Your Personal Productivity Platform – 6. People

People are primary.

“People. People who need people.”[1] By the way, that’s all of us.

The heart of the research supporting self-determination theory[2] is that the three intrinsic motivators all humans have are the drives for autonomy, relatedness and competence. These are more likely to be actualized when socially supported. Relatedness is the universal want to belong, interact, connect, and experience care with others. A related concept is belonging. According to Wikipedia, it is our emotional need to be an accepted member of a group. This includes our desire to be part of something greater than ourselves. We want to connect and belong, actively seeking membership and care.

From birth on, we will be shaped by the people in our life. Our formative years will be influenced by our family, friends, teachers, spiritual leaders, classmates, and co-workers. We become acculturated and socialized, developing our identity from the outside in. At some point in early adulthood, some of us begin to author our own lives, taking a greater role in defining our identity and horizon of possibilities on our own terms and from the inside out.

At work, our relationships matter – with co-workers, supervisors, managers, and those who lead the organization. We have seen and experienced what it is like to have a good or a bad manager (read effective or ineffective). Perhaps we have even read the research that shows that the primary reason an employee leaves an organization is their (ineffective) manager. We move on, unable and/or unwilling to effectively cope with the challenges.

For the most part, supervisors and managers don’t receive formal training and development support for how to do their job better, if not well. Therefore, they tend to have similar attitudes and behave the way their manager behaved with them, using that person as a role model for what to do or not do. It is not surprising that 70-75 percent of the managers in a global study were found to be reactive, ineffective managers.[3] For me, this raises many questions – about an organization, its managers/leaders, ourselves.

How well are we supported to do the job we were asked to do? Do we assess others to be trustworthy and worthy of our respect? Have we earned others’ trust and respect? Are we a good fit for the work we are doing? How well do our values and skills mesh and align with those of others and the culture? Do others care about us beyond being a means of production? How well do we feel seen, known, included and appreciated, for who we are as well as what we do?

Perhaps the most important decision an organization makes is who it hires and how it provides ongoing performance support. The fitness of those decisions, in terms of complementary attitudes, values and skills/talent, will influence their contributions and the trajectory of collective contribution. With misalignment comes waste and dissatisfaction, compensatory actions necessarily taken to deal with unfulfilled expectations. A ‘bad’ decision impacts the entire lifecycle of the employee and the organization. Here’s an example.

When Mark, VP of Sales, promoted Edy to manager of client executives (salespeople), it was because of her performance as an individual contributor. He hoped Edy would be able to put her attention on her direct reports, support others’ performance and develop their talents. But hope is not a strategy. Edy continued to operate as if she were still an individual contributor. Her salespeople languished for lack of direction and feedback, and other managers had to provide additional support to her people.

Though recognized quickly, Mark did little to correct the situation. Eighteen months later, he finally decided to exercise leadership and move Edy to another role or out of the company altogether. In the interim, working relationships frayed, her salesforce underperformed, and morale deteriorated. Not only had Edy’s brand declined, so had Mark’s. He will have to rebuild his credibility as a manager and leader, within his organization and among members of the senior leadership team.

Where had Mark gone wrong? As it turns out, in several places. Still thinking like an individual contributor, he used his own quasi-rational approach to vetting candidates rather than the rigorous, research-based process developed by Human Resources. He hired according to the heuristic, ‘find someone like me.’ He also modeled the same behavior as the CEO, his current manager: take a laissez faire management style until something more/different seemed warranted. But he also didn’t intervene quickly or effectively. Hints about what the desired behaviors and impacts on her team seemed to fall on deaf ears. Finally, he didn’t see or act on the opportunity to reach out for help.

The organization, often through its managers’ practices, is estimated to provide between 80-90% of the environmental performance support for their people[4]. This includes policies and procedures (aligned/not aligned for desired performance), culture (supportive/unsupportive for desired performance), timely access to information and tools to do the job, adequate matching of personnel to expected performance, and relevant incentives (aligned/not aligned for desired performance). We can see that there are many factors that need to be present and aligned for consistent high performance to be possible. Simply blaming the performer for poor performance is an overly simplistic story[5] that ignores other, even more influential, variables.

Wherever we are in an organization, we have something to say about how we approach our work and our attitude towards our fellow workers and managers. Sometimes, a shift in perspective or narrative can make a difference. Sometimes, a missing conversation, once held, can alter the course of events. Sometimes a change in venue is warranted.

All of these are choices that occur at the boundary of ourselves and other people. How will we choose to play? Where will we choose to be the author, rather than the victim, of our circumstances? Our decisions, seldom obvious, easy or straightforward, will impact how our world occurs for us and where opportunity lies.

How does this conversation impact you? What can you now see (or see again) that reveals a different point of view? Please feel free to comment and chat. Such dialog elevates the game for us all.

#selfleadership #designyourlife #people

[1] Lyric by Barbra Streisand, 1963.

[2] For a summary of the research, see Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2018). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Press.

[3] Anderson, R.J., & Adams, W.A. (2016). Mastering leadership. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

[4] This estimation is attributed to W. Edwards Deming.

[5] Garvey Berger, J. (2019). Unlocking leadership mind traps: How to thrive in complexity. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Briefs.