Brendan Sterne

There is one quality that sets truly great managers apart from the rest: They discover what is unique about each person and then capitalize on it.

So says Marcus Buckingham in the fifth article in Harvard Business Review’s 10 Must Reads on Managing People.

Three paragraphs in and I was immediately struck by the parallels with a book I read a year ago: First, Break All The Rules.  That’s good, because – as I found out when I picked it back up off the bookshelf – they’re by the same author.

I’m starting to see a trend here: successful HBR article then successful business book, or vice-versa.  Either way – if you want a good summary of a popular business book go look for the corresponding HBR article; It’s true for many of the articles in HBR’s “10 Must Reads” series.

The thesis of the article is that people are different, and you should play to their strengths, rather than spend too much effort on improving their areas of weakness.  

Mediocre managers assume (or hope) that their employees will all be motivated by the same things and driven by the same goals, that they will desire the same kinds of relationships and learn in roughly the same way.  They define the behaviors they expect from people and tell them to work on behaviors that don’t come naturally.  They praise those who can overcome their natural styles to conform to preset ideas. In short, they believe the manager’s job is to mold, or transform, each employee in the perfect version of the role.

Great managers don’t try to change a person’s style … They know that their employees will differ in how they think, how they build relationships, how altruistic they are, how patient they can be, how much of an expert they need to be, what drives them, what challenges them, and what their goals are.

There are a number of examples portrayed, for example Michelle Miller, the manager of a Walgreens, who recognized that her “goth rocker” employee Jeffrey was particularly good at restocking aisles with new merchandise (and enjoyed it), so instead of having the role shared among the aisle owners – as it typical – she had Jeffrey restock all the aisles. 

As it was with First Break All The Rules so it is with this article; I vacillate between thinking this thesis is banal and obvious, and then feel pained that I’m not really doing a good job individualizing for my team.

Marcus identifies three general areas of differentiation to capitalize upon:

1. Strengths/Weaknesses – To understand your employee’s strengths and weaknesses, observe them during their work.  What tasks are they particularly good at?  What do they struggle with?  How do they react to the challenges of different types of work?  Ask them what they have particularly enjoyed working on in the recent past.
2. Motivations / Triggers – The most powerful motivation is recognition – but people have different preferences regarding how they want to be recognized.  Some employees find it energizing to be called up and praised in front of the whole company, others would prefer an professional award that they could put on their professional biography, others would prefer a trip to disneyland with their family.  This type of differentiation requires a lot of personal attention by the manager.
3. Learning Styles – Not every employee thrives by being thrown into the deep-end of the pool.  Some require some time to read, talk and analyze before taking action.  Others prefer to dive in and figure things out as they go along.  So consider individualizing training, task-prep and other forms of communication to the learning preferences of your employees.

This article has stuck in my head the past couple of weeks, and I have tried to observe my team to see where and how I might better cater to individuals.  As a software development manager there are a few ‘levers’ that I can pull to individualize:

• The tasks that are assigned to team members.  Although we follow the scrum / agile methodology, where the team members take tasks from the backlog to work on, I could try pre-assigning some of the backlog tasks to play to individual strengths.
• The way in which I interact with those urgent / critical tasks that inevitably turn up.  We take turns each week being the ‘support cowboy’ to handle issues that come in (usually via email), but different team members have different styles.  Some are more effective if I turn these issues into official tickets for them to process, others are comfortable balancing the email tasks with the sprint ticket system (in our case JIRA).
• Praise and Recognition.  I think I can do better to individualize recognition of great work and milestones.  The current team has both introverts and extroverts and a one-size-fits-all way of recognizing may not be the most effective.

One challenge to both discovering and capitalizing on the uniqueness of each team member is the unfortunate frequency with which team members move to new projects and new managers.  I have just started (in Evernote) keeping explicit notes on my observations (and discussions) about strengths / weaknesses, interests, etc.  It would be good if there was some way for the organization to capture and retain this information so it was available to new managers – and also to encourage all managers to make these types of observations, and to try to individualize to them.

I’m curious to hear how other managers try to discover, record and adapt to the unique talents and personalities of their team members.  Any thoughts?

Not many of the HBR articles speak so clearly to the challenges I experienced as a new manager (and still experience) as this one.

(photo: community-manager by Enrique Martinez Bermej

In the fourth entry in HBR’s Must Reads on Managing People, “Saving Your Rookie Managers from Themselves”, Carol A. Walker identifies several areas likely to be tripping-up new managers: Acting as a Role Model, Delegating, Thinking Strategically and Coaching.

It all starts with recognizing that being a manager is very different role than being an individual contributor on a team.  

Individual contributors typically focus on execution towards achieving the team goals.  They may coordinate with other teams, mentor other team members, and may even be involved with helping to shape the goals, and establish priorities.  But fundamentally they are hands-on with the work of the team.

