and then manage the distress.
4. Maintain disciplined focus – Encourage managers to grapple with tough issues. Widen the debate to unlock conflict which can often drive effective solutions.
5. Give the work back to the employees – Support rather than control people. Encourage risk-taking, ownership and responsibility but back your people when they make mistakes. Your employees have the solutions. Get out of their way and they will often surprise you.
6. Protect leadership voices from below – Don’t silence or ignore whistle-blowers, creative deviants or others exposing flaws or contradictions within your organisation. Their thinking can provoke fresh thinking

Often leaders when faced with a change challenge fail to identify the adaptive dimensions. They believe all problems can be solved with a new system or process. They don’t ask themselves, who needs to learn what in order to develop, understand, commit to and implement the change. They fail to identify the adaptive work and involve the employees who have to do the changing.

Tony Grima

All views expressed in this post are those of the author and do not represent the views of other individuals or organisations.

Is in-house service delivery back in favour?

 It is common practice for facilities management organizations to outsource various services to a pool of contractors. The FM company’s role is essentially that of contract management and ensuring deliverables meet client and contractual obligations. The collectively held belief is that outsourcing increases innovation, reduces administration, reduces risk and delivers cost savings due to leveraging economies of scale and scope and competitive tension. To outsource or not has always come down to a matter of transactional cost and core capabilities. If there is another company that can provide a service more efficiently or cost effective than your organization, it should be considered.

The logic behind the outsourcing approach doesn’t require further explanation, but are we starting to see a change in thinking? Evidence would suggest that this may be the case. The argument against outsourcing has related to strategic reasons, protecting valuable and sensitive information, losing control on performance and quality, losing core expertise and general principal/agent issues.  These disadvantages of outsourcing are valid but until now have been considered of less relevance as they did not represent value directly to the client. Due to various market forces impacting the industry, facilities management organizations will start to rethink their position and we will start to see a shift (or partial shift) to in-house service delivery models. Let’s consider some factors which could be driving this change.

Facilities Managers have long been under pressure to continually deliver cost savings and greater value to the client. The outsourcing model has always purported to reduce cost but the balance is now shifting.  One problem has been that total cost (direct and indirect) is often poorly understood and under reported, and the assumption that outsourcing is ‘always’ cost effective not necessarily correct. This problem is not new so why is it gaining traction now? A possible answer could be that many facilities managers today are simply better educated. Increasingly, we are now seeing FMs with formal business qualifications in addition to technical skills. This in turn is bringing much stronger commercial rigor to decisions made and strategies implemented. In addition, new asset management software is providing facilities managers the ability to better analyse and compare various delivery models.

As a means to explain possible cost savings from an in-house delivery model consider the following scenario. A facilities management company has many different contracts comprising of multiple sites over a large geographical area. Each contract outsources to different contractors and the contractors often pass each other in the same town or region servicing clients common to the FM Company. In this scenario there is obviously a high degree of replication.  As an example consider the preventative maintenance activity of testing emergency and exit lighting. An in-house electrician could provide this service across multiply contracts within the same town or region. Genuine savings could be achieved through sharing operational cost across all contracts. This approach would not be applicable in every situation but it certainly warrants closer investigation.

Another risk presented by outsourcing is reverse competition. Facilities management organizations today position themselves as the middle man between the client and the contractors. As most services are outsourced their function is to manage the delivery of a contract and allow the client to focus on their core business. This strategy now represents risk because management services can be replicated and it is difficult to gain any significant competitive advantage or clear point of differentiation. Contractors are starting to approach clients directly with the promise of savings if they just cut out the middle man. Larger contractors with the available resources are now looking to expand their business to include facilities management and I know of several cases recently where contractors have tendered against incumbent facilities management companies. These tendering contractors may already have strong knowledge of the client’s assets because they had been provided work by the very FM company they are now tendering against. This situation represents a significant risk because the barrier to new entrants and switching cost is reasonably low.

A final factor that may support an in-house delivery model is quality control. Monitoring and controlling contractor performance can represent a significant cost and drain on limited resources. This is particularly so where there are multiple sites across large geographical areas. Many facilities managers concede that the outsourcing model is rarely completely successful in delivering a service to expectations. An ever present issue is what is known as the principal-agent problem. This problem occurs because a contractor (agent) is able to take actions or behave in a way which impacts the facilities manager (principal). There may be situations where the contractor is motivated to act in their own interest rather than those of the facilities manager and this problem has the potential to arise in almost any context where one party is being paid by another to do something. This may particularly apply to activities which are important to the principal but are costly to the agent. Furthermore, what further underpins the principal-agent dilemma is the problem of asymmetric information where the agent has far more information about client assets than the principal. The FM sometimes just doesn’t know what they don’t know! This by no means should be taken as a sweeping statement against contractors and there are many good examples of the FM-contractor partnership working. It is simply a factor among many which may be driving new support for in-house delivery models. Good contractors would be aware of this potential risk to their business and ensure there is adequate visibility and engagement with the FM.

