Quotes Now!

In business, I’ve discovered that my purpose is to do my best to my utmost ability every day. That’s my standard. I learned early in my life that I had high standards.
Donald Trumpv

Exorcise Blame In Your Company

Robert Bacal is a noted author, keynote speaker, and management consultant. His most recent books include Performance Management - A Briefcase Book, and The Complete Idiot's Guide To Dealing With Difficult Employees. In this article he explains why a focus on blame, as compared to a focus on performance improvement, results in problems for management and employees. Robert can be contacted via e-mail at ceo@work911.com or by phone at (204) 888-9290.

 

We live in a blaming society. Whether one looks at politics, organizations, or even personal relationships, we, as a society, seem to place great importance on finding some entity or person to blame for almost everything. Political parties blame each other (watch any governmental body meeting or election campaign). Unions blame management. Management blames union. Spouses blame each other.
Perhaps it's just part of our natures, or the way we are brought up, but it seems that we are unable to separate the process of blaming from the process of making things better. This separation is of critical importance if we are to improve anything anywhere, but particularly applies to the workplace. While Edward Deming tells us to "drive out fear", we should also be prepared to "drive out blame" from our workplaces. Perhaps the single most important barrier to improvement is blame!

To understand the issue, we need to make some very important distinctions among terms...terms that will help us to recognize the destructiveness of the blaming process.

Blaming refers to an emotion-filled process where we assign responsibility for a past event, but also assign a negative emotions to that responsibility. The blamer is attempting to avoid responsibility by pointing to someone else, and may be experiencing fear, anger or other feelings. The receiver (or blamee) tends to experience loss of face, embarrassment, fear and anger.

The problem with the blaming process is not so much to do with responsibility (which is a good thing), but with the emotions that are attached to that responsibility. People who are experiencing anger, humiliation, Esc are not likely to focus their energy of solving or preventing a problem from occurring. Clearly, they will be oriented toward defending themselves from experiencing the negative emotions attached to blame.
Taking or assigning responsibility is a subtlety different process. First, it can apply to past, present or future events, where blame is almost exclusively focused on the past. Second, assigning responsibility does not have the excess emotional content of blaming. Responsibility language is different than blaming language. As a manager, you may assign responsibility for a task without assigning blame. And you can hold someone accountable for results without blaming, also. Sometimes the distinctions however lie in the delivery of language, even the tone of language. Take a look at the following two statements:

"If you had done your work on time, we wouldn't be in this mess".
"Your responsibility is to fulfill your work commitments on time". When your work wasn't available I had to speak to the Minister (Secretary) without the information I needed."

Even without hearing the tone we can see that the first statement sounds somehow like blame...that the mess is the employee's fault. The second is more of a factual statement, and lacks the emotional content of the first. Also, consider which of the statements above is more conducive to improving things, or preventing delays of this sort in the future. Which is a prelude for problem-solving, and which is a prelude to argument?

Your work success hint! 

We won't tell your boss if you don't. You can make quantum leaps in productivity, morale, employee motivation through learning how to delegate effectively. It's not hard to learn but it's a bit more complex than most managers think.

  Learn to delegate properly and when your department hits on all cylinders, the trick will remain our little secret. More on delegation...click here. 

Problem-Solving is the third term we need to define. The hallmark of a problem-solving process is that it is focused on the present and the future. It's goal is to fix something occurring now, or prevent something from happening again. It is THE critical process for improving organizations, individual performance, and relationships. Non-blaming problem-solving lacks the negative emotions attached to blaming, and allows a more harmonious approach to the issue, since it's purpose is not to find a donkey to pin a tail on, but prevention. It is less personal and more systems-oriented.

Often the problem solving process rests on an understanding of the past, and an understanding of the causes or root causes of a particular issue. It may include:

• clarifying the problem solving goal or purpose
• collecting data to help understand past and present
• diagnosis (identifying sources of the problem)
• formulating hypotheses for explaining
• formulating a strategy for addressing the problem
• evaluating the strategy (more data collection)

However, nowhere in problem solving is their a need to assign blame, or create the kinds of humiliation and negative emotions that accompany blame.