Managers, on the other hand, are usually hands-off from the work of the team.  They help to recruit the team, establish the vision and goals, set priorities, align the capabilities of the team members with the work to be done, monitor the work, evaluate the team, and coach individuals towards higher performance.  Managers’ contributions to the work is through the employees they manage.

One common problem is that most companies promote employees into management based on their technical competence.  But management is very different from individual contribution.  So much so, perhaps, that there is very little overlap in the competencies required to succeed in these two different roles.  

Sidebar:  So why is it so common to promote high performers into management?  I can think of a couple of reasons:

1) Credibility.  If someone hasn’t at least demonstrated the ability to understand and execute on the work being done, how would the employees trust their judgement?

2) Domain Expertise.  Related to #1 above.  If the manager is to help employees improve in doing the work, it is necessary for them to at least know how to get the work done efficiently.

3) Hiring Pipeline. If you aren’t promoting from within, then you’re hiring externally.  The further up the management hierarchy you go, the more important it is to get your hiring right.  It’s often seen as less risky to promote a high-performing employee from within, than to take a chance on hiring an external manager who might have plenty of management experience, but has little or no context of the business and work at hand.

Note: I speak of the work ‘promotion’ into management, but in actuality it’s more like a step sideways or diagonally.  At many companies, including Bazaarvoice where I’m working, there are separate career ladders for individual contribution, and management.  And it is possible to be promoted into the upper echelons of responsibility and pay, without being a manager.  

After being promoted into management, it can be a difficult transition, and new managers often “fail to grasp how their roles have changed – that their jobs are no longer about personal achievement but instead about enabling other to achieve.”

Acting as a role model

One of the first areas likely to be tripping up new managers is recognizing the importance of their behavior, language, communications style and comportment.  Like it or not, managers set the model for acceptable behaviors in the teams that they manage.  It’s common knowledge that the tone and culture of an organization are set from the top.  New managers might not realize “just how long a shadow they cast once they assume leadership positions.”

“Staff members watch them closely, and if they see professionalism and optimism, they are likely to demonstrate those characteristics as well.”

This is true of both positive behaviors and negative behaviors.  It’s especially important that managers learn to avoid projecting anxiety.  When times are tough, or there is a lot of organizational change, a manager that focuses on the problems instead of solutions, that expresses their fears instead of their ideas, will tend to encourage their staff to do the same.   Although it may be difficult, and appear fake, it’s vital that leaders project confidence even during time of stress.  

The real challenge is to be authentic and honest about any situation the team or company faces, and yet to focus on the tasks ahead and the opportunities that are possible.  Delivering bad news about company or team performance – without watering it down – and yet still articulating optimism is a skill that I have always admired when I’ve seen it in leaders during my career.  If you have to deliver bad news – and anyone who manages for long enough will have to – it’s worth your while to write it down and practice.

Delegating

One of the biggest problems new managers have is learning to stop ‘doing’ the work.  When deadlines loom, or things break or big opportunities arise, the natural tendency is for the new manager to jump in and “just do it” – since their ability to accomplish the work is what got them promoted in the first place.

When I first became a manager I don’t think I did nearly as good a job delegating as I would have liked.  All too often if there was something urgent that needed doing and stretched the capacity of the team, I would jump in and help.  For example, one of the data services that our team used had a data loss.  It wasn’t a big problem because we had a copy of our data.  Because I was the most familiar with our copy of the data, and because the team was all busy with their tasks, I stepped in that day and wrote some scripts to restore our data and get our system back up and running. 

While it may be nice to see that the manager is willing to roll-up their sleeves and help out with the work, it many ways it can undermine the sense of ownership and responsibility that should really rest with the team.  With regard to the example above, I reflected and realized that I screwed up and missed an opportunity to:

1) Let one or more members of the team learn about a part of the system

2) Let the team take ownership of the successful running of our product

3) Let one or more members of the team enjoy the satisfaction of solving an urgent problem and getting things working again

After that experience I vowed to remain hands-off from critical components in our system – even in emergencies.

The fix is to teach and support new managers so they understand the difference between being an individual contributor, and being a manager. 

“Understanding this new role is half the battle for rookie managers, and one that many companies mistakenly assume is evident from the start.”  

Thinking Strategically

This issue is related to the one above.  New managers tend to still be very tactical and reactive.  If there are any fires, the manager needs to be involved in seeing that they’re all put out.  Even if the manager is delegating the work, new managers may be too focused on managing the immediate work at hand.  It depends on the particulars of the team, division and company, but usually managers need to be involved in understanding and shaping the why of the work, not just the who, what, where and how.

One of the challenges is that tactical work is usually more tangible.  It feels like you are accomplishing something.  Whereas some strategic work may not be so immediately fruitful.  I can see at least two types of strategic thinking that managers need to engage with:

1) The first is in the direction of Product Management: managers should have a solid understanding of the context and vision of the product that they are building.  This means understanding the market, the competition, who is buying the product, who is using the product, etc.  