When considering outsourcing or in-house delivery models there is unlikely to be a one size fits all. Much will depend on the contract, number of sites and area of operation. I anticipate that FM organizations will continue to outsource where appropriate but will also elect to bring specific services or task back in house.

Tony Grima

The Importance of Asset Registers in Facilities Management

 Facilities Managers today have far greater opportunity to add value to their organisation and client through efficient management and strategic planning. Increasingly, we are seeing facilities management professionals given a seat at the executive table when business models and strategies are formulated. This has not always been the case and in the past FM activities were viewed as a business cost rather than adding business value. A key driver of this change has been technology and software platforms which allow FMs to present information in a strategic way to business leaders and decision makers. The utilisation of software packages has evolved rapidly over the last several years and integrated facilities management systems and building information modeling (BIM) will continue to be buzz words in the FM space.

The backbone, and indeed the strength or weakness of any facilities management software package is the information fed into it. A common problem faced by Facilities Managers is inaccurate or incomplete asset registers. With increasing demand for facilities management to be more strategic, appropriately managed asset registers are an invaluable source of information. It could be argued that a well maintained asset register is the bedrock on which a quality total asset management process is built and further developed. The challenge for FM professionals is ensuring they are always working from “one version of the truth”.

Key information which feed into an asset register and link to facilities management strategy plans are as follows.

• Asset management, strategy and planning
• Procurement
• Maintenance history and expenditures
• Capital works
• Condition assessment
• Compliance
• Asset disposal
• Life-cycle replacement
• Reporting and analysis

An example of the useful information captured in asset registers which shape FM decisions are;

• What are the assets, plant and equipment?
• What condition are they in?
• Physical properties.
• Technical data.
• Property title details.
• Maintenance and service history.
• Performance and reporting.
• Benchmarking.
• Compliance and regulatory requirements.
• Warranty information.
• What maintenance strategy is required in alignment with available budgets and funding?
• Is the service level agreement (SLA) appropriate?
• What is the right service delivery mix – PMs vs. RMs.?
• Data to drive whole- of –life (WOL) and life-cycle-replacement (LCR)decisions
• What FM structure and resources are required to deliver on contractual obligations and client expectations?
• Maintenance expenditure, forecast and planning.
• Financial information useful for investment and purchasing decisions such as NPV, IRR, lease or buy and disposal.

Developing the Asset Register

The main stages in developing an asset register

Analysing requirements – It is important to understand the needs of the client and what information is required. Collecting data can be very expensive and a drain on limited resources. Facilities Managers must determine the right balance on what information is really needed and is likely to provide real value to the client. As a guide there are three general data sets required as a basis for an asset register.

1. Management reporting
2. Planning information
3. Operations management

Developing solutions – Finding the best options, what are the appropriate technologies, data collection and storage methods, ease of operator use, ongoing system maintenance and cost.

Plan the asset register – An asset register can be in a number of different models, formats and asset hierarchy depending on requirements.

1. Unified composite – Small organisations, geographical separation, centralised management and one data base.
2. Segmented autonomous – Larger organisations with individual business centres, segmented on a geographical basis, provides focus on individual services and asset groups.
3. Umbrella integration – Spans more than one register or data warehouse, multi-disciplinary structures or organisations with consolidated reporting responsibilities.
4. Hierarchy – system, sub-system, facilities, components and sub-components.

Implementing the register and solutions – Despite a strong focus on analysis, development and planning, implementation is where it can fall down if not done well.

1. Assign a program leader.
2. Agree on timeframes, milestones etc.
3. Agreed naming conventions, knowledge management process.
4. IT compatibility.
5. Data cleanse and transfer.
6. Managing risk.
7. Change management.
8. Access and usability.
9. Training.