Problem solving is a complicated process, and Total Quality Management leaders (Deming, Crosby, Juran) have added much to the discussion of how one goes about problem-solving. In fact, one senior manager in government commented that the TQM material is simply an extensive, efficient and more advanced method of solving problems.

What Does This Mean For Managers & Leaders?

Your work success hint! 

Did you know that a high percentage of conflict at work and at home is a result of ineffective use of language? It's true. The best part is that you can learn to alter your communication and language so that what you say is perceived as more cooperative, and less confrontational. The result? Less conflict incidents, and less severe conflicts. More info...

Whether you are interested in continuous improvement, organizational health, or simply want to undertake a performance management approach more effectively, the issue of blame versus problem solving is critical. Not only can you forge better relationships with staff by focusing on problem-solving rather than blame, but you can also influence the degrees of blame that is shown by staff to other staff, political department heads, and even customers. Your position in the organization places you firmly as a model for appropriate problem-solving, and anti-blaming behavior. If you show blaming behavior. you can be sure that your self will return the favor, often blaming you in turn (often covertly--you will never know). Consider the following suggestions:
1.When problems or issues occur (e.g. lack of performance, failure to keep commitments,etc.), and you feel obligated to intervene, use a problem-solving approach. Begin the process by trying to understand (WITH the employee) the actual problem, and what lies behind it. Knowing, for example that poor performance may be a result of boredom, personal stress, lack of skills or knowledge or other larger systems issues (lack of equipment, authority, etc.) and so on allows you to work with the employee to attack the root problem, to PREVENT it from reoccurring. But one important part to note. Problem-solving does NOT mean looking for excuses for the employees behavior. (that's the blame game still). The employee is still responsible for the consequences of their actions and future actions, but the focus is on the future. Again, let's look at two dialogues:

Manager: John, you should have notified me that this work wasn't going to be ready for the meeting. We all looked stupid in front of the boss, and it's going to take us days to recover.
John: I tried to tell you but you were on vacation, and I forgot. You are very hard to get hold of, you know.
Manager: You could have called me at home.

John: I didn't want to bother you with it..since you said not to call unless it was an emergency.
Can you guess where this conversation will go? Already you see that the initial statement, rather than trying to uncover the cause of the problem, focused on the past, on what should have been done, and activated the defense of the employee. So, in fact one person is "attacking" in a subtle way while the other is defending. If this continued, and someone didn't give up, both would end up attacking. Contrast this with:

Manager: John, I was expecting to have the brief from you before my meeting. We need to figure out what happened and how to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Was I not clear on the date, or was there some other thing that popped up that caused us to miss the deadline?

John: Well, I might have misunderstood about the urgency, and when you went on vacation, I didn't want to bother you at home.

Manager: Ok, well, how does this sound. If I need something on an urgent basis I'll make sure that I tell you in future. I can also let people know when it is OK to call me at home, so it will be easier. I am also going to ask you to please keep me informed, though on projects like this so we won't be embarrassed again. Does that make sense?

John: Sure...I have a few more suggestions that might help...
If you compare the dialogues you can almost "feel" the difference. The first sounds blaming, emotional and past oriented. The second is neutral, aims to figure out where the problem lies and works to prevent reoccurrence. Of course, problem-solving dialogues don't always go this smoothly, and this example is probably over-simplified. It may be necessary to delve further into root causes than is shown above.
2. As a manager your role extends beyond your direct interactions with a single employee, but includes modelling problem-solving in everything you do, particularly at staff meetings and other gatherings. Not only do you use problem-solving but you "steer" blaming conversations back to problem-solving and back to prevention. Employees may attempt to blame one another, or blame some "shadowy they" for difficulties. Your job is to quickly turn the conversation back to "What can we do, then, in future?" Expect and insist on staff taking responsibility not just for identifying problems (often in the form of complaints), but for suggesting workable, positive and constructive solutions to those problems. When you start doing this you begin to create a "blameless culture", and a "responsible culture" that discourages empty complaints, "bitching" and personal vendettas that will put you in the middle of other people's disputes.