2) The second area of strategic thinking is in organization process and efficiency.  Managers have more responsibility and accountability for the success of their work.  Therefore they should spend some time thinking about processes, rules, tools, activities, rewards, and other factors that can affect performance.  This includes setting aside time to read, discuss and apply what they learn about improving organizational effectiveness.

For some reason as a new manager I felt guilty about spending time on these two areas.  Now I’ve come to see that it’s an important part of the role as manager.

Communication & Coaching

I can also relate with the final area of concern for new managers: communication and coaching.  As Walker mentions, “it’s human nature to avoid confrontations, and most people feel awkward when they have to correct others’ behavior or actions.”   One of the biggest mistakes by new managers is avoiding addressing critical feedback to their staff.  Walker provides an example:

“The typical scenario goes something like this: A staff member is struggling to meet performance goals or is acting inappropriately in meetings.  The manager sits back, watches, and hopes that things will magically improve.  Other staff members observe the situation and become frustrated by the manager’s inaction. The manager’s own frustration builds, as she can’t believe the subordinate doesn’t get it. The straightforward performance issue has now evolved into a credibility problem.  When the manager finally addresses the problem, she personalizes it, lets her frustration seep into the discussion with her staff member, and find the recipient rushing to defend himself from attack.”

The first time that I, as manager, had to deal with a performance problem I definitely let it drag on for too long before I addressed it.  Which meant that it had grown in significance to me.  Although I did eventually address the issue head-on in what – I believe – was a constructive and positive manner, it probably would have been better for all involved if I had addressed it as soon as I had first clearly perceived it.

I think I delayed giving feedback because I feared how it would be taken.  I wanted my team members to be enthusiastic and enjoy their work – and few people like to hear critical feedback.  But fortunately I had a very good relationship with the employee, and they understood I had their success in mind when I raised the particular issue and suggested some approaches for improvement.  It was a great relief that the feedback session went well, and the employee clearly put in the effort to address the situation.  

In the article Walker identifies a few concrete strategies for delivering important critical feedback, such as:

• Ask them to reflect on their performance.
• Focus on the employee’s career goals, and what they need to do to achieve them.  Frame the performance issue as a current gap to achieving their goals.
• Focus on the desired actions and behaviors, don’t personalize the performance issue (don’t focus on attitude or personality).

Even though it’s still hard and I’m still apprehensive, I try to address issues of performance within a week of when I’ve evaluated and concluded that there is, indeed, an issue.

Conclusion

In my experience most managers are promoted into management and are expected to know what to do based on their collected observations of their past managers, and by copying their manager-peers.  It’s a trial-by-fire kind of thing, and I wonder how long it takes most managers to adapt.

Although the article title mentions “Rookie Managers”, the reality is that even experienced managers struggle with these issues.

Sometimes, it’s the manager’s fault.  That’s the core idea in the third article in the volume “On Managing People” in Harvard Business Review’s collection of Must Reads.

This 1998 article (followed up in a book with the same title in 2002), describes “a dynamic in which employees perceived to be mediocre or weak performers live down to the low expectations their managers have for them.”

[photo source: hbr.org]

The heart of the matter is that managers sometimes respond to mediocre performance with activities that clearly signal their dissatisfaction, and disempower the employee, such as:

• increased time and attention on the employee’s work
• requiring approval / review of work before it goes out
• suggestions or commandments about how work is to be done

The employee views this as a lack of trust and confidence.  This causes a loss of autonomy, confidence and motivation in the employee.  

This response by the employee reinforces the manager’s opinion, establishing a vicious spiral of micromanagement and poor performance.

As we saw in the previous article on motivation, when you disempower an employee, you undermine their motivation.

The Problem

The essential problem is that the manager does not know how to coach effectively.  Coaching employees through mediocre performance is not easy.  It requires a healthy and trusting relationship between the manager and the employee.  Trust is built over time, the result of many small interactions where the manager demonstrates their confidence in the employee, and their interest in the employee’s wellbeing.  The manager also needs to exhibit their own openness to receiving feedback and learning to do better.  In a healthy environment that is dedicated to improvement, coaching can make a difference in employee performance.  But if the requisite relationship does not exist between manager and employee, then the manager may feel that micromanaging is necessary to ensure that work is done with appropriate quality.  Although it may be impossible to establish a healthy relationship of trust, it is the manager’s responsibility to do their best to try.  Failing to try is the managers fault, and failing to coach represents poor performance by the manager.

Breaking the cycle

Breaking the cycle requires a very carefully constructed intervention.  The manager needs to accept their responsibility in establishing the unhealthy dynamic.  Unfortunately it is extremely hard to reset a relationship that lacks trust – that’s why the authors of this article say that breaking out of this cycle is extremely rare in practice.  It’s far better to avoid the cycle in the first place.

Poorly named article

I don’t think this article is actually talking about situations where people are set up to fail.  That would be a situation where an employee is incapable of performing their job.  This article is talking about poor attitudes and behaviors in response to perceived mediocre performance.  It would have been better titled “The Vicious Cycle of Micromanagement.”