Monitor and continuous improvement – Implement a continuous improvement process to ensure accuracy and relevance of collected data. “One version of the truth”

Tying it all together

FM   Strategies	Asset   Register	FM   Challenges
Strategic facilities   Planning Strategic   asset management Space   planning and workplace strategies Facilities   support services Asset   maintenance plan Performance   and reporting	High   quality decision making Builds the   knowledge pool Drives   innovation, learning and solutions Governance Integrated   planning	Monitoring   and control Contracts   management Scope   creep Evaluation   and selection of service providers Contractor   management Budget and   funding constraints Evaluation   of added value

Tony Grima

 

 

Whole-of-life asset management – Is it relevant?

As managers responsible for the maintenance of facilities and assets, we often hear the term whole-of-life. When referring to WOL we are essentially talking about the total cost of ownership over the anticipated life of the asset, and the impact that may have on formulating an asset management strategy. We are not just referring to the direct maintenance cost but also cost relating to financing, planning, design, installation, environmental, management and disposal. The logic behind whole-of-life cost analysis is sound and its influence on good decision-making and value to the client cannot be argued. Why then is this asset management strategy rarely implemented successfully? It is a complaint I often hear in industry circles and it would seem that clients are increasingly asking for more than a simple preventative and reactive maintenance approach.

But is this always the fault of the facilities or asset manager? For a WOL maintenance program to work certain things need to remain constant throughout the life of the asset. As an example, we need the client’s attitude to maintenance and the maintenance budget to remain unchanged. We also need to start with a base of all assets having being maintained to a standard of industry best practice and we need terms and conditions of a maintenance contract to support a WOL approach. Expanding further on my last point, I have managed maintenance contracts which call on maintenance cost and fees to reduce year on year. This can only work if the contract starts with all assets being up to standard and ongoing maintenance at industry best practice. An incoming facilities management firm with a WOL program in mind and the responsibility of deteriorating and poorly maintained assets would first need to convince the client to spend significant short-term sums to bring their assets up to a certain standard in order to capture long-term savings. In today’s climate that would be a difficult challenge. In addition, if quality and accurate asset condition data has not been kept then there is no solid platform on which to base a WOL program.

The other constant required mention above is the client’s attitude to the maintenance budget.  When revenues are down and financial managers are tasked with reducing business cost then maintenance budgets are often the first to be cut. This is especially true when the assets are not integral to the client’s core business. This is a short-sighted response which while helping to solve  immediate cash flow and profitability issues will certainly see reactive spend increase and reduced reliability and availability of the asset. In this environment WOL programs lose traction and the end result will be far higher long-term maintenance cost.

Tony Grima

Team dynamics and life cycle

                                                 

 I was flicking through channels on the TV recently and came cross the reality show “Big Brother”. It was interesting    to note the various individual behaviours and interactions within the group and it got me thinking about groups in a business setting. If you are managing teams it is important to understand that people behave differently in groups from the way they behave individually. Some of the dynamics you will need to address are team conflict, cohesiveness, creative tension, groupthink, group norms, homogeneity, heterogeneity, size and life cycle.

If you were to watch “Big Brother” over the entire series you would no doubt note changes with the group dynamics over time. This is not unusual and is also seen in teams or groups within the business environment. A framework to describe the life cycle of groups and teams was described by Tuckman and Jensen in 1977. The framework was based on observations by the authors of what happens in groups or teams who are thrown together for a period of time. The suggestion is made that groups may not work together well unless sufficient time is given to each stage and team members need to become comfortable with each other.

The Group life cycle

1.      Stage 1 – Forming – When a new group is put together the first things members do is get acquainted and sense the position of others. They may also test boundaries and define goals. In this early stage the “real” personality of the individual is not on show. Feelings are often suppressed and no hostility shown. Cultural perceptions and differences also play a role at this stage.

2.      Stage 2 – Storming – The ego starts to emerge and self-promotion begins. You may start to see positioning in the pecking order and conflict as individuals battle for power and influence within the group. Personality, culture, values etc are drivers and some people may withdraw and avoid conflict while others may actively engage in it. Managing the changing dynamic at this stage is crucial if the group or team is to be successful and achieve their business goals.

3.      Stage 3 – Norming – After the initial turmoil of stage 2, you may note the emergence of codes of behaviour. Theses codes clarify what is acceptable and unacceptable and roles are defined. The group or team start to realise that cooperation is important if the goals are to be achieved.

4.      Stage 4 – Performing – If the group haven’t killed each other you will start to see members sharing honest and frank communication and most importantly the building of trust. Competition and animosity is kept to a minimum and the members have settled into their roles within the group.  Achieving team goals is now the focus.