Closing Points
We began by discussing our "blaming society", and we need to revisit it. Moving from blaming to responsibility and problem-solving is a tough slog, because you will find that many people will not discern the differences. For some, being responsible also means to be at fault, to be culpable or to blame. Some people are sufficiently insecure or sensitive that any attempt to have them take responsibility (even for the future) will evoke a defensive and emotional response. Hence, even though YOU may make the transition, some of your staff will still see you as attempting to blame. Your response to those situations is to return to the problem, to continue to ask diagnostic questions, to develop understanding of root problems, etc, and to avoid being drawn into the "blame game" and the emotions that are associated with it. Hopefully after a period of consistent problem-solving behaviour on your part, some of those people will begin to see the difference, and to trust that you are not blaming, but "fixing".

Conflict & Cooperation In The Workplace

One topic that is of interest to most people in the workplace is conflict; how it works, how to avoid it, and how to deal with it when it occurs. It is indeed the rare organization that doesn't have to face the issue of conflict, and how to harness it so that it produces positive results rather than destruction. 
In this article, we are going to look at some important elements of conflict, how it escalates over time, and suggest a few general strategies for dealing with it. 

Two Types of Conflict 

In the workplace (and almost any setting), you are likely to find two forms of conflict. The first is conflict about decisions, ideas, directions and actions. We will call this "substantive conflict" since it deals with disagreements about the substance of issues. The second form, "personalized conflict" is often called a personality conflict. In this form, the two parties simply "don't like each other much". 

Substantive Conflict 

Substantive conflict can occur on just about any issue, but its moving force is that the two parties simply disagree about an issue. This can be a good thing or a bad thing. Handled correctly parties in conflict can create, for themselves and those around them, the ability to resolve an issue with something creative, something better than either party's original position. Let's look at an example. 
A branch manager and a staff member are in conflict over work hours. The branch manager expects all staff to work standard hours, beginning at 8:00 am so that the public will receive service startingfirst thing in the morning. The staff member wants to begin work at 9:00 am, because he has child careresponsibilities. On several occasions the staff member has arrived late, which makes it appear to the manager that the employee is being deliberately unwilling to follow the rules. 
Rather than the situation deteriorating, the parties approach the situation, not as one that should be won, but with an eye on solving a problem. After discussing the situation, (and understanding each other's needs), they realize that a) almost no customers call in the early morning b) the few that do can be handled by other staff who like to be in at 8:00, and b) there are more customers calling in between 4:00 and 5:00 pm. The parties agree that it makes sense to modify work hours. The result: a happier employee and better service. 
The benefits would never have occurred if this conflict hadn't occurred, or if either party played the situation as if it was a game to be one by one person or the other. (Did anybody really lose in this situation?). 

Personalized Conflict 

While substantive conflict, if handled correctly, can be very productive, personalized conflict is almost never a good thing. There are several reasons. First personalized conflict is fuelled primarily by emotion (usually anger, frustration) and perceptions about someone else's personality, character or motives. When conflict is personalized and extreme each party acts as if the other is suspect as a person. Second, because personalized conflict is about emotion and not issues, problem solving almost never works, because neither party is really interested in solving a problem...in fact, in extreme cases, the parties go out of their ways to create new ones, imagined or real. Third, personalized conflicts almost always get worse over time, if they cannot be converted to substantive conflict. That is because each person expects problems, looks for them, finds them, and gets angrier. 
Let's look at the previous example but change the way the situation was handled. 
When the branch manager approached the staff member about the tardiness, he showed his irritation plainly. The staff member, already feeling under the gun, felt that the manager was being unfair, and accusatory, and became defensive. This, in turn, resulted in the manager "laying down the law", andthat was how the situation was left. After the discussion, the manager felt the employee was lazy and making excuses, while the employee felt the boss was out to get him. 
Not surprisingly, the situation got worse. Even when the staff member was a few minutes late, for good reason, the boss jumped on him like a "ton of bricks". The employee, angered and frustrated, started taking longer coffee breaks and was away "sick" more frequently. The situation became increasingly polarized, with other people being sucked in, and taking sides, privately. 
Oddly enough, the initial perceptions of both bossand employee became the truth. After a while the boss acted as if he was out to get the employee, and the employee acted as if he was lazy and uncaring. The original issue was all but forgotten, as the parties developed an intense dislike of each other. 

