How to Contain the Complainers!

There always seems to be a few complainers in every group. People who are just negative or who regularly complain about their work and their bosses to coworkers.

In response to this issue I would suggest that there are any number of possible causes. It could be that the person has succumbed to some external force that you have no control over, OR there are those that complain about work that they feel they have no control over, AND then there is nothing worse than the complainers who complain about something they have complete control over. I find this latter type the most infuriating as they are always looking to blame someone else for their own failures.

So what can we do about it?
Now let's break down the areas that enable the complainers. The first is Motivation which falls under the domain of leadership and the second is Organization which falls under the domain of management.

Let's start with Organization.
One of the first tools I learned in the battle against negative Nelly's or complainers is to make them the managers. I know, this seems counter-intuitive and when I heard it for the first time many, many years ago I was shocked. My initial reaction at that time would have been to weed those people out of the organization.

I first heard of this technique from a plant manager who was running a unionized automotive parts manufacturing facility. He couldn't fire unionized staff so he did the next best thing, he promoted them to non-unionized positions - supervisor or manager. The complainers either raised themselves up and took on the challenge of correcting their own complaints or if they were complaining for the sake of complaining they quickly exited or were fired for failure to deliver. Problem solved.
This seems like a great technique until you analyze the process. What is really happening here is that the manager does not have a system to deal with problems in the team so the manager abdicates his/her responsibility by passing it on to someone else. This may work short term with a single individual but couldn't possibly deal with all of the complainers, just the most vocal ones. This will really just ensure a cycle of problems for the manager to deal with. At some point you may end up with too many managers and no one to do the work.

Another tool is the old stand-by of fear and intimidation. This typically raises the level of complaints but drives them underground for fear of the manager hearing them. This management technique creates a management bubble which ensures that any feedback, either positive or negative, will not reach the ears of management. Again, it doesn't address the problem and tends to be demotivating, increasing turnover and quashing innovation; all of which are a drag on productivity and efficiency.

A tool that I've applied to great effect is to move the complainer into a client facing role. After a few days of listening to client complaints, especially complaints that are the result of that person's own work, the person will finally start to think about the effects of their work and start to focus on what's really important and stop complaining about things that are not.

The best solution would be to institute a change management system (the complaint department) and put the complainers in charge. What you achieve by doing this is to effectively turn the complaints into solutions and the complainers into solution providers. You also force the complainers to think their complaints through to a solution and then delivery. They either come up with a solution and participate in it's delivery or they come to the conclusion that it wasn't worthwhile and stop complaining.
A change management system is where all of the complaints, internally or from customers, are entered and reviewed monthly by the domain manager individually or in a meeting with the team.
This will give you a formal process with which to help you build better systems and refocus everyone on improving systems instead of blaming or complaining about people.
A wonderful side effect of this process is that this process will teach the participants the decision process of the domain manager effectively delegating it.

Of course, in order to keep people thinking about solutions you have to act upon them. If you don't your staff will return to complaining.

Now we come to Motivation or Leadership.
Great leaders have a bold and compelling vision. A vision that energizes and motivates everyone to achieve an objective. A vision that turns people from ordinary to extraordinary.
The message and actions of the leader will convey a set of objectives, values and standards that will emerge as the corporate culture. If there is a lack of leadership then there is no unifying purpose. If everyone is exercising their own vision for their own purpose you will essentially have anarchy. It's hard to stay focused if you are questioning the purpose of your role in an organization or worse the purpose of the company. This lack of purpose is a breeding ground for complaints and complacency. It's hard to get engaged when your future is uncertain or unknown.

Actually complaints are signals or signs that you are not communicating coherently and without complainers you would never know.

Great leaders don't assume that they know all the answers or what the future will hold. They don't want to miss out on the next big thing and their culture tolerates, and even rewards, complaints. Keith R. McFarland writes in his book, "The Breakthrough Company", that one of the characteristics of the $250M rapid growth companies he examined is that the leadership was very tolerant of dissenters and even let people pursue ideas for new business even when they thought they were wrong. Sony is another great innovator who has been known to finance an employee with a new product idea so as not to loose them or miss out on a new opportunity.