The group manager or facilitator has a very important role to ensure each stage is transitioned smoothly. There are various activities or actions to help the team progress through the stages such as team work-shops, direct intervention, collaborative setting of goals, new information or directives and introducing new team members. These actions often serve to refocus the team activity or redefine their goals

As a manager of teams it is important that you identify and monitor what stage the team is at. What stage is your team at and are there any noticeable negative consequences? Have they spent insufficient time in any stage? If there are sticking points then you must take action to ensure the team is progressing through the stages so the overall team objective is reached.

Tony Grima

The dangers of “Groupthink” to effective decision making

Have you ever attended a meeting where everyone participating just nod their heads in agreement with everything said? This is often referred to as “group think” and the consequences can be disastrous, leading to faulty decision processes and reasoning. Groupthink occurs when a group’s overriding concern is with consensus and mutual agreement. We tend to attract people just like ourselves to our teams and we should be mindful of this if you want better results from the team’s efforts. In 2009 a group of researchers at Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University studied diversity and team problem solving. The experiment design challenged two groups recruited from members of different fraternities and sororities to solve a set of problems. One group was comprised of diverse team members while the other group included only homogenous team members. The study found three benefits of diverse thinking on teams

1. Diverse teams made better decisions – The researchers discovered that when team members bring a wide variety of skills and personalities, they are not only combining their strengths, but also compensate for each others’ weaknesses. Different personality types balance and complement each other, which leads to more effective group processes and outcomes
2. Diverse teams avoid “groupthink”– In homogenous teams, fewer people were willing to play the devil’s advocate and their main concern is to minimize conflict and reach agreement quickly. By taking this approach the team miss critical problem analysis and evaluation. Diverse groups are more likely to raise new and innovative ideas and explore all information available.
3. Diverse teams produce better results – Research has shown that diverse teams were more productive and achieved better results although the journal can be bumpy with conflict and tension. This discomfort is not necessarily a bad thing and if managed well can lead to superior solutions to business problems.

So how do you prevent groupthink?

For the Leader

1. Be impartial and do not state preferences.
2. Assign everyone the role of critical evaluator.
3. Assign the devil’s advocate role to at least one person in the group.
4. Use outside experts to challenge the group.
5. Be open to dissenting points of view.
6. Select a diverse team.

Organisation structure

1. Train managers and group leaders to recognise groupthink and prevention techniques.
2. Set up several independent groups to study the same issue.
3. From time to time break the group into subgroups to discuss the issues.

For the group member

1. Discuss group decisions with a trusted outsider and report feedback to the group.
2. Be a critical thinker.

The problem with groupthink can be quite common. It is natural to seek consensus and the desire to preserve team cohesiveness can be very strong. The danger is poor solutions and decision making shaped by biased, limited information and inadequate analysis of the problem.

The views expressed in this post are those of the author and do not represent the views of other individuals or organisations.

 

Tony Grima

 

 

The impact of leadership style on organisational design and performance

 Leadership is a key determinate in the success of any enterprise. Leaders make crucial decisions on resource allocation and other important factors such as work design, structure, goals, culture, relationships and people development. It is argued that the design of an organisation provides the context in which managers manage. This may be true for a contingency style of leadership, but is it true for all leadership styles? Business environments rarely remain static and organisations often evolve in ways which create misalignment with the fundamental objective.

 This article considers the impact that leadership style can have on organisational design, and as a consequence, performance. Furthermore, this article will explore the question whether in addition to qualifications and experience, should leadership style form part of the recruitment/promotion process, and if so, how would this intangible be measured. Given that a well qualified and experienced leader can exhibit different leadership styles based on traits, values etc, what should rate as the most important selection factor?  If research indicates that leadership style is an important determinate of success, how important is the fit between leadership style, function and organisational design?  Organisations are facing increasing pressure as they strive to compete at a local or global level and organisational design is important to gain competitive advantage. The decisions leaders make on organisational design have the most potential to impact on operational efficiency and work attitudes such as motivation and job satisfaction. An example from my experience is a manager whose leadership style discouraged employee input. This manager’s ability to make sound decisions was severely constrained by those same employees who ordinarily were well placed to inform and influence him.