Solution Strategies 

Identification 

When involved in a conflict situation, it is important that you are aware of whether you and the other party are dealing with a substantive conflict or a personalized one. It isn't always easy to tell them apart, and it is difficult to look honestly at oneself. Ask yourself the following questions: 
Do I dislike the other person or get frustrated with him/her? 
Do I see the other person as untrustworthy, and undeserving of respect? 
Is my emotional reaction to the conflict appropriate to it's seriousness or lack thereof? 
Do I really want to "win"? 
If the answer to any of these question is yes, you may be setting yourself up for a personalized conflict that nobody can win in the long term. 
With respect to the other person, one good indicator of a personalized conflict situation is that the person will try to counter your substantive point on the issue with a series of DIFFERENT reasons why you are wrong. For example, let's look at the following dialogue. 
Manager: We can't have you come in at 9:00 am because we need to answer the phones. 
Employee: That makes sense, but I checked and we get only one or two calls between 8:00 and 9:00 but we get between ten and twenty calls in the later afternoon. 
Manager: Well, maybe, but if you come in later, then soon everyone else will want to... 
Note that in this case, the manager isn't really problem solving, but trying to find reasons to refuse the request, either because he doesn't "like" the other person, or for some other emotional reason we don't know about. 

Move To Substantive Issues 

Even in situations where both you and the other party have personalized the conflict, you can work to focus on specific issues. You have not direct control over another person, but you have control over yourself. By moving to the issues, and staying there, you will also encourage the other person to do so. 
It isn't easy, of course. The trick is to try to put aside your negative perceptions about the other person, and not to dwell on them. That's an internal thing. Every time you think to yourself "what an idiot"(or all the other negative things), you make it that more difficult to stay focused on problem- solving, rather than winning, or getting your own way. 

Work To Prevent Personalization 

It is rare that personalization occurs just on the basis of two incompatible personalities. Usually, personalization occurs because conflict on substantive issues is handled badly. That is, one or both parties behaves in non-cooperative ways. 

The Responsive Manager/Leader

You Can Preview our help card on Responsive Managers by clicking here.

Also, for more help and information on leadership, advice, articles, leadership tools, and leadership experts, visit The Leadership Development Resource Center.  



The Responsiveness Paradigm outlined elsewhere in this newsletter is applicable at a number of levels. For example, it applies to organizations in general, and the ability of the organization to respond to the needs of customers, staff and other stakeholders (eg. politicians, etc). It applies to non-supervisory staff, and their ability to respond to the needs of their managers, customers and co-workers. This month we are going to look at responsiveness as it applied to managers, leaders and/or supervisors.

Influence Of The Responsive Manager

The responsive manager tends to succeed by building bonds of respect and trust with those around him/her. Staff respond positively to responsive managers; they work more diligently, work to help the manager and the organization succeed, and will go the extra mile when necessary. That is because responsive managers act consistent with the principle that their jobs are to help their staff do their jobs. So, a basic inter-dependence emerges based on behaviours that show concern, respect and trust. 

Responsive managers also influence those above them in the hierarchy. Because responsive managers have the ability to read and act upon the needs of their "bosses", they are perceived as helpful and reliable, or in a simple way, very useful. This allows them to get the "ear" of people above them in the system, and further helps get things done when needed.