The real lesson learned here is that the people who are doing the complaining are typically the ones who actually care about your business. They are the vocal ones, the people who are more than likely to participate in and take on organizational responsibilities. In other words, affect change. Without these people things wouldn't change and change is required if any organization is going to adapt and be successful. "If you don't complain things will never change".

The same kind of system that initiates organizational changes can be applied to corporate leadership changes as well. It's a great way to get people to start thinking beyond their individual role and start to think about how what they do effects the whole organization and the success or failure of the organization. People are less likely to complain if they understand their purpose and feel like they are contributing beyond their cubicle. Setting corporate objectives, values and standards should be something that everyone who wants to participate in be given an opportunity to do so. This could be an "open door" policy to something more formal where there are cross functional teams who engage in strategic planning at regularly scheduled intervals. Knowing the big picture and what's coming next is very empowering and can be very effective in quelling the complaints.

If you don't embrace change it will be at your organization's peril. If you do not have a system for change then your organization will be locked into practices that don't work for, and don't include, everyone which leads to complaints, high turnover and limits growth potential and productivity.
Don't turn off your complainers, nurture them by listening and teaching or mentoring.

Why do your staff complain?

Mission and Vision and Mantra, Oh My!

There is some buzz in the business community about having a Mantra. Those of us who have lived through Missions and Visions, I trust, don't see a Mantra as being any different so I'll cut right to the chase. Mission, Vision and Mantra statements fail because people forget that these statements are starting points and not the end. Some will spend endless hours and engage endless consultants to finally come up with the right Mantra and when finally done, breathe a collective sigh of relief and then, move on. Does a Mantra alone really have any value internally with employees and externally with clients? I think we all know the answer to that one.

In order for one of these statements to be of any true value, you would have to put the statement into practice. And by practice I mean practice as in 'practice makes perfect'. Perception is the key here. Your Mantra would have to be tied to a set of values and standards that every decision and action is accountable to from the board room to the front office.

One of the things that I try to impress upon my clients over and again is that "an idea without a buyer is of little value". So if you actually believe that someone would be willing to join your organization or buy from you based on a Mantra then I suggest you start testing different Mantras on your potential clients and potential employees and see which one works best. Once you have found the perfect Mantra that engages clients and employees you would need to change the entire organization to successfully live up to that Mantra. The other option is to create a Mantra from the values and standards that endear and engage your organization to your existing clients and employees. Hopefully your organization will have some of those qualities and you can encapsulate them into a 3 to 4 word statement. You may discover that the most appropriate Mantra based on existing values and standards is 'We are Evil' but don't fret as you won't have to change anything to live up to it. And just think, with a Mantra like that you could be opening up a whole new untapped market segment.

For those of you who believe that a Mantra is 'old school', I have just coined the next corporate image term and it is "Chant". It is based on the premise that if you say something enough times , something being a 3-4 word statement, people will start to believe it. This ensures the desired effect and doesn't require any organizational change other than making it mandatory to memorize and recite the statement at every opportunity.

Leadership or Abdication

Recently I was reading a letter to the editor in a business publication directed at small business owners. The letter, from a business owner, stated that he had two principals, a CFO and VP who seemed to always be at odds. He was concerned over the disruption in his business even though these two individuals were very productive.

The magazine editor quoted an HR consultant whose response was that many times the owner’s behavior or lack of leadership helps to create infighting. She then referred to a study stating that most employees blame conflicts on line managers and that there are some common reasons for infighting like compensation, jealousy, and advancement opportunities. Her solution was what she describes as management tactics like reasoning, pleading and threatening. This is where she lost me. She had the research that pointed to a lack of management and leadership skills but instead of recommending training for the owner she suggested tactics that only would continue to excuse the owner from the problem. The editor goes on to quote a University professor who concedes that the business owner may have to let go one of the employees for the sake of harmony within the organization and that these types of situations can undermine the whole organization. I certainly agree that the infighting can undermine the organization but to blame the employee for the problem is a complete and total abdication of the owner's responsibility.