This article focuses on medium to large enterprises. In these dynamic environments you are more likely to encounter a large range of competing structures and management styles. It is natural to think that strategy is formulated by the CEO and driven throughout all levels of the organisation. That is, strategy starts at the top and remains consistent, integrated and coordinated across the culture, systems, structure, leadership and employees of the organisation. This may have been the intent but without a clear intellectual framework to guide strategy what tends to occur is that strategies start to diffuse or emerge at various levels of the organisation. Managers with limited perspective and responding to different agendas make decisions shaped by their leadership style and frames of reference. The potential for conflict and misalignment is high, particularly where a leader’s style is, or becomes incompatible with the strategy. The movement of leaders across different business units by promotion or the introduction of new recruits may improve or exacerbate any misalignment.  Consider the example of a high performing manager leading a team of field technicians. The manager’s style was authoritarian and he relied heavily on expert power. The manager led an all male staff and worked to a centralised and mechanistic structure with strong formalisation and systems of control.

This manager seeking other opportunities with the organisation is promoted to lead a business development business unit consisting of both male and female staff. The manager is now faced with a different environment. The business development unit has an existing clan/market sub-culture and would best suit a leadership style which encourages creativity and innovation. It is not difficult to see where misalignment might occur impacting the business unit performance. From HRs perspective the manager is a good fit. It is a normal progression to move from technical expertise to sales. The manager has demonstrated that he can manage a team and has delivered on expected outcomes. Unless the manager can adapt, the missing ingredient may be the manager’s leadership style.  Throughout the course of my career I have sat through a number of interviews. Rarely have I been asked about my leadership style. On the rare occasion that I have been asked the question it seemed like a throwaway line, and I wondered if it had any relevance at all. When discussing strategy and structure it is often stated that structure follows strategy and systems follow structure. Perhaps it is appropriate that a fourth element of “leadership style” be included in this generic mix? As a suggestion, strategy, leadership style, structure, systems. This approach would clearly put leadership style as a key factor in strategy formulation, design and recruitment practices.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent those of any other individual or organisation.

Tony Grima

Broken ladders and middle management

 I have always been quite tough on the managers I’ve reported to. My intention was never to be difficult; it was just that my expectations of them were so high. I wanted to be led by people who had vision and ability. I wanted to be led by people who could clearly communicate what they expected from me. When I found such a manager I would literally walk over broken glass to help them achieve their goals. I felt motivated, part of something bigger and my work had purpose. Sadly leaders such as this are rare.

The middle management pool is full of talented people who frustratingly will remain untapped and “business as usual” churn due to the inability of their leaders to truly lead. How many middle managers really understand their organisations strategy, vision and goals beyond what they may have read on the company website? The success or failure of middle managers depends largely on their superiors because it is they who inform, influence and constrain. Without clarity of direction, middle managers can fall out of alignment with the organisations fundamental objectives and find themselves trapped between the frustrations of staff they manage, demands of upper management and personal career goals.

With changing business environments middle managers are under increased pressure and stress, but reasearch indicates they are strongly committed to their work. This committment has little to do with inspiring leadership and more to do with career survival. The middle management pool is frequently regarded as career limbo and this is compounded when senior leadership do not clearly communicate the way forward. In days of old, career pathways were stable and predictable but now companies embrace new organisational structures and are flatter. The traditional career ladders have been broken and it is difficult to know how to succeed and on what basis you be judged. In this situation middle managers can exhibit quite competitive behaviour as they jostle and position themselves to be noticed and progress. This behaviour is driven by the failure of senior leadership to clearly articulate the company’s strategy, goals and expectations of those they lead. In addition it is the failure to reward behaviours which contribute to achieving the organisations objectives while discouraging behaviours which do not.

Mending the broken ladders

There are many reasons why senior managers do not effectively lead. The senior manager may simply lack the ability or experience. This can occur when functional managers over time progress to positions which entail strategic leadership but do not really understand what that means. This type of leader retains the narrow focus and functional manager mindset although the position now requires a broader view. If you are a middle manager it is important to ask your leaders to articulate their goals so you can align your goals with theirs. An effective way to achieve this is by the path-goal theory of leadership (House, 1971). This model of leadership argues that it is through the behaviours of leaders that goals are made clear, that the means of achieving goals are clarified, that obstacles to achieving goals are reduced and that work is made more personally satisfying. When goals are made clear, middle managers expect that their behaviours will result in achieving goals and will be instrumental in achieving performance.

Middle managers should expect their leaders to

1. Set clear goals or help middle managers to establish clear goals.
2. Explain how goals can be achieved.
3. Help middle managers achieve goals.
4. Clear obstacles to achieving goals.
5. Provide feedback, recognition and approval for goal consistent behaviour.

Tony Grima

Self -efficacy – An agent for change.

I can remember my parents telling me that I could do or be anything I wanted. I am sure many of you have  heard that statement as well, but do we really take it seriously? What is it that even at a young age sows the  seeds of doubt and prevents us from pursuing our dreams? Of course there may be a number of reasons but a key driver is our level of self-efficacy.