Contrast this with the limited influence of the UNresponsive manager. The unresponsive manager is restricted in influence because those around him/her do not respect or trust them to look out for their welfare. Influence is more limited to the use of power coming from the formal position, and fear, a motivational component that is hard to sustain over time. Unresponsive managers tend to be perceived as self-interested, or at best uninterested in the needs of those around them. They also tend to be perceived by those above them as less reliable and less useful due to their focus on empire building, organization protection, and self-interest, rather than getting done what needs to be done.

How Do They Do It?

Responsive managers apply a number of specific skills and abilities to the task (as outlined generally in The Responsiveness Paradigm article). Above all, they appear to be "withit". Withitness has a number of components. First withit managers are able to put aside their concerns to listen to (and appear to listen to) those around them. As a result, they know what is going on, and know what is both said, and said between the lines. They have the knack of appearing to know what people need even if those needs are not expressed directly.

However, knowing what is going on, and identifying the needs of those around them is not sufficient. The responsive manager also acts upon that knowledge, attempting to help fulfil the needs of employees, superiors, etc. Responsive managers wield influence to solve problems for those around them, often before even being asked.

Here's an example:
I was responsible for automating an office system in a government department. As happens sometimes, the Management Information Systems people were not keen on our going our own way on the project, despite the fact that they had indicated they could not do it for us in the near future. As a result their cooperation (needed for the project) was patchy. As team leader, I faced a number of roadblocks, despite the fact that our Assistant Deputy Minister wanted to see this project come to fruition. I regularly reported back to our Director, outlining progress and roadblocks. Every time I communicated roadblocks to the Director, they were removed within a short time, despite the fact that I did not request direct action. In addition, the Director advised and counselled me on how to deal with the "systems people" so I could have maximum impact. Despite the roadblocks, the project was completed on time and was very successful, much to the chagrin of some of the systems people, who I think were hoping we would fail.

This is a simple story, but one full of meaning. In this situation the Director was able to identify the project leader's needs with respect to the project, listening carefully, and identifying actions she could take to "smooth the path". Not only was the Director able to remove obstacles and fulfil the need of the project leader, but the Director responded on a deeper level, helping to teach the Project Leader methods of becoming more effective, fulfilling yet another need. All of this was assumed to be the proper role of the Director, and was done without expressing all of the needs specifically or explicitly.

We can contrast this with the unresponsiveness of the MIS people. They lectured, they fussed, they predicted dire consequences, rather than offering consistent, responsive help. They focused not on responding to the needs of their clients, but on some other factors having to do with control, and their own needs. Eventually, their lack of responsiveness resulted in the very thing they did not want; loss of control of the project. As a result of this project their overall status in the organization suffered, simply because at both an organization and individual level they were seen as barriers, rather than useful.
Let's look at one more example.

An employee had been working for a government branch for about a year, having moved to the city as a new resident. In a casual conversation, the supervisor noted that the employee wasn't looking at his best, and asked how he was feeling. The employee explained that he hadn't been feeling well lately, and sounded very tired and overwhelmed. The supervisor determined that the staff member didn't have a local family doctor, asked if he would like the supervisor to arrange an appointment, and proceeded to do so immediately. The problem turned out to be a minor one.  

In this example we see again the ideas of "withitness" and responsiveness. The supervisor was able to identify that the staff member was in need of some help, despite the fact that the staff member did not state this explicitly. Note that the supervisor didn't pressure the staff member to go to the doctor, but identified needs, checked them out, and then acted upon them. In this case, help consisted of direct, helpful action.

Conclusion

Your work success hint! 

 

Did you know that a high percentage of conflict at work and at home is a result of ineffective use of language? It's true. The best part is that you can learn to alter your communication and language so that what you say is perceived as more cooperative, and less confrontational. The result? Less conflict incidents, and less severe conflicts. More info...

These two examples are the stuff of loyalty and commitment. They are remembered years and years after the fact, and continue to extend the influence of managers. In this sense responsiveness is a critical component of management success, because it allows managers and supervisors to get things done, for the benefit of all players.