So, the experts had the research and understood the risks but instead of offering a solution, which would be some leadership and management training for the owner, they suggested that the owner direct his attention externally and blame the executives.

Going through the process of letting someone go, especially someone who is productive and has a stake in the company, can be very painful emotionally and financially.

Imagine firing one of your productive senior managers. Many times the company not only loses a leader and the associated revenue and productivity but also loses the people, emotionally and/or physically, who worked under and alongside this individual. The financial costs are great as conservative estimates for replacing an employee are 1.5 times the exiting employees salary. (cost of severance + recruiting + hiring + training + loss of productivity etc...)

Employees with leadership skills are sometimes seen as a threat to their peers because they try to set goals and evangelize their vision for the future. Being goal oriented is a personality characteristic that has obvious value in any organization unless, of course, the individual goals do not coincide with those of the boss. Sometimes the leader will not make any decisions at all. This enables the leader to deny any involvement and be able to blame an employee who does make a poor decision. Actually the decision can be the right one but without support from coworkers the employee will be hung out to dry. Without a corporate vision (direction), objectives (goals), standards and values, the employees are left to enact their own personal objectives, perceptions, beliefs, values, etc. Companies that lack leadership tend to be wastelands for people who are goal oriented. Even the overachievers are left to overachieve in so many directions that they burn out or give up.

Employees in an organization without a clear vision and objectives learn not to spend too much time or energy on any one objective as the objective can change at any moment depending on the whim of the boss. They learn that when there is no direction, any direction will do as long as it's the direction the boss is going in at that moment. They learn not to stick their neck out and offer solutions because even if you did get approval they would not likely be given the time or resources to complete it as there are seemingly always new problems to fix which take priority. Managers learn that it is easier and best just to say "NO" when asked about new opportunities or possible changes. A "Yes" one day from the boss will undoubtedly be a "No" on another day and the manager will be blamed for any decision. The status quo becomes the objective.

How do you know you are in this type of organization?

• Recurring problems and issues
• Employee conflict
• Inconsistent product and/or service delivery and support
• A lack of employee accountability and responsibility
• A culture of "NO"
• Slow or no growth
• High employee turnover
• High client and partner turnover
• High failure rates

What do employees learn?

• Not to stick their neck out
• Band-Aid it and continue on
• Do enough to get by
• Bide their time until another opportunity comes along

Companies without effective leadership typically have employees who have no real responsibility or accountability at all. The most basic decisions are made by the leader and sometimes decisions are just avoided to maintain the status quo. If this sounds like your company you can be reassured knowing that many companies share the same symptoms.

I've personally been in an organization that had 7 layers of management, none of which was accountable as the person at the top made all the decisions. The managers could only point fingers up and down the line and the employees who were ultimately held responsible for any problems were the front line staff. The turnover rate for front line staff was over 40% and senior managers seemed proud of that fact. The statistic justified their belief that they just couldn't find good people. None of the 7 layers of management recognized that high staff turnover was a symptom of poor management. The managers were only accountable to being liked by their leader.

So how can you become an effective leader? Define how big, how much and where you want your business to go and what values and standards you want your business to embrace and deliver. The answer to these questions will become the corporate vision and objectives that you communicate to your staff.

To better understand this let’s separate the role of leader from the role of manager and the tactical or technical roles. The leader's role is to communicate a bold and compelling vision of the future, spotting opportunities and threats, considering "what if" scenarios and ensuring the company’s future viability. The manager’s role is to organize and coordinate, building the systems and processes to achieve the vision and objectives.