What is Self-efficacy?

Self-efficacy is a person’s judgement of their capabilities to perform a task, achieve a goal or reach a certain level of performance. It is your level of self-belief when you ask…..can I do this? Self-efficacy is the measure of one’s own ability to complete tasks and reach goals. It is the crux of the hypothetical question….what would you do if you knew you could not fail?

High self-efficacy equals high performance but an individual can also simultaneously have high self-efficacy for one task (e.g. selling products) and low self-efficacy for another (e.g. public speaking).  Self-efficacy relates generally to specific task and should not be confused with self-esteem (how you feel about yourself). As such, self-efficacy is easier to develop and is a better indicator of expected performance than self-esteem or self-confidence.

By building and developing self-efficacy we can improve our own performance and the performance of others. It allows us to set challenging goals with the realistic expectation of achieving them and to persist when faced with setbacks. Moreover, setbacks and hurdles can often stimulate individuals with high self-efficacy to put in even greater effort compared to individuals with low self-efficacy who tend to be discouraged and give up. Individuals with low self-efficacy and not confident in their ability may respond negatively to evidence that their performance needs to improve. In a way, low self-efficacy can be self perpetuating because negative outcomes are seen as confirming their own perception of incompetence. These individuals may in fact be quite talented but low self-efficacy prevents them from performing as well as they can and they avoid challenging task.

Experiencing and developing self-efficacy

There are four methods in which self-efficacy is experienced and developed.

Enactive self-efficacy – The experience of mastery is the most important factor determining a person’s self-efficacy. Success raises self-efficacy, while failure lowers it.

Social modelling – Modeling is experienced as, “If they can do it, I can do it as well.” When we see someone succeeding, our own self-efficacy increases; where we see people failing, our self-efficacy decreases. This process is most effectual when we see ourselves as similar to the model. Although not as influential as direct experience, modeling is particularly useful for people who are particularly unsure of themselves.

Social persuasion – Social persuasion generally manifests as direct encouragement or discouragement from another person. Discouragement is generally more effective at decreasing a person’s self-efficacy than encouragement is at increasing it.

Physiological/emotional state – In stressful situations, people commonly exhibit signs of distress: shakes, aches and pains, fatigue, fear, nausea, etc. Perceptions of these responses in oneself can markedly alter self-efficacy. Getting ‘butterflies in the stomach’ before public speaking will be interpreted by someone with low self-efficacy as a sign of inability, thus decreasing self-efficacy further, where high self-efficacy would lead to interpreting such physiological signs as normal and unrelated to ability. It is one’s belief in the implications of physiological response that alters self-efficacy, rather than the physiological response itself.

When communicating with individuals such as employees it is important that we don’t signal a lack of confidence in them thereby reinforcing low self-efficacy. We can do this by:

• Providing lavish praise for performance that the individual knows was poor or mediocre.
• Assigning the individual with easy or unchallenging task signalling our lack of confidence in them.
• Micro-managing the individual.
• Constantly offering the individual help and asking are they ok.
• Constantly fault-finding and criticising the individual.

We can build and develop self-efficacy in individuals by:

Coaching

•     Communicate clear objectives
•     Provide feedback

Participation

• Allow individuals to participate and decide their goals
• Take a collaborating approach and seek feedback from individuals before making changes which impact them.

Demonstration

• Role-modelling and lead by example.
• Show enthusiasm and persistence.

Mentoring

•  Provide opportunities to develop expertise and build self-efficacy.
• Listen and share experiences

Stimulation

•  Make yourself always available – Open door policy.
• Communicate clear and exciting vision. Tell your story.

Rewards

• Rewards can be intrinsic or extrinsic. Find out what the individual values.
• Support staff when they make mistakes. Praise their genuine efforts and achievements publicly.

Self-efficacy is a crucial factor in change, progress and achievement in our lives and an individual’s degree of self-efficacy is a motivational predictor in how they will perform at any level of endeavour. People with high self-efficacy think and behave different from those with low self efficacy. People, often with talent but who doubt their abilities avoid difficult and challenging task which impacts on their realisation of dreams. Failure, setbacks or negative feedback destroys their motivation leading them to give up which further reinforces their weak self-efficacy.

If you lead or manage people it is important to understand how important the development of self-efficacy is, not just for behavioural and cognitive functioning but also as a driver of high performance, living up to potential and achieving goals in one’s life.

 

Tony Grima