In the limited space we have, we have attempted to give you a feel of what responsiveness means. You might want to extend your own understanding by considering some of the following questions.

1. If you are a manager or supervisor, how can you modify your own behaviours so that you become and are perceived as more responsive by a) your staff, b) your boss and c) your customers?

2. Again, if you are a manager or supervisor what is your definition of the "responsive employee"? Can you identify your "favourite employees", and consider how they are responsive to you? Our bet is you will find that your most valued employees are responsive.

3. If you are non-management, what would you need to do to be perceived as more responsive by the people around you?

Understanding The Cycle of Change, And How People React To It

Managers Are Like A Butterfly

Managers often make the mistake of assuming that once a change is started, that employees will see that it is going to take place, and get on side. This is rarely the case. Because change causes fear, a sense of loss of the familiar, etc., it takes some time for employees to a) understand the meaning of the change and b) commit to the change in a meaningful way. It is important to understand that people tend to go through stages in their attempts to cope with change. Understanding that there are normal progressions helps change leaders avoid under-managing change or over-reacting to resistance.
As we go through the stages, you will probably find many similarities with the process a person goes through with the loss of a loved one.

Stage I: Denial
An early strategy that people use to cope with change is to deny that it is happening, or to deny that it will continue or last. Common responses during this stage are:
"I've heard these things before. Remember last year they announced the new customer initiative? Nothing ever happened, and this will pass."
"It's just another hair-brained idea from the top."
"I bet this will be like everything else. The head honcho will be real gung-ho but in about six months everything will be back to normal. You'll see."
"I'll believe it when I see it."
People in the denial stage are trying to avoid dealing with the fear and uncertainty of prospective change. They are hoping they won't have to adapt.
The denial stage is difficult because it is hard to involve people in planning for the future, when they will not acknowledge that the future is going to be any different than the present.
People tend to move out of the denial stage when they see solid, tangible indicators that things ARE different. Even with these indicators some people can remain in denial for some time.

Stage II: Anger & Resistance
When people can no longer deny that something is or has happened, they tend to move into a state of anger, accompanied by covert and/or over resistance. This stage is the most critical with respect to the success of the change implementation. Leadership is needed to help work through the anger, and to move people to the next stage. If leadership is poor, the anger at this stage may last indefinitely, perhaps much longer than even the memory of the change itself.
People in this stage tend to say things like:
"Who do they think they are? Jerking us around"
"Why are they picking on us?"
"What's so damned bad about the way things are?
"How could [you] the boss allow this to happen?
Actually people say far stronger things, but we need to be polite.

Stage III: Exploration & Acceptance
This is the stage where people begin to get over the hump. They have stopped denying, and while they may be somewhat angry, the anger has moved out of the spotlight. They have a better understanding of the meaning of the change and are more willing to explore further, and to accept the change. They act more open-mindedly, and are now more interested in planning around the change and being participants in the process.
People in this stage say things like:
"Well, I guess we have to make the best of it."
"Maybe we can get through this."
"We need to get on with business."

Stage IV: Commitment

Your work success hint! 

 

Did you know that a high percentage of conflict at work and at home is a result of ineffective use of language? It's true. The best part is that you can learn to alter your communication and language so that what you say is perceived as more cooperative, and less confrontational. The result? Less conflict incidents, and less severe conflicts. More info...

This is the payoff stage, where people commit to the change, and are willing to work towards making it succeed. They know it is a reality, and at this point people have adapted sufficiently to make it work. While some changes will never get endorsement from employees (downsizing, for example) employees at this stage will commit to making the organization effective within the constraints that have resulted from the change.

Concluding Points
Let's conclude with some key points:
1) The change process takes a considerable amount of time to stabilize and to work. Don't undermanage by assuming it will "work itself out" and don't over-react when faced with reasonable resistance.
2) Worry if there is no resistance. If the change is significant it means that people are hiding their reactions. Eventually the reactions that are not dealt with will fester and can destroy the organization. Likewise with anger.