Many business owners and managers state that having control over decisions was a primary reason for starting their business or taking management positions in the first place. When they finally create that opportunity for themselves, meaning their own business or attaining a leadership position, they realize that control over decisions or direction is too overwhelming or that they are unprepared for the responsibility. Effective leadership is apparent as the followers are simply following. The followers all move in the same direction at once creating a dynamic that is exponentially greater than any individual. These productive people typically are passionate about, and believe in, what they are doing. The passion comes from a belief in where they are going and what they are achieving together collectively .

So, to answer the question posed by the CEO, I would recommend that the CEO has 3 options:

• Learn how to be an effective leader

• Hire an effective leader

• Promote one of the 2 productive employees to leader

All other solutions will lead to continued problems in the organization.

Dave Soteros provides executive coaching services to start-ups and fortune 500 companies.

For more on Leadership and Management insights please stop by his blog at http://alrym.blogspot.com/

The Every Man's Guide to Incredible Wealth!

Do you have to be a great salesperson to be one of the wealthiest people on earth?
There are many, many consultants touting many different flavors of sales tools and techniques to help you to create incredible wealth. They would all like you to believe that by learning their method you will achieve it. If it were only that simple.
Unfortunately sales it is only one component or one hat you'd have to wear.

Let's talk about the wealthiest 2 people on earth.
I certainly wouldn't be buying a "how to" sales book from either of the two wealthiest people on earth, Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
I'd be very surprised if any of you reading this even knew the title of a Bill Gates book let alone read one. In fact, of the top 20 wealthiest people, only 8 started out as salesmen. So if it's not pure sales ability, what is it that propels someone to these financial heights?
The answer in every case is the business or businesses that these people created or inherited.
Their businesses generated this personal wealth.
Thus to generate incredible wealth we need to create a business or businesses that are big. Not only big in financial returns but big in numbers of employees and numbers of customers and typically a global presence. They have leveraged the capabilities of many to generate exponential returns.
Let's take Mr. Gates as an example.
He started Microsoft with his partner Paul Allen just at the time the biggest computer maker, IBM, was building a personal computer. By convincing IBM to sell their operating system, DOS, they were able to leverage IBM's brand name, worldwide presence and marketing. It is also arguable that Bill acquired the idea and the know how for his operating system from a pioneer of the computer industry, Gary Kildall of Digital Research. Gary believed that the company that owned the operating system would also control the computer industry. That statement turned out to be prophetic. Gary Kildall created an operating system called CP/M that was designed to be a disk operating system which Bill Gates leveraged to create his operating system called DOS - Disk Operating System.
IBM created a personal computer and it became very popular and along with those IBM PC's came Microsoft DOS.

What does this all mean?
It means that you may need sales skills but it is only a part of what you need if you want to accumulate great wealth.
Bill and Warren wanted to create something bigger than themselves. They had a vision (a mission). Their vision included many people and many companies and vast resources. They both leveraged outside knowledge and resources to achieve their vision and because they had a vision they were able to recognize an opportunity worth pursuing. If both Bill and Warren had spent the time it took to master all of the roles of each person they employed or partnered with I wouldn't be talking about them I'd be be forced to write about the #3 and #4 on the wealthiest list, Carlos Slim Helu and Ingvar Kamprad. You can technically master a tactical task, like sales, but-

If you what to generate incredible wealth you will need to learn how to manage and lead.
Bill and Warren must both be great communicators with compelling visions (the leader) and very good at organizing and delegating (the manager).

Leadership and Management skills are what make the difference.
Master these skills and you will be able to leverage 10, 100, 10000 or more skills to your advantage.

One question that sometimes comes up with clients in my executive coaching and business consulting practice is a concern over value returned to employees and partners. Some business leaders and managers wonder why others work for them and with them, and are afraid that they will leave. I always respond that it is easier to follow than to lead and as long as you have a compelling vision people will want to follow. They will follow you and likely do extraordinary things as long as your vision coincides with theirs.

The vision must be bold and compelling.
If it is, people will give you money or work off the clock just for the pleasure of participating with you.

Maximize your leadership potential.

Dave Soteros is President of Alrym Consulting Services.
http://alrym.blogspot.com